Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/20/2015Development Review Board 1/20/15 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on 20 January 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair, B. Miller, D. Parsons, J. Smith, J. Wilking, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Bouchard, C. Thabault, C. Snyder, B. Gilbert, M. Scollins, S. Dopp, P. Walcott, S. Fahim, J. Pidgeon, D. Rice, S. Swanson, C. Franzoni, L. Barfod, M. Sheeran, J. Desautels 1. Additions, deletions or changes to order of Agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Audience, not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Design Review Application #DR-14-11 of So. Burlington Realty Co., LLC, for an initial Master Signage Permit for new signage, 60 San Remo Drive: Mr. Thabault showed a picture of the proposed sign. He noted that Glidden Paints is now PPG Paints. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-14-11. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Miscellaneous Application #MS-14-11 of G. E. Healthcare to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MS-14-11 until 3 February 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder said they propose to build 27 town house units and 23 carriage house units. The latter have a smaller footprint and are one story with an option to continue to the attic and/or basement. Mr. Snyder then showed the location of these units on the plan. The town homes have garages in front, but they are set back at least 8 feet. Entrances for the end units are on the side. Every unit has a private entrance. Lots 25, 26 and 27 are single family homes. They have created bends in the road to Vale Drive to slow traffic down. A park is also proposed in that area. Mr. Barritt noted the proposed park is 1.5 acres, more than the minimum standard. He suggested the applicant talk with the Rec Path and Recreation Committees about what is appropriate for a park in this area. Mr. Snyder said this area is a receiver for TDRs, and they will be purchasing 24 TDRs for use here. Mr. Snyder asked whether it would be allowed to have garden space within the wetland buffer. Mr. Belair suggested he explore that with the state which oversees these issues. Mr. Barritt expressed concern with the rec path going along so many driveways. He felt this makes no sense and could be dangerous. The path along the boundary make more sense since the UVM adjacent property will one day have a change of use. Mr. Snyder said they moved it for privacy of the people in the carriage homes. They also had a concern from an abutter. Mr. Snyder said they would be agreeable to moving it back to where it was, if the Board wants it. Members agreed they want it back where it had been. Mr. Barritt said there had to be a way to cross Vale Drive near the middle. Mr. Barritt also said the applicant needs to talk with Public Works about the plans for the turn-around. It was noted that parking is not permitted in front of multi-family buildings. Mr. Snyder said they can break them up into 2-unit blocks, but that takes up more space and eliminates yards for people, which is a marketability concern. They would also rather not have another road in back. Mr. Barritt said they may have to sacrifice some density for that. Mr. Wilking agreed and said that is a regulation that’s hard to get around. Ms. Smith noted that on a previous application the Board asked for some kind of separation with the double driveways. Members agreed. Mr. Barritt said the applicant will also have to provide a plan to delineate the wetland buffer from people’s property. With regard to phasing, Mr. Snyder said they are looking at a 2 or 3-year cycle. If the park is just left as open space, it can be left at an early time. Mr. Snyder said there will be a mix of housing types, similar to what is being done at South Pointe. They are proposing a minimum of 6 different plans between the two types of housing. All units will have full basements. Mr. Wilking questioned the wisdom of “building a rec path to nowhere” because when you get to Spear Street, there’s nothing there. He didn’t have a problem with just having an easement until there is a plan for the UVM property. Dr. Scollins said there is now a “de facto” rec path, which has gotten overgrown but is occasionally used by mountain bikers, cross country skiers and walkers. He felt what is proposed is “defensible.” Mr. Gilbert noted that Attorney Dan Seff has entered an appearance on behalf of a number of neighbors. He felt there will be issues with respect to the TDRs. Residents don’t believe the city’s TDR regulation is enforceable and that the DRB doesn’t have the power to allow them. He said the property is zoned for 31 single family homes, and neighbors feel that would work. Ms. Fahim expressed concerns with the safety of children on Vale Drive and asked that it be made as narrow as possible and have speed bumps and a speed limit sign. Mr. Walcott opposed Vale Drive being a through connection. Mr. Barritt noted this is on the city’s Official City Map. He felt most traffic would be only people who live there, and there could be a connection to the park which residents didn’t have before. Ms. Dopp also expressed concern with density. She asked if there has been thought to the orientation of roofs so as to be solar/solar ready. Mr. Barritt said the Board can suggest but not regulate that. Mr. Barritt noted that at a later date the Board may bring the TDR issue to the City Attorney. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-37 until 17 March 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-14-38 of Synergy Development, LLC, for a planned unit development to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three lots ranging in size from 0.75 acres to 2.12 acres, 1741 Spear Street: Ms. Desautels reviewed changes since the last review: 1. They met with the arborist and created a tree protection plan for specific trees 2. They have provided additional shrubs for screening along the south boundary on the east side 3. They have met with neighbors regarding stormwater concerns 4. They have made progress with open space and have some usable open space for homeowners and some conservation open space. A total of 42% of the parcel is open space. 5. There is a well-defined swale along the entire south boundary to convey stormwater and also a swale on the north side of the driveway. Water from the swales will go to a detention pond. They will provide new covers for storm basins so neighbors don’t have to keep raking leaves and debris during storms. Board members were OK with considering this a PUD. They were also OK with the setback waiver on Lot #1 to protect the trees as much as possible. Mr. Pidgeon then read the terms of the easements that were of interest to the Board. Ms. Desautels said they will accommodate the Fire Chief’s request for the gravel drive to be 15 feet wide as opposed to 12 feet. Homes will be sprinklered. Mr. Belair reminded the applicants that they need to submit names for private street to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Rice, a neighbor said he was very satisfied until the turn-around was discussed. He was concerned that the turnaround could upset natural drainage. Mr. Swanson echoed those concerns. Mr. Barritt said he hoped the Fire Chief would be able to negotiate if there is a stormwater concern. Another neighbor expressed concern with groundwater near the northwest corner. Ms. Desautels said there won’t be any additional water heading that way and won’t be doing any grading on that side of the property. Members were OK with anything approved by the Fire Chief and/or Stormwater Superintendent. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-38. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-14-39 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 4-story, 63-unit multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bouchard showed the common drive coming in from Route 7. They will be providing 126 parking spaces, 2 per unit. There is a bio-retention area in the middle of the parking lot. Stormwater from the roofs will be going into a retention pond and then into Bartlett Brook. Mr. Barritt noted the request for a 12-foot height waiver. Mr. Bouchard said half of that is for the elevator pent house. Each unit will have air conditioning capability. Units will consist of efficiencies, one and two-bedroom units. There will be an exercise room, downstairs lounge, pool, and basement storage units and bicycle maintenance area. Mr. Bouchard showed landscaping around the building and a barbecue area. Mr. Barritt suggested they check with the Stormwater Superintendent regarding handling of grease from the barbecue. Mr. Bouchard said they may put additional stormwater installations that will capture some stormwater from the adjacent property. They will be using the same light fixtures as the new office building on Shelburne Road. Pets will be allowed in the units, and there will be dog refuse stations. There will be balconies on the 3rd and 4th floors. Mr. Miller thought the building was most “unVermont” looking and asked why there are not pitched roofs. Mr. Bouchard said it is personal preference. Mr. Wilking was impressed with the amenities. Mr. Barritt asked to have the Board see pictures of elevations as seen from the road. Mr. Barritt asked if the building will be solar ready. Mr. Bouchard said the roof is already too heavy for that. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-39. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-14-60 of Technology Park Campus, LLC, to construct a 3-story 54,459 sq. ft. general office building, 88 Technology Park Way: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant asked to be continued to the next meeting. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-14-60 to 3 February 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 16 December 2014 and 6 January 2015: The misspelling of a name was pointed out. In the minutes of 6 January 2015, it was noted that on p. 5, last item, both Mr. Miller and Mr. Behr voiced opinions on this. Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 16 December 2014 and 6 January 2015 with the noted amendments. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: There was no other business brought to the Board. As there was no business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. , Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht DATE: January 16, 2015 Cc: Chet Thabault, for South Burlington Realty Company, LLC Re: January 20, 2015, Agenda Item #4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Design Review Application #DR-14-11 60 San Remo Drive Design review application #DR-14-11 of So. Burlington Realty Co., LLC for an initial Master Signage Permit for new signage, 60 San Remo Drive. This property lies within Design District 2 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. The relevant sections of the Sign Ordinance are cited below. I. SECTION 6. Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (a) Purpose. There is hereby designated and created the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, the boundaries of which are shown on a plan entitled, "Dorset Street/City Center Sign District", dated July 22, 1998, which plan is incorporated into and made a part of this Ordinance as Appendices A and B. This special sign district is designated to reflect the long term goal of the City to develop Dorset Street and the City Center area as an attractive mixed-use, well-designed, integrated focal point for the City. The area is to be a primarily residential, office, retail and municipal core for South Burlington. This special sign district is also intended to promote the intended pedestrian orientation for the future of the district as well as to ensure pedestrian and traffic safety, to encourage the effectiveness and clarity of sign communication, and to maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality within the district. (b) Standards for Design Review. The erection, alteration or relocation of any sign, except for temporary, window and exempt signs, located within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, as depicted on the above referenced plan, shall require design approval by the South Burlington Design Review Committee and Development Review Board. Such design approval shall be required prior to issuance of a sign permit by the Code Officer. In reviewing an application for design approval, the Design Review Committee and Development Review Board shall consider the following: (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation. (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes. (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high-quality materials complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related. The proposed signs are necessitated by a change in ownership from Glidden Paint to Pittsburgh Paints. The proposed new wall sign will go in the same location as the Glidden sign that is being removed but will be slightly smaller. The proposed primary wall sign (facing west) and the four (4) “Customer Parking Only” signs are of a consistent design. The primary wall sign faces San Remo Street and is visible to any pedestrians using the sidewalk. The signs are of a high aesthetic quality and high quality materials and consistent with the overall industrial materials used in the building itself. Two primary colors, blue and white, are proposed. Staff considers the proposed signs to be consistent with the standards above. SECTION 8. Master Signage Permits (a) At such time as a new or amended permit is sought after the effective date of this Ordinance, all properties in the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District seeking a sign permit or permits and all multi-tenant buildings or multi-building complexes located wholly or partially within the R7-NC district shall submit a complete, new application for a Master Signage Permit to the Design Review Committee, irrespective of the status of past approvals. The new Permit shall not invalidate the provisions of any existing approval, exemption or agreement with respect to signage; rather, it is instead intended to clarify the approved parameters for signage subject to a Master Signage Permit. Upon approval of a new Master Signage Permit, permittees shall use the review and amendment procedures set forth in this Section. (b) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, no permit shall be issued for an individual sign requiring a permit unless and until a Master Signage Permit for the lot on which the sign(s) will be erected has been approved as conforming with the provisions of this Ordinance. In the case of a planned unit development (PUD), a Master Signage Permit shall be required for the entire PUD. An owner of a multi-tenant building or multi-building commercial property located anywhere outside the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, and a sponsor of a project involving interpretive signage or wayfinding, also may apply for a Master Signage Permit as provided herein. (d) Design. (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces, sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color illustrations thereof. (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually. (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer. The application proposes design parameters in their application consisting of standards for the proposed sign types: -a 12’6” x 42” single-face internally illuminated wall sign - a 12” x 18” single-face painted aluminum “Customer Parking Only” sign -Background colors for both sign types is PPG’s Pantone Blue. -Letters proposed are Pantone Blue with a white translucent background and translucent white with a Pantone Blue opaque background. -No free standing, incidental or directory signage is proposed. RECOMMENDATION Staff considers the application to meet the standards. Staff recommends that this hearing be closed. