Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 05/05/2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 May 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; Chief D. Brent, Fire Department: J. Owens, L. Michaels, B. Frisbee, S. Roy, S. Homsted, A. Gill, J. Jarvis, D. Pratt, S. McIntyre, > & K. Bohan, J. Bloom, D. Mahaffey, G. Starbuck, S. Roy, J. Grzywna, J. Beattie, J. Bloom, J. Fay, 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. Site Plan Application #SP-15-18 of Tom DiPietro, South Burlington Deputy Public Works Director, to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three new bioretention areas, 4) wetland encroachments, and 5) adding four new catch basins, Stonehedge Drive: Mr. Belair noted receipt of an e-mail from Mr. DiPietro asking to continue this item until 19 May as they are still waiting for the state permit. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-18 until 19 May 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Final Application #SD-15-13 of Sterling Construction, Inc., to create two footprint lots, 54 Frost Street & 138 Chipman Street: Mr. Frisbee indicated that the applicant is OK with the draft decision. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-13. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-15-02 of Dexter Mahaffey to amend a previously approved plan for a 25,200 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 1500 sq. ft., two story addition, and 2) constructing a 50 sq. ft. addition, 75 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Roy said the applicant is running out of space, thus requiring the additions. He asked if the DRB would waive the appeal period. Mr. Belair explained that the DRB cannot waive the appeal period. Both the owner and the applicant must sign a waiver of their appeal period; then no one else can appeal. Mr. Miller then moved to close #CU-15-02. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-15-12 of CPA Partnership for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 76-unit congregate care facility and 24 multi-family units in three buildings. The amendment consists of constructing 24 multi-family units in three buildings, 635 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Gill reviewed changes since the February meeting. These include: totally changing the elevations, changes to the parking lot layout (to comply with Fire Department requests) resulting in a waiver request for 6 spaces instead of 4; completion of landscaping plans, and addition of a bike rack. Mr. Wilking expressed concern with the request for a setback waiver as he felt this might be an issue if Exit 12B is ever considered again. Mr. Homsted said the waiver takes into account the possible widening of Route 116. He added that there is already a turn lane into the property. Mr. Wilking said the buildings at Chatham Green are further back, and he didn’t see why these couldn’t be equal to their setback. Mr. Gill noted that staff supports the setback waiver. He added that having buildings closer to the road could help calm traffic approaching the intersection. It also facilitates the project and is looking forward to what the city is looking for in the future. He didn’t feel the project would have as much neighbor support with the buildings moved further back. Mr. Behr said he wasn’t concerned with the setback and agreed it could serve to slow traffic and also facilitate pedestrian connections. Other members agreed. Mr. Gill then showed the new elevations and pointed out the different angles of the building which create variety. The buildings will be vinyl siding (4-inch clapboard type), probably earth-tone with white vinyl trim and a black roof. Mr. Wilking said he felt the building mass was too large. Members expressed concern with snow storage in light of the large garden space. Mr. Michaels showed the snow storage area and indicated that it could be expanded. Mr. Gill indicated the garden area which will include raised beds along the sidewalk. They will file an amended landscaping plan to comply with the City Arborist’s recommendations. Members of the Foxcroft Board said they have met with the applicants a few times and found them very cooperative. They are concerned with how much greenery will be removed when the fence is put in. They do approve of the fence as it will block headlights from getting to the Foxcroft property. Ms. Jarvis questioned whether Foxcroft is closer to the property line than shown on the plan. Mr. Homsted said the property line is drawn accurately and agrees with documentation. He added that the parking lot is set 10 feet from that line. Mr. Gill said they will go only 6 feet into the hedge row for construction, leaving at least 10 feet of the hedgerow intact. Mr. Michaels said there are 10 feet from the edge of the parking lot to the property line. Ms. Jarvis also wanted assurance that none of the Foxcroft trees would come down. Mr. Barritt suggested staking where the property line is. Mr. Gill said they would be happy to do that. Ms. Jarvis also expressed concern with traffic and with the safety of people who walk in the area. Ms. Bohan, a resident of Chelsea Circle, asked when the project will start and how they will deal with the sidewalk. She noted that when the other buildings were done, residents had to walk in the road. Mr. Homsted said the issue that required blocking of the sidewalk at that time shouldn’t exist again. Members asked that the garden/snow storage area be redesigned to accommodate more snow storage. Mr. Michaels felt that isn’t necessary and showed how they will shorten the garden space to allow for more snow storage. Members were OK with this. Mr. Miller then moved to close Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-15-12. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-15-14 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 foot high communications tower including antennas, and 2) constructing a 216 sq. ft. support building, 1215 Dorset Street: Ms. McIntyre noted that they have reduced the height of the tower from 200 to 180 feet. With the antennas on top, it will be 189.5 feet. That is higher than where they are today. Mr. Barritt noted the applicant is making a good faith offer to take down the old tower. Ms. McIntyre said it is no longer needed, and the city is agreeable to taking it down. Mr. Pratt added that because of the possibility of conflicting wires, the old tower would come down before construction of the new one. Mr. Belair noted they will need a demolition permit for that. Mr. Wilking said his preference would be for guy wires. Mr. Owens explained why they can’t do that. Mr. Pratt added that the top 60 feet of the structure will be narrower than the bottom, so it won’t be as obtrusive. Mr. Barritt questioned whether this will interfere with views from roadways. He felt it would, but the issue was the degree and how much it matters in terms of the LDRs. Mr. Owens said there are no scenic protection zones involved in this location, and the tower is already in the landscape. They are using the same materials as are already on the site. He described the project as “a necessary aesthetic evil.” Mr. Bloom, who lives directly under the tower, said he was initially against the project and felt it was a waste of money, but last week he met with CWD and heard different number than what he had previously heard. He now supports the project as a public safety need. Mr. Barritt asked if there could be cell phone antennas on the structure in the future. Mr. Pratt said definitely not. It would be a nightmare to manage. There will be a written policy prohibiting that. Mr. Owens said it would also be a security concern as cell phone companies would have to have keys to the site. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-14. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 4 November 2014, 7 April and 21 April 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 4 November 2014, 7 April and 21 April 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Members agreed not to meet on 4 August, the traditional National Night Out. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:50 p.m. , Clerk ___________5/19/2015________________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SP-15-18 SP_15_18_Stonehedge Drive_City_South Burlington_stormwater_ffd.doc - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON – STONEHEDGE DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-18 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION The City of South Burlington, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three (3) new bioretention areas, 4) wetland encroachments, and 4) adding four (4) new catch basins, Stonehedge Drive. The Board held a public hearing on May 5, 2015. The applicant was represented by Tom DiPietro. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Administrative Officer finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a multi- unit residential complex known as Stonehedge. The amendment consists of: 1) the creation of a new treatment and detention pond, 2) improvement of swales & ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three (3) new bioretention areas, and 4) adding four (4) new catch basins, Stonehedge Drive. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are: City of South Burlington, Stonehedge North Area Association & Stonehedge South Area Association. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 & PR Zoning Districts. 4. The application was received on April 13, 2015. 5. The plan submitted consists of three (3) pages with page one (1) entitled, “Stonehedge Stormwater Improvements South Burlington, Vermont Overall Site Plan”, prepared by US Army Corps of Engineers New York District and Dubois & King, Inc., dated 3/2/2015. