Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 05/19/2015
SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 MAY 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 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, B. Breslend ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; T. DiPietro; E. Lyon, D. Conger, D. Lovering, R. Rabideau, R. Hamlin, D. Minett, S. Clark 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant for Agenda item #7 had requested a continuance. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: Ms. Lyon said she has been hearing rumors that a very large business is going to locate on the large corner lot near her home. She indicated the location. Mr. Belair said there has been no application for a development on that corner. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued 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 and ditches, 3) replacement of undersized storm drains, 4) creation of three new bioretention areas, 5) wetland encroachments, and 6) adding four new catch basins, Stonehedge Drive: Mr. DiPietro noted that the project had required a state wetland permit for which they applied. After working with the State, the plan has been modified slightly. They now have the State permit. The approval motion should be updated to indicate this. The only change from the original plan occurs around the stormwater pond on the north end where they have pulled back slightly to save some trees. They will also do some mitigation by removing invasive species and planting native species Mr. DiPietro indicated that they have met with the homeowner association president who has signed off on the project. Some residents would like them to do more, but additional work is not part of this project. Mr. Barritt asked when the work will start. Mr. DiPietro said they will be starting in July but may not be finished before winter, so they may finish it next spring. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-18. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a Planned Unit Development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance until 16 June. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-14-37 to 16 June 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-15-17 of Neagley & Chase Construction, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for 24,000 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 7,900 sq. ft. addition, 3 Green Tree Drive: Mr. Breslend recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Conger said they are proposing to put an addition on the rear of the existing building. This will increase the total square footage to 31,900 sq. ft. There had been a permit for this work, but it has expired. Mr. Conger said there will be no impact to the site as parking was originally put in to accommodate this addition. The proposed addition will have metal siding and metal roof. There will be additional landscaping to the rear and toward the Police Station side of the building. They are willing to change the species to comply with the City Arborist’s request. There will be a 3rd loading dock added to the back. The pavement for this already exists. The stormwater permit for all of the Green Tree Drive development has expired and is now being worked on. This will require the applicant to go through the amendment process eventually. Mr. Conger did not anticipate any changes being required. They are requesting a parking waiver. There are rarely visitors to the business and they already have extra spaces. They will be adding 2 spaces on the existing pavement. Members were OK with the parking waiver. Mr. Behr noted there is plenty of room to add more parking if it is ever needed. Material that is currently being stored outside will now be brought inside. Ms. Lovering asked if the building addition will be the same height as the existing building. Mr. Conger said it will. Ms. Lovering asked about additional noise. Mr. Conger said the operation will be the same as today, possibly a potential for less noise. Ms. Lyons asked if there is any consideration for neighbors with a commercial operation coming closer to the residential area. Mr. Barritt said the regulations cover this. Mr. Belair said there is a 65 foot setback for the building and a 15 foot setback for parking which must be planted with evergreens. Mr. Barritt noted that new plantings will be put in between the new addition and the residential area. Mr. Miller then moved to close #SP-15-17. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Breslend rejoined the Board. 7. Miscellaneous Application #MS-15-02 of Alan Marcelino to alter the existing grade by adding 100 +/- cubic yards of fill to repair bank washout and create berm at top of bank, 20 Palmer Court: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #MS-15-02 to 2 June 2015. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Miscellaneous Application #MS-15-03 of Trinity Construction, Inc., to: 1) alter existing grade by adding +/- 40 cubic yards of stone to reinforce lakeshore, and 2) reconstruct stairway, 3 Austin Road: Mr. Rabideau explained they are helping to shore up the existing shoreline and will also be replacing a dilapidated stairway. They will also add some plantings. Mr. Hamlin showed the projected boundary lines. Materials will be the same size and color of existing rock on the neighboring property. He showed where the stone will be placed and also showed the location of the old steps and the new steps. Mr. Barritt noted receipt of a letter from Alaina Fernandez, owner of the property, who expressed concern with having to add more landscaping than is shown on the plan. Mr. Barritt noted that staff is encouraging additional groundcover. Mr. Hamlin showed where the proposed plants would go. He said that some trees were recently planted. He also showed a photo of the site indicating those trees. Mr. Barritt felt additional vegetation would be helpful. Other members agreed and didn’t feel there had to be extensive planting. Mr. Hamlin noted the driveway is pervious. He suggested an area where a few new plants could go. Mr. Rabideau said they would be willing to put in 4 new plantings. He indicated where they would go. Ms. Smith said she was OK with not having plants on the side of the wall. She would prefer them within the rock area to protect that area from erosion. Members were OK with 4 more plants of the same species in the rock area. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close MS-15-03. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued final Plat Application #SD-15-11 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) shifting Russett Road & Puritan Street to minimize wetland intrusions, 2) revising the storm drains so as to connect all footing drains directly into the stormwater system, and 3) residential design review for the single family dwelling on lots #1-#66, 1580 Dorset Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-11 to 16 June 2015. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 5 May 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 5 May 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:56 p.m. , Clerk ___________6-16-15________________, Date 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. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SP-15-17 Neagley & Chase Construction 3 Green Tree Drive DATE: May 19, 2015 DRB Meeting. Staff has prepared a draft Findings of Fact & Decision for your consideration. An outstanding issue remains with regards to the following criterion: 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. With regards to parking, after completion of the addition, the total gross floor area will be 31,400 SF. Parking requirements would be calculated as follows: 31.4 x 0.5 = 15.7 plus 1 space for employee for a total of 46 required spaces. There are 33 existing spaces on the site. The applicant is requesting a 25% waiver to the required 46 spaces resulting in a total of 35 spaces minimum. Should the Board grant this waiver the applicant would add two (2) spaces in the property’s main lot. The applicant argues as follows in support of the waiver request: “The justification for the parking waiver relates to the high warehousing component of the sites light manufacturing operation. Thus the parking utilization is primarily required for the 30 employees with minimal parking needs for visitors. With 35 designated spaces, the additional 5 spaces exceeds the daily requirement for employees and visitors on site. In the event this total is exceeded, additional parking could be accommodated in the northwest corner of the parking area.” The Board should discuss whether or not to grant the requested waiver. As always, the draft decision is just that and the Board should feel free to make any changes to the draft decision. #SP-15-17 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING NEAGLEY & CHASE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY – 3 GREEN TREE DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Neagley & Chase Construction Company, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking to amend a previously approved plan for a 24,000 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 7900 sq. ft. addition, 3 Green Tree Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 19, 2015. Mark Neagley 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 applicant is seeking to amend a previously approved plan for a 24,000 sq. ft. light manufacturing facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 7900 sq. ft. addition, 3 Green Tree Drive. 2. The proposed project is for the construction of a 7,900 square foot addition to an existing building. This addition was most recently approved on September 19, 2006; however the approval has since expired and the applicant must appear for review. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is M & D, LLC. 4. The application was received on April 3, 2015. 5. The subject property is located in the Mixed Industrial & Commercial (Mixed IC) Zoning District. 6. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, “3 Green Tree Dr., So. Burlington, VT 05403”, prepared by Dubois & King, Inc. dated Apr. 2015 Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements IC Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 7,500 SF Max. Building Coverage 40% 29.9% #SP-15-17 - 2 - Max. Overall Coverage 70% 52.5% Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 30% Min. Front Setback 30’ >30’ Min. Side Setback 10’ 15’ Min. Rear Setback 30’ >30 ’ zoning compliance Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds the proposed building and uses to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. With regards to parking, after completion of the addition, the total gross floor area will be 31,400 SF. Parking requirements would be calculated as follows: 31.4 x 0.5 = 15.7 plus 1 space for employee for a total of 46 required spaces. There are 33 existing spaces on the site and the applicant is proposing to add two (2) more spaces on the side of the building for a total of 35 spaces. The applicant is requesting a 25% waiver (11 spaces) to the required 46 spaces resulting in a total of 35 spaces minimum. The applicant’s justification for the waiver is as follows: The justification for the parking waiver relates to the high warehousing component of the sites light manufacturing operation. Thus the parking utilization is primarily required for the 30 employees with minimal parking needs for visitors. With 35 designated spaces, the additional 5 spaces exceeds the daily requirement for employees and visitors on site. In the event this total is exceeded, additional parking could be accommodated in the northwest corner of the parking area. The Board finds that given the low level of visitors to the site a waiver of parking space requirements is justified. The Board grants a waiver of eleven (11) space or 25 % to the minimum parking space requirement of 46 spaces for a total of 35 spaces provided. 