Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/03/2015 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 NOVEMBER 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 November 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; G. Rabideau, G. Beaudoin, D. Zajchowski, C. Espe, S. Baker, T. Tavares, N. Beck, S. Jolles, G. Ham, J. Dzwonczyk, K. Cady, S. Lefebvre, B. Bertsch, A. & N. Senecal, M. Thibault, P. Kelley, J. Larkin, D. Sherman, D. St. Jean, J. Dougherty, A. Byrnes, K. Murphy, D. Lovering, J. Foster, P. Gallwan, D. Fisette, T. Chittenden, P. Bouchard, M. Goldfield, L. Kilcoyne, M. Courcelle, B. Rushford 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: Mr. Barritt noted that he, Mr. Miller and Mr. Belair attended the planning forum hosted by the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. One focus was on the Public Service Board with special attention to the siting of solar installations. 4. Continued conditional use application #CU-15-05 of Nina Beck & Stacy Jolles for after-the-fact approval to construct a 56 sq. ft. deck to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 88 Central Avenue: Members had no issues with the changes made to the site plan. Mr. Wilking moved to close #CU-15-05. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued design review application #DR-15-05 of Goldfield Construction Management to replace wooden siding and add fiber cement siding (former Sports Shoe Store), 150 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Barritt noted that there had been discussion about the posts, and he now saw trim on the top cap and the base. Mr. Goldfield said it is wood trim, and the posts will be painted. They have also added some earth tones to the paint color. No issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #DR-15-05. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant), 1) two boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road: Mr. Barritt noted receipt of a note from staff that the plans were brought in too late for a full evaluation, so this presentation will be just a brief overview as there are a number of major issues to be ironed out. Mr. Beaudoin said that the store will be for BJ’s Wholesale Club. He also introduced the project team. Mr. Courcelle then reviewed the site. He showed the main access off Comcast Way and a right turn in only from Shunpike Road. All traffic will exit through Comcast Way. He also showed the boundary of the existing parcel and where the boundary adjustments will happen. Some lots will be given to adjoining homeowners to enlarge their lots; smaller pieces will go to Comcast, PJ’s and the Imported Car Center. The project will be served by municipal water and sewer. An infiltration study was done, and it was found that infiltration is not feasible. They will, therefore, be using a wet pond and other means to treat stormwater including landscaped islands and underground treatment. Mr. Courcelle then showed an overhead view of the site and proposed views from Kimball Avenue and Williston Road. Mr. Ham then addressed traffic and noted there will be a very detailed traffic analysis done. He showed some daily traffic figures for Williston Road, Kimball Ave. and Shunpike Road and a trip generation summary. They are estimating 3,000 vehicles per day coming to the site with an evening peak of 378 and a midday peak of 576. Saturdays would see about 4800 cars coming to the site. They will be proposing a widening of Williston Road to include a dedicated turn lane. There would be no signal because this would be only for entering traffic. Mr. Ham then showed a conceptual “dogbone” roundabout on Kimball Avenue at Comcast Way and Community Drive. He said that Public Works liked that concept. Landscaping was then addressed with a planting plan. They are planning a mix of tree types, including some flowering and oriental trees. All plantings will meet South Burlington standards. There will also be some plantings to screen neighbors. Mr. Rushford then reviewed some of the issues from staff notes: There is a question as to whether this is an allowable use in this area. Mr. Rushford noted that “retail sales” is a permitted use with a caveat that excludes “general merchandise sales.” However, the regulations have no definition for “general merchandise”; it just reads “See Retail.” The previously proposed service station (gas pumps) has been removed as it is not an allowable use in this zone. Supermarkets are not permitted in this zone, but retail food sales are permitted as an accessory use. Supermarkets generally carry over 42,000 different products; BJ’s carries only 6,189. Prepared food is only 15-19% of the total items being sold. BJ’s will not have a dedicated entrance for food sales. A previous siting of the road that encroached on a residential lot has been redone so the road now goes over only commercially zoned lands. A proposed sign on Williston Road has been removed. A question was raised about the “creativity” of design. Mr. Rushford said the design would be very creative. They have put in a lot of effort to address height and the massing of the building so as to be more in relationship to structures in the adjacent areas. Ms. Kilcoyne said they are taking their cues from office buildings on Kimball Avenue and have made tweaks on the façade so as to fit in better. The building is also set back from the road, which also helps address massing. Mr. Barritt then reviewed the issues that will need to be addressed by the Board, including: Proposed uses, access/circulation/traffic, lot layout/PUD status/relationship to other buildings, related necessary applications, lot survey, stormwater, Fire Department comments (no issues noted so far). Mr. Cota asked about the propane storage. Mr. Benoit said there would be 2 propane tanks. Mr. Wilking commented that for him the use and traffic concerns are too major issues. He felt Kimball Ave. has problems with today’s traffic. Public input was then solicited. Ms. Fissette, a resident on Shunpike Road, said she would like to be on record as having participated in the process. Mr. Tavares questioned how close the drive is to residential property because there is a side lot setback. The applicant said it varies from 2 feet to 5 feet from the edge of the road to the property line. Mr. Belair noted that