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Sign A  09/29/2014 Original Rendering JD This rendering is the property of Anchor Sign, Inc. It is for the exclusive use of Anchor Sign, Inc. and the party which requested the rendering. It is an unpublished original drawing not to be distributed, reproduced or exhibited without the consent of Anchor Sign, Inc. Please contact your account manager with questions regarding this statement. Client: Site #: Address: PP- 8232 60 San Remo Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 PPG 11/20/2014 Revised sign A to 43.75 sq. ft. wall sign JDSan Remo DrAspen Dr Illumination: Square Footage: To Grade: PPG Type: SIGN A 43.75 Top of sign to grade = Bottom of sign to grade = 10’-10” 14’-4” Single-Face Wall Sign Internally Illuminated w/ LED’s 09/29/2014 Original Rendering JD This rendering is the property of Anchor Sign, Inc. It is for the exclusive use of Anchor Sign, Inc. and the party which requested the rendering. It is an unpublished original drawing not to be distributed, reproduced or exhibited without the consent of Anchor Sign, Inc. Please contact your account manager with questions regarding this statement. Client: Site #: Address: PP- 8232 60 San Remo Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 PPG 11/20/2014 Revised sign A to 43.75 sq. ft. wall sign JD Front Elevation (West) Scale: 1/8” = 1’-0” Existing Allowable Square Footage this Elevation:44.92 Formula: Actual Square Footage this Elevation:43.75 49’-0”18’-4”Illumination: Square Footage: To Grade: PPG Type: SIGN A 43.75 Top of sign to grade = Bottom of sign to grade = 10’-10” 14’-4” Single-Face Wall Sign Internally Illuminated w/ LED’s 12’-6”EQ EQ 42”48” 09/29/2014 Original Rendering JD This rendering is the property of Anchor Sign, Inc. It is for the exclusive use of Anchor Sign, Inc. and the party which requested the rendering. It is an unpublished original drawing not to be distributed, reproduced or exhibited without the consent of Anchor Sign, Inc. Please contact your account manager with questions regarding this statement. Client: Site #: Address: PP- 8232 60 San Remo Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 PPG 11/20/2014 Revised sign A to 43.75 sq. ft. wall sign JD Electrical: General Notes: This sign is to be installed in accordance with the requirements of Article 600 of the National Electrical Code. 1) Grounded and bonded per NEC 600.7/NEC 250 2) Existing branch circuit in compliance with NEC 600.5, not to exceed 20 amps 3) Sign is to be UL listed per NEC 600.3 4) UL disconnect switch per NEC 600.6- required per sign component before leaving manufacturer* *For multiple signs, a disconnect is permitted but not required for each section Scale: " = 1'-0"3/8 Sign Layout Detail Pantone 151C Orange Pantone 1785C Red Pantone 2577C Purple Pantone 307C Blue Pantone 2955C Blue Pantone 376C Green Pantone 116C Yellow Color Specifications: White LEDs Agilight Pro160 5000K (2) 60w Transformers Total Amps: 1.70 (1) 20 amp 120V Circuit Req. 1. Existing Facade: Vinyl Siding 2. 0.080” Aluminum sign cabinet painted to match PMS 307C 3. 2” x 2” Aluminum angle retainers painted to match PMS 307C 4. 3/16” White Lexan face with first surface digitally printed vinyl 5. Sign cabinet contains White LEDs and transformers 6. Disconnect switch UL Outdoor rated toggle type w/ neoprene boot per NEC 600-6 7. Primary electrical feed 8. Mounting hardware to suit Specifications: Wall Sign, Lexan Face 5 " Note: ¼” Drain holes at bottom of sign (@ 36" O.C.) Scale: N.T.S. Section @ S/F Wall Sign LED Illum 1 2 4 3 5 6 7 8 Illumination: Square Footage: To Grade: PPG Type: SIGN A 43.75 Top of sign to grade = Bottom of sign to grade = 10’-10” 14’-4” Single-Face Wall Sign Internally Illuminated w/ LED’s 42”12’-6”[150”]38”[146”]12’-2” 09/29/2014 Original Rendering JD This rendering is the property of Anchor Sign, Inc. It is for the exclusive use of Anchor Sign, Inc. and the party which requested the rendering. It is an unpublished original drawing not to be distributed, reproduced or exhibited without the consent of Anchor Sign, Inc. Please contact your account manager with questions regarding this statement. Client: Site #: Address: PP- 8232 60 San Remo Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 PPG 11/20/2014 Revised sign A to 43.75 sq. ft. wall sign JD Parking - Wall Mount Scale: 1 1/2” = 1’-0” 12”18”Panel - 0.080” aluminum painted to match w/ 3M #3290 Reflective WhitePMS 307C copy and border w/ digital print for logo Qty.: (4) #MS-14-11 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING G.E. HEALTHCARE – 40 IDX DRIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-14-11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION The applicant, G. E. Healthcare, is seeking after-the-fact Miscellaneous Approval to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive. The Board held a public hearing on this application on January 6, 2015 and January 20, 2015. ______ represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans ands supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board, finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. G. E. Healthcare, is seeking after-the-fact Miscellaneous Approval to alter the grade by removing approximately 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, 40 IDX Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is IDX Systems Corporation. 3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 District. 4. The plan submitted consists of two (2) pages, page one is entitled “G.E. Healthcare Stormwater Detention Pond Pre & Post Excavation Bottom Pond Elevations,” dated Nov. 2014 and prepared by Stantec. This application shall be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. Section 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. #MS-14-11 2 The applicant has submitted detailed plans. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The work was completed in September 2014. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. No plan is required as the proposed action will restore the stormwater pond to its original design specifications. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The work was done to comply with a State Stormwater Permit. The Board finds that a bond is not necessary to assure compliance. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. No changes to the height of the stormwater pond features are proposed. DECISION Motion by __________________ seconded by ____________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-14-11 of GE Healthcare 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full effect. 2. The project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer upon completion of the fill placement. 5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. #MS-14-11 3 Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present Brian Breslend – yea nay abstain not present Bill Miller – yea nay abstain not present David Parsons yea nay abstain not present Jennifer Smith – yea nay abstain not present John Wilking- yea nay abstain not present Motion __________ by a vote of X– X – X Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b)(4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. ABCDEF1234SOUTH - 1SOUTH - 2 & DUPLICATESOUTH - 3SOUTH - 4SOUTH - 5SOUTH - 6 ABCDEF1234SOUTH - 1SOUTH - 2 & DUPLICATESOUTH - 3SOUTH - 4SOUTH - 5SOUTH - 6 A R C H I T E C T S W A G N E RO F F I C E O F H. K E I T HF R E E M A NF R E N C HF R E E M A N CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_ sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 16, 2015 Plans received: December 15, 2014 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-11-51 Agenda #6 Meeting date: January 20, 2015 Owner Spear Meadows, Inc Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Chris Snyder Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates Inc. PO Box 485 Shelburne, VT 05482 Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven (7) 3- unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three (3) 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. Proposed development in this area has been discussed in depth at multiple prior DRB meetings in connection with applications #SD-11-51 and #MP-11-03. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for landscaping, traffic and other issues certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Planning & Zoning Director Paul Conner and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 15, 2014 and offer the following comments. Issues for discussion  Proposed Public Park Section 9 of the SBLDR states that “a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation.” Furthermore, “parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program” and “a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned recreation area.” Planning & Zoning staff discussed the proposal with Recreation & Park staff and have the following concerns about the proposed park. The area set aside for the proposed public park is approximately 1.58 acres. This meets the minimum standard, of approximately 1 acre. The Board should consider the proposed park in the context of the overall PUD. Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. The applicant should engage in discussions with the Director of the Recreation Department and with the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee and these should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows the applicant should address the overall size of the park and which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs.  Agriculture There are no community gardens depicted on the plan. The LDRs (Section 9.06)C) state: C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. Given that there are 27 units in duplexes or triplexes and therefore limited yard space for these owners, a community garden space is highly desirable and the applicant should explore locating such gardens convenient to these units.  Recreation Path and Block Lengths The City’s official map depicts the proposed route of the recreation path to connect from Vail Drive to Spear Street. The plan does not provide for a recreation or shared use path. Rather, the proposal includes a standard residential sidewalk which crosses in front of the 15 single family homes in Parcel 6 along Vale Drive and the 8 units in Parcel 1. As each of the homes are proposed to have a separate driveway (and potentially front walkways as well), this will create numerous sites of potential accidents between homeowner households and path users. The frontage along Parcel 6 is approximately 1,080 feet long. Assuming 15 driveways each with a 20 ft. width, 300 feet or 27.8% of this frontage will be interrupted by driveways. Of the 240 ft. of frontage along Parcel 1, 160 ft or 66% of this is interrupted by driveways. Staff recommends that the Board review the plan for consistency with the Official Map. Does the residential sidewalk, with its many interruptions, meet the intent and standard for a planned shared use path that has long been identified by the City on the Official Map as a Citywide priority? Staff also notes that the proposed 835 ft. block length is inconsistent with standards for the SEQ- Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict, stated as follows. 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. The current proposal for this proportion of Vale Drive has a block length over 800 feet, but no mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections are provided. The applicant should address this. The standard above includes use of the word “must.” The Board should consider this standard, and address whether the proposed plan meets the regulation. Additionally, the plans show three single family homes to be accessed via a narrow private road which crosses a wetland and eight single family homes on a dead end public street. The proposed private drive is nearly 500 hundred feet long and is also a cul-de-sac. Staff recommends that the applicant work with the Director of Public Works and Fire Department to determine the needs for access and turn-around to these lots, as well as the details for the road construction. 14.06 General Review Standards ……………. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: Staff notes that the proposed triplexes in the project are proposed to have vehicle parking in the front of the units. The section quoted above is explicit in stating that parking is not permissible in front of units, except for single family and two-family homes. The applicant shall address this and the plans should be revised accordingly. Also, the proposed sidewalk along Parcel 5 is impacted by driveways. This frontage is approximately 835 feet long. Assuming 19 driveways each with a 20 ft. width, 380 feet or 45.5% of this frontage will be interrupted by driveways. Given this as well as the proposed interruptions in the Recreation Path caused by the driveways, staff recommends the applicant explore the use of share driveway entrances for both the single family homes and the duplex throughout the development. Staff also recommends that the applicant explore creating a driveway alley along the rear of Parcel 5 and Parcel 1 and create rear-loaded garages, especially as would be required for the multifamily buildings. Indeed, given the western exposure of the rear of the units in Parcel 5 the opportunity exists to construct expansive decks and/or sunrooms on top of the garages. Staff also notes that the applicant will need to comply with Section 9.08, C.(4) which requires that “the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet.” Given that the length of Vale Drive exceeds the required block length, staff recommends that the applicant address this with a solution consistent with the regulations. Staff recommends that alternate path locations be explored such as locating it along the rear of Parcel and 1; locating the path (or a portion thereof) along the western edge of Parcel 5, and locating a portion of the path within parcels 3, 9 and 10. Finally, the board must determine how many interruptions (driveways, sidewalks, etc.) should be allowed within the ‘Recreation Path’ as it transits through the property before the integrity of the Path is compromised.  Parcel 1 The plans depict a multi-unit building along the western edge of the parcel. As currently shown, the building is oriented to the proposed new street, as opposed to facing Spear Street. The proposed setback of the building approximates those of abutting properties on Spear Street. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this issue with the applicant and provide guidance on the orientation of the building.  Density CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.15 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood residential sub-district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing to construct 53 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 54 units within the PUD. Lot 1 1 unit one, existing SF home to remain Parcel 1 8 units 1-duplex, 2-triplexes Parcel 2 8 units 8-SF homes Parcel 5 19 units 2-duplexes, 5-triplexes Parcel 6 15 units 15-SF homes Lots 25, 26, 27 3 units 3-SF homes This is a proposed density of approximately 2.07 units per acre. A total of 24 transferred development rights would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff has previously recommended that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Staff has also recommended that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property’s inherent density. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. a. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. b. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit.  Roads and Circulation The Public Works Department provided the following comments via email to staff on December 31, 2014. From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2014 7:49 AM To: ray Subject: Plan Review - Spear Meadows - #SD-14-37 Ray, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows I have reviewed the sketch review plans for the referenced project prepared by CEA last revised 12/7/14 and offer the below comments. 1. Eliminate the crosswalk at the main entry across Spear Street. There is no supporting infrastructure on the west side of Spear to even connect to. 2. I question placing the crosswalk on Vale Drive near building 15. It would make sense to relocate it to the south where there is a proposed path from the sidewalk to the street across the street from the half-circle parking area for the proposed public park. 3. The northern section of Vale Drive, north of Spear Meadow Road, will not become public until it either 1) connects to the parcel to the north or 2) is redesigned to properly facilitate the efficient movement of maintenance vehicles. 4. A traffic study would need to be performed to support the proposed two exiting lanes from the project onto Spear Street. 5. We have reviewed numerous other versions of this project and will withhold more detailed comments until the version progresses through the process. Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer  Stormwater The Public Works Department provided the following comments via email to staff on December 23, 2014. From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:03 PM To: Justin Rabidoux Subject: Comments on Spear Meadows Justin, I reviewed plans for the Spear Meadows project that were prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, dated May 2014 and last revised on 12/7/14. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and stormwater construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows 2. Potash Brook flows through the property in the area labeled as “Mapped Class 2 wetland” on the plans. The stream must be shown on the plans and labeled. The project must meet the stream buffer requirements per section 12.01C of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). 3. The applicant should provide hydrologic modeling for the project in a future submission. Modeling should include information sufficient to evaluate the treatment provided by the proposed detention basin. The modeling must include information related to the 25 year, 24 hour storm event (4.0 inches of rain), so that compliance with Article 15.13F of the City’s LDRs can be evaluated. a. The applicant should be aware that the property currently drains to an 18” corrugated metal culvert beneath Spear Street (approximately 375 feet south of the intersection with Swift Street). The ability of this culvert to convey runoff from the project must be evaluated. 