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Standards regarding Vehicular access, Circulation, Parking, Landscaping, Outdoor Lighting and Traffic are not applicable to this project. #SP-15-18 SP_15_18_Stonehedge Drive_City_South Burlington_stormwater_ffd.doc - 2 – (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objects set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. 6. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage development while protecting natural resources and promoting a healthy and safe environment. The Board finds that the proposed project is in keeping with the recommended actions of the Comprehensive Plan. (b) 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. 7. Additional plantings will be added in the vicinity of the detention ponds. The Board finds that this criterion will continue to be met. (c) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Not applicable. (d) 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. Not applicable. (e) Newly installed utility service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Not applicable. (f) The combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings or different architectural styles shall be encouraged. Not applicable. (g) 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. Not applicable. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the 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 or #SP-15-18 SP_15_18_Stonehedge Drive_City_South Burlington_stormwater_ffd.doc - 3 – collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. 8. The Board finds that the reservation of land is not necessary. (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. Not applicable. (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). Not applicable. WETLANDS 12.02 E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. As detailed in the applicant’s memo dated April 13, 2015. The project previously received site plan approval from the DRB on July 18, 2014. Subsequently, the project encountered unanticipated problems while obtaining its State wetlands permit and various changes were therefore made to the plan reduce and mitigate wetlands impacts and also remove a large volume of an invasive plant species. The City received its State Wetland Permit on _____________, 2015. #SP-15-18 SP_15_18_Stonehedge Drive_City_South Burlington_stormwater_ffd.doc - 4 – The Board finds that the criteria above in Section 12.02 E are met. DECISION Motion by ______________, seconded by ________________, to approve site plan application #SP-15-18 of the City of South Burlington subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the stormwater treatment facilities. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X – 0 – 0 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. #SD-15-13 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING STERLING CONSTRUCTION, INC. SOUTH VILLAGE PUD, 54 FROST STREET & 138 CHIPMAN STREET FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-15-13 of Sterling Construction, Inc., hereinafter referred to as applicant, to create two (2) footprint lots, 54 Frost Street & 138 Chipman Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 5, 2015. Bart Frisbie represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing 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. The application consists of creating two (2) footprint lots, 54 Frost Street & 138 Chipman Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject properties is Sterling Construction, Inc. 3. The application was received on March 31, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page and is entitled “Lands of Sterling Construction, Inc. Frost St. & Chipman St., South Burlington, VT”, prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated March 16, 2015. Dimensional Standards: The applicant proposes to create lot lines in between the individual dwelling units and including front and year yard areas with each dwelling unit previously approved in this subdivision. This action would create non-conforming lots (being of insufficient individual size, and having zero setback in between each unit on a lot) and therefore will not be considered individual lots for the LDRs. Lot 32 is to be divided into two footprint lots consisting of 32-1 (#54 Frost Street) and 32-2 (#138 Chipman Street). For purposes of the LDRs, the two lots included in this proposal shall be considered one lot as approved previously. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. #SD-15-13 2 DECISION Motion by ______________________, seconded by _______________, to approve Final Plat Application #SD-15-13 of Sterling Construction subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations for the South Village project shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plats submitted by the applicants and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plats shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plats. a. The plat plan shall be revised to include the seal and signature of the land surveyor. 4. For purposes of the LDRs, all two lots (lots 32-1 & 32-2) included in this subdivision shall be considered one lot (Lot 32) as approved previously. The applicant shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. 5. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 6. The final plat plan (survey plat) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit copies of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair #SD-15-13 3 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. #CU-15-02 CU_15_02_75_GreenMountainDrive_VT_Commons_School_ffd.doc -1- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING DEXTER MAHAFFEY --- 75 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-15-02 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-15-02 of Dexter Mahaffey to amend a previously approved plan for a 25,200 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 1500 sq. ft. two (2) story addition, and 2) constructing a 50 sq. ft. addition, 75 Green Mountain Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 5, 2015. The applicant was represented by Gary Lavigne. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Conditional use application #CU-15-02 of Dexter Mahaffey to amend a previously approved plan for a 25,200 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 1500 sq. ft. two (2) story addition, and 2) constructing a 50 sq. ft. addition, 75 Green Mountain Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Vermont Commons School. 3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 Zoning District. 4. The application was received on April 2, 2015. 5. Site plan approval for the proposed improvements was issued on 4/8/15 (#SP-15-13) as an administrative site plan approval. This application is for review and approval of the conditional use portion of the required review process. 6. The plans submitted consist of a four (4) page set of plans, page one (1) is entitled “Vermont Commons School Site Improvements 75 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, Vermont 05403”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., and dated 03/18/15. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: 7. Building coverage is 24.1% (maximum allowed is 40%). Overall coverage is 60.6% (maximum allowed is 70%) and front yard coverage is 6.3% (maximum allowed is 30%). 8. Setback requirements will continue to be met. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, #CU-15-02 CU_15_02_75_GreenMountainDrive_VT_Commons_School_ffd.doc -2- The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. The expansion to the facility is small so it will therefore have little to no undue adverse effect on the capacity of existing or planned community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The additions will be small and in keeping with the architecture of the existing building, so therefore the improvements will not have any undue adverse effect on this criterion. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. No additional is expected, so therefore the improvements will not have any undue adverse effect on this criterion. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The additions will result in compliance with the Land Development Regulations, so therefore the improvements will not have any undue adverse effect on this criterion. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. There is no utilization of renewable energy resources in the vicinity, so therefore the improvements will not have any undue adverse effect on this criterion. DECISION Motion by _________________, seconded by ______________, to approve conditional use conditional use application #CU-15-02 of Dexter Mahaffey subject to the following stipulations: 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 plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Breslend Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present #CU-15-02 CU_15_02_75_GreenMountainDrive_VT_Commons_School_ffd.doc -3- David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. 