Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 06/16/2015
SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 16 JUNE 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 June 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, B. Breslend ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Karp, E. Lesser‐Goldsmith, D. Roberts, P. O’Leary, B. Dousevicz, K. Marchessault, S. Murray, A. Irish, C. Craig, P. Irish, Jr., T. McKenzie, J. Palmer, C. & J. Perkins 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. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-15-31 & Design Review Application #DR-15-03 of Tesla Motors to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of: 1) the installation of Tesla Motors Supercharging Station on six existing parking spaces, and 2) the installation of associated support: Mr. Karp explained that Tesla is an electric cars manufacturer producing all-electric vehicles. The Supercharging Stations can enable a car to travel long distances between charges. They are attempting to have charging stations every 75-150 miles. Mr. Karp noted that Healthy Living is a strong advocate for the vision and for the product. The original plan was for 6 “stalls” for Tesla use and 2 for other uses. They want to amend that to a total of 8 “stalls.” These would be back-in stalls, making it easier for plowing (only one spot in front would be a front pull-in spot). Mr. Karp then showed the proposed plan, indicating the location for landscaping and shrubs that will conceal the transformer. They will provide a full landscaping plan for the parcel. Mr. Barritt questioned whether people would use those spaces for parking during high demand periods. Mr. Lesser-Goldsmith said a number of customers already drive electric cars. Since the supercharger charges quite fast, he wasn’t concerned about the peak situations. Members had no issue with the loss of the 8 parking spaces. Mr. Lesser-Goldsmith said they will put the chargers in spaces that are less frequently used. Mr. Belair said more stipulations will be added to reflect the revised plans. Mr. Wilking asked whether this in any way represents a “car dealership” since Tesla is a car dealer. Mr. Belair said it does not. It also does not fall under “service station” use. Mr. Behr asked what will happen down the line when there are other companies manufacturing electric cars. Mr. Karp said they don’t have a protocol yet. They now have a system to know when one of their cars is being charged. He also noted that Tesla is now designing a new model car that can go even further between charges. Mr. Wilking asked whether past fire concerns have been solved. Mr. Karp said they have. Mr. Roberts, coordinator of the “drive electric” effort, spoke in support of the application. He cited lower costs to drive with electric than with gas and fewer emissions. He noted there are other such stations happening in South Burlington which can be used for other makes of electric cars. Mr. Wilking then moved to close #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued 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. Belair advised that the applicant had asked to continue to 21 July. Mr. Behr moved to continue #SD-14-37 to 21 July 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-15-11 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) shifting Russett Road & Puritan Street to minimize wetland intrusions, 2) revising the storm drains so as to connect all footing drains directly into the stormwater system, and 3) residential design review for the single family dwellings on lots #1-#66, 1580 Dorset Street: Mr. O’Leary reviewed the history of Cider Mill II. He said the current plan is very similar to what was approved. They have had a new wetland delineation, and one wetland has shrunk a little while the other has expanded a little. He showed these on the plan. This has resulted in shifting one block to the left 100 feet. The number of units and the roads remain the same. They are asking for approval for the shift in the road. Mr. O’Leary noted that staff made some crosswalk changes and additions of a sidewalk and gazebo in open space area. The application also asks for design review. They are proposing 6 different housing types. The anticipation is that the single family homes will be built in the fall. The multi-family units will be built later on. They have met the Fire Chief’s request regarding the turning radius and have satisfied him that there is enough turning room. The City Arborist is OK with the plans. They propose to use all LED lighting and will meet the standard for heights. Fixtures will look like the ones in Cider Mill I. Mr. Doucevicz spoke to the diversity of building styles. He noted there will be a color grid to determine what will go where. This will be very similar to the design criteria on the Rye project. There will be an “arts & crafts feel” to some of the elevations, and there will be variety in siding selections and various dormer shapes. Homes will be in the 1500 to 3000 sq. ft. range. Mr. Barritt asked that the design of garage doors be varied as well. Mr. Doucevicz said they can do that. Mr. Barritt suggested a minimum number of protrusions, so the units can be solar ready. Mr. Doucevicz said they can upgrade to close to ‘net zero” homes. He explained some of the standards including higher quality windows. Mr. Barritt noted a piece of the road that is not complete. He asked what the plans are for that. Mr. O’Leary said Cider Mill I approval does not require completion of that. Mr. Barritt asked if any traffic calming is being considered before it becomes an issue. Mr. O’Leary said they can look at that. He noted that Cider Mill II has a very narrow road leading in and 2 big curves. He didn’t think traffic calming would be an issue. No other issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close #SD-15-11. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road: Mrs. Perkins said they were not aware that they needed a permit to remove the hedge. She said some of the trees they took down were dead. She also noted that a lot of people were using the shrubbery to hide “potty stops” and drug use. She said it was not a safe place. Mr. Perkins added that the hedge had been there over 30 years. He wants to replace it with a split rail fence similar to what is on the rest of the property. Mr. Perkins noted the property is for sale. Those who have expressed interest in it either want to take down the building or possibly leave it. He said it would be foolish to replace the hedge when new owners will probably want to take it down. Mr. Barritt noted the adjoining property owners are concerned with the loss of screening from the hedge. He noted receipt of 2 letters from property owners to this effect. Mr. Belair also noted a dumpster on the property which would have to be screened. Mr. Perkins said he will have it removed tomorrow. Mr. Perkins said the original hedge was 3-4 feet high when it was put in. It was 30 ft. high when he tore it down. Mr. Irish presented a petition, which was read to the Board, signed by all residents on the street, expressing concern with blocking noise and car lights from their homes. They wanted the torn down hedge to be replaced with one of similar size. Mr. McKenzie, owner of one property, understood what it is like to have a vacant property; however, the hedge did provide a visual and sound barrier from commercial uses and traffic. Mr. Palmer agreed, and said the street is much noisier now. He also felt it would be OK to start the row of trees about 30 feet back from Shelburne Road. Mr. Barritt said that landscaping is an integral part of any commercial development. He suggested continuing the application to another night to discuss how much hedge to replace. Mr. Belair said the Board will have to approve a plan done by a landscape professional, and there will have to be a landscape bond. Members agreed on having the tree-line start at a place equal to the tree line on the Datillio property across the street (about 25 feet further back from where it was). They agreed on a hedge 8 feet high. Mr. Behr moved to continue application #SP-15-29 to 18 August 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-15-30 of S. D. Ireland to amend a previously approved quarry. The amendment consists of expanding the quarry dimensions but not increasing the amount of material to be removed, 1804 South Brownell Road, Williston: Mr. Belair noted that the Town of Williston was made aware that this application was coming before the DRB. Mr. O’Leary said the existing quarry will get deeper, but there will be no increase in the amount of material to be taken out. Their extraction rate is approved by Act 250. The Act 250 permit will be renewed in 2016. They have met with the Williston Selectboard several times and have a permit to run traffic on South Brownell Road year round. There is a monitoring program that looks at the nearby wetland. It is examined every few months. All results have been good. Mr. O’Leary showed an area where they would build a berm for more protections. It would not be seen from the Interstate. Mr. Barritt said he would not like to see a “wall” in what is a scenic area. He did not favor a berm at all. Other members agreed and did not want to lose the existing trees which would have to come down to build the berm. Mr. Belair suggested that staff meet with Act 250 people to see if they will require the berm. If they do, the Board can then figure out where it will be. Mr. O’Leary said they can live without the berm until that decision can be made. He asked for an approval without the berm. No other issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close #SP-15-30. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 2 June 2015: Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 2 June 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Mr. Barritt noted that this is Mr. Breslend’s last meeting and thanked him for the time he has spent on the DRB. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:010 p.m. , Clerk ___________7-7-2015________________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING TESLA MOTORS – 200 & 222 DORSET STREET AND 59 GARDEN STREET SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-31 AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-15-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-15-31 & design review application #DR-15-03 of Tesla Motors to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of: 1) the installation of Tesla Motors Supercharging Station on eight (8) existing parking spaces, and 2) the installation the associated support infrastructure, 200 and 222 Dorset Street & 59 Garden Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 2, 2015. Jesse Karp represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearings and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Site plan application #SP-15-31 & design review application #DR-15-03 of Tesla Motors to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short-order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of: 1) the installation of Tesla Motors Supercharging Station on eight (8) existing parking spaces, and 2) the installation the associated support infrastructure, 200 and 222 Dorset Street & 59 Garden Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Loja Burlington, LLC. 3. The application was received on May 22, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the Central District 1 Zoning District and the City Center Design Review Overlay District 1. 