4. Class 2 wetland are located on the property. It appears as if the project proposes to impact these wetlands in two locations. Impacts to these wetlands are only allowed if the State of Vermont issues a Conditional Use Determination (CUD). 5. Parcel 5 contains 19 units that back up to the Class 2 wetland and buffer. Parcel 2 contains 4 units that back up to the class 2 wetland and buffer. In a future submission, the applicant should propose a method to delineate the wetland buffer and prevent these units from extending lawns into the buffer and associated wetland. 6. Parcel 4 contains a stormwater treatment area. Stormwater treatment facilities must be located outside of the wetland and stream buffer. 7. The dead end street adjacent to Parcel 4 does not conform to City standards. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works  Phasing The Board should discuss phasing for the following items:  Road completion;  Road connection to Vale Drive;  Timing for construction and completion of Park;  General phasing for the order of construction of buildings;  Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection;  Notice of Conditions CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING StaffComments\2011\SD_11_51_MP_11_03_SpearStreet_Farrell_SpearMeadows There are “footprint” lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of planning and zoning, all lots will be considered one lot. For purposes of planning and zoning, the lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans.  Mix of Housing Types While most details will be addressed at preliminary and final plat, staff notes the applicant’s proposal appears to be inconsistent with Section 9.08 C.(5) (1) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near- identical units. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer S1.002250January 25, 20111" = 100'PLAT of SURVEYLands ofNot To Scale- Location Map -TRCCEACAE- Referenced Plats or Plans -- Survey Notes - SITESPEAR STREETALLEN RD.SWIFT STREETDORSET STREET A."PLAT OF BOUNDARY SURVEY - PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE OF ILA M.ISHAM", PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., LAST REVISEDJUNE 30, 1999.B."PLAN OF LAND OF HARRY B. and BERNICE N. CONKLIN", PREPARED BYJ.M. SINCLAIR, DATED JULY 1943.C."FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GERALD MILOT & JOHNLARKIN - PINNACLE @ SPEAR"(FORMERLY NOWLAND TWO), PREPARED BYBUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED 8/21/1998.D. "PLAT SHOWING SURVEY AND SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LANDS OFPINNACLE @ SPEAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION", PREPARED BYLLEWELLYN INCORPORATED & BUTTON ASSOCIATES, DATED MARCH 31,1999(PLAT SLIDE 340-5).E. "SWIFT ESTATES", PREPARED BY WILLIS ENGINEERING, DATED SEPT. 21,1971 (PLAT SLIDE 98-10).F."LANDS OF ROBERT AND MARJORIE SKIFF - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT",PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.,DATED APRIL 21, 2002.G."PLAT OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT - LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS, INC.,R.&T. TARRANT, AND D.&C. FRANZONI" , PREPARED BY CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, DATED JANUARY 25, 2011 (PLAT SLIDE 550-5).SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT1340 SPEAR STREET- Legend -SEE NOTE 8SPEAR MEADOWS, INC.SeeSurvey Note 1.1"DORSET PARK ZONE D"VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY"SOUTHEAST QUADRANT"1. PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO DEPICT THE EXISTING BOUNDARIES OF LANDS OF SPEARMEADOWS, INC., OF G. & J FARRELL, AND OF G.N. FARRELL. OTHER PROPERTY LINESSHOWN ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY, ARE NOT A PART OF THIS SURVEY, ANDARE NOT EMBRACED BY THE CERTIFICATION BELOW.1.1. A BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED AND APPROVED (CIRCA2010-11) BETWEEN THE SUBJECT LANDS AND THOSE OF TARRANT AND FRANZONI (SEEREFERENCE PLAT "G"). AS OF NOVEMBER 2014, THE LAND TRANSFERS HAD NOT TAKENPLACE. THE PRE-ADJUSTMENT BOUNDARIES ARE DEPICTED HEREON.2. THE PERIMETER BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITH AN ELECTRONIC TOTALSTATION BETWEEN FALL 2003 AND WINTER 2004-5. ADDITIONAL SURVEYING ATTARRANT/FRANZONI WAS CONDUCTED WINTER 2011.3. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE REFERENCED TO ASTRONOMIC NORTH BASED ON SOLAROBSERVATIONS MADE IN SEPTEMBER, 1995. SEE REFERENCE PLAN "A".4. SURVEY MARKERS PROPOSED SHALL CONSIST OF 5/8" DIAMETER REBAR OR 4" SQUARECONCRETE MONUMENTS WITH ALUMINUM CAPS STAMPED "CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOC.-VTLS597". IRON PIPES FOUND ARE SHOWN WITH INSIDE DIAMETERS.5. SPEAR STREET HAS A RECORD 66 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY. LOCATION HEREDETERMINED BY EXISTING MONUMENTATION AND THE TRAVELED PORTION OF THE ROAD.REFERENCE TOWN OF BURLINGTON HIGHWAYS AND ROADS 1802-1865, PAGE 22 ANDTOWN OF SHELBURNE TOWN MINUTES VOLUME 1, PAGE 229.6. MUNICIPAL WATER SERVICE, SANITARY SEWER, TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC AND GASSERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AT THE LOT LINES OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM POINTS OFORIGIN THROUGH PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY OR RECORDED EASEMENTS.7. BEING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS SURVEY, CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.HAS UNDERTAKEN NO INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER THEPROPERTY AND EACH COMPONENT THEREOF IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL OR STATEPERMITS.8. THIS PROPERTY LIES IN THE "SOUTHEAST QUADRANT"AND"DORSET PARK SCENICPROTECTION - ZONE D" ZONING DISTRICTS.9. A 60' WIDE EASEMENT AND A 20' WIDE "RECREATIONAL EASEMENT", BETWEEN VALEDRIVE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ARE DEPICTED ON REFERENCE PLAN D, ANDREVISED (AS SHOWN HEREON) ON REFERENCE PLAN C. THE EARLIER ALIGNMENT ISREFERENCED IN AN "IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION" TO THE CITY DATED NOV. 15,1995 AND RECORDED IN VOLUME 428 AT PAGE 732.10. SEE OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN DOUG & CHRISTINE FRANZONI AND SPEARMEADOWS, INC. FOR A 30' WIDE SEWER EASEMENT TO BE CONVEYED TO CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON. VOLUME 862 PAGE 318 (5/15/09).11. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE SOLELY WITHIN AN AREA SHOWN AS "ZONE C -AREAS OF MINIMAL FLOODING" PER. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL500195-0005-B, EFFECTIVE DATE MARCH 16, 1981.Volume 747 Pages 653-656& J. L. MilotVolume 643 Page 297M. & M. ScollinsVolume 115 Page 523T. & L. KlehVolume 175 Page 163C. Shand et alVolume 405 Page 726See Note 9Volume 296 Page 538Open Space"PINNACLE @ SPEAR" SUBDIVISIONM. DenckerSporzynskiYoungVolume 412W. & M. GilbertVolume 209 Page 2251350 Spear LLCVolume 1031 Page 73G.N. FarrellUVM & State Agricultural CollegeVolume 134 Page 364TarrantR. & T.Open Space"Pinnacle @ Spear" SubdivisionVolume 1139Volume 677 Page 402Page 83Page 99D. & L.Vol. 729Page 329Volume 211Page 447D.I. MuhrVolume 218Page 287Volume 137Page 323March 31, 2006Spear Meadows, Inc.2.99± acres0.94 ± acres"SWIFT ESTATES" SUBDIVISIONUNDEVELOPED LANDS1340 SPEAR STREET20' Recreational EasementZONING BOUNDARY60' Wide Right-of-Way 1350 Spear Street1302 Spear St.AvondaLavigneCimmonettiP.B. GrabowskiMarroquinEXIST.DE SACCity of South BurlingtonVolume 934 Page 102Potential 30' Wide Sewer Easement - See Note 10 Larkin/Milot PartnershipD. & C.Franzoni22.22± acresCUL& G.A.Lawlor# 1431Yates# 1421Wilkins# 1411# 1295# 1317# 1331# 1393# 1397# 1300# 1402# 1404# 1406# 1408# 1430 214 Meadowood 219 Meadowood<- To Swift St.To Allen Rd. ->P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250-2014\1-CADD Files\Dwg\02250 overall plat (S1.0) 12-2014.dwg, 12/8/2014 7:58:03 AM, aloiselle LOT 1PARCEL 9PARCEL 10PARCEL 18 UNITSPARCEL 3STORM WATER AREAACESCALE: 1"=2000'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250-2014\1-CADD Files\Dwg\02250-2014.dwg, 12/8/2014 9:55:00 AM, aloiselle LOT 1PARCEL 9PARCEL 10PARCEL 18 UNITSPARCEL 3STORM WATER AREAACEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2002\02250-2014\1-CADD Files\Dwg\02250-2014.dwg, 12/8/2014 9:55:29 AM, aloiselle CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_ prelim&final DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 16, 2015 Plans received: August 18, 2014 SYNERGY DEVELOPMENT, LLC PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-38 Agenda #7 Meeting date: January 20, 2015 Owner Synergy Development, LLC 151 Murphy Road Charlotte, VT 05445 Applicant same Contact Person Jeremy Matosky TCE, Inc. 478 Blair Road Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01741 Residential 1 and Residential 2 3.62 Acres CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-14-38 of Synergy Development, LLC for a planned unit development to subdivide a 3.62 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three (3) lots ranging in size from 0.75 acres to 2.12 acres, 1741 Spear Street. COMMENTS Director of Planning & Zoning Paul Conner and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 15, 2014 and offer the following comments. Applicability of use of Planned Unit Development approach The applicant’s proposal seeks approval to use PUD in order to retain the existing single family home on a smaller lot, create two (2) additional lots each with a single family home and design a single driveway and establish a common use area and other elements. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: 15.01 Purpose It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The applicant argues, in part, that PUD review is needed in order to allow a more efficient lot layout, reduce impervious coverage, allow the use of a private drive and establish open space elements. At sketch plan review, the Board indicated that it was comfortable considering the proposal to qualify as a PUD. 1. The Board should confirm its assessment that the project qualifies as a PUD. Frontage requirements, Section 3.05(C) With regards to the requirement that each lot have 50 ft. of frontage, at sketch the Board indicated that that the frontage requirement would be met as the total frontage available for the 3 lots is 166.28 ft. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R-1 and R-2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed √ Min. Lot Size (R1/R2) 40,000 SF / 22,000 SF 3.62 acres 3.62 acres √ Max. Building Coverage (R1/R2) 15% / 20% 1.65% 4.19% √ Max. Total Coverage (R1/R2) 25% / 40% 2.55% 14.28% * Min. Front Setback (R1/R2) 50 ft. / 30 ft. >50 ft. / n.a. 25 ft. / 15 ft. √ Min. Side Setback (R1/R2) 25 ft. / 10 ft >25 ft. / n.a. >25 ft. / >10 ft √ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. √ Max. Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. <28 ft. <28 ft. √ zoning compliance * waivers requested. A waiver for a front setback of 15 ft. for Lot 1 in the R-2 District is requested. A waiver for a front setback of 25 ft. for Lot 2 in the R-1 District. 1. The Board should discuss whether or not to grant the requested waivers. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to submittal of a final plat. The applicant has received preliminary wastewater allocation from the City. The 2. The applicant should confirm whether preliminary water allocation has been issued. (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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc 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 cease use of the existing driveway and create a new driveway that will serve the existing single family home and the two proposed new homes to the rear. The Department of Public Works had no concerns regarding this driveway location. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The applicant has proposed building envelopes on Lots 1 and 2 to protect much of the existing vegetation and trees on the site. Outside of the building envelopes, the applicant is proposing to establish Conservation Open Space easements. In addition, a Community Open Space easement is established for the back portion of Lot 3. The Conservation Open Space Easements will restrict the removal of trees. The applicant has indicated that they will submit copies of the proposed agreements prior to the hearing. 3. As of the writing of these notes, the proposed conservation open space easements had not been provided to the City. (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 project is located in both the R1 and R2 Districts, the purposes of which are as follows: 4.01 RESIDENTIAL 1 DISTRICT - R1 A. Purpose. A Residential 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage low-density single- family residential uses. This district is located in areas where low densities are necessary to protect scenic views and cultural resources, and to provide compatibility with adjacent natural areas. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. 4.02 RESIDENTIAL 2 DISTRICT - R2 A. Purpose. A Residential 2 District is hereby formed in order to encourage moderate-density residential use district. This district is located primarily in transition areas between higher density residential districts and low-density districts. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed homes and layout are consistent with the standards of both Districts. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc See discussion above under (A)(4). 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 1, 2014, the Fire Department commented as follows: 1741 Spear St: Spoke with Shane Mullin this PM regarding (2) SFH situated 500' and 650' off Spear St. on a shared driveway. Driveway width has to accommodate FD access, and the homes must have NFPA 13D sprinkler system installed. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department 575 Dorset St. S. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4134 The applicant has included a note on the Sheet C2-01, Site Plan stating “Proposed dwellings on Lots 1 & 2 must be served by an NFPA 13D Domestic Sprinkler System. 4. The applicant should confirm with the Fire Department that the driveway width is adequate to support Fire Department access to all three homes. (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. Please see the discussion between the applicant and Deputy Director of Public Works. Note that the most recent communications are at the top, as in the format of an email. DPW comments are in BLUE, applicant’s notes are in BROWN. From: Tom Dipietro [mailto:tdipietro@sburl.com] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 1:06 PM To: Shane M. Mullen, P.E. Cc: Jennifer Desautels; ray; Dan Albrecht; Justin Rabidoux Subject: RE: Comments on Synergy Project Shane, Thank you for providing additional information and speaking with me this morning. My final comments are as follows: 1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land and 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 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc 2. Modifications to the pond outlet shown on C8-03 are incomplete. The elevation view still indicates that the structure will contain a 6” orifice. 3. The pond outlet should be modified to include a trash rack on the 3” orifice, at minimum. 4. The detail for “Existing Catch Basin Inlet Modification Detail” will be clarified to make clear that modifications will include coring the top of the existing structure to enlarge the opening. In addition, the detail will be modified slightly to prevent larger debris (sticks etc.) from entering the closed drainage system downstream. 5. Information provided indicates that under existing conditions water flowing to the downstream drainage pipe network exceeds the capacity of these pipes during the 25 year storm event. The proposed project will not exacerbate this condition (i.e. modeling indicates that the project is not increasing flow rates off the project site during the 25 year storm event). 6. Per section 12.03.F the applicant shall supply record drawings for the project. 7. The DRB should consider including a condition that requires all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure be properly maintained. Thank you all for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works City of South Burlington Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Shane M. Mullen, P.E. [mailto:Shane.Mullen@tcevt.