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. LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2109' - 7 1/2"ATTIC118' - 8"BBBBCCCPREFIN. MTL FASCIAEIFS, MATCH COLOR TO EXISTING STUCCONEW EIFS WALL FINISH3/4" EXPANSION JOINTEXISTING STUCCO FINISHLEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2109' - 7 1/2"ATTIC118' - 8"EE'2A3.01CCEXISTING METALPANEL WALLNEW EIFS WALL FINISH9' - 0 1/2"9' - 7 1/2"21' - 5 1/4"3/4" EXP. JNT.TURN EPDM UPSIDE WALLLEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2109' - 7 1/2"3A3.01LEVEL 1100' - 0"LEVEL 2109' - 7 1/2"A'7A6.106A6.10A100525 Hercules DriveSuite TwoColchester, VT 05446802.655.5020802.622.6567wiemannlamphere.comSCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:PRINTED: FILENAME: 1/4" = 1'-0"3/31/2015 3:51:58 PM C:\Users\mreed\Documents\2014096_Building Model_MReed.rvtVERMONT COMMONSSCHOOL PHASE IIMARMAR2014096BUILDINGELEVATIONSA2.0103.27.15VTSOUTH BURLINGTONPROGRESS SETNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA2.01 1/4" = 1'-0"1ADDITION - WESTA2.01 1/4" = 1'-0"2ADDITION - NORTHA2.01 1/4" = 1'-0"3VESTIBULE - WESTA2.01 1/4" = 1'-0"4VESTIBULE - SOUTHNO.DATE:REVISION: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_c omm_tower_and_support_building_prelim DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: May 1, 2015 Plans received: March 31, 2015 PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-14 CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT – 1215 DORSET STREET Meeting Date: May 5, 2015 Applicant Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05401 Owners same Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-15-14 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 COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 31, 2015 and offer the following comments: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Municipal Zoning District. Municipal Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size none 1.17 acres No change  Max. Building Coverage 30% 0.05 % 0.50 %  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 12.4 % 17.2 %  Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 28.0 % No change  Min. Front Setback 40 ft. > 40 ft. > 40 ft.  Min. Side Setback 15 ft. ~6 ft. > 15 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. <30 ft. > 30 ft.  Max. Building Height 35ft. (flat roof) 135 ft. tank + antennas of unknown height on tank 190 ft, new tower and antennas  zoning compliance  Waiver previously granted for existing tank & antennae, 155 ft. height waiver requested for new tower with antennas Height Waiver The applicant is requesting a waiver pursuant to Section 3.07, D.(2)(b) which reads as follows: (2) R12, IA, PR, MU, C1-R12, C1-R15 C1-Auto, C1-Air, C1-LR, AR, SW, IO, C2, Mixed IC, AIR, and AIR-IND Districts. (a) …………. (b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc The applicant has submitted the required plans. With regards to the existing tank which measures 150.5 ft. in height, the applicant proposes to keep this in place but remove the communications antennas from it (of unknown height). The applicant then proposes to erect a new communications tower with whip antennas with a total height of 189.5 ft. The general objectives of the Municipal Zoning District, noted in Section 7.03 A. are as follows: A Municipal District is hereby formed to provide for public schools, municipal services including but not limited to administration, police, fire, water, street, and sewer services, landfills, operations of other municipal corporations as set forth in 24 VSA [municipal corporations such as CSWD], and other municipal uses, excluding public recreation. Existing whip antennas on top of the tank provide communications services to CWD and South Burlington Police, Fire and Rescue and will be moved to the proposed new communications tower. Applicant has submitted photo simulations of the new tower. The applicant notes that they also propose to remove (via a separate Zoning Permit application for demolition) an existing unused City-owned tower approximately 110 ft. in height, shed and associated guy wires located on the adjacent Isham property. 1. The Board should determine whether a 190 ft. tower with a 155 ft. height waiver will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. Fencing As a matter of public health and safety, the applicant seeks to install an 8 ft. fence consisting of 7 ft. of fencing with a 1 ft., 3-strand barbed wire apron installed at a 30-45 degree angle. Barbed wire is prohibited by the LDRs as follows in Section 13.17 (C): 24 V.S.A. Section 4413 (a) states that certain “uses may be regulated only with respect to location, size, height, building bulk, yards, courts, setbacks, density of buildings, off-street parking, loading facilities, traffic, noise, lighting, landscaping, and screening requirements…” 24 V.S.A. Section 4413 (a) (1) includes “state or community-owned and operated institutions and facilities”. Since the proposed tower will be a community-owned facility, the barbed wire fencing is exempt from City regulation. Staff feels that the barbed wire fencing is therefore acceptable. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The project requires no water or wastewater supply or disposal. This criterion is not applicable. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The applicant’s plans indicate the use of grading and erosion controls. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The site is not regularly staffed and operates 24 hours a day. There will be no increase in traffic to the site and the existing driveway will be used. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy nor unique natural features on the site. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. 3. The Board should determine whether the proposed tower and antennas will comply with this criterion. (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. This criterion is not applicable. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In a letter to staff dated April 27, 2015, the Fire Chief provided the following comments: Dear Ray: We are familiar with and have reviewed this project as submitted and see no issues regarding its construction and access. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief Staff considers this criterion to be met. (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. Not applicable. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). According to the Comprehensive Plan, the goals and objectives for this area of the City is as follows: 5. Southeast Quadrant - The Quadrant should be developed in a gradual, well planned manner that provides a variety of development patterns. An overall density in the low moderate range should be maintained and development designs stressed which preserve the open, special character of the SEQ. The project will remove one tower and erect a new tower. The proposed development will have little impact on density and little impact on the open and special character of the SEQ. Staff considers this criterion to be met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. There is no pedestrian access to the site. Parking needs are minimal as the site is only visited on periodic basis for maintenance. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc There are no formal parking areas on the site. The new gravel drive area will be located to the side of the new tower. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed new tower will be compatible with the scale and height of the existing tank on the site. 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. Proposed new power lines will be 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. The applicant proposes to plant 35 new trees on the property and remove 15 existing trees. In a memo to staff dated April 21, 2015 the City Arborist provided the following comments:  Tree and Shrub Planting Details should be included with plans  I’m sure the intent of planting Norway Spruce is to provide screening but unless the trees are going to be maintained as a formal hedge, spacing the trees 10 ft. on center is pretty tight. These trees reach a mature width of 20-30 ft. and heights of 60-80 ft. In a memo to staff dated April 30, 2015 the City Arborist provided the following additional comments: Ray, I spoke with Jeremy at TJ Boyle regarding the spacing of the Norway Spruce on the south side of the access road. If they were to increase the spacing to 15-20 feet on center I think that would provide the trees with a bit more space while still providing screening. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist 4. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with the City Arborist’s recommendations. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed new structure is only 9 ft. tall and relatively small and unobtrusive. The proposed new tower will be 190 ft. high and the existing water tower (after its top-mounted antennas are removed) will measure 150.5 feet. The applicant has provided a photo simulation of what the project will look like after completion. 7.03 Municipal District MU A. Purpose. A Municipal District is hereby formed to provide for public schools, municipal services including but not limited to administration, police, fire, water, street, and sewer services, landfills, operations of other municipal corporations as set forth in 24 VSA [municipal corporations such as CSWD], and other municipal uses, excluding public recreation. B. Comprehensive Plan. These regulations hereby implement the relevant provisions of the City of South Burlington's adopted Comprehensive Plan, and are in accord with the policies set forth therein. C. Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the Municipal District: (1) Agriculture, forestry and horticultural uses (2) Retail sale of agricultural, forest or horticultural products produced on site. Such use shall be subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (3) Keeping of livestock (4) Single-family dwelling related to agriculture, forestry or horticultural use (5) Additional dwellings for farm employees, subject to site plan review in accordance with Article 14 of these Regulations. (6) Community center (7) Public educational facility (8) Recreation path (9) Municipal building (10) Private providers of public services (11) Recreation facility, indoor (12) Recreation facility, outdoor (13) Offices incidental and subordinate to a permitted use listed above D. Conditional Uses. The following uses are allowed in the Municipal District as conditional uses subject to approval by the Development Review Board in accordance with the provisions of this Section 7.03 and Table C-1, Table of Uses. (1) Day care centers CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_14_1215DorsetStreet_ChamplainWaterDistrict_comm_tower_and_support_building_prelim.doc (2) Public utility substation and transmission lines (3) Waste handling and transfer facilities (4) Commercial or public parking facility E. Area, Density and Dimensional Requirements. In the Municipal District, all requirements of this Section 7.03 and Table C-2, Dimensional Standards shall apply. F. Additional Standards. In reviewing any Permitted or Conditional Use proposed under this Section shall meet the following standards in addition to those in Article 14 of these Regulations: (1) The proposed use will provide an affirmative public benefit to the City and its citizens. (2) The proposed use will be compatible with and protect the ability to preserve public recreational use and planned open spaces and natural areas on the project site 5. The Board should determine if Standards F.(1) and (2) are met. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through final review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Richard Pratt, Champlain Water District 5,370 272.8 Champlain Water District Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 3,759 © Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 191.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Meters191.00 NOTES 1.17 Acre Parcel to Support Proposed Public Safety Communications Tower LEGEND 96.00 vermont.gov DISCLAIMER: This map is for general reference only. Data layers that appearon this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. ANR andthe State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but notlimited to, the warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular use, nor are any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data on this map. January 8, 2015 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1" = 313 1cm = 38Ft.Meters Parcels (where available) Town Boundary General Information Viewpoint LocationNowland Farm RoadSouth Burlington, VTView looking north from Nowland Farm Nowland Farm Road in South Burlington, VT. The existing water tower and lattice tower are visible beyond the golf course clubhouse.Photograph taken at 1:27 pm on February 27, 2015Distance to Site:3,295 feet (.62 Miles) Nikon D7000 Photograph taken at 35mm focal length (approximately camera)Viewing Instructions The simulated image is at proper perspective when viewed at 17.5 inches from the eye,or at a distance of approximately 2 times the image heightDorset StreetPublic Safety March 3, 2015VIEWPOINT 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS General Information Viewpoint LocationDistance to Site:3,295 feet (.62 Miles) Nikon D7000 Photograph taken at 35mm focal length (approximately camera)Viewing Instructions The simulated image is at proper perspective when viewed at 17.5 inches from the eye,or at a distance of approximately 2 times the image heightVIEWPOINT 1 - SIMULATED CONDITIONSDorset StreetPublic Safety March 3, 2015View looking north from Nowland Farm Nowland Farm Road in South Burlington, VT. The antenna on the water tower and the lattice tower have been removed, and the proposed tower is visible at center.Photograph taken at 1:27 pm on February 27, 2015Nowland Farm RoadSouth Burlington, VT General Information Viewpoint LocationDorset StreetSouth Burlington, VTPhotograph taken at 1:32 pm on February 27, 2015Distance to Site:710 feet (.13 Miles) Nikon D7000 Photograph taken at 35mm focal length (approximately camera)Viewing Instructions The simulated image is at proper perspective when viewed at 17.5 inches from the eye,or at a distance of approximately 2 times the image heightVIEWPOINT 2 - EXISTING CONDITIONSDorset StreetPublic Safety March 3, 2015 General Information Viewpoint LocationDorset StreetSouth Burlington, VTPhotograph taken at 1:32 pm on February 27, 2015Distance to Site:710 feet (.13 Miles) Nikon D7000 Photograph taken at 35mm focal length (approximately camera)Viewing Instructions The simulated image is at proper perspective when viewed at 17.5 inches from the eye,or at a distance of approximately 2 times the image heightVIEWPOINT 2 - SIMULATED CONDITIONSDorset StreetPublic Safety March 3, 2015 General Information Viewpoint LocationPark RoadSouth Burlington, VTView looking southwest from Park Road in South Burlington, VT. The existing water tower and antennas atop the water tower are visible in the middle ground.Photograph taken at 12:55 pm on February 23, 2015Distance to Site:1,248 feet (.24 Miles) Nikon D7000 Photograph taken at 35mm focal length (approximately camera)Viewing Instructions The simulated image is at proper perspective when viewed at 17.5 inches from the eye,or at a distance of approximately 2 times the image heightVIEWPOINT 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONSDorset StreetPublic Safety March 3, 2015 General Information Viewpoint LocationPark RoadSouth Burlington, VTView looking southwest from Park Road in South Burlington, VT. The proposed tower is visible in the middle ground.Photograph taken at 12:55 pm on February 23, 2015Distance to Site:1,248 feet (.24 Miles)Nikon D7000 Photograph taken at 35mm focal length (approximately camera)Viewing Instructions The simulated image is at proper perspective when viewed at 17.5 inches from the eye,or at a distance of approximately 2 times the image heightVIEWPOINT 3 - SIMULATED CONDITIONSViewpoint LocationDorset StreetPublic Safety March 3, 2015 Valmont Structures, Inc. - Specialty Structures Group 1545 Pidco Drive Plymouth, IN 46563 Phone: (574) 936-4221 FAX: (574) 936-6458 Job: Quotation 279168-04 Project: U-16 x 180' - CWD Water Tank Site, VT Client: The Radio North Group Drawn by: CRF1 App'd: Code: TIA-222-G Date: 03/12/15 Scale: NTS Path: \\plystrfile01\fileroom\Documents\279\279168 The Radio North Group Water Tank Site, VT U-x180'\00 Quote Information\279168-04.eri Dwg No. E-1 180.0 ft 160.0 ft 140.0 ft 120.0 ft 100.0 ft 80.0 ft 60.0 ft 40.0 ft 20.0 ft 0.0 ft REACTIONS - 90 mph WIND TORQUE 2 kip-ft 24 K SHEAR 2179 kip-ft MOMENT 22 K AXIAL 40 mph WIND - 1.0000 in ICE TORQUE 1 kip-ft 8 K SHEAR 839 kip-ft MOMENT 145 K AXIAL SHEAR: 17 K UPLIFT: -145 K DOWN: 165 K MAX. CORNER REACTIONS AT BASE: ARE FACTORED ALL REACTIONS SectionT1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9 LegsSR 1 1/4SR 1 1/2SR 1 3/4#12ZG-58 - 1.25" - 1.00" conn. (Pirod 194434) Leg GradeA572-58 DiagonalsSR 3/4L2 1/2x2 1/2x3/16L3x3x3/16 Diagonal GradeA572-50A36 Top GirtsSR 7/8L3x3x3/16N.A. Mid GirtsSR 7/8N.A. Bottom GirtsSR 7/8N.A. HorizontalsSR 3/4N.A. Face Width (ft)46810121416 # Panels @ (ft)24 @ 2.4270812 @ 10 Weight (K)0.70.81.01.91.92.02.02.12.314.7 15' LRE with 4' lightning rod (arm=7.75') 180 Beacon 180 ANT150F2 180 DB636 180 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 180 ANT440F6 180 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 180 Intreprid 2.4 Ghz Panel 180 DB636 180 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 180 PR-900 170 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 170 PR-900 170 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 170 ANT930Y10-WR 150 ANT940F10 150 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 150 PTP5.8 150 DB636 150 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 150 ANT450Y10-WR 140 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 140 ANT150F6 -150-174 MHZ 140 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 140 Pipe mount 135 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 135 HPD2-4.7 135 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 130 PR-900 130 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 130 Pipe mount 130 HPD2-4.7 130 Pipe mount 120 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 120 HPD2-4.7 120 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 110 ANT150F6 -150-174 MHZ 110 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 110 Pipe mount 110 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 110 DB636 110 HPD2-4.7 110 DB636 80 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 80 ANT150F6 -150-174 MHZ 80 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 80 Pipe mount 80 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 80 HPD2-4.7 80DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING TYPE TYPEELEVATION ELEVATION 15' LRE with 4' lightning rod (arm=7.75') 180 Beacon 180 ANT150F2 180 DB636 180 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 180 ANT440F6 180 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 180 Intreprid 2.4 Ghz Panel 180 DB636 180 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 180 PR-900 170 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 170 PR-900 170 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 170 ANT930Y10-WR 150 ANT940F10 150 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 150 PTP5.8 150 DB636 150 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 150 ANT450Y10-WR 140 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 140 ANT150F6 -150-174 MHZ 140 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 140 Pipe mount 135 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 135 HPD2-4.7 135 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 130 PR-900 130 3' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 130 Pipe mount 130 HPD2-4.7 130 Pipe mount 120 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 120 HPD2-4.7 120 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 110 ANT150F6 -150-174 MHZ 110 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 110 Pipe mount 110 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 110 DB636 110 HPD2-4.7 110 DB636 80 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 80 ANT150F6 -150-174 MHZ 80 6' Pivot Side Arm (50" pipe) 80 Pipe mount 80 ODU 12" x 11" x 4" 80 HPD2-4.7 80 MATERIAL STRENGTH GRADE GRADEFy FyFu Fu A572-58 58 ksi 75 ksi A572-50 50 ksi 65 ksi A36 36 ksi 58 ksi TOWER DESIGN NOTES 1. Tower is located in Chittenden County, Vermont. 