5. The plans submitted consists of a four (4) page set of plans; page one entitled “VT003_South Burlington 222 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT Overall Site Plan”, prepared by Black & Veatch, dated 5/21/15, and last revised on 5/26/15. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 2 CD 1 Zoning District Required/Max Existing (PUD) Min. Lot Size none 5.8 acres (~252,648 SF) Max. Building Coverage 40% 19.0 % Max. Overall Coverage 90% *72.6 % / 72.6% proposed Front Setback (Dorset Street) See below 5 ft. Front Setback (New Street) See below 5 ft. Side Setback See below 5ft. Max. Building Height 35 ft. 27 ft. zoning compliance Note: No rear setbacks; corner property * The proposed utility cabinet (charging pedestals) will be located in a parking island that was completely landscaped and unpaved. The two pedestals will total 10 SF in impervious surface. The proposed transformer also requires a concrete pad of 87.5 SF in size. These installations will increase the total lot coverage by 97.5 SF but the overall increase will be less than 1/10th of 1 percent. 13.18 Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures A. General Requirements. In any district, the Development Review Board may grant site plan approval for the construction of a utility cabinet, according to the following regulations. B. Specific Standards for Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures. (1) The facility shall serve the City of South Burlington and/or immediately adjacent communities. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) The minimum required lot for a public utility cabinet, substation, or communication relay station may be reduced from the zoning district requirements, at the discretion of the Development Review Board. In the event that the facility shall be erected on property not owned by the utility, the Development Review Board shall require that the facility be located unobtrusively. The cabinet and charging stations are located unobtrusively as they are relatively low in height and located towards the rear area of the parking area. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (3) If the parcel containing the facility is landlocked, there shall be a recorded easement or permission granting access to the utility or owner of the facility. The parcel is not landlocked. This criterion is not applicable. (4) There shall be sufficient landscaping with evergreens of sufficient height and density to screen effectively the facility from surrounding property. Landscaping may allow for the use of any doors so long as the door-side of the units are visible from an existing or planned public street. The proposed project locates the utility cabinets for the charging stations on a parking island with existing landscaping. The landscaping will help to screen the cabinets. The provided plans show that the proposed transformer cabinet on the southern edge of the parcel is not screened by landscaping. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 3 The Board finds that the applicant shall revise the plans to add landscaping screening around the transformer cabinet in the form of evergreens of sufficient height and density to screen effectively the facility from surrounding property. (5) There shall be adequate off-street parking for maintenance, service, or other vehicles. The proposed project is located within a parking lot. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (6) The location of the facility shall be shown on all relevant site plans. The plans provided indicated the facility’s location. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (7) The Development Review Board may attach conditions in order to prevent any hazard to the public or noise nuisance to surrounding property. Utility cabinets shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all existing or planned public roads or rights-of-way. The cabinets are located more than five (5) feet from all existing or planned public roads or rights-of- way. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (8) A facility that would be a nuisance to surrounding properties due to smoke, gas, heat, odor, noise, or vibration shall not be permitted in any district. The Board finds that the proposed project will not be a nuisance to surrounding properties and therefore this criterion is met. Central District Requirements 8.01 General Purpose of the Central District The Central District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of a balanced and coordinated mixture of residential, commercial, public and private uses adjacent to Dorset Street that support the city center goals and objectives contained in the Comprehensive Plan. It is designed to promote efficient use of land by concentrating mixed uses within a well-defined Central District. This will provide a pedestrian-oriented circulation network that minimizes vehicular traffic. It also encourages the traditional town center pattern of appropriately scaled buildings facing onto a well-defined and active public street. Innovative site planning and master planning are encouraged to maximize uses, shared parking, public open space and pedestrian amenities which create an aesthetically pleasing and socially active community center on and around Dorset Street. To this end, all applications involving ten (10) or more acres of land in any Central District shall require a Master Plan approval pursuant to Article 15 of these Regulations. 8.02 Establishment of Sub-Districts The Central District is divided into four (4) sub-districts - Central District 1, Central District 2, Central District 3 and Central District 4. Permitted and Conditional Uses and dimensional standards vary by sub-district as established in Sections 8.06 through 8.10 of these Regulations. The subject lot is located within Central District 1. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 4 As such, standards are included below for requirements in all districts, as well as specifically for Central District 1. 8.04 Dimensional Requirements in All Districts A. – D. ………………….. Not applicable E. Parking Requirements (1) The parking requirements of Table 13 are required in the Central District. These standards may be met on-site or off-site if the parking facility is located within seven hundred (700) feet of the main entrance of the establishment and is approved by the Development Review Board. (2) The Development Review Board may accept a contribution to the parking trust fund to establish a municipal parking lot in lieu of parking spaces. The amount of the contribution shall be based on a per space fee set by the City Council. (3) The Development Review Board may further reduce the amount of parking required, up to a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the number of spaces required, in conjunction with an approved master plan upon a showing by the applicant that the master plan includes viable provisions for off-site employee parking and transportation and construction of mass transit stops within the master planned area sufficient to further reduce parking demand. (4) Parking lots located in the centers of blocks shall be connected with openings between lots to allow traffic flow between lots. A total of 334 parking spaces are required for the PUD. Existing parking on the property consists of 271 total parking spaces which is a shortfall of 63 spaces, or 18.6%. The Board granted this waiver in a previous decision. The proposed project would install charging stations to provide access for eight (8) vehicles to be charged. Of these, four (4) spaces would be for use solely by users of the proposed charging stations, and four (4) would be “permissive” spaces which could be used by users of the charging stations or the general public. The Board acknowledges that the four (4) dedicated spaces remain on the property but since they will not be available to all users, and given the present proprietary natural of Tesla charging station, the Board will treat this situation conservatively and consider this as though the four (4) dedicated parking spaces were being removed from the total. Noting that this property is serviced by a transportation bus route and recreation path and has the opportunity for shared parking among its current tenants, the Board hereby grants a parking waiver of 20.0% or 67 spaces resulting in 267 total spaces. This proposal also includes the conversion of four (4) additional spaces with charging stations however these four spaces will be available for general use as well. Three bicycle racks are provided on site. These should be shown of the plans. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 5 The Board finds that this criterion is met. F. Density. Height, coverage, setbacks, floor area ratios (F.A.R.) and the maximum size of units will govern the density of the Central District. The F.A.R. is the ratio of building square footage to lot size. N/A 11.01 City Center Design Review Overlay District CCDR A. Purpose. ……………….. B. Comprehensive Plan. ………………….. C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. A brief description of the location and proposed design character of each district is provided below: (1) Design District 1 - This area is generally located on both sides of Market Street and extends south to San Remo Drive. This area is planned to be the core area of the City Center, with the highest density and greatest mix of uses. It is the intent of this area is to be the main “downtown” for South Burlington, and therefore, should uphold the highest quality of design. Building materials should consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or stone) and the buildings themselves should relate directly to the public street. They should be placed up front on the property line and the main entrance should face the street rather than parking lots. In addition, a pedestrian promenade shall be provided along Market Street in order to promote pedestrian activity and provide cover from inclement weather. The property is located in Design District 1. (2) Design District 2 - (3) Design District 3 - D. Activities Subject to Design Review. (1) In addition to the provisions of any other section(s) of these regulations, the uses allowed in any underlying district in the City Center Design Review Overlay District shall be subject to the standards and procedures in this Section. Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall do or cause to be done any of the following acts with respect to any building or property located within the CCDR Overlay District without first obtaining design plan approval from the Development Review Board: (a) Construction or relocation of a building or structure (b) ………………….. (c) ………………. (d) ………… (e) …………. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 6 (f) Construction, enlargement or alteration of any non-landscaped area on the property including, but not limited to, parking areas, access lanes, sidewalks, loading areas or storage areas, or, any removal or change to landscaping on the site. (g) ……………….. The proposed project involves construction of new utility cabinets and the alteration of parking areas. (2), (3) and (4) Not applicable E. Application and Review Procedures ………………. F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design Not applicable 11.02 Site Design for City Center Design Review District A. Landscape and plantings. Significant trees and vegetation should be preserved in its natural state insofar as practicable. Any grade changes should be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Landscape plantings and amenities shall be well designed with appropriate variations and shall be included as an integral enhancement of the site and, where needed, for screening purposes. In particular, parking areas shall be well screened by berms, plantings, or other screening methods to minimize their visual impact. Planting islands shall be used to break up larger expanses of paved parking areas. Existing landscaping will be maintained. This criterion will continue to be met. B. Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. HVAC equipment should not be pad mounted at grade. Utility connections shall be installed underground and utilities shall co-exist to the greatest extent possible. The proposed charging stations will utilize existing landscaping and other features and will be screened from view from Dorset Street and will be relatively unobtrusive when viewed from Garden Street due to the distance. The Board finds that this criterion will continue to be met. C. Not applicable. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 7 D. Not applicable. E. – Provide efficient and effective circulation. With respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, special attention shall be given to the location and number of access points to public streets and sidewalks, to the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, to the arrangement of parking areas and to service and loading areas, and to the location of accessible routes and ramps for the disabled. Site design shall also provide for interconnections, both vehicular and pedestrian, between adjacent properties. The proposed charging stations will utilize existing parking spaces. Overall circulation will not be affected. The Board finds that this criterion will continue to be met. F. - I. Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Chapter 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations states the following: Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. …………………………………………… No changes to the location of parking are proposed. (b) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. (c) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The proposed project indicates that electrical service is located underground. This criterion is met. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 8 (d) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. (e) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plans provided indicate that electrical service is located underground. This criterion is met. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. The provided plans show that the proposed transformer cabinet on the southern edge of the parcel is not screened by landscaping. As noted previously above, the Board finds that the applicant shall revise the plans to add landscaping screening around the transformer cabinet. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 9 The plans submitted do not show the previously approved landscaping for the PUD. The plans should be revised to include all the landscaping as previously approved. Snow Storage The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. Snow storage areas should be shown on the plans. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The subject property falls within City Center Design Review Overlay District 1. The application has been reviewed by both the City Center Design Review Committee and the Development Review Board. 11.01 (C)(1) Design District 1 - This area is generally located on both sides of Market Street and extends south to San Remo Drive. This area is planned to be the core area of the City Center, with the highest density and greatest mix of uses. It is the intent of this area is to be the main “downtown” for South Burlington, and therefore, should uphold the highest quality of design. Building materials should consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or stone) and the buildings themselves should relate directly to the public street. They should be placed up front on the property line and the main entrance should face the street rather than parking lots. In addition, a pedestrian promenade shall be provided along Market Street in order to promote pedestrian activity and provide cover from inclement weather. Section 11.01(F), Criteria for Approval, states: the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above [i.e., construction of a building] shall conform substantially to the following design criteria (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. (i) Design District 1. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry shall predominate. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), and architectural concrete. Glass may predominate if used in combination with brick or stone. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include vinyl siding, metal skin, synthetic stucco and laminated wood (e.g., T- 111). (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 10 building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1 and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 11 suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. The proposed project has no effect on these criteria. These criteria continue to be met. 11.02 Site Design for City Center Design Review District A. Landscape and plantings. Significant trees and vegetation should be preserved in its natural state insofar as practicable. Any grade changes should be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Landscape plantings and amenities shall be well designed with appropriate variations and shall be included as an integral enhancement of the site and, where needed, for screening purposes. In particular, parking areas shall be well screened by berms, plantings, or other screening methods to minimize their visual impact. Planting islands shall be used to break up larger expanses of paved parking areas. The proposed project locates the utility cabinets for the charging stations on a parking island with existing landscaping. The landscaping will help to screen the cabinets. The provided plans show that the proposed transformer cabinet on the southern edge of the parcel is not screened by landscaping. The Board finds that the applicant shall revise the plans to add landscaping screening around the transformer cabinet. B. Integrate special features with the design. Storage areas, machinery and equipment installation, service areas, truck loading areas, garbage and refuse collection areas, utility connections, meters and structures, mailboxes, and similar accessory structures shall be positioned in #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 12 such a way to minimize visibility from the public street, existing or planned. Such features shall be incorporated within or designed as part of the building on the site, not added as an afterthought. HVAC equipment should not be pad mounted at grade. Utility connections shall be installed underground and utilities shall co-exist to the greatest extent possible. The proposed project locates the utility cabinets for the charging stations on a parking island with existing landscaping. The landscaping will help to screen the cabinets. The provided plans show that the proposed transformer cabinet on the southern edge of the parcel is not screened by landscaping. As noted above, the Board finds that the applicant shall revise the plans to add landscaping screening around the transformer cabinet. The proposed cabinets and charging stations will not be visible from Dorset Street and only partially visible from Garden Street if there were no cars in the parking lot. The Board finds this criterion continues to be met. D. Accessible open space. When providing open space on a site, it shall be designed to be visually and physically accessible from the public street. Open space should add to the visual amenities of the vicinity by maximizing its visibility for persons passing by or overlooking the site from neighboring properties. If open space is intended for active use, it should include such elements as benches, shade trees, and refuse containers and be so designed to maximize its accessibility for all individuals, including the disabled, and encourage social interaction. The siting of open space on a lot shall also consider the potential impact of buildings, both existing and potential, on shadow casting and solar access. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. E. Provide efficient and effective circulation. With respect to vehicular and pedestrian circulation, special attention shall be given to the location and number of access points to public streets and sidewalks, to the separation of vehicles and pedestrians, to the arrangement of parking areas and to service and loading areas, and to the location of accessible routes and ramps for the disabled. Site design shall also provide for interconnections, both vehicular and pedestrian, between adjacent properties. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. F. Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to be both aesthetically pleasing and functional. The lighting type or types shall be metal halide, compact fluorescent and/or induction lamps and shall be of a white color with a Color Rendering Index (CRI) of seventy (70) or greater recommended. Light fixtures shall be appropriately shielded to preclude glare and overall illumination levels should be evenly distributed. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. G. Provide for nature’s events. Attention shall be accorded to design features which address the affects of rain, snow and ice at building entrances and on sidewalks, and to provisions for snow and ice removal from circulation areas. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 13 The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. H. Make spaces secure and safe. With respect to personal safety, all open and enclosed spaces should be designed to facilitate building evacuation, and provide reasonable accessibility by fire, police or other emergency personnel and equipment. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. I. Streetscape improvements. An applicant for new development shall be responsible for implementing streetscape improvements (e.g., sidewalks, street lighting, street trees, etc.) within the portion of the public street ROW directly fronting the parcel of land for which development is proposed. Such streetscape improvements shall be in accord with the specifications contained in the City Center Streetscape Design Guidelines. The proposed project has no effect on this criterion. This criterion continues to be met. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by _______________, to approve site plan application #SP-15-31 & design review application #DR-15-03 of Loja Burlington, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans and final plat plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plans. a. The plans shall be revised to add evergreens of sufficient height and density to screen effectively the utility cabinet from surrounding property. b. The plans shall be revised to include all the landscaping as previously approved. c. The plans shall be revised to include the bike racks. d. The plans shall be revised to include the snow storage areas. 4. The Board approves the following waivers of the Land Development Regulations pursuant to this application: a. Allow a parking waiver of 20.0% or 67 spaces from the 334 spaces required for a total number of spaces provided to be 267. 5. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. #SP-15-31 and #DR-15-03 SP_15_31_and_DR_15_03_200&222_DorsetStreet_and_59_Garden_Street_LojaBurlingtonLLC_Tesla_ch arging_stations_final_ffd.doc 14 6. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the project, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of the charging stations. 9. Any changes to the site plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of____________. 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. REV DESCRIPTIONDATECHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESSTHEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ALICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THISDOCUMENT.SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE3500 DEER CREEK RDPALO ALTO, CA 94304(650) 681-5000MOTORS, INC.179056AKJMBGA 05/21/15 ISSUED FOR 50% REVIEWVT003_SOUTH BURLINGTONSOUTH BURLINGTON222 DORSET STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403RBLACK & VEATCH10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVEOVERLAND PARK, KS 66210(913) 458-2000OVERALL SITE PLANA-120' 10' 0 20' 40'1"=20'OVERALL SITE PLANSEE PROPOSED SITEPLAN SHEET A-4EXISTING SITEACCESS ROADEXISTING ASPHALTPARKING LOT (TYP)EXISTINGLIGHTPOLE (TYP)EXISTINGTREE (TYP)EXISTING GRASSYAREA (TYP)EXISTINGTRANSFORMEREXISTINGSIDEWALK (TYP)DORSET STREET HEALTHY LIVINGMARKET AND CAFEGARDEN STREETPROPOSED XXXKVA UTILITYTRANSFORMER 480/277V, 3ɸ,4W ON x'-x"X x'-x"CONCRETE PAD (PER UTILITYSPECIFICATION)BE-5 PROPOSED NON-ILLUMINATEDPARKING SIGN (TYP OF 6)REV DESCRIPTIONDATECHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESSTHEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ALICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THISDOCUMENT.SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE3500 DEER CREEK RDPALO ALTO, CA 94304(650) 681-5000MOTORS, INC.179056AKJMBGA 05/21/15 ISSUED FOR 50% REVIEWVT003_SOUTH BURLINGTONSOUTH BURLINGTON222 DORSET STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403RBLACK & VEATCH10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVEOVERLAND PARK, KS 66210(913) 458-2000PROPOSED SITE PLANA-44' 2' 0 4' 8'1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED SITE PLANPROPOSED XXXKVA UTILITYTRANSFORMER 480/277V, 3ɸ,4W ON x'-x"X x'-x"CONCRETE PAD (PER UTILITYSPECIFICATION)BA-7AA-7AA-6EXISTINGCONCRETECURB (TYP)EXISTINGBUSH (TYP)EXISTING TREECANOPY,ABOVE (TYP)SEE ENLARGEDPROPOSED EQUIPMENTLAYOUT SHEET A-51. SOD PLANTED IN THE FALL MUST ESTABLISH ITS ROOTS BEFORE THE FIRST WINTERFROST. DETERMINE WHEN THE FIRST FROST USUALLY OCCURS, AND PLANT THE SODNO LATER THAN ONE MONTH BEFORE THE FIRST FROST. IF THE CONSTRUCTION ISFINISHED LATER THAN ONE MONTH BEFORE THE FIRST FROST, USE STRAW UNTIL SODCAN BE INSTALLED.NOTEBE-5CHARGING POST CIRCUIT SCHEDULESUPERCHARGERCHARGE POSTDEDICATED /ENABLED1B1A122B2A33B3ADEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDPROPOSED 22"CONCRETECURBFS-1EXISTING ASPHALTPARKING LOT9'-0"(TYP)17'-1"(TYP)4'-7"(TYP)4'-6"(TYP)5'-4"(TYP)11"(TYP)11"(TYP)PROPOSED TESLAILLUMINATED CHARGINGSTATION (TYP OF 2)BS-1AA-8PROPOSED TESLAILLUMINATED CHARGINGSTATION (TYP OF 4)DS-1DA-81'-8"(TYP)EXISTINGPARKINGLINE (TYP)EXISTINGLIGHT POLEAA-65'-0"10'-8"1231A1B2A2B3A3B3'-0"EXISTINGSHRUB (TYP) REV DESCRIPTIONDATECHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESSTHEY ARE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF ALICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO ALTER THISDOCUMENT.SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLE3500 DEER CREEK RDPALO ALTO, CA 94304(650) 681-5000MOTORS, INC.179056AKJMBGA 05/21/15 ISSUED FOR 50% REVIEWVT003_SOUTH BURLINGTONSOUTH BURLINGTON222 DORSET STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403RBLACK & VEATCH10950 GRANDVIEW DRIVEOVERLAND PARK, KS 66210(913) 458-2000SITE ELEVATIONSA-6SITE ELEVATION12"6"01'2'3'4'5'1/2"=1'-0"SITE ELEVATION4' 2' 0 4' 8'1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSEDQED SWITCHGEARASSEMBLYPROPOSEDCONCRETE PAD-E-3AS-1PROPOSED TESLASUPERCHARGERCABINETBA-8EXISTINGGRADEPROPOSEDNON-ILLUMINATEDPARKING SIGN (TYP)EXISTINGASPHALTBA-7AA-7BS-1AA-81B2AEXISTINGASPHALTEXISTINGCONCRETECURB (TYP)PROPOSED TESLAILLUMINATED CHARGINGSTATION (TYP OF 4)PROPOSED XXXKVAUTILITY TRANSFORMER 480/277V,3ɸ, 4W ON x'-x"X x'-x" CONCRETEPAD (PER UTILITY SPECIFICATION)CHARGING POST CIRCUIT SCHEDULESUPERCHARGERCHARGE POSTDEDICATED /ENABLED1B1A122B2A33B3ADEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDDEDICATEDPROPOSED 22"CONCRETECURBFS-1BA1EXISTINGLIGHT POLE2B3A3BDS-1DA-8PROPOSED TESLAILLUMINATEDCHARGING STATION(TYP OF 2)EXISTINGTREE (TYP)PROPOSED TESLAEQUIPMENT ONCONCRETE PADEXISTINGBUSH (TYP)EXISTINGSHRUB (TYP)EXISTINGBUSH (TYP) 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SD-14-37 Snyder Homes 1302 – 1350 Spear Street DATE: June 16, 2015 DRB Meeting. Continued sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 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. Staff is requesting that this item be continued to a future meeting. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_ JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wet land_June_16_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 12, 2015 Application received: March 6, 2015 FINAL PLAT PLAN APPLICATION - #SD-15-11 1580 DORSET STREET & 1699 HINESBURG ROAD – JJJ SOUTH BURLINGTON, LLC Meeting Date: June 16, 2015 Applicant / Owner JJJ South Burlington, LLC c/o Brad Dousevicz 21 Carmichael Street, Suite 201 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Contact Person Paul O’Leary O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite #1 Essex, VT 05452 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat application #SD-15-11 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) shifting Russett Road & Puritan Street to minimize wetland intrusions, 2) revising the storm drains so as to connect all footing drains directly into the stormwater system, and 3) residential design review for the single family dwelling on lots #1 - #66, 1580 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 6, 2015 and additional information provided on June 2, 2015. The overall PUD for the project was last reviewed and approved as Final Plat application #SD-08-34 on November 20, 2008. Staff notes that this application consists of three principal elements: 1. To comply with Condition #22 of Final Plat Decision #SD-08-34 which stated: “No zoning permits can be issued in the development for any residential unit until such time as the Development Review Board has approved the residential design pursuant to Section 9.08 (C) of the LDRs.” 2. A request from the applicant to make minor adjustments to the street and lot layout to address revised wetland boundaries on the site since the time of the original approval (November 20, 2008). 3. Other infrastructure modifications Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: No changes are being proposed at this time which might affect previous approvals granted to the development under its Master Plan. 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. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc 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. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. 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. 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. 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. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc 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. See below for applicable review of landscaping and utilities. The remaining criteria are not proposed to be changed with this application. 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 final water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Erosion control specifications and grading plans have been submitted with the application. Staff feels this criterion has been met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. 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. The proposed revisions to the original Cider Mill Phase II plans in this application are expressly for the purposes of minimizing the impacts to wetlands. The applicant received an Individual Wetland Permit for the project from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued on June 2, 2015 (File # 2014-201, DEC ID # EJ04-0087). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (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 9 of the City LDRs: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well-planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed road and infrastructure layout in this application is compatible with the planned development patters in the area. Staff feels that this criterion has 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. The proposed revisions to the original Cider Mill Phase II plans in this application are expressly for the purposes of minimizing the impacts to wetlands. This will have the added benefit of protecting contiguous open space located to the west and south of the Phase II project area. Staff feels that this criterion has 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 June 9, 2015, the Fire Department commented as follows: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of a housing sub-division off from Dorset Street. These dwellings represent Units 1 – 66. We have the following recommendations: Completed highway connection to Hinesburg Road prior to construction. Compliance with all requirements of the Vermont Fire Building and Safety Code for any applicable structures. Number and location of fire hydrants to be determined by and meet the requirements of the South Burlington Water Department. Actual final spotting of said hydrants to be done jointly with SBFD. All turning radii shall be compatible with a WB-40 straight profile. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and the South Burlington Fire Marshal. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief 1. The applicant is verifying turn radii and will confirm at the meeting. (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. See comments from the Department of Public Works under (A) (9) below. The City Arborist provided the following comments to staff on June 9, 2015: I just reviewed the most recent set of landscape plans for Cider Mill Phase 2 and found them acceptable. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist Staff feels that this criterion has been met. (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. 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. The Department of Public Works provided the following comments via email to staff on June 9, 2015: I reviewed updated plans for the Cider Mill Phase II project dated February 2015 and last updated on 6/1/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project will require both an operational stormwater permit and a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC. The project will also require modifications to the existing CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc State stormwater permit (3144-9015) for the original Cider Mill project. The applicant should acquire/update these permits prior to starting construction. 2. The project proposes to impact class 2 wetlands and their buffer. These impacts are only allowed in conjunction with issuance of a wetlands permit by the Vermont DEC. 3. The plat has been updated to show proposed stormwater easements to the City in anticipation of a future request for the City to take-over stormwater infrastructure. These easements, and the infrastructure within them, do not become the City’s until such time as City Council votes to accept them. 4. The City’s minimum drainage pipe size is 15”. All 12” pipe in proposed future ROW or City easements must be increased to 15” diameter. 5. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works 2. The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department’s recommendations. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The 2011 Comprehensive Plan notes the following goal for the Southeast Quadrant. GOAL STATEMENT: It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development patters, including street systems, that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, and a strong sense of place. It is a further goal of this City to create a small, appropriately-scaled and designed neighborhood service center in the SEQ, and a circulation system that balances automobile transportation with bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes in a safe, integrated system. If and when this Cider Mill Phase II is completely built out, approximately 109 housing units will be added via a mix of single family homes, carriage style homes and multi-family structures. Sidewalks and bikepaths are proposed and the project will also connect the development to Hinesburg Road. Staff considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ: A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub-district shall not exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. In addition, the standards set forth in C-2 – Dimensional Standards Applicable in All Districts shall apply. The most restrictive limitations shall apply at the time a zoning application is submitted. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels The applicant has proposed to shift the roadways slightly. Staff considers this shift to be minor and not affecting this standard. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. 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. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. See above discussion under PUD standards. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc D. Parks Design and Development. (1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini-parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car-free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter-mile of every home. (2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ- NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC districts: (a) Distribution and Amount of Parks: (i) A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation. (ii) Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development. (iii) 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. (iv) 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 developed recreation area. (b) Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (c) Design Guidelines (i) Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make them sociable, safe and attractive places. (ii) Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections. (iii) To the extent feasible, single-loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet; CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub- district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The applicant has provided review landscaping plans. See the City Arborist’s comments under PUD standards. (4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). The applicant has presented revised plans from the November 2008 approval. Staff feels that the modifications comply (and enhance compliance) with these standards. (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. Staff feels this criterion has been met. Fixtures shall not exceed the heights described above. All street lights proposed to become public shall be LED. C. Residential Design As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD-08-34, the Board established Condition #22 which stated: “No zoning permits can be issued in the development for any residential unit until such time as the Development Review Board has approved the residential design pursuant to Section 9.08 (C) of the LDRs.” The applicant has submitted a document entitled “Single Family Home Design Guidelnes – revised - 06/11/15 Cider Mill Phase II.” (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). See the enclosed applicant document. All proposed buildings are oriented to the street. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. See discussion below under Mix of Housing Styles. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. See the enclosed applicant document. All buildings are proposed to comply. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_11_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_road_wetland_June_16_mtg.doc See the enclosed applicant document. All buildings are proposed to comply. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. See the enclosed applicant document. All buildings are proposed to comply. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (6) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. The applicant has submitted a design guideline document for the Board’s consideration. The guidelines are proposed to be mandatory. 3. Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed guidelines and determine whether the standards of this section are met. AOT LETTER OF INTENT The state statutes now require that an applicant submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) from the Agency of Transportation before a decision can be rendered when a project has an access to a state highway. This information has yet to be submitted so the Board should keep the hearing open until this information has been submitted. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Brian Bertsch, O’Leary-Burke Single Family Home Design Guidelines ‐ revised 06/12/15 Cider Mill ‐ Phase II Objectives: There are 66 single family lots in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision. In order to promote a rich and interesting neighborhood, JJJ South Burlington LLC adopts the following design guidelines governing the design of single family homes within the subdision. Legal Requirements: Homes in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision must comply with legal requirements found in the City Of South Burlington , Land Development Regulations Adopted May 12, 2003 Amendments Effective: September 24, 2013 Article 9, Section C. Residential Design. "(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages where the vehicle entrance is parallel to the front building line of a house, the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side yard, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the main house and (ii) the front building line of the garage is no more than eight (8) feet in front of the front building line of the house. Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and townhouses. " (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near‐identical units" Design Constraints: Potential homeowners in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision are encouraged to be creative and a wide variety of styles, colors and forms will be allowed. In addition to the minimum legal requirements, the following limits apply: 1. Any given Home Model can be varied in one or more of the following five (5) ways: by mirroring the plan, changing the color scheme, revising the placement or orientation of the garage, changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines. 2. Identical Models ( without the variations noted above) may not be constructed on adjoining lots, or facing one another across the street. A given model must change any two of the five variables in Item #1 to be determined sufficiently different. 3. No single Home Model, depicted as Types one (1) through six (6) on sheets A201, A202, and A203, or any new design as described in constraint eight (8), shall be repeated on more than fifteen lots within the subdivision. 4. A home's color palate is comprised of five (5) elements: its primary siding color, accent siding color, roofing color, trim color and colored accents such as shutters or door and window frames. A given color palate must change any two of the five variables to be determined sufficiently different. No home, regardless of model, shall have the same primary siding color within three lots of a home of the same color. For every 12 homes on one side of a street block, there shall be at least three different roof colors. 5. A mix of housing size options will be available, 1,500sf‐2,000sf, 2,000sf‐2,500sf, 2,500sf‐3,000sf, providing significantly different pricing options for the neighborhood. 6. Prior to Construction, house plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff of the City of South Burlington for determination that the proposed home complies with Article 9, Section C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and these design control standards. As part of the submission, it must be confirmed that the proposed design conforms with these standards. 7. JJJ South Burlington LLC shall maintain a color coded copy of the subdivision plat that shows the home model, Color Scheme and any Variations proposed for each lot as they develop. An 11 x 17 inch color copy of the map shall be included with each home permit application for use by the zoning administrator in checking compliance with these requirements. 8. Additional designs, substantially differing from types shown on Sheets A201, A202, and A203, may be constructed, provided that the designs are in compliance with these standards. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_29_916_ShelburneRoad_Perkins_hedge_and_fence_ afterthefact DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 12, 2015 Plans received: April 30, 2015 916 Shelburne Road SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-29 Meeting date: June 16, 2015 Owner/Applicant Charles and Janet Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-00916 Commercial 1 – Residential 15 Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three (3) dwelling units in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on April 30, 2015 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Staff considers the Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements continue to be met. Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the proposed building and uses to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes to existing parking are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 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. The parking located to the front of the building is pre-existing. (c)-(d) Not applicable (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No changes to the building are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The plans indicate that such services are located 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. No changes to the structures are proposed. 1. The applicant has removed a cedar hedge that provided a screen between the property and commercial and residential properties located to the north. See discussion below under 14.07 D. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No changes to the structures are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is required. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. No changes to utility services are proposed. 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 (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. 2. Staff notes that as of June 9, 2015 there is a commercial trash dumpster located on the property (near the southern edge of the property) but it is not screened pursuant to this standard. The Board should direct the applicant to either remove the dumpster (given that the commercial building on the property is currently vacant) or screen it with opaque fencing. If feasible, staff recommends that the dumpster be moved to a location less visible from Shelburne Road or Lindenwood Drive. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Prior to submission of this application, the applicant removed a 280 ft. long cedar hedge along the north edge of the property. The applicant’s April 25, 2015 letter indicates that the applicants planted the hedge CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING in 1982. The Planning & Zoning Office’s records indicate that a Findings of Fact & Decision issued on May 23, 1989 contained a requirement for the applicant to post a $2,250 landscaping bond and add nine (9) cedar plants in the center portion of the hedge to fill an existing gap. The applicant submitted a letter dated April 25, 2015 indicating the reasons why they removed the hedge and why they wish to install a cedar fence. Their reasons primarily have to do with their concerns over increased trash and inappropriate use of their property by members of the public using the adjacent CCTA bus stop. The past policy of the Board in similar cases has been to require the applicant to replant landscaping on the property equivalent to the value of the landscaping that was removed. Staff also notes that were this lot being newly developed with commercial uses, an applicant would be required to screen the property from view from abutting residential properties. The subject property, 916 Shelburne Road, is located in both the C1-R15 District and the R-4 District. Therefore, at minimum screening would be required along the northern portion of the property across from 2 Lindenwood Drive. 3. The Board should direct the applicant to provide an estimate prepared by a landscape professional of the value of the 280 ft. cedar hedge that was removed. The Board should then decide what portion of that value should be replaced with new landscaping and where such new landscaping should be planted. The Board should also discuss with the applicant the proposed location of any new fencing to be installed on the property. 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. No waivers are required. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Charles and Janet Perkins, applicants CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_30_1804_SouthBrownellRoad_SDIreland_quarry _expansion DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 12, 2015 Plans received: May 7, 2015 1804 South Brownell Road Williston, Vermont SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-30 Meeting date: June 16, 2015 Owner Green Acres Quarry ( c/o Mark Goodrich ) 5229 Canterberry Drive Sarasota, FL 34243 Applicant SD Ireland (Attention: Patrick O’Brien) 193 Industrial Avenue Williston, VT 05495 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860-R1150 Industrial & Open Space Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-15-30 of S.D. Ireland to amend a previously approved quarry. The amendment consists of expanding the quarry dimensions but not increasing the amount of material to be removed, 1804 South Brownell Road, Williston. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on May 7, 2015 and have the following comments. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Industrial – Open Space Zoning District Required/Max Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 3 acres 122.7 acres No change Max. Building Coverage 30% < 1 % * No change Max. Overall Coverage 50% 19.1 % 22.7 % Front Setback Yard Coverage 30% 0 % No change Front Setback 50 ft. > 50 ft. No change Side Setback 35 ft. > 35 ft. No change Rear Setback 50 ft. > 50 ft. No change Max. Building Height (flat/pitched) 35 ft. / 40 ft. * No change * Note: There is a small mobile office trailer on site. Staff considers Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements continue to be met. 13.16 Earth Products The applicant provided the following comments with regards to the project’s compliance with Section 13.16 Earth Products, B. Site Plan Requirements. Hi Ray – Please find the following responses in blue and attached sketch of the elevation information and blasting plan from Maine Drilling & Blasting. If you have any questions, email or call. Karl Marchessault, P.E. Project Engineer Karl, I have reviewed the application you submitted earlier today. The following information is required to be submitted as part of the application. I cannot find the required information which I have highlighted below: At minimum, the following information shall be required: (1) Depth of excavation, in proximity to roads or adjacent properties. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The current depth of the excavation is approximately elevation 280 and the following elevation data compares to an approximate final grade of 230 as follows: Location Elevation Depth from locations noted I-89 to the North 360’ 130’ South Brownell to the East 330’ 100’ Bowdoin Street to the West 345’ 115’ Southerly reference 330’ 100’ See attached sketch (300 scale 11 x 17 pdf) (2) Existing grade and proposed grade created by removal of material. Currently the work area (quarry floor) depth averages approximately 280’ in elevation. The expected final depth will be approximately elevation 230’, a grade change of 50’. The highest extent of proposed excavation from an existing grade of approximately elevation 350 to the expected final lowest elevation of 230 results in a grade change of 120’ (see plan). (3) Effect upon public health and safety. This quarry has been operating for an extended period of time and will continue to operate with the same level of diligence to protect the health and safety of the public. The quarry is regularly inspected by personnel from OSHA or MSHA to ensure safety of the personnel and the few visitors to the operation. Currently, the quarry has perimeter signage that directs visitors to report to the office which is located at the entrance to the quarrying operation. Large boulders delineate the work zone to prevent unwanted trespass into the quarry area. (4) Creation of a nuisance. Maine Drilling and Blasting has been the contractor performing the drilling and blasting operations as long as Ireland has been operating the quarry. The reporting requirements dictated by the project’s Land Use Permit show that noise, dust and seismic activity associated with the operation has been and will continue to be within the specified parameters. A copy of their blasting plan is attached. (5) Effect upon the use of adjacent properties by reason of noise, dust or vibration. Per the attached Maine Drilling and Blasting plan, there are signaling protocols for blasting. In addition to the protocols for blasting, calls are made to the direct abutters to the west to let those businesses know the schedule for blasting. Maine Drilling and Blasting utilizes 3 seismographs to monitor the intensity of each blast to ensure parameters are within acceptable range. For the past 6 years, Maine Drilling and Blasting has been working with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING S.D. Ireland on this site and all seismic activity has been below the specified limits. All information is formally recorded and these records are available if needed. (6) Effect upon traffic hazards in residential areas or excessive congestion or physical damage on public ways. This location has not been a concern for traffic as it is not near residential uses. S.D. Ireland recently renewed their road agreement with the Town of Williston to continue operate their trucks until year 2034. (7) Erosion potential due to removal of vegetative cover. The quarrying process is a staged and phased process. Prior to drilling and blasting a cell, the area is stripped of all of its overburden (dirt). That overburden will be placed in the overburden area and immediately covered with topsoil, grass seed and mulch. Once the overburden is removed, the area is drilled and shot and the vertical face is created which removes any potential erosion from that area. Once this information is received, your application will be deemed complete. Staff has preliminarily reviewed these items. The applicant is proposing to install a 50’ wide berm as an aesthetic screen between the northern edge of the quarry and I-89, within the Interstate Highway Overlay District (see discussion below). This berm should be discussed in the context of these criteria. Staff has no specific concerns regarding these criteria. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes to existing parking are proposed. See below for discussion of the berm related to planting. 2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (c)-(d) Not applicable (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No changes to the buildings are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes to utilities are proposed. 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. No changes to the structures are proposed. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No changes to the structures are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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. 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. No changes to utility services are proposed. 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 (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. Not applicable D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The quarry’s northern boundary abuts Interstate 89. The eastern boundary of the parcel abuts the Town of Williston. The southern boundary of the quarry abuts a large wooded area of the subject parcel itself. The western boundary of the parcel abuts properties accessed off Bowdoin Street and Meadowland Drive. Section 13.06 C. Screening or buffering reads as follows: The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use. A Findings of Fact & Decision issued on June 8, 1993 by the South Burlington Planning Commission stated with regards to landscaping as follows: “There is no minimum landscaping requirement for this project and no landscaping is being proposed. The reclamation plan calls for seeding the fringe of the quarry area but no new plantings are proposed. The quarry area will be screened from the south and southeast by existing trees.” Staff notes that the view of the quarry from the Bowdoin Street properties to the west is screened by trees on the applicant’s property while the view from the Burlington Properties LTD property is screened by some areas of 380 ft. and 370 ft. located on the applicant’s property immediately to the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING west of the quarry. The applicant has proposed to expand the quarry area to the north to within a few feet of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The applicant has proposed construction of a berm along the northern edge of the property within the Interstate Overlay District in anticipation of such a requirement potentially being imposed by the State Act 250 office. The Interstate Highway Overlay District lists certain permitted activities; a berm or other landscape features is not specifically listed. Staff inquired about the request for the berm. In response, the applicant sent the following email to staff on June 10, 2105: “Hello Dan, I received your VM message yesterday and have the following to offer. The proposed berm is in anticipation of the ACT 250 Coordinator or Commission wanting to see some aesthetic mitigation from the interstate, knowing this, can we propose a condition to the DRB that says something like…..in the event that the berm shown on the plan does not become a requirement of the applicants Act 250 permit, it shall not be built. “What do you all think? “Thank you, “Patrick” The Specific standards of the IHO District are as follows: 10.04 Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) A. Purpose. It is the purpose of the Interstate Highway Overlay District to provide for a safe and aesthetically attractive buffer between the right-of-way of the Interstate Highway and developed land uses within South Burlington. B. Boundaries of the Interstate Highway Overlay District. The Interstate Highway Overlay District shall include all land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the Interstate 89 and Interstate 189 rights-of-way, and within fifty (50) feet horizontal distance of the interstate ramps rights- of-way, both existing and planned, as depicted in Figure 10-1. C. Standards. (1) No building of any kind, including any structure of construction such as parking facilities or lots, or tennis courts shall be permitted within the district, except as specifically provided in this section. Any use or structure granted approval within the Interstate Highway Overlay District shall be subject to the specific provisions of this section. (2) The following structures and infrastructure shall be allowed in the IHO district, subject to conditional use approval by the Development Review Board: (a) Public recreation paths (b) Roadways or access drives for purposes of accessing a preexisting or approved structure within the IHO district and no other reasonable provisions for access can be made. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (c) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water. (d) Stormwater treatment facilities and maintenance thereof, including necessary removal of vegetation and dredging. (e) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure, including parking lots or facilities, is located outside the IHO district. (f) Hydro-electric power generation (g) Municipal buildings, subject to the provisions of Section 10.03(D) below. (3) Use of nonconforming structures. Nonconforming structures within the IHO district may used for any land use allowed within the underlying zoning district, in accordance with Table C-1, Table of Uses. (4) Encroachment of other uses into the IHO district. The encroachment of land uses allowed in the underlying zoning district into the IHO district may be allowed by the Development Review Board as a conditional use under certain circumstances as provided below, and provided the area of encroachment is screened from view by existing or proposed landscaping and/or topography: (a) The encroachment is necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe or for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; OR (b) The encroachment is necessary for the purposes of providing for or improving public facilities; OR (c) The encroachment is necessary to provide safe access to a parcel on which a use has been approved by the DRB in cases where there is no feasible alternative to the encroachment. The applicant and staff discussed the project prior to the DRB hearing. The applicant has offered to meet with staff and with staff from the Act 250 District Commission following the initial meeting with the DRB. 1. Staff recommends that the DRB discuss the question of screening /berming of the northern edge of the quarry along the Interstate with the applicant, and consider where any such screening and/or berming should be located (within the IHO, outside the IHO, straddling, etc.). The applicant could then use this guidance in their discussions with the Act 250 District Commission. Fire Department Comments The Fire Chief provided the following comments to staff via email on June 9, 2015. Dear Ray: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed expansion of the quarry at 1804 South Brownell Road. We have no recommendations for this project. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING As this project moves forward any items that surface can be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and the South Burlington Fire Marshal. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief Recommendation: Staff recommends that the DRB discuss the items above, and then continue the application to a future meeting so that the applicant may meet with the Act 250 District Commission staff. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Karl Marchessault SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 June 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, B. Breslend ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; G. Rabideau, R. Audette, C. Donahue, H. Riley, P. Bouchard, J. Desautels, J. Larkin, C. Deslauriers, S. McIntyre, D. Pratt, C. Goddard, John Grissom, Jeremy Grzywna, J. Randazzo, E. Hoyt, B. Spalding, C. Scott, T. & P. Meaker, H. Ebbers, T. Vigneau, K. Cady, K. Barry 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: Mr. Conner announced that last Friday, the Vermont Planners’ Association presented their annual awards, and the South Burlington Development Review Board was named the Vermont Citizen Board of the Year. Mr. Conner read the criteria for the award and the accolades that were given to the South Burlington DRB. Letters of support were submitted by the City Attorney firm of Stitzel and Page, by the Act 250 District Coordinator, and by Lou Bresee. Mr. Barritt said he was proud of the work accomplished by the Board and cited the hard work of the administrative team who prepare applications before they get to the DRB. 3. Announcements: Mr. Barritt noted that his term is up for appointment, and he will be reapplying. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐15‐17 of John Larkin, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 69 unit congregate care facility in two buildings. The amendment consists of: 1) razing three single family dwellings and one office building, 2) constructing a 24 unit congregate care facility, and 3) constructing a 48 unit congregate care facility, 1468, 1474, 1480, 1510 & 1530 Williston Road: SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 2 Mr. Rabideau showed an overall aerial view of the site. He noted that Pillsbury Manor has been on Williston Rd. for a generation. He showed the existing buildings. Mr. Rabideau said the applicants have a need to provide more common space and more activities for residents. They also need to have space for more residents. The plan is to construct 2 new buildings in 2 phases. Mr. Rabideau showed the location for the new buildings. The 3 existing houses and an office building would eventually be razed. Some of the existing apartments in The Gazebo Apartments will be phased out to create more kitchen space and more nurses’ space. The plan also proposes a gardening space along Williston Road. Over time, existing curb cuts would be removed. Parking would be in the back behind the buildings where it would be screened from Williston Rd. Extensive landscaping is proposed as well as a continuous walking path around the whole property. The new buildings would be 2 stories with occupied attic space (dormers). The applicant is asking for a setback waiver so that porches can be created. The exact timing of the phasing is not yet set. They will update the existing buildings so that eventually the buildings can all be linked up. Mr. Rabideau showed a representation of what the buildings would look like from the street. He indicated they would maintain as many of the existing trees as possible. Mr. Barritt noted that Mr. Behr, who could not attend this meeting, was comfortable with what he saw in the plans. Mr. Wilking had no issue with the setback waiver, but he wanted it to seem more like an integrated development. He felt the Gazebo seems “unimproved.” The issue of the building height was then raised. Mr. Belair read from the regulations, and said he didn’t yet have enough information to definitively say the proposed height is/is not OK. Mr. Wilking said he didn’t feel the proposed height was out of place. Mr. Rabideau said they will do a building by building survey to see whether they meet the regulations. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 3 Mr. Breslend asked about the potential for road widening. Mr. Rabideau said there is no pressure to expand the road. The new structures would meet the new right‐of‐way. Residents of the neighborhood, particularly those living on Gilbert Street, expressed concern with traffic and with an added volume of cars going on Gilbert Street. They noted that emergency vehicles will also have to use Gilbert Street to access the buildings. Concern was also noted with regard to the proposed Williston Rd. garden space. Residents said you can’t carry on a conversation on the street due to the noise of traffic, and they didn’t feel residents would be comfortable being there. Mr. Rabideau said they haven’t yet done a traffic study. He stressed that this is not an apartment complex. It is care for the elderly, which is a very low traffic generator. The bulk of the traffic would be from visitors and staff. He did acknowledge there could be an incremental increase in emergency services. A resident asked what the total number of units would be. Mr. Rabideau said they anticipate about 83 or so. Gilbert Street residents asked for some kind of traffic control. Mr. Rabideau said they would consider working with Public Works on this. Residents asked how long the houses that are coming down would be vacant. Mr. Rabideau said they will be occupied until the second phase begins; then they would be razed. Mr. Rabideau said they are willing to look at not having an ingress/egress on Gilbert Street; however, they would like more than one access to the site. He felt there are things that can be done to mitigate the issues. Ms. Reilly said she was concerned with a parking lot on the street. They would prefer some kind of park for both Gilbert St. residents and Pillsbury Manor residents. She felt Gilbert Street would be turned into a commercial street otherwise. Ms. Donahue was concerned with Gilbert Street becoming a “freeway” between White Street and Williston Road. She noted that people use the “suicide lane” on Williston Rd. as a speedway. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 4 The applicant noted that in the existing 67 units, there are about 6 or 7 people with cars. He suggested they might restrict Gilbert Street parking to residents who don’t drive very often. Mr. Barritt suggested the applicant meet with neighbors to try to work out the concerns. Another resident was concerned with headlights shining into their home. Emergency vehicles are there with lights on for a long time. They were also concerned with noise from kitchen blowers. Mr. Rabideau said they will be sure to screen the parking lot, possibly make it smaller than what was shown. The applicant suggested having an open house at Pillsbury Manor and inviting the neighbors to visit the site. Mr. Belair explained the next steps and stressed that all abutters will be notified of subsequent hearings. 5. Site Plan Application #SP‐15‐31 and Design Review Application #DR‐15‐03 of Tesla Motors to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 33,733 sq. ft. gfa building with 31,351 sq. ft. (including mezzanine) of retail food establishment use and 2,382 sq. ft. of short‐order restaurant use, 2) a 12,800 sq. ft. building for retail food use, and 3) a 14,000 sq. ft. building for retail use. The amendment consists of: 1) the installation of Tesla Motors Supercharging Station on six existing parking spaces, and 2) the installation of the associated support infrastructure, 200 and 222 Dorset Street & 59 Garden Street: Mr. Belair noted that since the abutters did not receive a full abutter notification, the item will have to be continued to 16 June. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP‐15‐31 and #DR‐15‐03 until 16 June 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4‐0. 6. Final Plat Application #SD‐15‐15 of Robert Audette for a planned unit development to subdivide a 9,607 sq. ft. lot off from a 770 acre parcel developed with an airport, 1200 Airport Drive, and SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 5 7. Site Plan Application #SP‐15‐20 of Robert Audette for approval to amend a previously approved site plan for seven commercial buildings with a mixture of commercial uses. The amendment consists of: 1) revising the parking layout, 2) adding parking spaces, and 3) relocating dumpster enclosure areas, 1900 & 1930 Williston Road: and 8. Site Plan Application #SP‐15‐21 of Robert Audette for approval to allow parking, and a six ft. fence on land being leased to the applicant from the City of Burlington which is adjacent to property owner’s property at 1900 & 1930 Williston Road: Ms. Desautels and Mr. Audette reviewed the history of the applications, noting that an area that has been used as a parking lot is actually on Airport property. The applicant will be leasing the area from the Airport and will continue to use it as a gravel parking lot. They will also clean up some circulation problems. Some gravel has been removed and changed to a grassed area. Members were OK with #SD‐15‐15. Mr. Audette noted that with regard to the second application, he has dumpsters in 2 locations which are surrounded on 3 sides by buildings. They can’t be seen from anywhere. He did not see why they had to be screened. Mr. Barritt said the requirement can’t be waived. Mr. Belair noted a part of one parking space extends to the front of the building. It would be OK if it were made parallel with the front of the building. Mr. Audette said he can do that. Members were OK with #SP‐15‐21. Mr. Audette noted that the fence in the 3rd application is 5 feet high, not 6 feet. It extends from the eastern border behind the existing buildings to the end of the last building. It will be on the leased land and will be chain link with a top bar. No issues were raised with #SP‐15‐20. Mr. Wilking then moved to close #SD‐15‐15,# SP‐15‐20 and #SP‐15‐21. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4‐0. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 6 9. Final Plat Application #SD‐15‐16 of Champlain Water District for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 2.1 million gallon water storage tank. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 190 ft. high communications tower including antennas, and 2) constructing a 216 sq. ft. support building, 1215 Dorset Street: Ms. McIntyre said the only change from Preliminary Plat involves changing the spacing of landscaping. They are still well over the required amount of landscaping. Ms. McIntyre also advised that FAA lighting for the tower cannot be shielded. It will be a red beacon light. Mr. Belair said an exception will be made for that. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD‐15‐16. Mr. Breslend seconded. Motion passed 4‐0. 10. Site Plan Application #SP‐15‐25 and Design Review Application #DR‐15‐02 of Charles DesLauriers to amend a previously approved plan for a 104 room extended stay hotel (Green Mountain Suites). The amendment consists of: 1) replacing existing landscaping along the front of the building with different landscaping, and 2) relocating and replacing fencing along north property boundary, 401 Dorset Street: Mr. DesLauriers said the existing landscaping has gotten “dated,” and they will be replacing it with shrubs and flowers along Dorset St. No trees will come down. Plants will bloom throughout the year. They also want to change the fencing in the back parking lot on the west side of Sherry Road. Mr. DesLauriers showed the location of the fence on the plan and showed where the new fence will follow the property line. It would be a 6‐foot cedar stockade fence. Mr. DesLauriers noted there are 2 abutter’s sheds going across the property line. The woods in the area have been used for dumping. Mr. DesLauriers said they will maintain the woods. They will not take down any trees except dead ones and will clean up leaves and underbrush. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 7 Mr. Barritt noted receipt of a letter from Joe and Rita Randazzo opposing the fence. Mr. Randazzo, who was present, felt a fence can’t be put up without cutting down the hemlocks on the property line. These were put in as a buffer between his property and the applicant’s. A fence was originally rejected by the DRB as “too intrusive.” Mr. Randazzo felt that any new fence should be exactly where the existing fence is. Mr. DesLauriers said they can put up the fence and not remove any trees. John Grzywna, previous owner of the abutting property (now owned by his son), agreed that the shed is partly on the applicant’s property. When one of the trees from the applicant’s property fell on the shed, the hotel manager said it wasn’t his problem, so Mr. Grzywna said he rebuilt the shed where it had always been. He also showed photos of debris on the property that he has been cleaning up. He is concerned that the applicant will not maintain the property because they aren’t doing so now. He also opposed the fence. Jeremy Grzywna, abutting owner, opposed the fence. He noted there is a lot of police activity in the parking lot, and the fence will allow more people to be back there. He didn’t want anyone jumping the fence onto his property. He said he has always mowed the grass and kept the area clean, even though it isn’t his property. He noted there is a tree that will probably fall down in the next few years that should be taken down now. He is also concerned with car lights shining into his yard; the pine trees that used to block the light are now dead. Mr. Hoyt said he has seen the Grzywnas cleaning up the place in the summer; they don’t use the property, they make it look good. He noted that the area is very swampy and the fence he has rises 6‐10 inches off the surface each year. He would like to see a condition that the proposed fence be maintained by the applicant. Mr. Hoyt also noted that he has tried to get dead trees taken down. The hotel agreed to it. He would pay for it. But the city said no. He felt this is a safety issue. Members felt the landscaping in front of the building was fine. They had an issue with the proposed fence. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 2015 8 Mr. DesLauriers said he would like the sheds removed from his property. He was receptive to having the records of the original approval researched to see what the conditions were. Mr. DesLauriers then agreed to separate the two requests and have the Board act on the landscaping request. The applicant then withdrew the request for the fence. He will submit a new application for the fencing. He will also talk with the neighbors to see if they can work out their differences. Mr. Wilking moved to close the application as revised to include only the landscaping request and to remove item #2 under the application. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4‐0. 11. Continued Miscellaneous application #MS‐15‐02 of Alan Marcelino to alter the existing grade by adding 100 +/‐ cubic yards of fill to repair bank washout and create a berm at top of bank, 20 Palmer Court: Mr. Belair advised that the application should be continued to 16 June. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #MS‐15‐02 to 16 June 2015. Mr. Breslend seconded. Motion passed 4‐0. 12. Minutes of 19 May and 27 May 2015: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 19 May and 27 May 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4‐0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. __________________________________ Clerk __________________________________ Date