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 11:01 AM To: Tom Dipietro Cc: Jennifer Desautels; ray; dalbrecht@ccrpcvt.org Subject: RE: Comments on Synergy Project Tom, See responses to your stormwater comments below in red [STAFF NOTE, Changed to BROWN for readability in DRB notes]. Attached is the corrected detail sheet for the stormwater basin, and a Manning’s analysis for the pipe capacity of the existing 12-inch lines. Also open for discussion is the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc modification of the existing catch basin trash racks. I would like to have a chat to discuss what can be a mutually acceptable change to these structures that helps the neighbors with their flooding issues and still provides you with a level of comfort regarding potential downstream clogging. Please give me a call when you have some time to discuss. Let me know if you have further questions/comments. Regards, - smm From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 1:24 PM To: ray Cc: Justin Rabidoux Subject: Comments on Synergy Project Ray, I reviewed plans for the Synergy project that were prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated 12/12/14 and last revised on 1/7/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). a. The applicant should confirm that the project will not create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. If greater than 1 acre of impervious area is created, the project should obtain a State stormwater permit from Vermont DEC before starting construction. Confirmed, there will not be greater than one acre of impervious surface on the property after construction. b. The project will likely disturb greater than 1 acre of land and will therefore require a stormwater construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. Confirmed. 2. The pond outlet shown on sheet C8-03 does not match the information entered into the hydrologic model. The applicant must confirm that what is shown in the model is the correct information and the site plans must be updated to reflect this. Confirmed, see attached revised detail sheet with the corrected outlet structure configuration. 3. The project proposes to enlarge the pipe inlet openings at the west end of the project from 18” to 30”. The proposed design would allow leaves, branches, and other debris to enter the closed drainage system under Harbor Ridge and Bay Crest. Leaves and other debris are more easily removed at the pipe inlet than from the closed drainage network. I support enlarging these inlets to improve their intake of water, but would like them to remain covered with a track rack of some type to prevent material from entering and potentially collecting in the downstream drainage network. A trash rack is proposed for the existing catch basin inlets to prevent sticks and other debris that can clog pipes from entering, see Sheet C8-03. The intent of this design is to pass leaves into the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc piping; currently, the adjacent homeowners are required to remove leaves by hand during each storm event to prevent the inlet from clogging and flooding their backyards. We can modify the structure shown in order to keep larger debris from entering the piping, but in our opinion, the pass-through of leaves is the only solution using the existing drainage system that will not result in the need for human intervention during every storm event. Please let us know your suggested modifications to the outlet structure. a. The figure related to this modification on sheet C8-03 doesn’t clearly show how the 30” opening would be connected to the existing 18” opening, and/or is not to scale. The figure should be updated so that the modifications are clear. The intent of the modification is to enlarge the existing 18-inch diameter opening to 30 inches in diameter. This is noted in the comment “Existing catch basin – enlarge 18” diameter opening to 30” round” provided on the detail. 4. The hydrologic modeling provided stops at pipe inlets located on the west edge of the property. In order to fully evaluate conditions, and confirm compliance with section 12.03.E(3) of the LDRs, the applicant must evaluate drainage infrastructure downstream of the project. Updating the hydrologic model to include one additional pipe run downstream of the proposed 30” openings should be sufficient to complete this evaluation. a. Also, the applicant proposes to place 30” openings on top of the smaller diameter pipes that exist downstream of the project. Hydrologic modeling provided does not go beyond the 30” opening which may misrepresent the ability of these pipes to convey runoff without backwatering. Peak flow rates from the site are reduced, as shown in the “inflow” quantity of catch basin inlets 0307 and 2798 from the 1-year and 25-year storm events. We have provided HydroCAD models showing the downstream piping from the inlet, however, we do not feel that these model results provide any meaningful analysis of the downstream drainage effects of the project. The existing 12” diameter pipes are undersized to accommodate the runoff from a 4-inch rainfall; HydroCAD modeling of the pipe run results in several “hints” and “warnings” that indicate exceedances will occur in the existing condition. We ran a Manning’s analysis of the existing pipes’ capacity and found them both to be undersized; CB0307 inflows exceed maximum capacity flow by 13 cfs, and CB2798 is exceeded by 1 cfs. Due to this existing under-capacity, modeling results in the proposed condition are nonsensical, outflows from the dry basin are greater than the inflows. We believe the best information to determine the downstream flow effects of the project are the previously-issued HydroCAD modeling results. 5. The project is located in the City’s stormwater management overlay district and must meet the requirements of section 12.03 in the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). a. Section 12.03.E(2) requires that culverts or other drainage facilities (e.g. swales) be sized to accommodate potential runoff from the entire upstream drainage area assuming the total potential development of upstream drainage areas. The applicant must determine if the area labeled as DA4 in drainage maps has the potential for additional development. If so, build out of this area must be included in modeling so that the ability of swales and pipes to convey water during the 25 year storm event can be evaluated. This evaluation should CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc include the section of pipe downstream of the proposed 30” opening. The area on the east side of Spear is approximately 9 Acres – which based on current density could lead to 10 future units. Each of these lots could reasonably be expected to disturb more than a half- acre of earth, which triggers the jurisdiction of the Stormwater Management Overlay District. Any additional development proposed east of Spear Street, therefore, would be responsible for ensuring the same proposed hydrologic conditions are maintained at the existing rate for both the one-year and 25-year storm events. The applicant therefore finds that the proposed swales provide sufficient capacity, since no increase in peak discharge in the future is anticipated, and would be controlled at pre-existing rates. Furthermore, there is additional free-board capacity in the proposed diversion off-site swale of 1.23 feet during a 25-year storm event. 6. Per section 12.03.F the applicant shall supply record drawings for the project. Confirmed. 7. The DRB should consider including a condition that requires all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure be properly maintained. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The applicant’s proposed utilities (water, sewer, gas, and stormwater) are addressed elsewhere in these comments. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. NOTICE OF CONDITIONS There are “building footprint” lots as well as various easements on the property. Eventually, as part of final plat review, the applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc 14.06(B)(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 14.06(B)(2) Parking 14.06(B)(3)Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. This is a proposed single family development of three homes served by a single driveway. Adequate space for parking on each lot is provided. Substantial amounts of trees and vegetation will remain as building on the two back lots will be limited to a building envelope. In addition, planting of new shrubs and trees will occur. The applicant has stated that the proposed homes will be less than 28 ft. in height. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.06(B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans detail that such services will be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.06(C)(1) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 14.06(C)(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. These two criteria are not applicable to homes on single family lots. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is required nor is such a need anticipated. 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. Details on wire served utility lines are not provided. The applicant’s engineer has indicated that she will revise the plan to note that such lines shall be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc 5. Utility services shall be underground. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No dumpsters are necessary as the development consists of single family homes likely to be serviced via family sized totes. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum landscape requirement. When a planting plan is submitted as part of preliminary and final plat review, it will be submitted to the City Arborist for review and comment. A landscape plan has been submitted dated 12/2/2014 which proposes 66 trees and shrubs with a value of $6,370. However, as these are single family homes on single lots, no minimum landscaping requirement needs to be met. The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff in an email dated 12/18/14. Synergy Development LLC Trudell Consulting Engineers 12/18/14 Tree Protection Detail • Pruning of limbs on any trees to be retained must conform with the ANSI A300 Pruning Standard • Disturbances within tree protection zones is unacceptable throughout the entire length of the project. Taking down protective fencing to allow disturbance for even a brief period defeats the purpose of the tree protection measures. These plans are acceptable for the construction of the access road. Once locations of buildings and infrastructure are established a much more detailed landscape and tree protection plan will be necessary. 6. The applicant shall comply with the City Arborist’s recommendations. E911 Addresses The applicant shall submit E911 addresses for the proposed project, in conformance with the E911 addressing standards, with the final plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_38_1741SpearSt_SynergyDevelopment_3unitPUD_prelim&final.doc Other Pursuant to Section 15.08 (D) of the LDRs, applicants are typically required to submit homeowner’s association legal documents with the final plat application. The applicant is proposing that open space, utility and access easements be addressed in the deeds without creating a homeowner’s association. 7. The Board should consider whether it finds it acceptable to use this legal mechanism in lieu of a homeowners association and have the applicant confirm that this mechanism is consistent with Vermont law. The final plat application shall include a Certificate of Title as required in Section 15.17 of the LDRs. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, prior to issuance of the first zoning permit or start of utility or road construction, the applicant shall submit all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for proposed public roads, utility, sewer, drainage, water, and recreation paths, etc.) to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. Prior to the start of construction of the improvements described in the condition above, the applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements. Pursuant to Section 15.14(E)(2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, within 14 days of the completion of required improvements (e.g. roads, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm drains, etc.) the developer shall submit to the City Engineer, “as-built” construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer. RECOMMENDATION The Board should review the numbered and italicized items in red above and discuss these and other issues as needed. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Copy to: Synergy Development, LLC. ¬15°±TrueMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable.¬ TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project.¬ TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.¬5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisionsField Book:Landscape Plan,Tree Demolition &Protection PlanL1-0112/12/2014Shown14-087RMPJAD¬¬206SynergyDevelopment, LLC1741 Spear StreetSouth Burlington, Vermont0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 120L-001LAST REVISED 03/15/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSTREE PLANTING DETAIL4" SAUCER RIMBACKFILL WITH EXCAVATEDMATERIAL. IF SOIL ISPREDOMINATELYCLAY OR GRAVELINCORPORATEORGANIC MATERIAL ASDIRECTED AND APPROVEDBY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPLANT PIT WIDTH3X BALL DIA.NOTES:* STAKE ONLY IN EXTREMELY WINDY CONDITIONS AS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT * IF KNOWN, PLANT THIN BARKED TREES WITH THE SAME SUN ORIENTATION OR WRAP WITH WHITE POLYPROPYLENE WRAP * BURLAP: LOOSEN, CUT, & REMOVE NATURAL BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 OF ROOT BALL. REMOVE SYNTHETIC BURLAP * WIRE BASKETS: CUT AWAY BOTTOM RINGS. PARTIALLY BACKFILL THEN REMOVE REMAINING WIRE. * PLANT TREE TO EXPOSE ROOT FLARE, MAIN ORDER ROOT, AND IN SAME ORIENTATION AS TREE WAS GROWN. DO NOT PLANT TOO DEEP * 3" LAYER SHREDDED BARK MULCH (TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) OVER PERMEABLE WEED FABRIC. DO NOT PLACE NEXT TO TREE TRUNK6" CLEARANCE2' DIA.MULCH RINGSLOPE GROUNDTO DRAINDIG TREE PIT ONLY ASDEEP AS ROOT BALLL-002LAST REVISED 03/15/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSBALL AND BURLAP SHRUBFROM TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL*LOOSEN, CUT, & REMOVE BURLAPCONTINUOUS WHEN USED IN BEDS.WEED BARRIER FABRIC TO BE*SHREDDED BARK MULCH ANDGROWNWHICH SHRUB HAD PREVIOUSLY*PLANT SHRUB AT SAME DEPTH ATARCHITECT) OVER PERMEABLE WEED(TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE3" LAYER SHREDDED BARK MULCH3" SAUCER RIMFABRIC. DO NOT PLACE CLOSE TOMAIN STEM.PLANT PIT WIDTH 3XBALL DIA.NOTES:BACKFILL WITH EXCAVATEDMATERIAL. IF SOIL IS PREDOMINATELYCLAY OR GRAVEL INCORPORATEORGANIC MATERIAL AS DIRECTEDAND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECTKEY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QUAN. SIZE COMMENTSCC Carpinus caroliniana American Hornbeam 1 2"-2 1/2" B & BCS Cornus sericea Red Twig Dogwood 9 3 gal. CONT. 'Baileyi'IV Ilex verticillata Jim Dandy & Berry Nice 9 3 gal. CONT. 'Jim Dandy & Berry Nice' WinterberryTON Thuja occidentalis 'nigra' Dark American Arborvitae 32 4'-5' B&BVAC Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry 7 3 gal. CONT. 'Blue Jay'PLANT LISTL-004LAST REVISED 09/03/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSTREE PROTECTION FENCE(TEMPORARY)6' MAX.DRIP-LINE (VARIES)FENCE LOCATION(LIMITS OF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE)RADIUS = 1 FOOT PER INCH OFTRUNK DIAMETERWOODCHIPS3'NOTESxPRUNE LIMBS IN THE WAY OFIMPROVEMENTS. CONSULT WITHxLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TOPRUNING.xFERTILIZE AND WATER TREES.xUTILIZE WOOD CHIPS FROMCLEARING ON SITE TO PREVENTSOIL COMPACTION OF DRIP LINE, IFAPPLICABLE.xPLACE FENCExFENCE TO BE INSTALLED PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. WHERE PLANSSHOW DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREEPROTECTION AREA, TEMPORARILYREMOVE FENCE TO PROCEED WITHWORK, THEN IMMEDIATELY REPLACEFENCE WHEN WORK IS COMPLETEDWITHIN THE PROTECTED AREA.x4' HIGH WOVEN ORANGE PLASTICSAFETY FENCE ON FIRMLY DRIVENMETAL "T" STAKES OR EQUIVALENT,STAKE 6'-0" O.C., BURY POST 3'MINIMUM.xWHERE ROOT LOSS ISENCOUNTERED, PRUNE ROOT 1'BEYOND FENCE USING A VIBRATINGKNIFE OR NARROW TRENCHER ANDBACKFILL IMMEDIATELY.xPLACE 2 "TREE PROTECTION ZONEDO NOT DISTURB" SIGNS IN EACHDESIGNATED AREA WWWWWWWWWWFMFMFMWWW FDFMWSSFMFMFMFMFMOHPOHPOHPOHP12" WATER MAINWWWWWAIR RELEASE MH(PAVED OVER)R=371.9±WEXISTING2"PVCFORCEMAINCONSTRUCTIONBLOWOFF PERCWD STAFFAPPROX. LOC. 4" GAS MAINAPPROX. LO FMFMFMFMAPPRGGGGGEXISTING 1000GALLON PUMPSTATIONSFM FMFMFMFM4" SDR 35 SEWERC.O.3/4" WATER SERVICEWDD370370370370365365365360360360 355355355 350350350 3453453453403403403353353350330330330 325325320320315315310 3102" SDR 21 PVC20' DRAINAGEEASEMENT15' PEDESTRIANEASEMENTLOT 392,364 SQ. FT.2.12 AcresRESIDENTIAL 1RESIDENTIAL 250' FRONTEXISTING PAVEDDRIVE TO BERELOCATEDLOT 232,670 SQ. FT. 0.75 AcresLOT 132,670 SQ. FT. 0.75 AcresON-SITE RUNOFFSTORMWATER POND>GRASS LINED SWALE FOROFF-SITE STORMWATER(TYPICAL)PROPOSED LANDSCAPINGALONG PROPERTY LINESEE SHEET L1-01BUILDINGENVELOPEBUILDINGENVELOPE30' 30'25'12'15'25'25'25'24" CMPAIR RELEASE MH(PAVED OVER)R=371.9±HOUSEBFE=363.76RETAININGWALLi=366.88i=368.38MPLOC.)C.O.SHEDDMHR=313.96iOUT=308.18DMHR=310.94SUMP=304.11CONCRETEHEADWALLCONCRETEHEADWALLCK#1741EXISTINGTHREE BR.HOUSE360370ECK355W WWWWWWWWWW368.0+369.9++370.5365363.0+342343353344338341345339340340335335330320340345 35012' GRAVEL DRIVE16' GRAVEL DRIVE369368367366364363362361359357356352346347341332331 33233333433633933733233933134033415" HDPEGGGGGGGGGGGGC.S.C.S.C.S.FMFMFMFMFMFM1000 GALLON PUMPSTATION, SEE DETAILSHEET C8-01FMFMFMJUNCTION MANHOLE FORCONNECTION TO EXISTINGFORCE MAIN, SEE DETAILSHEET C8-0115" HDPE1000 GALLON PUMPSTATION, SEE DETAILSHEET C8-01PROPOSEDTREELINE337+355.025'MIN.D1" SDR9 PE WATER SERVICE2" SDR 21 PVCFORCEMAINGAS SERVICE50' ACCESS &UTILITY EASEMENTNOTE:PROPOSED LANDSCAPING ALONG PROPERTY LINESEE SHEET L1-01i=327.024" HDPE331.5+EMERGENCYSPILLWAY50' ACCESS & UTILITYEASEMENT LINE SWALEWITH TYPE IIRIP RAPLINE SWALE WITH VMAX P550 TURFREINFORCEMENT MATTINGDETENTION BASINOUTLET STRUCTURESEE DETAIL, SHEETC8-03i=326.0iIN=309.00CONSERVATION OPENSPACE EASEMENTCONSERVATIONOPEN SPACEEASEMENTCOMMUNITY OPENSPACE EASEMENT¬SynergyDevelopment, LLC1741 Spear StreetSite PlanC2-0112/12/20141"=30'14-087RMPJAD¬¬0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 12015°±TrueMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable.¬ TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project.¬ TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.¬5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisionsNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUTELSSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO FESSIONALENGINEERLICENSEDField Book:206OPEN SPACE NOTES:CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE:(INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS)LOT 1 = 24,969 S.F.LOT 2 = 24,297 S.F.LOT 3 = 0 S.F.TOTAL CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE= 49,296 S.F. OR 1.1 AC.COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE:(INTENDED FOR RESIDENTS ONLY NOT PUBLIC USE)LOT 1 = 0 S.F.LOT 2 = 0 S.F.LOT 3 = 17,432 S.F.TOTAL COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE= 17,423 S.F. OR 0.4 AC.TOTAL CONSERVATION & COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE = 1.1 AC. + 0.4 AC. = 1.5 AC.% OF TOTAL PARCEL = 157,704 S.F./66,719 S.F. = 42.3%NOTE:PROPOSED DWELLINGS ON LOTS 1 & 2 MUSTBE SERVED BY AN NFPA 13D DOMESTICSPRINKLER SYSTEMALL PROPOSED BUILDING SIZE, SHAPE, LOCATION, ANDDRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY,(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON SITE PLAN). THE EXACT SIZE,SHAPE, AND LOCATION IS BY OWNERS IN ACCORDANCEWITH LOCAL ZONING REGULATIONS."I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE DESIGN RELATED INFORMATIONSUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT,AND THAT, IN THE EXERCISE OF MY REASONABLEPROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, THE DESIGN INCLUDED IN THISAPPLICATION FOR A PERMIT COMPLIES WITH THE VERMONTWASTEWATER SYSTEM AND POTABLE WATER SUPPLY RULESAND THE VERMONT WATER SUPPLY RULES" (REF.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RULES CHAPTER 1 S 1-302(b)(1). ¬0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 12015°±TrueMagneticPROJECT LOCATIONSynergyDevelopment, LLC1741 Spear StreetExisting ConditionsC1-0212/12/20141"=30'14-087RMPJAD¬¬Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These Drawings1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such.2. Only drawings specifically marked “For Construction” areintended to be used in conjunction with contractdocuments, specifications, owner/contractor agreementsand to be fully coordinated with other disciplines, includingbut not limited to, the Architect, if applicable.¬ TheseDrawings shall not be used for construction layout. ContactTCE for any construction surveying services or to obtainelectronic data suitable for construction layout.3. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.4. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings and have met with allapplicable parties/disciplines to insure these plans areproperly coordinated with other aspects of the Project.¬ TheOwner and Architect, are responsible for any buildingsshown, including an area measured a minimum five (5) feetaround any building.¬5. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions.Project Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUTELSSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO FESSIONALENGINEERLICENSEDField Book:288,206108/21/14 JMMForcemain Diameter210/22/14 JADAdd TreesTAGDBHNAMENOTESTAGDBHNAMENOTESTAGDBHNAMENOTEST1 14 DT2 15 SUGAR MAPLE DT3 27 OAK DT4 26 OAK DT5 24 SUGAR MAPLE DT6 15 DT7 14 CT8 15 SUGAR MAPLE DT9 17 SUGAR MAPLE DT10 24 SUGAR MAPLE DT11 18 DT12 24 DT13 15 CT14 48 WILLOW DT15 24 DT16 26 DT17 24 CT18 18 RED MAPLE DT19 19 DT20 19 RED MAPLE DT21 27 RED MAPLE DT22 24 CT23 27 OAK DT24 29 CT25 48 WILLOW DT26 16 APPLE DT27 9 APPLE DT28 24 APPLE DT29 20 APPLE DT30 24 APPLE DT31 24 APPLE DT32 24 APPLE DT33 24 APPLE DT34 8 APPLE DT35 12 APPLE DT36 15 APPLE DT37 11 APPLE ? DT38 12 APPLE ? DT39 12 APPLE DT40 1 APPLE DT41 6 APPLE DT42 6 APPLE DT43 8 APPLE DT44 12 APPLE DT45 1 APPLE DT46 15 APPLE ? DT47 10 APPLE? DT48 12 APPLE? DF49 12 APPLE? DF50 10 APPLE DF51 14 APPLE? DF52 19 APPLE? DF52 19 APPLE? DF53 24 CT54 14 CF55 20 OAK DT56 24 CT57 15 DT58 26 CT59 6 BUCKTHORN DT60 14 LARCH DT61 8 CEDAR C62 17 DT63 5 DT64 8 DT65 7 CT66 6 DT67 8 CT68 4 CT69 4 DTT70 13 CT71 16 CT72 10 CT73 10 CT74 9 CT75 1 CT76 13 CT77 13 CT78 9 CT79 6 CT80 13 CT81 9 CT82 8 CT83 11 CT84 7 CT85 12 CT86 8 CT87 12 CT88 12 CT89 6 CT90 12 CT91 13 CT92 7 CT93 7 CT94 7 CT95 11 CT96 10 CT97 9 CT98 4 CT99 13 CT100 4 CT101 15 DT102 6 CT103 8 CT104 11 CT105 6 CT106 4 DT107 6 CT108 9 CT109 10 CT110 10 CT111 14 CT112 9 CT113 5 CT114 8 CT115 10 CT116 10 CT117 8 DT118 11 CT119 11 CT120 9 CT121 6 CT122 10 CT123 8 CT124 24 DT125 11 CT126 8 CT127 10 CT128 9 CT129 2 CT130 7 CT131 9 CT132 6 CT133 10 CT134 9 CT135 8 CT136 12 CT137 23 DT138 8 CT139 12 CT140 8 CT141 12 CT142 7 CT143 6 CT144 7 CT145 7 CT146 7 CT147 11 CT148 5 CT149 8 CT150 13 CT151 7 CT152 5 CT153 6 CT154 12 CT155 5 CT156 5 CT157 4 CT158 8 CT159 12 CT160 5 CT161 7 CT162 5 CT163 5 CT164 4 CT165 7 CT166 5 DT167 6 DT168 5 DT169 10 DT170 5 CT171 11 DT172 3 DT173 4 DT174 6 CT175 6 CT176 7 CT177 7 CT178 9 DT179 7 CT180 4 OAK DT181 7 CT182 3 DT183 4 DT184 4 CT185 8 CT186 4 CT187 7 CT188 13 DT189 4 CT190 3 DT191 4 DT192 5 CT193 5 CT194 5 CT195 6 CT196 5 DT197 9 DT198 8 CT199 4 CT200 4 CT201 5 CT202 5 CT203 4 CT204 7 DT205 6 DT206 10 DT207 4 DT208 4 DT209 6 DTT21011 DT211 7 DT212 3 DT213 13 DT214 7 DT215 13 DT216 13 DT217 9 CT218 14 DT219 12 DT220 4 DT221 12 DT222 14 CT223 11 CT224 12 CT225 13 CT226 5 DT227 6 DT228 6 DT229 3 DT230 7 DT231 13 CT232 5 DT233 12 DT234 7 DT235 15 CT236 14 DT237 9 DT238 6 DT239 7 DT240 2 DT241 6 DT242 6 DF243 20 DF244 12 CF245 10 DF246 10 DF247 12 DF248 20 CF249 12 DF250 10 DF251 20 CF252 6 CF253 20 DF254 20 DF255 12 DF256 20 CF257 12 CTAGDBHNAMENOTESF258 28 OAK DF259 22 MAPL DF260 12 MAPL DF264 14 DF262 18 MAPL DF263 20 MAPLE DF264 24 MAPLE DF265 18 DF266 22 DF267 18 DF268 26 DF269 20 HICKORY DF270 8 CF271 12 CF272 8 HEMLOCK CF273 8 HEMLOCK CF274 6 SPRUCE CF275 6 SPRUCE CF276 16 CF277 14 DF278 16 OAK DF279 14 OAK DF280 16 SPRUCE CF281 12 SPRUCE CF282 8 SPRUCE CF283 18 MAPLE DF284 22 MAPLE DF285 26 MAPLE DTAGDBHNAMENOTEStax map no.1640-01751K. & M. McFARLANDv. 1126 p. 105map slide 565tax map no.1640-01730L. LONG FAMILY TRUSTtax map no.1640-01720C. LONG REV. TRUSTtax map no.1640-017251741 PROPERTIES, LLCL. & C. LONGv. 942 p. 48v. 91 p. 182map slide 10tax map no.1330-00004P. & M. MAHONEYREV. TRUSTv. 815 p. 500map slide 109tax map no.1330-00006W. CALKINSv. 1119 p. 81map slide 365tax map no.1330-00008J. & C. LYONv. 1015 p. 17map slide 365tax map no.1330-00010S. LIDOFSKYE. BARFODv. 642 p. 213map slide 365tax map no.1783-00070J. & S. MACKv. 760 p. 203map slide 475tax map no.1783-00099B. & C. SHUMANv. 555 p. 528map slide 565tax map no.1783-00133A. DOWNINGv. 1057 p. 236map slide 565tax map no.0770-00015A. RICE REV. TRUSTv. 1183 p. 325map slide 163map slide 141tax map no.0770-00011M. & E. ALBERTSONv. 885 p. 49map slide 163tax map no.0770-00017S. SWANSONv. 798 p. 633map slide 163map slide 141 166.28'S12°50'16"W350.98'S83°20'04"W156.66'S83°22'04"W125.11' N07°50'28"W147.71'N75°50'43"E49.89'N76°14'40"E290.30'S81°01'54"E40.75' N07°42'41"W186.72'N75°53'15"E139.50'N76°14'48"E61.00'S83°25'06"W144.16'S83°25'06"W18.62'S83°11'02"W25.06'211.51' S06°39'56"E 190.04' N06°37'56"WCOMMUNITYOPEN SPACEEASEMENT0.40 AC.BUILDINGENVELOPEBUILDINGENVELOPEDRAINAGE &UTILITY EASEMENTCONSERVATIONOPEN SPACEEASEMENT0.56 AC.CONSERVATIONOPEN SPACEEASEMENT0.11 AC.DescriptionRevisionsByDateThis plat meets the requirements of 27 VSA 1403._____________________________________________ (Signature)#Project Number:Date:Scale:Drawn By:Project Manager:Crd file:Field Book:Approved By:Sheet:1741 PROPERTIES, LLC1741 Spear StreetSouth Burlington, VermontSubdivision Plat0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 12015°±Grid1° ±TrueMagneticSTATE OF VERMON T L A N D SURVEYORLICENSEDSCOTTD.TAYLORNo. 488PROJECT LOCATIONNOTES:1. THIS PLAT IS BASED ON DEEDS RESEARCHED IN THE CITY OFSOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS AND A CLOSED FIELDTRAVERSE CONDUCTED WITH A TOTAL STATION ON 6/26/14.BEARINGS ARE BASED ON VERMONT STATE PLANE GRIDNORTH ESTABLISHED WITH RTK OBSERVATIONS FROMVERMONT CORS STATION VTUV.2. REBARS SET ARE NO. 5 REINFORCING BARS WITH ALUMINUMCAPS STAMPED "TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LS 488".3. THIS PARCEL WAS CONVEYED TO 1741 PROPERTIES, LLC INVOLUME 942 PAGE 45.4. DISTANCES ARE SHOWN TO THE HUNDREDTH OF A FOOTAND BEARINGS ARE SHOWN TO THE SECOND FORMATHEMATICAL CLOSURE PURPOSES ONLY.5. AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO IDENTIFY OR DELINEATEEASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY, LEASE LANDS,ENCROACHMENTS, ETC. OBSERVED IN THE FIELD OR READILYFOUND IN THE LAND RECORDS. ADDITIONALENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ONTHIS PLAT.6. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHOWN ARE BASED ONABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES AND PLANS OF RECORD.ACTUAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND LINES MAY VARY.UTILITY POLELINE DATA TABLE REFERENCECURVE DATA TABLE REFERENCEC1WOVEN WIRE FENCEOVERHEAD UTILITY LINESREINFORCING BAR ( FOUND )CONCRETE MONUMENT ( TO BE SET )CONCRETE MONUMENT ( FOUND )REBAR ( TO BE SET )IRON PIPE ( FOUND )CALCULATED POINTOHPtax map no.1640-01751K. & M. McFARLANDv. 1126 p. 105map slide 565L1LINE DATA TABLEC1-0111/19/141"=30'14-087SDTJEDJMM206, 32514-087LEGENDSPEAR STREETtax map no.1640-01730L. LONG FAMILY TRUSTtax map no.1640-01720C. LONG REV. TRUSTtax map no.1640-017251741 PROPERTIES, LLCL. & C. LONGv. 942 p. 48v. 91 p. 182map slide 10tax map no.1330-00004P. & M. MAHONEYREV. TRUSTv. 815 p. 500map slide 109tax map no.1330-00006W. CALKINSv. 1119 p. 81map slide 365tax map no.1330-00008J. & C. LYONv. 1015 p. 17map slide 365tax map no.1330-00010S. LIDOFSKYE. BARFODv. 642 p. 213map slide 365tax map no.1783-00070J. & S. MACKv. 760 p. 203map slide 475tax map no.1783-00099B. & C. SHUMANv. 555 p. 528map slide 565tax map no.1783-00133A. DOWNINGv. 1057 p. 236map slide 565tax map no.0770-00015A. RICE REV. TRUSTv. 1183 p. 325map slide 163map slide 141tax map no.0770-00011M. & E. ALBERTSONv. 885 p. 49map slide 163SHEDHOUSEPAVED DRIVEWAYDRILLEDWELL15'PEDESTRIANEASEMENTv. 211 p. 17520'DRAINAGEEASEMENTDRAINAGEEASEMENTv. 209 p. 1404" SQUARENO. 5, UP 0.5'UP 1.5'ALUM. CAP1"O.D., UP 1.3'BENT 1-1/4"O.D., UP 1.3'YELLOW PLASTIC CAP1-1/4"O.D., UP 0.1'RUSTED, 1.0' SELY1"O.D., UP 0.2'0.6' WLY TO4" SQUAREUP 0.5', 0.8' 4" SQUAREUP 0.8', 0.4'3-1/2" SQUAREUP 1.2', LEANINGNLY TO FENCENLY TO FENCE4" SQUAREUP 1.0', 0.8' NLY TO FENCETO FENCE CORNERFENCE CORNER"TCE LS488"NO. 5, UP 1.0'ALUM. CAP"TCE LS488""TRUDELL C. E. LS488"3-1/2" SQUAREFLUSHtax map no.0770-00017S. SWANSONv. 798 p. 633map slide 163map slide 14150' ACCESS &UTILITY EASEMENT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_39_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_prelim DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 16, 2015 Application received: December 15, 2014 PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW #SD-14-39 PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES – 1690 SHELBURNE ROAD Agenda # 8 Meeting Date: January 20, 2015 Applicant Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 Contact Person Robert Bouchard Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 346 Shelburne Road, Suite 601 Burlington, VT 05401 Owners Kurt V. Reichelt and Laura M. Reichelt Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-14-39 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two (2) lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 4-story, 63 unit, multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 15, 2014 and offer the following comments: DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C – 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Lot #1 √ Min. Lot Size 6000 sq. ft./unit 398,271 sq. ft. 6322 sq. ft./unit √ Max. Building Coverage 40% 0% 4.9% √ Max. Overall Coverage 70% 0% 23.6% √ Min. Front Setback 50 ft. N/A 280 ft. √ Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A 20 ft. √ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 216 ft. ♠ Max. Building Height 35ft. (flat roof) N/A 47 ft. Note: Coverage percentages are from site plan not application form. √ Zoning compliance ♠ Requires a height waiver of 12 feet Staff is comfortable with the requested height waiver. The building is set well back from Shelburne Road, and no scenic views are blocked. 1. The Board should discuss whether to grant the requested height waiver. Density The overall lot size of 9.14 acres allows a maximum density of 63 units at 7 units/acre and 63 units are proposed. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch roadway improvements. Compliance with this standard is addressed in the Site Plan review section below. B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. N/A C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. 126 parking spaces are required for 63 dwelling units and 126 are proposed. The access drive will be shared with the adjoining one-acre proposed commercial lot. Staff considers these criteria to be met. D. Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch 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. The parking is located to the rear of the building. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed building is to be 47 ft. in height, 12 ft. taller than the 35 foot limit otherwise permitted. The Board should discuss the granting of the height waiver as noted on page 2. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans depict that the proposed utilities are underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Architectural elevations are provided. The building’s colors are muted tones which will help the building blend in with the wooded area adjacent to Bartlett Brook. Substantial landscaping and new trees are proposed throughout the property. Staff considers these two criteria to be met. Staff considers these two criteria 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. See discussion below in Section (A)(8) under PUD standars. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch Noted above. Staff considers this criterion to be 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. A fenced trash/recycling enclosure is shown on the plans. Staff considers this criterion to be met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum landscape requirement. The total construction cost for the building is $7,820,000. The minimum landscaping requirement is calculated as follows: Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $73,200 Minimum Landscaping $ >> $85,700 A landscape plan and plant list has been submitted with a value of $85,700. Of this value, $37,698 consists of ornamental grasses, perennials, landscape boulders and wet meadow / detention basin mix which technically do not meet the definition of a trees and shrubs. Staff notes that the detention basin is similar to a rain garden feature and adds considerable aesthetic value to the necessary parking lot. The applicant has indicated that several of the species of proposed grasses are 3-4 ft. tall. In addition the staff considers these four landscaping features coupled with the retention of some existing to be substantial in their own right. See the email below from the City Arborist dated January 15, 2015: From: Craig Lambert [mailto:clambert@sburl.com] Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:29 PM To: Bob Bouchard Subject: Bartlett Brook Landscaping Bob, Thank you for meeting with me and Mike Willard of SE Group on Thursday January 15, 2015 15th to discuss the landscape plan for Bartlett Brook Apartments. I am in agreement that the ornamental grasses and perennials will enhance the landscape and should qualify for credit in the landscaping budget. The fact that many of these plants will be used in bio retention areas should make their use even more desirable. Feel free to contact me if I can be of further assistance. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist 2. Staff considers this criterion to be met however the Board should decide if they agree that the value of these four elements can be used towards meeting the landscaping requirements, only partially so or not at all. The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff in an email dated December 19, 2014. Notes • #5 include parking lot islands in planting beds and specify a depth of 3 ft • #6 change to state that species substitutions must be approved by the City of South Burlington • Need to specify locations of different plant species on the plans Tree Planting Detail • Specify a depth of 3 ft. in parking lot islands • Detail refers to a soil preparation specification for planting mix but I couldn’t find it in the plans. Listing the specification in the planting detail would be simpler 3. The applicant should comply with the Arborist’s recommendations. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. The only modifications requested are a height waiver of 12 feet as noted above and a waiver to Section 13.04 A.(1) noted below to allow the placement of a proposed pool in the front yard of the building. 13.04 Swimming Pools A. General Restrictions. Swimming pools may be allowed, subject to the following provisions: (1) No pool shall be constructed in a required front yard. (2) No pool shall be closer than ten feet as measured from water's edge to any side or rear yard lot lines (3) Any lighting in conjunction with the pool shall be so situated that there is no direct glare beyond lot line. (4) Every in-ground swimming pool shall be completely enclosed by a wall, fence, or other substantial structure not less than four (4) feet in height measured on the outside of the enclosure. No openings other than doors and gates with any dimensions greater than four inches shall be permitted therein except that picket fences may be erected or maintained having horizontal spacing CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch between pickets not more than four (4) inches. All gates or door opening through such enclosures shall be equipped with self-closing and self-latching devices capable of remaining securely closed at all times when not in actual use; provided however, that the door of any residence forming any part of the enclosure need not be so equipped. Any self-latching device accessible from the outside of the pool enclosure shall be located at least four (4) feet above the ground or otherwise equally inaccessible to small children. (5) A natural barrier, hedge, or other protective device approved by the Administrative Officer may be used in place of the above as long as the degree of protection afforded by the substituted devices or structures is not less than the aforementioned protection by the enclosure, gate and latch. All above-ground pools shall bar step access when not in use. (6) No poolhouse or structure accessory to the pool shall be used for habitation or for home occupation. The proposed pool is clearly compliant with standards (2) through (5). It is the staff’s opinion that within the context of the overall PUD the pool can be considered to not be in a front yard for several reasons. First, the lot is located within the PUD and the adjacent 1.0 acre commercial lot when developed will screen the pool from Shelburne Road. Second, the pool is located approximately 240 ft. from Shelburne Road. 4. The Board should confirm that the area of the pool’s location is in compliance with the front yard standard. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The applicant shall obtain 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch 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 Department of Public Works provided its comments in an email to staff dated December 17, 2014 as follows: From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 3:39 PM To: ray Subject: Bartlett Brook Apartments - #SD-14-39 Ray, I reviewed the plans for the Bartlett Brook Apartments, 1690 Shelburne Road, prepared by WCE, PLC last revised on 12/1/14 and have the following comments to offer. 1. Sheet C2.0 - The sidewalk, where it crosses the project driveway at Route 7, shall continue through the driveway and be 8" thick. 2. Sheet C2.0 - What is the depth of the water line just to the west of Proposed CB#9 as it crosses the storm line about 13' west of CB#9? The HDPE inverts listed on C2.3 show a storm system with a depth of ~6', which is approximate to the standard depth for water lines. 3. Sheet C2.0 - The applicant shall include a stop sign and stop bar where the project driveway meets Route 7, stopping westbound traffic. There is a "Proposed Sign" note near this location, but the plans contain no further detail on this. 4. Sheet C2.0 - Are there ADA ramps on each side of the driveway where the sidewalk crosses it adjacent to the "Proposed Concrete Pad Grilling Area"? This crossing creates a mid-block pedestrian crossing which needs to include supporting crosswalk markings, ADA ramps and MUTCD approved signs. 5. Sheet C2.0 - Near the southwest corner of the parking lot to the east of the proposed building, in a small area, a hydrant, street light and catch basin are shown. Does enough room exist in this small space for these items and their appurtenances? 6. Sheet C3.1 - All curb areas along the main driveway shall have a 7" reveal. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and let me know if you have any questions. Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer 5. The applicant should comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer; staff recommends these be addressed at final plat. The relevant portion of Section 15 of the LDRs is as follows: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. If the DRB finds that a roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the connector roadway to the property line or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection. (a) In any such application, the DRB shall require sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated to accommodate two (2) lanes of vehicle travel, City utilities, and a ten-foot wide grade-separated recreation path. Staff has discussed future connectivity with the applicant. At this time, a roadway right-of-way pursuant to (a) above is not recommended by staff. However, the applicant has agreed to provide an access easement to allow public use of the private road/driveway to access that parcel should it be developed. 6. See discussion under section (A)(8) below. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. Most of the project area is already cleared. Selective clearing of understory growth is proposed to occur near the proposed common grill & picnic area. 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 landscaping or other measures to absorb runoff in the area to the south of the driveway abutting or within the Protection Buffer so as to compensate for the loss of understory. 7. The Board should discuss whether additional landscaping or landscaping shifted from elsewhere within the property should be placed adjacent to or within the Bartlett Brook Surface Water Protection Buffer. (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. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch The project will not intrude into the stream buffer areas or impact contiguous open spaces. Some wooded area along the eastern edge of the parcel (which abuts a wooded area on the adjacent parcel) will be maintained. Staff 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 8. The applicant shall comply with the Fire Department’s recommendations. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The presence of Bartlett Brook to the south and the UVM Horticultural Farms likely precludes extension of such services. An existing sidewalk connecting to the Berman property to the north is proposed to remain. Staff considers this criterion to have been met. Staff recommends that in lieu of a future street right-of-way (ROW) comprising a two-lane road and a pedestrian path connecting the adjacent property to the east, that the applicant provide an access easement through lot #2, which would facilitate a connection through the adjacent property and then east to Green Mountain Drive. The applicant has agreed. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch 9. The Board should discuss the proposal to have a public access easement to the property to the east. (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. As noted above in (A) (3), the proposed sidewalk is a welcomed improvement. The plans submitted indicate that this criterion has been met. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The project will expand housing options in the area especially for those who work in the Shelburne Road area and are in need of rental housing. Staff considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO) This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District In an email to staff dated December 23, 2014, the Department of Public Works provided the following comments to Staff. From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:32 PM To: Justin Rabidoux Subject: Comments on Bartlett Brook Apartments Justin, I reviewed plans for the Bartlett Brook Apartments project that were prepared by Wilson Consulting Engineers, PLC, dated 1/6/14 and last revised on 12/1/14. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and stormwater construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction. The applicant is encouraged to coordinate with the City when obtaining these permits. 2. 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 provide hydrologic modeling for the 1 year, 24 hour storm event so that conformance with section 12.03C of the LDRs can be evaluated. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_09_PizzagalliProperties_1690ShelburneRd_sketch 3. The applicant should provide hydrologic modeling for the project in a future submission. Modeling should include information sufficient to evaluate the treatment provided by the proposed stormwater pond, infiltration trench, and bio-retention areas. The modeling must include information related to the 25 year, 24 hour storm event (4.0 inches of rain), so that compliance with Articles 12.03E and 15.13F of the City's LDRs can be evaluated. 4. All curb cut drainage inlets must be clearly shown/labeled. 5. An emergency spillway is not specified on the proposed stormwater pond. Where would water flow during a 100 year storm event or in the event that the pond outlet fails? 6. Class 2 wetlands are located on the property. Impacts to these wetlands are only allowed if the State of Vermont issues a Conditional Use Determination (CUD). 7. How would residents access the proposed community garden and tennis courts? 8. Additional impervious area is associated with the tennis court and parking. Where will treatment / detention of this runoff be provided? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works 10. The applicant is in discussions with DPW on these issues and has indicated that they will be resolved prior to Final Plat. OTHER – Site amenities Staff notes that the applicant has included a variety of project amenities (pool, deck, fire pit, tennis court, community garden, and grill area) which are not required per the regulations, and is supportive of each. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing.. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Copy to: Robert Bouchard, Pizzagalli Properties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roperty Plan - Green Mountain Power Corp.",dated September 1967, by Webster-Martin, Inc. Map Sl ides88.2 and 88.4 of South Burlington Land Records (SBLR).B. "National L ife Insurance Co.",12 June 1973, byWebster-Martin. Slide 101.3, SBLR.C. "Overall Site Plan - Staybridge Suites Lot 11", lastrevised 7 August 2000, by Krebs & Lansing Consu lt ingEngineers, Inc. Slide 381.5, SBLR.D. "Boundary Retracement Survey ... MDTPartnership, LLP", last dated 26 July 2010, by ButtonProfessional Land Surveyors, PC. Map Slide 546.3 SBLR.E."R.O.W. Plans - Shelburne-So. Burlington Proj.F-EGC-019-4(19)",circa 2002, by VTrans. Of record inDistrict Engineer's Office."./.9.6,.!4*;:79!4*6:1. Purpose of this survey and plat is to: a.) retrace, monument and document the exterior boundar ies oflands conveyed to Kurt V. Reichelt Revocable Trust by two (2) deeds of Kurt V. Reichelt, dated July 24, 1997and recorded in Vol. 415 Pg. 131 and Vol. 415 Pg. 134 of the South Burlington Land Records; and b.) depictthe proposed lot lines, rights-of-way, and easements of a proposed 2-lot PUD. Other property lines andnames of abutters shown are for reference only, and are not embraced by the certification statement below.2. Field survey was conducted during May-June 2013 and consisted of a closed traverse utilizing anelectronic total station. Bearings shown are referenced to Grid North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983,based on our GPS observations on or near the site.3. Corner markers set / proposed consist of 4" square concrete monuments with aluminum caps stamped"Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597", typically set flush with ground.#<9=.@7;.:#.*4.0.6-92-79;1#..7;. Pole & guy easement deedsrecorded in Vol. 395 Pg. 117 andVol. 415 Pg. 202 call for polesnumbered 53 & 53-30. in the fieldthe poles are numbered 52 and52-30.*:.5.6;7;.APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE ____ DAY OF _____________, 2014,SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 20__,BY _____________________________, CHAIRPERSON." '<9=.:#179;26.: DATE: 11.12.14SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTBARTLETT BROOK APARTMENTSCOPYRIGHT © 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDUNCAN • WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTUREA Professional CorporationPRELIMINARY PLATD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRBURLINGTON, VERMONTT: 802.864.669305401SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREETA2-2.0255FIRST FLOOR178'6"SECOND FLOOR188'10"THIRD FLOOR199'2"FOURTH FLOOR209'6"BASEMENT168'2"ROOF219'10"WEST ELEVATIONSScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"3SOUTH ELEVATIONScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"4FIRST FLOOR178'6"SECOND FLOOR188'10"THIRD FLOOR199'2"FOURTH FLOOR209'6"BASEMENT168'2"ROOF219'10" DATE: 11.12.14SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTBARTLETT BROOK APARTMENTSCOPYRIGHT © 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDUNCAN • WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTUREA Professional CorporationPRELIMINARY PLATD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRBURLINGTON, VERMONTT: 802.864.669305401SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREETA2-1.0255NORTH ELEVATIONScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"2FIRST FLOOR178'6"SECOND FLOOR188'10"THIRD FLOOR199'2"FOURTH FLOOR209'6"BASEMENT168'2"ROOF219'10"PAINTED VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT, COLOR 1METAL TRIM 1.5"METAL TRIM 3.5"TYPICAL ROOF PROFILE, METAL DRIP EDGE w/ PAINTED TRIMROOF BRACKETPAINTED VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT, COLOR 2PAINTED FIBER CEMENT PANEL, COLOR 2PAINTED HORIZONTAL FIBER CEMENT, COLOR 2PAINTED FIBER CEMENT PANEL, COLOR 1PAINTED HORIZONTAL FIBER CEMENT, COLOR 1PAINTED METAL BALCONY RAILINGEXTERIOR FIBERGLASS DOOR w/ LITEFIBERGLASS WINDOWSWOOD ACCENT SIDING & TRIMCONCRETE FOUNDATION OR INSULATION PROTECTION SYSTEMESTIMATED GRADE TAKEN 6' AWAY FROM BUILDINGTYPICAL MATERIAL LISTEAST ELEVATIONScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR178'6"SECOND FLOOR188'10"THIRD FLOOR199'2"FOURTH FLOOR209'6"BASEMENT168'2"ROOF219'10" DATE: 11.12.14BARTLETT BROOK APARTMENTSCOPYRIGHT © 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDDUNCAN • WISNIEWSKI ARCHITECTUREA Professional CorporationSOUTH BURLINGTON, VTP1PRELIMINARY PLATD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRAERUTCETIHCRD u n c a nW i s n i e w s k iAERUTCETIHCRBURLINGTON, VERMONTT: 802.864.669305401SOUTH CHAMPLAIN STREET255 40'20'10'0GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=20'1" = 20'MKWMKWLIGHTING PLANLA-200ByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:11.19.14BARTLETT BROOKAPARTMENTSSouth Burlington, Vermont802.660.6800Burlington, VT 05401346 Shelburne Road - Suite 601DeveloperPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersFIXTURE AND POLE SPECIFICATIONSManufacturer: Cooper Lighting1McGraw Edison-GleonBLACKOptions:Pole:Color:Fixture:Configuration:Optics:Lamp:PSSA4M20W (20' Pole)T3Fixture A: LED 4,000KManufacturer: KIM LightingCB32 - Compact BollardFixture:Lamp:Fixture C: 15watt LED 4,200KManufacturer: Cooper Lighting1McGraw Edison-GleonBLACKOptions:Pole:Color:Fixture:Configuration:Optics:Lamp:PSSA4M20W (20' Pole)T3Fixture B: LED 4,000KBLACKColor:Notes:1. Fixture labels with an * are on 30" raised polebases. Poles will need to be fabricated so allmounting heights from finished grade areconsistent at 20'.ISO-CONTOUR KEYISO-CONTOUR FOOTCANDLE VALUE1.000.500.25Grid Units: FootcandlesGrid Type: Horizontal IlluminanceAveMaxSTATISTICAL AREA SUMMARYAve/MinMinMax/MinPARKING LOT 1.43 4.40 0.10 14.30 44.00ENTRY ROAD 1.46 3.70 0.10 14.60 37.00 40'20'10'0GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=20'1" = 20'MKWMKWLANDSCAPE