2) Parking: #SP-15-17 - 3 - (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. This criterion is met. There are 3 spaces in front of the building but these were constructed prior to establishment of this criterion. The two (2) additional spaces will be placed on the side of the building. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) …………… (ii) ………….. (iii) ……………… (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); (v) ……………………… (vi) …………………… (c) ………………………….. (d) …………………………… This requirement is being met as the additional parking spaces will be placed on the side of the building. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed addition is 22 ft. high and will be matched to the existing building height and lines. The Board finds that 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. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. The Board finds that this criterion has been 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 addition will be to the one existing building on the site. Planting of thirty (30) trees is proposed along the northern and southwestern edge of the property. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. #SP-15-17 - 4 - (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 addition will match the height and lines of the existing building and will be similar to the others in the area. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is required. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The plans show an existing screened dumpster enclosure. The Board finds that this criterion has been met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Building construction cost is estimated at $368,000. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: First $250,000 x 3% = $7,500 Next 250,000 x 2% ($118,000 x 0.02) = $2,360 Balance over $500,000 x 1% = -$0- Minimum required landscaping budget = $9,860. The applicant has proposed $10,000 in new landscaping. In an email to staff on April 27, 2015, the City Arborist commented as follows: #SP-15-17 - 5 - Include Tree Planting Details and Specifications in plans Recommend changing Austrian Pine to a different species due to increased disease pressure on Austrian Pine in recent years The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the City Arborist’s recommendations and amend the plan and its drawings accordingly. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. No waivers are required. STORMWATER The Public Works Department provided the following comments to staff on April 27, 2015. I reviewed the site plan for the property at 3 Green Tree Drive prepared by Dubois and King Inc., dated April 2015 with no updates. I would like to offer the following comments: This property is covered by a previously issued State stormwater permit (3409-9010). Due to the size of the addition, the applicant should update/amend the previously issued State stormwater permit prior to starting construction. Information regarding this permit and any updates should be sent to the City for review. The City is a co-permittee on the State stormwater permit. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS #SP-15-17 - 6 - In an email to staff dated May 14, 2015 the Fire Chief provided the following comments: May 14, 2015 Dear Ray: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed changes to the addition to the National Chimney building at 3 Greentree Drive. We have the following recommendations: 1. Compliance with all requirements of South Burlington fire safety codes and standards. 2. Fire Alarm and Fire suppression system upgrades as required by South Burlington fire safety codes and standards. 3. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. 4. All construction plans shall be reviewed and permitted by the South Burlington Fire Marshal. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and the South Burlington Fire Marshal. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Fire Chief. Traffic Generation The property’s current allocation of trip ends VTEs as established in a prior Findings of Fact & Decision signed on April 14, 1998 is 24 VTEs. The current building size in gross floor area is 23,500 SF. The proposed addition would result in a new gross floor area of 31,400 SF. Based upon a final construction total of 31,400 SF of a manufacturing facility use (ITE LUC #140), the weekday PM Peak Hour average vehicle trip ends is calculated as follows: 0.73 (trip generation per 1,000 SF g.f.a.) x 31.4 = estimated number of vehicle trip ends is 22.92 trip ends. The Board finds that the current allocation of 24 VTEs will not be exceeded and that no additional traffic is expected from the expansion. #SP-15-17 - 7 - DECISION Motion by ______________________, seconded by _________________________, to approve Site Plan Application #SP-15-17 of Neagley & Chase Construction Company, 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 applicants and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3) The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the South Burlington Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a) The site plan shall be revised to incorporate the changes recommended by the City Arborist in his email of April 27, 2015. 4) Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 5) For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the project will generate zero (0) additional trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 6) The Board grants a waiver of eleven (11) spaces or 25 % to the minimum parking space requirement of 46 spaces for a total of 35 spaces provided. 7) All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded, and otherwise comply with Section 13.07 of the SBLDR. 8) The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent shall visit the site as construction progresses to ensure compliance with this criterion. 9) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Department of Public Works outlined in its email dated April 27, 2015. 10) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Fire Chief outlined in its email dated May 14, 2015. 11) The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 12) Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, #SP-15-17 - 8 - services, and service modifications should be underground. 13) Any exterior light fixture which does not comply with Section 13.07 of the LDRs, shall be removed and if replaced, the replacement fixture shall comply with this section. Approval for any replacement fixture shall be obtained from the Administrative Officer prior to installation. 14) Prior to zoning permit issuance for construction of the project, the applicant shall post a $9,860 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 15) Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the addition, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 16) 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. 17) The applicant shall obtain Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to the use of the new addition. 18) 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 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: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). 3 GREEN TREE DR.,SO. BURLINGTON,VT 05403© Copyright 2015 Dubois & King Inc.PROFESSIONAL SEALNOT FORCONSTRUCTIONPRELIMINARYPLANSSHEET NUMBER422660PAPR. 2015PROJ. ENG.ENGINEERING PLANNING MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENTDRAWN BYCHECKED BYD&K ARCHIVE #D&K PROJECT #DATE6 GREEN TREE DRIVESO. BURLINGTON, VT 05403TEL: (802) 878-7661FAX: (866) 783-7101www.dubois-king.comRANDOLPH, VTSPRINGFIELD, VTBEDFORD, NHLACONIA, NHLDCLDCSHEET TITLESHEET OFGJOSITE PLANC-0111 11121314151'-4"20'-4"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"79'-0"0'-4"ABCDEF20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"100'-0"FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/8" =1'-0"7,900 square feet8 x 9 OHDExisting Pre-Engineeredbuilding end wall andendwall framing3" Insulated wall Panels R 23.5Existing Expansionframe1112131415EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" =1'-0"EXISTINGPROPOSED3" INSULATED PANELSR 23.5STANDING SEAM ROOFINGR 34 LINER SYSTEM1112131415WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" =1'-0"PROPOSEDEXISTINGAFNORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8" =1'-0"TRIPLE GLAZED WINDOWSR6HMNECESLGANTRUCO&COIONCTYESYNAAPFile NameSheet NumberA100Sheet 1 of 1Sheet TitleFloor PlanandElevationsDated: Mar. 28, 2015Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"Drawn: W. ADAMSProject Name2015 ADDITION3 Green Tree DriveSo. Burlington, VT 05403Revisions66 Bowdoin StreetSuite 100So. Burlington, VT 05403ph:(802)658-6320 fx:658-0349Owner's NameUseDistributionSketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal PlanPermitsFor ConstructionAs BuiltNationalChimneyDate Revision 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #MS-15-03 Trinity Construction 3 Austin Road DATE: May 19, 2015 DRB Meeting. Staff has prepared a draft Findings of Fact & Decision for your consideration. An outstanding issue remains with regards to the following criterion: (d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain, and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake. The applicant has proposed supplemental vegetation planting of seven (7) Japanese Spirea adjacent to the top of the slope. In order to strengthen the visual and vegetative buffer along the lake, staff encourages the applicant to plant additional ground cover vegetation in either or both of the NE corner of the lawn just north of the 4 Spirea plants and under the nearby tree and/or in the SE corner of the lawn just south of the 3 Spirea plants and under the three nearby trees. The Board should discuss whether the proposed plantings in the application meet criterion (d) above or whether additional ground cover vegetation planting is warranted. As always, the draft decision is just that and the Board should feel free to make any changes to the draft decision. #MS-15-03 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING TRINITY CONSTRUCTION, INC. --- 3 AUSTIN ROAD MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-15-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS-15-03 of Trinity Construction, Inc. to: 1) alter existing grade by adding +/- 40 cubic yards of stone to reinforce lakeshore, and 2) reconstruct stairway, 3 Austin Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 19, 2015. Roy Rabideau represented the applicant. 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. The project consists of the altering the existing grade by adding +/- 40 cubic yards of stone to reinforce lakeshore, and reconstructing stairway, 3 Austin Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Wells Lakefront Properties, LLC. 3. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood District. 4. The application was received on April 16, 2015. 5. The plan submitted consists of a one page plan entitled, “Slope Stabilization 3 Austin Rd. South Burlington” prepared by Donald L. Hamlin Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated April 1, 2015 and last revised on April 13, 2015. 6. Dimensional and setback requirements are met. Section 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing #MS-15-03 2 the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant has submitted a plan providing this information. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. The Board finds that this criterion is not applicable as the stone is meant to be a permanent addition to this property. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards of the City’s Land Development Regulations. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. The Board finds that a bond is not necessary to assure compliance. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre-construction height for future development will be the grade existing prior to the placement of the rock on the property. The Board finds that this criterion is met. 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards D. Pre-Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park (1)………………. (2)……………….. (3) Erosion control measures and water-oriented development along Lake Champlain. Within the area along Lake Champlain defined in Section (D)(1)(a) above, the installation of erosion control measures and water-oriented development may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the following standards are met: (a) The improvement involves, to the greatest extent possible, the use of natural materials such as wood and stone. #MS-15-03 3 The applicant has proposed the use of natural stone which will match existing stone on the property and that of abutting neighbors. This criterion is met. (b) The improvement will not increase the potential for erosion. When construction is complete, the proposed boulders, rip-rap and plantings will prevent further erosion of the property. In an email to staff dated April 27, 2015 the Department of Public Works commented as follows: Justin, I reviewed the site plan prepared for the “Slope Stabilization” project located at 3 Austin Road, dated 4/1/15, and last updated on 4/10/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. The applicant shall comply with Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards of the City’s Land Development Regulations. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works The Board finds the applicant shall comply with Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards of the City’s Land Development Regulations. (c) The improvement will not have an undue adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore. The project will repair and reconstruct a stone wall to match an existing stone wall on the property itself and that of the neighbors. (d) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve, maintain, and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake. ***************** #MS-15-03 4 DECISION Motion by _______________, seconded by_____________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS- 15-03 of Trinity Construction, Inc. 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 plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the South Burlington Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The site plan shall be revised to ………………………. 4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. The applicant shall comply with Section 16 Construction and Erosion Control Standards of the City’s Land Development Regulations 6. 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 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. #MS-15-03 5 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. BFD/BDHRR/RFHBFD/RR/MLDRFH04/01/20151" = 10'11-350C-1SLOPE STABILIZATION3 AUSTIN RD, SOUTH BURLINGTONSITE PLANTRINITY CONSTRUCTION, INC.FORWELLS LAKEFRONT PROPERTIES, LLC.04/10/2015 ADDED PLANTING SCHEDULE MLDVICINITY MAPSCALE: 1" = 2000'100 50 0 100 200PROJECT MAPSCALE: 1" = 100'PROJECT LOCATIONLOT STATISTICS AND COVERAGETOTAL LOT SIZE: 12,899 S.F. (0.30 ACRES)BUILDINGS (S.F.)EXISTING2,504% BUILDINGCOVERAGE19.4OVERALLIMPERVIOUS (S.F.)3,913% OVERALLIMPERVIOUS30.3FRONT YARDIMPERVIOUS (S.F.)576TOTAL FRONT YARDAREA = 990 S.F.% FRONT YARDIMPERVIOUS58.2APPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINE, LIMITSLOPE STABILIZATIONAPPROXIMATEPROPERTY LINE, LIMITSLOPE STABILIZATIONNEW STONE SLOPE PROTECTIONTO MATCH NEIGHBORS EXISTINGSTONE SLOPE PROTECTIONEXISTING STAIRSTO BE REMOVEDEXISTINGRESIDENCEAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONNEW STAIRSPLANTING SCHEDULESYMBOL QUANTITYPLANT TYPE LABELPLANT SIZE7'GOLDFLAME'SPIRAEA JAPONICAJAPANESE SPIREAJS 3 GALLON22 PEARL STREETESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452(802) 857-5104WWW.GINKGODESIGNVT.COM04/13/2015 REVISED PLANTING CONFIGURATION MLD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MAY 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: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MAY 2015 PAGE 2 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. DEVELOMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MAY 2015 PAGE 3 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MAY 2015 PAGE 4 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 MAY 2015 PAGE 5 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 _____________________________ Date