2. Tower designed for Exposure C to the TIA-222-G Standard. 3. Tower designed for a 90 mph basic wind in accordance with the TIA-222-G Standard. 4. Tower is also designed for a 40 mph basic wind with 1.00 in ice. Ice is considered to increase in thickness with height.5. Deflections are based upon a 60 mph wind. 6. Tower Structure Class III. 7. Topographic Category 1 with Crest Height of 0.00 ft 8. TOWER RATING: 96.8% Contract 101 – Public Safety Communications Tower Project Justification - March 31, 2015 1 Project Purpose and Necessity Q: Why must the antennas be removed from the public water supply tank permanently?  Tank Maintenance Program – This tank is one of fourteen in a 17-year maintenance contract with Utility Service Group. Every tank is inspected annually and rehabilitated on a set schedule; this tank is scheduled for major maintenance in year 7 (2016), and again in year 17 (2026). The 2016 work includes complete interior and exterior rehabilitation and recoating (sand blasting and repainting), as well as specific metal repair and safety improvements: installation of a secondary square roof hatch, addition of rest stations on the tank ladder, repairs to, or replacement of the ladder safety climb system. All attachments or obstacles on the water storage tank must be removed to perform a proper rehabilitation job, including welding, sand blasting and painting, and to provide for the safety of the contractor (not to mention maintaining the integrity and performance of the live communications equipment) given the safety concerns of working around live communications equipment.  Safety – There are inherent safety concerns when working at great heights on a water tank, in different seasons and weather conditions, and on dissimilar disciplines (tank maintenance vs. communications maintenance). Radio antennas, cables, and conduits compromise access and safety of tank maintenance workers as they must tie off safety harnesses and install rigging to access all surfaces of the tank. There exists a risk that many tank maintenance employees may not be familiar with the health risk borne of close exposure to live microwave signals propagated by some antennas. Case History: In the 2004-2005 timeframe, the tank was subjected to major reconstruction, consisting of foundation replacement in situ, and addition of 35 vertical feet of structure to provide additional storage. Simultaneously, Radio North, the City’s radio consultant required access to the tank for upgrades to the City radio system. At various stages of the tank project, Radio North was refused access to the tank for safety reasons. When they were allowed on the tank, there was elevated risk due to congestion at the jobsite, around and upon the tank.  Security and Limited Access – CWD must employ strict safety and security standards system- wide to protect the health of its 70,000 consumers. Water storage tanks are identified as high risk assets for those interested in intentional acts against the public. Every individual, including our own CWD employees, are required to sign out and sign back in a special key every time they access the locked tank ladder or roof hatches. Tank locks are unique compared to all other locks throughout the CWD system. The fewer contractors, workers, and employees with access to the tank reduce the likelihood of any type of security lapse. Contract 101 – Public Safety Communications Tower Project Justification - March 31, 2015 2  Policy & Practice – There exists a written policy effective throughout the CWD system that third- party private telecommunications providers shall not be provided space on our tanks for their equipment. In addition, in the few circumstances where local municipal (usually police and fire) communications gear has been allowed on our tanks, that access has been rescinded over time for the same reasons as spelled out above.  Emergency or Unscheduled Maintenance or Repairs – In the event of damage to the tank, there is high risk that the communications equipment mounted upon the tank could be physically compromised in some manner, or must be relocated with very short notice. In either case, continuity of radio service could not be guaranteed, severely impacting City police and fire, and CWD operations. Case History: In the fall of 1997, a roof failure on a 2 million gallon water storage tank in Essex Junction required taking the tank out of service and completing extensive roof demolition and replacement that lasted several months from start to finish. Had there been radio communications equipment upon that tank, either radio services would have been compromised until a backup system could be employed, or the tank would have been out of service longer to accommodate the time necessary for installation of a backup radio system prior to commencing tank roof demolition. Alternatives Considered Q: Have other sites in South Burlington been considered for relocating the radio communications infrastructure?  Two Studies – The City carried out a Radio Communications Study in 2002 by RCC Consultants, Inc. concluding that the current tank site on Dorset Street was the optimal location for its police and fire radio services, given the many locations about the city that require a reliable communications link. Coincidentally, CWD and the City had implemented a water storage study to search for alternative sites in the city for construction of additional storage volume. The two studies both concluded that the best recommended location for additional storage and communications was already established at the Dorset Street tank site, and the property was already municipally owned. Q: Can the antennas be moved off the tank temporarily, and then re-installed?  Key Communications Facility – Because of its location and elevation, this site on Dorset Street has evolved as a key setting for the City of South Burlington and CWD, supporting voice radio, regional data collection and controls for remote sites of the water system, emergency services coordination and response, security alarms, video feedback, etc. Importantly, this facility is the Contract 101 – Public Safety Communications Tower Project Justification - March 31, 2015 3 sole radio transmission site for all South Burlington police, fire, and emergency services, with no backup for emergencies. These critical communications assets must be “hot” (up and running, and reliable) 24/7/365. Understandably, a permanent relocation of the equipment, even a temporary relocation, will require construction of a new, twin, live installation, before the existing installation is shut down and dismantled.  Cost Prohibitive – With the need for a continuous, hot communications facility in mind, a re- visitation of the cost of relocating, then replacing all equipment is warranted. A temporary structure (tower) at least 180’ in height must be permitted and provided, equipped with all new cabling and antennas. The temporary facility must remain in service until tank maintenance is complete and new cabling and antennas are affixed back onto the tank (all cables and antennas removed from the tank would not be re-used, but replaced with new), since that existing equipment has served it’s useful life and is due for replacement. The temporary tower would then be dismantled and removed. Alternatives for temporary relocation considered by a manufacturer’s engineer (extremely tall monopole), or tank maintenance company (scaffolding) are excessively expensive (well into six figures), or patently high risk / unsafe for serious consideration.  Frequency of Tank Maintenance – Each time the tank requires major maintenance, the above temporary relocation steps must be repeated. The Dorset Street tank is scheduled for major maintenance in 2016, and again 10 years later in 2026, as stated earlier. Therefore the temporary relocation costs will be approximately doubled for work scheduled over the next ten- year timeframe, which is an undesirable economic approach.  Time Delays and Additional Cost for Repetitive Permitting – At each tank maintenance interval, the permitting process must be followed when the temporary relocation project is required, adding additional time constraints and costs to accommodate the work. Q: Have other locations on the CWD tank parcel on Dorset Street been considered for relocating the radio communications infrastructure?  Site limitations – Alternatively, a tower location northerly or northwesterly of the Dorset Street water tank has been considered, but the tank already dominates that corner of the CWD parcel. When a clear access space 20 feet in width around the circumference of the tank is imposed, very little space remains to squeeze in a tower and new utility building. Down sloping topography and lot setback requirements render this location unusable. Any alternative suggesting tower attachment to the tank or “stand-offs” welded to the tank are not acceptable given the minimum 20’ clear space requirement. Contract 101 – Public Safety Communications Tower Project Justification - March 31, 2015 4 The proposed location provides the best available remaining site for a stand-alone tower. Permanent separation of water storage tank operations and maintenance activities, and communication related activities is highly desirable. Following a line of site assessment to the many remote locations for robust communications links, the proposed location with a 180’ tower stands out as the optimal choice. Q: Why is the Tower 180 feet tall? Would a shorter tower suffice?  