PLANLA-101ByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:11.19.14BARTLETT BROOKAPARTMENTSSouth Burlington, Vermont802.660.6800Burlington, VT 05401346 Shelburne Road - Suite 601DeveloperPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and Planners 80'40'20'0GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=40'1" = 40'MKWMKWLANDSCAPE PLANLA-100ByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:11.19.14BARTLETT BROOKAPARTMENTSSouth Burlington, Vermont802.660.6800Burlington, VT 05401346 Shelburne Road - Suite 601DeveloperPIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and Planners1 Adjusted plan per RFI 0017 10/22/13 mkwPLANT LISTKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZEREMARKSTREES:AG Amelanchier grandiflora 'Robin Hill' Serviceberry 9 2-2.5" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.AR Acer freemani 'Sienna Glenn' Red Maple 11 2.5-3" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.AS Acer saccharum 'Green Mountain' Sugar Maple 11 2.5-3" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.BN Betula nigra 'Heritage' River Birch 10 14-16' Tall B&B, Multi StemPGa Picea glauca White Spruce 4 8-10' B&B, FullPGb Picea glauca White Spruce 8 6-7' B&B, FullZS Zelkova serata 'Green Vase' Japanese Zelkova 17 2.5-3" Cal. B&B, 6' Branching Ht.SHRUBS:CS Cornus sericea 'Isanti' Red Twig Dogwood 39 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 60" o.c.HP Hydrangea paniculata 'Pinky Winky' Pinky Winky Hydrangea 14 30-36" Wide C.G., Plant 48" o.c.IJ Ilex verticillata 'Jim Dandy' Winterberry Holly 5 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 30" o.c.IV Ilex verticillata 'Red Sprite' Winterberry Holly 26 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 30" o.c.RA Rhus aromatica 'Gro Low' Dwarf Fragrant Sumac 106 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 48" o.c.SD Salix discolor Pussy Willow 29 24-30" Wide B&B, Plant 36" o.c.ORNAMENTAL GRASSES:CA Calamagrostis acutiflora stricta 'Karl Forester' Feather Reed Grass 386 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 24" o.c.DC Deschampsia cespitosa 'Schottland' Tufted Hair Grass 56 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 24" o.c.HO Helicotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass 91 1 Gal. C.G., Plant 18" o.c.MS Miscanthus sinensis gracillimus Maiden Grass 62 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 48" o.c.PH Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Fountain Grass 59 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 30" o.c.PV Panicum virgatum 'Shenandoah' Shenandoah Switch Grass 35 2 Gal. C.G., Plant 30" o.c.PERENNIALS:AI Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 100 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.CH Chrysanthemum x superbum 'Becky' Becky Shasta Daisy 25 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.EP Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower 25 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.EJ Eupatorium purpureum Joe-Pye Weed 55 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.HS Hemerocallis 'Stella Doro' Stella Dora Daylily 68 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.IE Iris versicolor Blue Flag Iris 35 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.RF Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldstrum' Blackeyed Susan 160 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.SL Salvia x superba 'May Night' May Night Salvia 25 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.ST Sedum 'Autumn Joy' Sedum 177 1 Gal. C.G. Plant 18" o.c.PERENNIALS:Seed Mix-B Wet Meadow/Detention Basin Mix (Vermont Wetland Supply, Co.) Apply at a rate of 1lb per 1,200sfNOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES FOUND IN THE PLANTING PLANS. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.2. FINAL LAYOUT AND PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS AND LAWN DETAIL.4. REFER TO DRAWING LA-102 FOR PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION DETAILS.5. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS, COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL TO DEPTH SPECIFIED IN DETAILS AND SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION.6. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES, ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING.7. FOR SOIL BACKFILL IN THE RAIN GARDEN BASINS, REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS. (Z$ & (Z% & $G% $ 9H% ' 9H( ' %O% % ϮϴϰϵKdZKKd͕sdϬϱϲϰϳd>͗;ϴϬϮͿϰϳϮͲϯϵϲϬǁǁǁ͘ǁĐĞͲĐŽ͘ĐŽŵŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕W>tŝůƐŽŶ ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐKWzZ/',dϮϬϭϰĐ35(/,0,1$5< ϮϴϰϵKdZKKd͕sdϬϱϲϰϳd>͗;ϴϬϮͿϰϳϮͲϯϵϲϬǁǁǁ͘ǁĐĞͲĐŽ͘ĐŽŵŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕W>tŝůƐŽŶ ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐKWzZ/',dϮϬϭϰĐ35(/,0,1$5< ϮϴϰϵKdZKKd͕sdϬϱϲϰϳd>͗;ϴϬϮͿϰϳϮͲϯϵϲϬǁǁǁ͘ǁĐĞͲĐŽ͘ĐŽŵŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕W>tŝůƐŽŶ ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐKWzZ/',dϮϬϭϰĐ35(/,0,1$5< ϮϴϰϵKdZKKd͕sdϬϱϲϰϳd>͗;ϴϬϮͿϰϳϮͲϯϵϲϬǁǁǁ͘ǁĐĞͲĐŽ͘ĐŽŵŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕W>tŝůƐŽŶ ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐKWzZ/',dϮϬϭϰĐ35(/,0,1$5< ϮϴϰϵKdZKKd͕sdϬϱϲϰϳd>͗;ϴϬϮͿϰϳϮͲϯϵϲϬǁǁǁ͘ǁĐĞͲĐŽ͘ĐŽŵŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐ͕W>tŝůƐŽŶ ŽŶƐƵůƚŝŶŐKWzZ/',dϮϬϭϰĐ35(/,0,1$5< 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: SP-14-60 88 Technology Park Way DATE: January 20, 2015 Development Review Board meeting At the last hearing on the proposed building at 88 Technology Park Way, the only outstanding item for review related to traffic. The applicant has provided a traffic analysis dated January 14, 2015 enclosed. Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works, reviewed the analysis and provided the following comments on January 15, 2015. From: Justin Rabidoux Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 2:49 PM To: Paul Conner Cc: Evan Langfeldt; Abby A. Dery, P.E.; Dan Albrecht Subject: 88 Tech Park Way - Traffic Study Paul, I have reviewed the traffic study for the proposed 54,459 square foot office building at 88 Technology Park Way, prepared on 1/14/15 by Trudell Consulting Engineers on behalf of the applicant, Technology Park Campus, LLC, and have the below comments to offer. 1. Growth Factor: I agree with the study’s use of no traffic growth factor for background traffic in the build year when projecting past year’s data forward into the study. In fact, recent work conducted by the City elsewhere has shown average annual daily traffic reductions, so using a zero growth factor is a proper, conservative way to best forecast this project’s traffic impacts. 2. Project Generated Traffic: I agree with the study’s methodology of using the existing, identical building to the west to arrive at a trip generation amount of 77 cars in the PM peak hour. This represents a more accurate measurement when compared to using the ITE Trip Generation Manual since the office building located at 124 Technology Park Way is a direct analog to the proposed use. The Manual, while appropriate to use in many cases when better alternatives are not available, gathers data from around the country and groups that data into sets of wide ranges with unknown variables. 3. Level of Service: When the City installed the referenced four-way stop sign at Kimball Avenue and Community Way a few years ago it was done in direct response to valid safety concerns. In doing so, it was a reasonable expectation that the new stop signs would result in mainline (Kimball Avenue) delays, 2 since the prior condition was mainline free flow. Accordingly, as I was then, I remain comfortable today with the intersection’s congestion and its level of service, which this project is estimated to lower from a D to an E. Ultimately, in the future the City will have to consider its transportation network in the greater Community Drive area (and possible connections to the Tilley Drive/Hinesburg Road area) if its build out continues and at that time plan for necessary traffic flow improvements. These improvements could be traffic signals, dual traffic circles at both Community Drive intersections, consideration of one- way street system, parallel service roads, etc. 4. Conclusion: I support the study’s conclusion that this project’s traffic will “negligibly impact the area’s traffic operations” and find further that this project will not result in undue, adverse impacts on South Burlington’s transportation network. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer City of South Burlington Recommendation: The Board should review the information provided by the applicant and Director of Public Works and should close the site plan application once it is satisfied. No other outstanding items remain. Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers 1 January 14, 2015 Development Review Board City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: 88 Technology Park Way Traffic Impact Dear DRB: Technology Park Campus, LLC is seeking approval for a new building with 54,459 square feet of office space and 200 employees to be located on Lot 3 in Technology Park, or 88 Technology Park Way. The private Technology Park Way intersects Community Drive East, a public street, approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Kimball Avenue, Gregory Drive, and Community Drive East. The purpose of this report is to analyze the impact of the traffic generated by the proposed project. Included are an analysis of the Tech Park Way/Community Dr. East intersection, and an analysis of the Kimball Ave/Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr. intersection, as an excess of 75 PM peak hour trips are anticipated to route through the intersection. Existing Conditions Background traffic volumes in the vicinity of the proposed project were determined using data from Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) stations. The following table contains the ATR station number and the corresponding annual average daily traffic (AADT) in vehicles per day (vpd) for the most recent year that a count has taken place. Figure 2 is a map of the physical locations of each ATR. D450 D451 SOBR60 D412 SOBR56 Figure 2: ATR Station Locations N Figure 1: Location Map Kimball Ave Tech Park Way 2 Table 1: AADT at ATR Stations ATR Year AADT Location D412 2004 9,500 vpd Kimball Ave, just east of Community Dr. East 2009 9,700 vpd D451 2005 7,700 vpd Kimball Ave, between Shunpike and Comm. West 2013 9,800 vpd D450 2005 11,300 vpd Kimball Ave, west of Community Drive West 2013 10,600 vpd SOBR56 2003 1,600 vpd Gregory Drive SOBR 60 2003 830 vpd Shunpike Dr. 2008 700 vpd Traffic growth rates within the study area over the past 10-years, as determined from historic data at local VTrans and CCRPC Automatic Traffic Recording Stations (ATR), vary station to station. Overall, per VTrans Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis (2013), traffic growth on urban roadways has leveled, so no growth factor was applied to project to a future build year. Trudell Consulting Engineers performed a manual Turning Movement Count (TMC) at the Community East & Kimball Avenue intersection on 12/5/2014 to determine the background traffic distribution. The overall PM peak hour for the study is from 4:30 to 5:30 PM. Turning movement short counts are generally adjusted to correspond to the design hour volume (DHV) for each intersection approach using VTrans’ DHV Determination Based on AADTs and Highway Class-General Highway. Approach volumes exceeded the calculated DHV, and therefore an adjustment factor was applied to the short count volumes. Technology Park Way is a private street. Both Community Drive and Kimball Avenue are public roads under the jurisdiction of the City of South Burlington. Existing traffic generators within Technology Park are 124 Tech Park Way: a 54,459 square foot commercial building, 30 Community Drive: a 275,000 commercial complex, and a 65,000 sq. ft. commercial building located at 55 Community Drive. Traffic from these properties was captured during the recent turning movement count. Project Generated Traffic Project-generated traffic for the proposed office building was determined using a local trip generation rate developed for the site. Peak hour traffic data was collected from the existing 54,459 sq. ft. office building located at 124 Tech Park Way for a period of one work week. The peak hour trips generated ranged from 69 trips to 90 trips, the average being 77. Distribution is expected to be 7 vehicles entering and 70 vehicles exiting. Table 2: PM Peak Hour Project-Generated Traffic Enter Exit Total enter%exit% 5-Jan-15 7 83 90 8%92% 6-Jan-15 6 66 72 8%92% 7-Jan-15 8 72 80 10%90% 8-Jan-15 5 66 71 7%93% 9-Jan-15 3 66 69 4%96% Avg 77 8%92% 3 It is anticipated that the new building, being identical in size and use, will generate roughly the same level of peak hour traffic. Employing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies reduces the peak hour volume of project-generated trips. Encouraging carpools, transit use, allowing alternative work schedules or staggered scheduling would contribute to a reduction in trips. The building is sited on a bus route – accessible both via Community Drive and Kimball Avenue. Additionally, there is an existing shared-use path along the property’s frontage. This infrastructure encourages alternative transportation modes and will also result in fewer peak hour trips. Traffic Distribution Distribution of vehicle trips from project-generated traffic was determined using analogy to the short count. Given the short distance between Technology Park Way and the Kimball Ave/Community Drive East intersection, it is assumed that most, if not all, vehicles will access the site via Community East. The diagrams below illustrate the estimated turning movement distribution at the study intersections. Gregory Drive 1 Kimball Ave. 4 Kimball Ave. 2 33 5 32 7 70 Community Drive East N 70 7 Technology Park Way Figure 3: Project-Generated Trip Distribution 4 Level of Service Vehicle delay, level of service (LOS), volume to capacity ratio (v/c ratio), and 95th percentile queue length were calculated at the intersections using Synchro8 w/ 2010 HCM methodology. A peak hour factor of 1.0 with a 60 minute analysis period was used, as recommended by VTrans. Level of service grades correspond directly to a range of vehicular delay at intersection approaches. The following table describes the delay range, in seconds per vehicle, for each grade of LOS. Table 3: Level of Service Descriptions -Unsignalized Level of Service Control Delay A < 10 B >10 and < 15 C >15 and <25 D >25 and <35 E >35 and <50 F >50 The table below shows the results of the analysis for Technology Park Way and Community Drive. As indicated in the tables, the intersection has adequate capacity for the addition of project-generated traffic. Level of service on the stop controlled side street remains a B under “Build” conditions and there will be no change to delay on Community Drive. Table 4: Intersection Analysis – Technology Park Way/Community Dr. 2015 No-Build 2015 Build Approach Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Approach Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Eastbound 10.9 B 0.106 0.4 11.8 B 0.211 0.8 Northbound 7.4 A 0.001 0 7.4 A 0.001 0 The nearby intersection of Kimball Avenue and Community Drive was also analyzed to determine existing operations as well as impact of new trips. This intersection currently experiences delays on the westbound approach nearing the 50-second threshold for Level of Service “F” during the peak hour. The 4-way stop, while increasing safety, greatly reduces capacity on Kimball Avenue which experiences at least twice the traffic volume of Community East and Gregory Drive during the peak hour. Per the analysis results, with or without traffic from the proposed project, the intersection experiences peak hour delay and queues at the east and westbound approaches. Overall intersection delay is 32.5, or a “D”. The addition of project-generated traffic will increase delay by 7 seconds to 39.5 s, or an “E”. 5 Table 5: Intersection Analysis –Kimball Avenue/ Community Dr. East 2015 No-Build 2015 Build Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Overall Delay (s) LOS v/c ratio Queue Overall EB 31.9 D 0.781 9 32.5 s “D” 38.9 E 0.820 10.8 39.5 s “E” WB 50 E 0.876 14.5 65.3 F 0.917 17.5 NB 15.1 C 0.368 1.7 17.3 C 0.454 2.5 SB 15.5 C 0.334 1.5 16.6 C 0.354 1.6 Table 6: Net Change Summary Delay Queue Overall Eastbound +7 sec delay + 1.8 veh +7 s delay Westbound +15.3 sec delay +3 veh Northbound +2.2 sec delay +0.8 veh Southbound +1.1 sec delay +0.1 veh Safety The installation of stop control on Kimball Avenue reduced capacity significantly. However, the crash severity is reduced and safety increased by not allowing free- flowing traffic on Kimball Avenue. A review of the VTrans High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections 2008-2012 indicates that the intersection of Kimball and Community Drive is not a High Crash Location. Conclusion The proposed 54,459 sq. ft. office building located at 88 Technology Park Way will generate approximately 70 PM Peak Hour vehicle trips, based on a local trip generation rate. Traffic operations at the Technology Park Way/ Community Drive intersection are negligibly impacted by the proposed project. An analysis of the nearby intersection of Kimball Avenue & Community Drive East indicates that the 4-way stop controlled intersection does currently experience delay and queueing on the east and westbound approaches. The addition of project- generated traffic to the intersection will incrementally increases delay and queueing, but will not significantly change the overall level of operation of the intersection. New trips account for approximately 5% of total traffic entering the intersection. 6 Infrastructure is in place to encourage alternative commuting options and employing additional TDM strategies such as carpools and staggered scheduling will contribute to fewer peak hour trips. The City of South Burlington is working with the Regional Planning Commission on extending the shared use path into Williston to the east. Technology Park Campus will continue to work with the City of South Burlington on monitoring the intersection and future traffic improvement projects. Sincerely, TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS (TCE) Abigail Dery, P.E. Project Engineer Encl. HCM Analysis Summary cc. Evan Langfeldt HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM No-Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 32.5 Intersection LOS D Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 45 361 25 0 38 425 15 0 156 28 143 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 45 361 25 0 38 425 15 0 156 28 143 Number of Lanes 011001100110 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 31.9 50 15.1 HCM LOS D E C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 29% Vol Thru, % 0% 16% 0% 94% 0% 97% 7% Vol Right, % 0% 84% 0% 6% 0% 3% 64% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 156 171 45 386 38 440 145 LT Vol 156 0 45 0 38 0 42 Through Vol 0 28 0 361 0 425 10 RT Vol 0 143 0 25 0 15 93 Lane Flow Rate 156 171 45 386 38 440 145 Geometry Grp 7777776 Degree of Util (X) 0.366 0.348 0.098 0.778 0.081 0.877 0.336 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.444 7.326 7.818 7.257 7.717 7.179 8.343 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 424 487 456 494 462 502 434 Service Time 6.238 5.119 5.608 5.047 5.505 4.967 6.343 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.368 0.351 0.099 0.781 0.082 0.876 0.334 HCM Control Delay 16.1 14.1 11.5 34.3 11.2 53.3 15.5 HCM Lane LOS C B B D B F C HCM 95th-tile Q 1.7 1.6 0.3 9 0.3 14.5 1.5 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM No-Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 42 10 93 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 Mvmt Flow 0 42 10 93 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 15.5 HCM LOS C Lane HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 1 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 39.5 Intersection LOS E Movement EBU EBL EBT EBR WBU WBL WBT WBR NBU NBL NBT NBR Vol, veh/h 0 45 361 27 0 42 425 15 0 189 33 175 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %222222222222 Mvmt Flow 0 45 361 27 0 42 425 15 0 189 33 175 Number of Lanes 011001100110 Approach EB WB NB Opposing Approach WB EB SB Opposing Lanes 2 2 1 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB Conflicting Lanes Left 1 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 1 2 HCM Control Delay 38.9 65.3 17.3 HCM LOS E F C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 29% Vol Thru, % 0% 16% 0% 93% 0% 97% 8% Vol Right, % 0% 84% 0% 7% 0% 3% 64% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 189 208 45 388 42 440 146 LT Vol 189 0 45 0 42 0 42 Through Vol 0 33 0 361 0 425 11 RT Vol 0 175 0 27 0 15 93 Lane Flow Rate 189 208 45 388 42 440 146 Geometry Grp 7777776 Degree of Util (X) 0.456 0.437 0.102 0.818 0.094 0.917 0.355 Departure Headway (Hd) 8.695 7.57 8.283 7.716 8.168 7.628 8.745 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 416 478 435 473 441 480 413 Service Time 6.406 5.281 5.983 5.416 5.868 5.328 6.759 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.454 0.435 0.103 0.82 0.095 0.917 0.354 HCM Control Delay 18.7 16.1 11.9 42 11.7 70.4 16.6 HCM Lane LOS C C B E B F C HCM 95th-tile Q 2.5 2.3 0.3 10.8 0.3 17.5 1.6 HCM 2010 AWSC 3: Community Dr. East/Gregory Dr & Kimball Ave 1/15/2015 2015 PM Build 12/15/2014 Baseline Synchro 8 Light Report AAD Page 2 Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh Intersection LOS Movement SBU SBL SBT SBR Vol, veh/h 0 42 11 93 Peak Hour Factor 100 100 100 100 Heavy Vehicles, %2222 Mvmt Flow 0 42 11 93 Number of Lanes 0010 Approach SB Opposing Approach NB Opposing Lanes 2 Conflicting Approach Left WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 Conflicting Approach Right EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 HCM Control Delay 16.6 HCM LOS C Lane VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATIONPolicy, Planning and Intermodal Development DivisionTraffic Research UnitBEGINNING REFERENCE: ENDING REFERENCE:Scheduled TYPE NO. NAME FC TOWNMM NAMENUMBER MM NAMENUMBERATR2005AADT2009AADT2013AADTFAU 5715 HINESBURG ROAD 16 SHELBURNE0.000 HINESBURG TL0.910 DORSET ST EXT FAU 57102300 A 2200 A 2400 EFAU 5716 IRISH HILL RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 THOMPSON RD TH 13 0.480SPEAR STFAU 57207500 E 4500 E 4700 EFAU 5716 IRISH HILL RD16 SHELBURNE0.480 SPEAR STFAU 5720 1.560 DORSET STFAU 5710 D343 4400 E 2800 A 3500 AFAU 5718 MARSETT RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 SHELBURNE RD US 7 0.350 FALLS RDFAU 57124700 E 4400 E 4400 EFAU 5720SPEAR ST17 SHELBURNE0.000 CHARLOTTE TL0.390 THOMAS STFAU 57211800 E 1800 E 1900 EFAU 5720SPEAR ST16 SHELBURNE0.390 IRISH HILL RDFAU 5716 1.640 WEBSTER RDFAU 5722 D034 5800 A 3500 A 4100 AFAU 5720SPEAR ST16 SHELBURNE1.640 WEBSTER RDFAU 5722 2.890 BARSTOW RDFAU 5702 D2494900 EFAU 5720SPEAR ST16 SHELBURNE2.890 BARSTOW RDFAU 5702 3.420 S BURLINGTON CLD454 9300 A 5500 A 6100 A(CONTINUES AS FAU 5222)FAU 5721 THOMAS RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 FALLS RDFAU 5712 1.090SPEAR STFAU 5720510 E 650 E 410 EFAU 5722 WEBSTER RD17 SHELBURNE0.000 SHELBURNE RD US 7 1.210SPEAR STFAU 5720 D550 4500 A 2600 A 2700 AFAU 5202 AIRPORT DR16 S BURLINGTON0.000 WILLISTON RDUS 2 0.110 AIRPORT RDTH 89200 E 9400 E 9600 EFAU 5202 AIRPORT DR16 S BURLINGTON0.110 AIRPORT RDTH 8 0.410 ELIZABETH STTH 58 D218 9800 A 9900 A 9900 EFAU 5202 AIRPORT DR16 S BURLINGTON0.410 ELIZABETH STTH 58 0.680 WHITE STFAU 5226 D333 6200 A 6300 A 5700 AFAU 5206 AIRPORT PKWY16 S BURLINGTON0.000 WHITE STFAU 5226 0.380 KIRBY RDFAU 52128000 E 6700 E 7700 EFAU 5206 AIRPORT PKWY16 S BURLINGTON0.380 KIRBY RDFAU 5212 1.390 ETHAN ALLEN DRTH 37 D331 7900 A 6400 A 7400 AFAU 5206 AIRPORT PKWY16 S BURLINGTON1.390 ETHAN ALLEN DR TH 37 1.720 COLCHESTER TLD259 7800 A 7300 A 7300 E(CONTINUES AS FAU 5602)FAU 5207 ALLEN RD17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHELBURNE RD US 7 0.810SPEAR STFAU 5222 D425 4000 A 4100 A 4800 A(BEGINS AS FAU 5708)FAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHELBURNE TL2.300 SWIFT STFAU 5224 D344 5500 A 5000 A 6300 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON2.300 SWIFT STFAU 5224 2.970 KENNEDY DRFAU 9998 D226 10500 A 9200 A 9200 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON2.970 KENNEDY DRFAU 9998 3.710 U-MALL SOUTHD335 14700 A 12500 A 13700 AFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON3.710 U-MALL SOUTH3.853 U-MALL NORTH/MARKET ST FAU 522815500 A 13400 A 12800 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON3.853 U-MALL NORTH/MARKETFAU 5228 3.990 100 DORSET/CHITT. BANK 23200 E 16600 E 15600 EFAU 5208 DORSET ST17 S BURLINGTON3.990 100 DORSET/CHITT. BANK 4.110 WILLISTON RDUS 2 D225 24300 E 14100 E 17500 A(BEGINS AS FAU 5706)FAU 5209 CHEESEFACTORY RD 17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHELBURNE TL0.790 HINESBURG RDVT 116 D067 3900 A 3000 A 3400 AFAU 5211 KIMBALL AVE 17 S BURLINGTON0.000 OLD FARM RDTH 9 0.610 COMMUNITY DRTH 199 D450 11300 A 9800 A 10600 AFAU 5211 KIMBALL AVE 17 S BURLINGTON0.610 COMMUNITY DR TH 199 0.770 SHUNPIKE RDTH 13 D451 7700 A 7400 A 9800 AFAU 5214 KIMBALL AVE 17S BURLINGTON0.000 OLD FARM RD0.050 KENNEDY DR11300 A 11000 E 9900 EFAU 5216 PATCHEN RD17 S BURLINGTON0.000 WILLISTON RDUS 2 0.090 WHITE STFAU 52266300 E 6700 E 6700 EFAU 5216 PATCHEN RD17 S BURLINGTON0.090 WHITE STFAU 5226 1.120 BURLINGTON CLD332 7100 A 6000 A 6700 A(CONTINUES AS FAU 5018)FAU 5220 KIMBALL AVE 17 S BURLINGTON0.000 SHUNPIKE RDTH 13 0.230 WILLISTON TLD412 10700 A 8700 A 8700 EPage 17 of 21 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. Stampul, R. Jerrers, 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: The Regional Planning Commission is considering a “DRB summit” meeting involving all Chittenden County DRBs. There will be more on this in the future. 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. Mr. Rabideau reviewed some landscaping changes including the replacement of the hedge along the south boundary. Some trees that were supposed to stay were removed and have been replaced. The dollar amount remains the same. They are hoping to come in for a Certificate of Occupancy in late January or early February. They want to be sure the record is correct with no obstacles. Mr. Wilking noted that 14” caliper trees are being replaced with 3” caliper and questioned whether this is to avoid the cost of 14” caliper. Mr. Barritt asked who establishes the value of trees. Mr. Rabideau said Craig Lambert originally did. All he gave credit for were some crab apple trees. Mr. Rabideau also stressed that they were very upset when the trees were cut down. The applicant had to buy more trees, so there was no advantage to them. No other issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 16 DECEMBER 2014, PAGE 2 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: Mr. Stampul said this is a duplex lot which they are dividing into two lots. Mr. Belair said staff has no issues. 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: Mr. Barritt noted there is a draft decision which the Board can act on later tonight. Mr. Burke showed where they have revised the elevations to show full porches. They have also split the driveways for units 22, 23, 28 and 29, and there is now a wrap-around porch on unit 25. One driveway comes off Marsh and the other off S. Jefferson. Mr. Burke said they want to add to conditions #16 “…unless approved by the State wetland permit.” He noted that Mr. Belair had made that change. No issues were raised. 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: Ms. Sande said they got approval from the state to build. There is also a revised landscape plan. The state and Mr. Belair wanted more plantings so they did some planting on both sides and a couple of rain gardens. No issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 16 DECEMBER 2014, PAGE 3 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: Mr. O’Leary said they have made some slight changes since sketch review. They are extending the proposed road to the northern boundary line. He showed the roadway system on the plan. He also showed one area that would be kept open and mowed. It would be maintained by the homeowners’ association. The property is located in three zoning districts: Village Residential in front, Neighborhood Residential, and a Natural Resources Protection District in the rear. At final plat, they may propose plantings along the rec path and possibly some fencing. The units will be 25 feet apart, and there will be a variety of designs for the units. They are relinquishing use of the old driveway which will be reseeded. Mr. O’Leary showed where the new driveway will come in. He also showed an area where there might be future development. The homeowners’ association will be responsible for maintaining the stormwater system. The swale has the capacity for a 25-year storm. Public Works has OK’d water, sewer, stormwater and the road. The road will be 24’ wide with 5’ sidewalks. The Fire Chief has approved the hydrant location. Mr. Barritt questioned the road layout. Mr. O’Leary showed where the new drive will come in (they will be buying 5 acres to accommodate that) and where it will connect to the 60-foot right-of-way. There will be a connection to Dorset Farms which Mr. O’Leary indicated. Mr. Barritt asked about the forested wetland area. Mr. O’Leary said it is in the back of the property. Nothing is being proposed there. Mr. Barritt asked if residents will be denied access to that area. Mr. O’Leary said there won’t be fencing, but anyone going back there would be trespassing on someone else’s property. Mr. O’Leary showed the wetland buffer, none of which is on the parcel being developed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 16 DECEMBER 2014, PAGE 4 Mr. Barritt asked about the common area. Mr. O’Leary said it will be kept mowed. It could be a community garden, if the residents want that. Mr. Barritt was concerned with is proximity to Dorset Street if children are playing there. He suggested a possible barrier to keep things from rolling out into the road. Mr. O’Leary suggested a low row of vegetation. Mr. O’Leary said they are glad to meet with the Bike/Pedestrian Path Committee. He noted a possible future connection to the Dorset Farms path. He added that they had no problem giving an easement along their frontage. Mr. Wilking felt the plan was much improved from the last hearing. Mr. O’Leary noted that at final plat they will include elevations, types of materials, etc. Mr. Barritt suggested keeping vents off the south-facing sides of the buildings so as to be solar ready. Mr. Barritt asked if there will be decks. Mr. O’Leary said there will. Mr. Belair noted this counts towards the overall coverage. Mr. O’Leary said if each building had a 2600 sq. ft. footprint, they would still have only 10% coverage. Mr. Barritt suggested lighting on a more pedestrian scale. A neighbor noted the danger of children walking along Dorset St. No other issues were raised. 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: Mr. Langfeldt said this building will mirror the existing building. He showed the access off Community Drive. Mr. Barritt noted there is parking in front of the building because of a utility easement, and there are even more encumbrances on this lot than on the previous one. Mr. Langfeldt said the building will be 3 stories, the same height as the other building. They have increased the setback to allow for the 50-foot height. The Board had no issue with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 16 DECEMBER 2014, PAGE 5 Mr. Barritt questioned the amount of parking and asked if there could be shared parking with the other building. Mr. Langfeldt said that the leases don’t allow for shared parking, and that lot is pretty full. It was noted that in the future there will be spaces set aside for electrical charging. Mr. Wilking noted the increase in parking needs from companies. They are asking for 5-6 spaces per 1000 sq. ft., and the city requires 3.5 spaces. Members were OK with parking. The applicant indicated they will comply with plantings on parking lot islands. Mr. Barritt noted that staff recommends a traffic analysis. 843 peak hour trip ends are proposed. The applicant noted that the Master Plan requires a traffic study at 900 trip ends. Mr. Barritt said he is concerned because there is a Police Station on the other side of Community Drive. He suggested a possible discussion with Chief Whipple. Mr. Langfeldt noted that when they did the first building, they did turning lanes which calmed traffic and mitigated safety issues. Mr. Wilking noted that at his building they can’t get out of the driveway at 4 p.m. because of the stop sign. He felt that Kimball Ave. will need signalization soon. Mr. Barritt said he was willing to have Public Works look at this as a first step. Mr. Langfeldt said Technology Park is not the only cause of traffic at that intersection. He didn’t feel they should foot the whole bill. Mr. Barritt responded that as the “new piece” with proximity to the intersection, they could be the “tipping point,” and the “last one in foots the bill.” He stressed that the Board doesn’t want to make that intersection worse without doing due diligence. Mr. Langfeldt noted the building will be designed to LEED Gold Standard. Other audience members agreed with the traffic concerns especially where Kimball Avenue narrows closer to Williston. No other issues were raised. 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 16 DECEMBER 2014, PAGE 6 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 ______________________________, Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6 JANUARY 2015 1 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 o 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 2 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 3 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 4 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), 5 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 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 _________________________ Date