Line-of-site – The 135’ tall Dorset Street tank serves as a major obstruction for radio signals directed from all proposed tower locations to various sites in the city and about the county-wide water system, which are located over a 360 degree spectrum.  Tower / Antenna Design – All CWD and City-owned antennas on the proposed tower are designed at elevations greater than 140 feet high upon the 180’ tower, to transmit over the tank and/or to transmit to existing sites at specific elevations about the county, while also maintaining antenna-to-antenna required physical separation distances on the tower itself. Q: Can the tank maintenance be performed with the antennas remaining on the tank?  Cost and Quality of tank maintenance work – As stated by our tank maintenance consultant: “If equipment cannot come off the tank for the renovation as prescribed, it can create an unsafe working place for workers. It also significantly increases the cost of renovation due to the added liability for not damaging the equipment and the methods required for having to protect and work around the equipment. The equipment prohibits use of preferred, less expensive renovation methods and may impact the ability to provide the best quality of renovation.” The annual cost increase for maintenance with radio antennas and cabling left on the tank is estimated at $25,000 based on a proposal for a similar scenario in a local water system.  Continuity of Service – For safety reasons, scheduled radio service interruptions would be required as per the following recommendation from the tank maintenance consultant: “If equipment remains on the tank during renovation, it will be required the equipment be turned off at certain times while workers are working in front of the panels. This is to protect workers’ health and limit their exposure to microwave and radio wave radiation. Typically a schedule is established for certain quadrants to be turned off during specific working hours each day of renovation.” Contract 101 – Public Safety Communications Tower Project Justification - March 31, 2015 5 Mitigation / Improved Service and Reliability  Removal of Existing Infrastructure – The project includes removal of the “Isham” communications tower and cabling located south of the CWD property, and existing utility buildings, propane tank, and all cabling and antennas on the water storage tank. We are also proposing that the existing FAA required light atop the water tank be removed and relocated to the top of the new communications tower.  Landscaping – On the order of $15,000 in trees and vegetation will be planted about the CWD property to provide screening, reducing the visual impact of the tower structure, and to enhance overall site aesthetics.  Emergency Communications - Elevating several Police and Fire antennas may enhance portable radio communications in the northeast and southwest regions of the city, areas that were found to be deficient in the RCC study of 2002.  Emergency Backup Antenna Mount Location – If the water tank is damaged or compromised in such a way that radio equipment is rendered unusable, there is currently no accessible backup antenna location at the Dorset Street site. The proposed stand-alone tower can rely upon the tank as a temporary backup structure, should the tower ever be compromised, limiting the duration of loss of communications service. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2014 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 November 2014, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parson, J. Wilking Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Leinwohl, M. Lawrence, B. Avery, D. Marshall, T. McKenzie, T. Hergenrother, J. Desautels, M. McFarland, D. Rice, U. Heiss, J. Pidgeon, D. Cummings, M. Janswold, D. & P. Sande 1. Agenda: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Announcements: Mr. Barritt advised that he and Mr. Belair had attended the VLCT Planning & Zoning Forum in Montpelier and had found it very enlightening. 3. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-23 of Synergy Development, LLC, to subdivide a 3.63 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into four lots ranging in size form 0.5 acres to 1.7 acres, 1741 Spear Street: Ms. Desautels said they had met with staff and decided to do more creative things. They have added community open space for residents of all three lots to use. They are also showing conservation open space for all the area around lots 1 & 2, outside of the building envelopes. They have inventoried all the larger diameter trees on the site and will try to avoid cutting as many of them as possible. One building envelope will be shifted to avoid a large willow tree. Ms. Desautels said they have been meeting with neighbors regarding a potential solution to stormwater concerns, especially on Harbor Ridge Road. She showed this area on the plan. Mr. Barritt asked how this qualifies as a PUD. Ms. Desautels said they have .4 acres of unique community open space, 1.1 acres of conservation open space, and they are addressing existing stormwater issues. Mr. Barritt said he is comfortable with the PUD. Mr. Behr said he will be interested to see how the stormwater ponds will work out. He suggested the possibility of a vegetative buffer. He also liked the amenities and the protection of trees. Mr. Barritt reminded the applicant that they have to speak with Public Works and with the city’s arborist. Mr. Rice, a neighbor, said he liked the new design. He then showed an area that is very wet. He indicated an easement which he and a neighbor each own half of. He believed it had been given to the city. He said they have the flexibility to let it be used to continue a drain line to Harbor Ridge Road. He then showed photos he had taken to show the extent of the flooding DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2014 2 issues. Mr. Heiss, another neighbor, also explained what happens with stormwater at his location. Ms. McFarland said they also have issues with water coming onto their land. She did not want it to become worse. Ms. Desautels said these issues are the reason they are having 2 stormwater ponds which can hold water during larger rain events. She stressed that this is a chance to do something better than what is there now. No other issues were raised. 4. Conditional Use Application #CU-14-10 of J. Peter & Diane Sande to raze an existing 1,136 sq. ft. single family dwelling with a 1,136 sq. ft. footprint and construct a new single family dwelling with a 1,703 sq. ft. footprint, 50 Bartlett Bay Road: Ms. Sande said they will tear down the existing camp and build a year-round house. They will not destroy any trees. One dead tree in front had to be taken down. They are still waiting to hear from the state as to whether the landscaping plan is acceptable. Mr. Barritt noted the applicant will need a setback waiver on the northern edge. Ms. Sande said they have talked with neighbors who are OK with the plan. Members were OK with the setback waiver. Ms. Sande said they have met with staff regarding landscaping and shoreland protection. They still have to do some work with their landscape design. They have checked with their engineer about the possibility of water going onto the neighbor’s land. This does not seem to be an issue. Members felt the application should be continued until the applicant hears from the State. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-14-10 until 16 December 2014. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch plan application #SD-14-28 of Adam Hergenrother for BlackRock Construction for a planned unit development to construct two general office buildings of 27,100 sq. ft. and 12,000 sq. ft. on lot C-1 of a proposed four lot subdivision, 284 Meadowland Drive: and 6. Miscellaneous application #MS-14-09 of SBRC Properties, LLC for after-the-face approval to leave in place 70,000 cubic yards of fill which was required to be removed by 12,11/09, 284 Meadowland Drive: and 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-29 of SBRC Properties, LLC to subdivide a 39.5 acre parcel into four lots ranging in size from 3.0 acres to 27.8 acres, 284 Meadowland DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2014 3 Drive: Members agreed to hear the three applications together as they are interrelated. Mr. Marshall noted that staff had asked them to review the overall goals of the I-O District. He noted that this plan shows protected wetland areas, 200 feet of open space adjacent to the residential neighborhood, etc. Mr. Marshall then showed lot #1 and noted that this plan aims to create 3 lots with what remains of lot #1. He showed the route of the roadway to serve those lots and noted the potential for extension of that road. As an alternate, it could become a loop road. The plan now is to bring the road in with a turnaround. They will work out the specifics for this with Public Works. Mr. Marshall showed a rec path on the east side of the roadway. There is also a rec path easement along all of the north side of the property. They would like to create green space along that path, so they have brought the buildings further from that space. The applicant is willing to construct the gravel base for that rec path. There may also be an opportunity to tie into the rec path on the neighboring property. Regarding the fill (item #6), a temporary fill permit was issued by the city at this location. The expiration date of that permit has passed. The applicant feels the best thing is to leave the fill where it is. They understand this will not change the pre-existing grades for computation of building heights. Regarding parking in front of buildings, Mr. Marshall showed one building with two frontages and indicated which parking spaces would have to be eliminated. He said they have to decide which is the front and which is the side. They also question whether having the buildings behind each other would achieve compliance with the “no parking in front” standard. Mr. Marshall said the dumpster location can be changed. The building is currently being viewed as a general office building. It was originally planned as 3 stories, but they have reduced this to 2. This would change the parking requirement. They need to understand that they can accommodate the proposed tenant’s parking needs. Employees are not all there at the same time, but there are occasions when there are “all aboard” meetings. Mr. Belair said if the building becomes 2 stories, the 10 parking spaces in front could be the ones that get removed. Mr. Barritt said the best outcome would be to use the building to shield parking from the road. The applicant stressed their desire to keep the north side of the property “green” so employees don’t have to cross a road to walk at lunchtime. Mr. Behr said he saw the potential for a shared parking agreement. He also felt the site could be made to “coalesce” more. There may be some natural areas they haven’t considered if they are not so heavily “parked.” He suggested the possibility of picnic tables or other amenities for employees. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2014 4 Mr. Barritt said they should try to “undersize” parking as much as possible without “under parking.” He didn’t feel they should plan for one day a year when everyone is present. Mr. Avery said the company has monthly meetings for all employees, and their current parking lot is always full. They are open to the shared parking concept, but they may be the only ones there for a considerable time. The plan is to build building #1 first, then review their options for building #2 when they can financially accommodate it. Ms. Smith asked about the possibility of under building parking. Mr. Avery said they are coming to such a large site so they don’t have to do that. He thought it might be possible with building #2. With regard to traffic, Mr. Marshall said they are not yet at the point where the need for a traffic signal if triggered. Mr. Belair explained staff’s thinking with regard to parking in front of the building. He said they feel what is proposed is “parking in front.” Mr. Marshall noted that if there were only one building, parking will be on the side. The applicant felt they have enough feedback to go to preliminary but they will run a concept by staff first to assess the “comfort level.” Mr. Miller then moved to close MS-14-09. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-14-30 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a planned unit development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact construction of a 215 sq. ft. expansion of the existing Gate 11 aircraft boarding hallway and pedestal footing for aircraft boarding bridge equipment, and 2) removing landscaping along security fence and replacing this landscaping elsewhere on the property, 1130 & 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl explained that TSA had safety concerns with the cedar hedge so close to the security fence and asked that it be taken down. It will be replaced with plantings further from the fence. Three other trees were removed for the same reason and are being replaced as part of this plan. Mr. Lawrence then showed the Heritage Building. There is a chain link fence with white pines near the fence. These and the honey locust were found to be OK by TSA. As it is a shady environment, they are proposing yews be planted back from the fence. They will screen the airfield and the fence. On Airport Drive, there is a concrete block wall with some shade trees along the wall. The intent is to create large planting beds to anchor those trees. They will use a mix of evergreen ground cover and junipers with some perennials for color. They also propose to bring in some attractive boulders to soften the wall. Since TSA wants to be able to see inside the fence, nothing will be planted near the fence that is over 3 feet high. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2014 5 Mr. Barritt asked about the Board’s suggestions for the sign. Mr. Leinwohl said the Airport people are interested, but want that to be separate from this application. Members were OK with the landscape plan. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-14-30. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 21 October 2014: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 21 October 2014 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. ________________________, Clerk ________________________, Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 April 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; R. Audette, R. White, D. Bell, T. Vincent, S. Vock, C. Lisman, P. Simon, T. Bouton, C. Gallup, P. Cross, D. Hillman, R. Roesler, R. Smith, R. Diaco, J. Desautels 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued conditional use application #CU-15-01 of Richard B. White to expand a nonconforming single family dwelling to 2,574 sq. ft. by constructing two additions of 5’ x 8’ and 19’ by 19’6” and constructing a 19’ x 27’ 2-story detached accessory structure to contain a 772 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 56 Central Avenue: Mr. White noted he went east 17-1/2 feet instead of 19-1/2 feet and eliminated a privacy fence to comply with issues raised by a neighbor. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-15-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continue reopened final plat application #SD-15-02 of Halvorsen Development to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 9,356 sq. ft. 275 seat standard restaurant, 2) a 71 room hotel (Comfort Suites), and 3) an 89 room hotel. The amendment consists of: 1) razing the 275 seat restaurant building, 2) constructing 11,242 sq. ft. retail building, and 3) constructing a 10’x 55’ detached accessary structure, 1 Dorset Street. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 7 APRIL 2015, PAGE 2 Ms. Bell indicated the area where there was concern about landscaping on the south side of the lease line. She said they have an agreement that will not change the number of plants or the landscaping budget. She showed the landscaping plan and identified three trees that are existing and the location for planting of junipers. She also showed the hotel plan with their landscaping and the lease line that the applicant will honor. Members were not happy with the 5 foot break in landscaping. Mr. Vincent said he wasn’t sure why this was being insisted on. Mr. Belair said that since this is one PUD, the lease line is not recognized and it is considered one property. Mr. Lisman, representing the Larkin Family Partnership said they are OK with some plantings as long as they are no taller than the others would be and they would not block the visibility going in and out. Ms. Bell said the landscaping could be manicured to a safe height. Mr. Wilking was not pleased with this and felt it would look odd to have one type of plant trimmed two different ways. He felt they were better off with the previous plan. Ms. Bell noted several corrections to the approval motion: the curb reveal has been adjusted to be flush; and on p. 2, the 9 foot setback should be 6 feet. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-07 of Robert Audette to subdivide a 9,607 sq. ft. lot off from a 770 acre parcel developed with an airport, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Audette explained that last fall they repaved the Pour House parking. The tenant striped it differently, and Mr. Belair said that cannot be done. There is also a question of whether there is encroachment onto the wetland (He showed this on the plan). They did a new survey and learned that the property lines weren’t where they thought they were, and they were encroaching onto Airport property. They then asked the Airport to sell them the property, but the Airport would only lease it to them. Mr. Audette said they will use this property for snow storage and to keep the tenant from backing onto Airport property. He also indicated where they will put up a 5-foot fence which is required by the Airport. No issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 7 APRIL 2015, PAGE 3 7. Master Signage permit application #DR-15-01 of 20 San Remo Drive, LLC, to establish the initial master signage design parameters for all future signs on the property, 20 San Remo Drive: Members reviewed the application and had no issues. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-15-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-15-12 of University Medical Center to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,664 sq. ft. medical office building with approval to expand the facility by 5,534 sq. ft. in two phases of 5,065 sq. ft. in phase I and 469 sq. ft. in Phase II. The amendment consists of revising condition #11 of the site plan approval to reduce the estimated traffic generation, 35 Joy Drive: Mr. Simon said they had a trip generation rate based on the ITE Manual which they felt was excessive. Since then, they worked with staff and did an on-site study during peak weekday traffic during two weeks. Staff and Public Works are OK with the data from that study. Mr. Belair said the applicant will not have to pay for any additional trip ends. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-12. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Site plan application #SP-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse and distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road: Mr. Bouton explained that they have increased the number of items they sell and need room to store product; they also need room to park their loaded trucks at night. He showed the current plan and how traffic enters the site. The queueing area sometimes backs up and truck turn-around becomes dangerous. In the new plan, there is a “truck only” entrance which has a large turn-around area. Mr. Bouton said the new plan will improve the curb appeal of the property as people driving by won’t see any trucks parked there at night. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 7 APRIL 2015, PAGE 4 Mr. Vock showed where stormwater runoff will be brought to a stormwater pond for treatment. He also showed where the fueling area will be moved to allow better circulation and safety. There will also be a “break” area and an observation deck. Mr. Vock also showed the areas for snow removal/storage. He noted that they will have to comply with Vermont stormwater rules and have submitted an application to the State. Mr. Barritt asked why they can’t have just one curb cut. Mr. Bouton explained the issues with truck stacking that can block the access to the parking lot. He noted that they had hired a consulting company to look at the site and they recommended relocation; however, Mr. Farrell does not want to move the company out of South Burlington. Mr. Barritt noted that the Stormwater Superintendent’s comments were very positive. Members then considered landscaping issues. Mr. Belair noted that the City Arborist came up with a different way of replacing trees that are being removed: on a caliper by caliper basis rather than by the number of trees. The applicant’s landscape consultant said that inch-by-inch replacement almost doubles the number of trees, and the site is very constrained and they will run out of places to put landscaping. They prefer a one-to-one replacement. He indicated where trees would be planted and showed screening for some trucks that queue near the fuel canopy. There would also be evergreen shrubs to screen parked cars. Mr. Barritt suggested the applicant work with the City Arborist to reach a compromise. Members said they would like to see the new landscaping plan. Members also considered the loss of some green space in front. Ms. Smith said she was OK with that because the front will be more attractive and the bio-swales will help. Mr. Wilking said he had no problem with what was shown since this is an industrial site. Mr. Miller said this is a great story of a successful business that wants to stay in South Burlington. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-10 until 21 April 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 17 February, 3 March and 17 March 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 17 February, 3 March and 17 March 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 7 APRIL 2015, PAGE 5 11. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk ________________________________, Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 April 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: B. Miller, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Smith, J. Wilking, D. Parsons, B. Breslend Also Present: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; E. Farrell, J. Owens, N. Farrell, B. Bouchard, D. Little, D. Heil, F. Kochman, P. O’Leary, C. Galipeau 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-15-10 of Farrell Distributing Corporation to amend a previously approved plan for 138,660 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility for a wholesale business. The amendment consists of: 1) constructing a 25,316 sq. ft. addition, 2) constructing a new 576 sq. ft. gas fueling canopy, 3) constructing a second story 1339 sq. ft. deck with outside stairs, and 4) site modifications, 5 Holmes Road: The applicant noted there had been an issue with the value for existing trees. Mr. Owens said they met with the City Arborist on site and decided that if they removed the white pines that were not in good shape they could get more landscaping on the site. Mr. Owens indicated an area where there would now be a row of maples. He also indicated the hillside where more trees will be placed. They are replacing the trees on a 2 to 1 value basis. Mr. Lambert was OK with this. Mr. Belair said staff had no further issues. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 APRIL 2015, PAGE 2 Mr. Behr moved to close #SP-15-10. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Preliminary and final plat application #SP-15-08 of F&M Development Co, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) 425 residential units in 8 buildings, 2) a 91-unit congregate Housing facility, and 3) a 4,430 sq. ft. expansion of an indoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of: 1) re-subdividing lots #1 & #10 to reduce the size of lot #10 and increase the size of lot #1, 2) removal of a 4-foot fence on lot #10, 3) after-the fact reduction in the size of the community gardens on lot #1, and 4) revising the landscaping on lot #10, 25 Bacon Street: Mr. Farrell showed lot #10 and indicated the section to be taken off and added to lot #1 for a dog park. He noted that the fence that will come down is in bad shape and is no longer needed because landscaping has grown in. He also noted that the City Arborist is OK with the trees to be taken down. Mr. Owens said the area is actually overplanted and the trees need to be removed to insure the health of other trees. There were 287 trees planted and they will be taking out about 24. The new dog park will be fenced in with vinyl coated, black chain link, about 4 feet high. The stockade fence on the north side will remain. No issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close #SP-15-08. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-15-09 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 9.14 acre parcel into two lots of 1.0 acres and 8.14 acres, and 2) constructing a 4-story, 63-unit multi-family dwelling on the 8.14 acre parcel, 1690 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bouchard showed the rendering they were asked to provide showing what the project will look like from Route 7. Mr. Bouchard said the only major changes are that previously they had some improvements on the south side of the property. After meeting with people from the State, they were able to make improvements to the existing stormwater system. They then eliminated the tennis court and added raised planting beds in front of the building. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 APRIL 2015, PAGE 3 There were also some small changes made at the request of Public Works. Mr. Miller noted there is a request for a height waiver from 35 feet to 47 feet. Members had no issue with this. Mr. Behr moved to close #SD-15-09. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-15-11 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 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 dwelling on lots #1- #66, 1580 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair noted the applicant had asked for a continuance to the second meeting in May. Mr. Behr moved to continue #SD-15-11 to 19 May 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-15-10 of 4 On The Floor, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 2 lots and 2 general office buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 9,622 sq. ft. building for commercial kennel and pet day care use, 1035, 1037 & 1045 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Heil noted that since sketch plan review in January, they have eliminated the second story. He showed the new elevations. Because of concerns with noise, they are proposing some noise mitigation including a 7- foot sound-absorbing fence to enclose the play area. They have also changed the buildings from steel to wood, which is more sound-absorbing. There will be rolled rubber flooring. Staff will communicate with headsets instead of overhead speakers. Mr. Heil showed design changes in radii to accommodate Fire Department Vehicles. The square footage of the facility has decreased to 9,622 sq. ft. Overall lot coverage is at 48.9%. Though it is not required, they will install a sprinkler system. Cooling units will be within the fencing, so they won’t be visible from the road. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, 21 APRIL 2015, PAGE 4 Mr. Heil indicated a tree that will be protected during construction. This meets with the City Arborist’s approval. Mr. Miller noted there is a request for a setback waiver from the required 57 feet to 39 feet. Mr. Belair noted they will be 8 feet further back than the building next door. Mr. Belair also noted that staff received no further comments from the Fire Department, so he assumes they are OK with how the applicant has addressed concerns. Mr. Belair circulated a memo from absent Board Chair Tim Barritt who is concerned with noise and suggested a technical review to determine if what the applicant is proposing is adequate. Mr. Wilking was also concerned with noise so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Behr said this will be an enforcement issue. Mr. Belair reminded members that the applicant is doing more than required to mitigate noise. Mr. Belair noted that traffic consideration was inadvertently eliminated from staff’s memo. There is no ITE manual category for this use. The applicant conducted on-site counts at a similar facility with a 100-dog maximum. The estimate for traffic is 29 peak hour trip ends. Members were OK with this number. Ms. Little, owner of the day care use, said the building is U-shaped with fencing on the open side. She noted that at night, the animals will be taken out one or two at a time on a leash. No other issues were raised. Mr. Behr moved to close #SD-15-10. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 7 April 2015: As minutes were not included in the package, members agreed to postpone approval until the next meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:55 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk ______________________________, Date