the setback mentioned by Mr. Tavares is for buildings. A resident asked how traffic would be directed to the exit. Mr. Benoit said they would have a monument sign. Mr. Zajchowski was very concerned with traffic and wasn’t sure the one‐way in would work. He was also concerned with noise from delivery trucks. He noted the applicant is giving away land so they can stay under 10 acres and thus avoid an Act 250 process. Ms. Lovering felt this is a very large development for Shunpike Road and will change the character of the neighborhood. She noted the number of children on the street. Following the discussion, Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 15 December 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch plan application #SD-15-35 of John Larkin, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 69 unit congregate care facility in two buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 26 unit congregate care facility, 1510 & 1530 Williston Road: Mr. Rabideau noted they have scaled down the project from the previous sketch plan to something smaller and less ambitious. He then showed an overhead view of the properties belonging to the applicant. The proposed project will include 26 new units in 2 stories (Mr. Rabideau showed the location for this building). The building will allow for an enclosed outdoor space for use by residents. There would also be a small one-story structure for dining/kitchen facilities. Architectural cues would come from the existing neighborhoods. Nothing would be over 2 stories tall. Mr. Rabideau showed the existing street level entrance with a rendering of the scale of the new buildings. The building would have porches, which may require a small modification to the setbacks. Mr. Rabideau then directed attention to the vegetation, indicating how the area is landscaped and shielded from properties to the north. Parking for the building would be to the rear of the lot. Traffic would not be routed into the residential neighborhood. Mr. Rabideau said Public Works and the Fire Department have no major issues. The building will be fully sprinklered. It will not be a major generator of traffic. Members felt the new proposal was more in keeping with the scale of the surrounding homes. Mr. Barritt asked if there would be any different uses from what is there today. Ms. Espy said this would still be a Level 3 facility. Mr. Rabideau said they could provide a second access to the site, if required; however the Fire Department felt that with the non-combustible construction, the one access was OK. Mr. Barritt also asked about stormwater. Mr. Rabideau showed the existing pond which could be tweaked. They could also incorporate something like a rain garden, which would be an asset to the area. Ms. Smith appreciated the diminished design but felt the colors “popped” a little much. Mr. Wilking agreed but liked the brick and colonial blue that was integrated. Mr. Rabideau said they will come back with a more refined look. They will also do something within the 50 foot setback to make it more appealing. Public comment was then solicited: Ms. Byrnes was concerned that as an abutting neighbor she was never notified of the first sketch plan hearing. She also noted she has ingress/egress on the property’s right‐of‐way (the west side of the drive). She then cited the Comprehensive Plan which says this is an area for low intensity residential use, which she did not feel this is. She was concerned with noise from delivery trucks and frequent fire/ambulance calls. Mr. Rabideau said the lack of notification was a clerical error, but Ms. Byrnes was notified of this hearing, which is for a totally new application. Ms. Murphy, a neighbor, felt this plan was more appealing; however, she noted the Chamberlin/Airport Study Committee is saying “keep it residential,” especially in light of the loss of homes near the Airport. Ms. Cady also cited the frequency of emergency vehicles opposite her residence. She felt that no matter how you disguise it, this is an institution. Mr. Barritt suggested the applicant continue to work with neighbors. Mr. Rabideau noted that many residents of Pillsbury Manor originally lived in this neighborhood. 8. Minutes of 20 October 2015: The minutes were not presented for approval. 9. 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 8:40 p.m. , Clerk 12-15-2015 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_15_05_88CentralAvenue_Beck&Jolles_afterfact_deck_ Nov3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 14, 2015 Application received: June 4, 2015 88 Central Avenue Conditional Use Application #CU-15-05 Meeting date: November 3, 2015 Applicants/Owners Antonia Stacy Jolles & Nina Rachel Beck, Trustees Antonia Stacy Jolles & Nina Rachel Beck Revocable Trust 88 Central Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel IDs 0330-00088 (88 Central), and 0310-00003 (3 Cedar Court) Queen City Park (QCP) District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck_nov3_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-15-05 of Nina Beck & Stacy Jolles for after-the-fact approval to construct a 56 sq. ft. deck to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 88 Central Avenue. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht have reviewed the plans submitted on June 4, 2015 as well supplemental information submitted through August 24, 2015 and offer the following comments. This application was continued to this meeting to provide the applicant and opportunity to submit a revised plan showing the woodshed and walkway in front of the steps with updated coverage numbers. The applicant submitted such a plan on August 24, 2015 indicating that they “have balanced these covered areas with widening the existing flower beds and wrapping them farther around the front of the house on Central Ave.” This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Queen City Park zoning district (which itself also requires review under Section 3.11, nonconformities) and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: QCP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed † Min. Lot Size 7500 S.F. 2858 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 51.4 % (1,469 SF) No change  Max. Overall Coverage 60% 67.5 % (1,930 SF) No change * Min. Front Setback 10 ft. 5.2 ft. No change  Min. Side Setback 5 ft. 5.8 ft. and 8.0 ft. 5.1 ft. Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. N/A. No change  Max. Building Height 25 ft. 22 ft. No change  Zoning compliance † Pre-existing non-conforming  Although exceeding the maximum allowed, this is identical to coverage previously approved. While the applicant’s after the fact construction of a deck and stairs increased the lot coverage, revisions submitted on August 24, 2015 reduced the coverage by converting some impervious surfaces to green space. * Waiver previously granted by Board on May 12, 2014. 4.08 QUEEN CITY PARK DISTRICT QCP F. Nonconforming Structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Any nonconforming structure may be altered provided such work does not: (a) Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for nonresidential properties of the fair market value as determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the Administrative Officer; or (b) Involve an increase to the structure's height or footprint, or otherwise involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck_nov3_mtg.doc The proposal does increase the structure’s footprint by the addition of a deck. (2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's height, footprint or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. Staff analysis of the project’s compliance with Article 14 is presented below. (3) The Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed alteration or expansion will not adversely affect: (a) Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The deck/stairs that have been constructed are substantially lower than the building it accesses and therefore this criteria will be met as the before and after impact on views will not adversely affect the views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and The deck/stairs that have been constructed are substantially lower than the building it accesses and therefore this criteria will be met as the before and after impact on sunlight will not adversely affect access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties. (c) Adequate on-site parking. The two (2) properties currently have a total of two (2) parking spaces with no changes proposed and therefore there will be no affect on the adequacy of on-site parking. G. Additional Standards. (1) Development, construction, and alterations within the QCP District within one hundred (100) linear feet of the center line of Potash Brook shall be subject to the requirements of the Potash Brook Overlay District. (2) Multi-family dwellings shall be subject to site plan review, as per Article 14, and shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per structure. The distance of this lot to Potash Brook is approximately 240 feet +/-. This is not a multi-family dwelling. Conditional Use Review by the Development Review Board pursuant to Article 14, Section 14.10 shall be required if the establishment of the accessory residential unit involves the construction of a new accessory structure, an increase in the height or floor area of the existing single-family dwelling or existing accessory structure, or an increase in the dimensions of the off-street parking areas (i.e. garages and driveway areas) presently existing on the site. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The deck/stairs constructed is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck_nov3_mtg.doc Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area’s historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversion of seasonal homes to year round residences. The deck/stairs constructed is to provide access to the building’s accessory residential unit. This proposed use conforms with the purposes of the district. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. The deck/stairs that have been constructed will not adversely affect the capacity of municipal services. (b) The planned character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. No changes affecting the planned character of the area are proposed. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. No changes affecting traffic are proposed. (d) Bylaws in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The deck/stairs that have been constructed coupled with reductions in other impervious surface will not change overall building coverage and lot coverage. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The deck/stairs constructed will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. RECOMMENDATION Provided that the Board finds the issues described above to be satisfied under the LDRs, and if no new information comes to light suggesting adverse impacts upon adjoining properties, then the case may be closed. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING cu_15_05_88centralavenue_beck&jolles_afterfact_deck_nov3_mtg.doc Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer DR-15-05 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DESIGN REVIEW #DR-15-05 GOLDFIELD CONSTRUCTION – 150 DORSET STREET FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Design review application #DR-15-05 of Goldfield Construction Management to: 1) replace wooden siding with fiber cement siding, cement panels, and cultured stone, and 2) add a new gable roof at the existing entry (former Sports Shoe Store), 150 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held hearings on October 20, 2015 and November 3, 2015 to consider this application. Michael Goldfield and Steve Guild represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the public hearing, and the plans and supporting materials in the application file, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Goldfield Construction Management, requests Design Review approval to: 1) replace wooden siding with fiber cement siding, cement panels, and cultured stone, and 2) add a new gable roof at the existing entry (former Sports Shoe Store), 150 Dorset Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Dorset Square Associates. 3. The application was received and deemed complete on September 8, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. 5. The plans and photos submitted illustrate the existing building and proposed changes. 6. The applicant originally applied to replace the existing wooden siding with vinyl siding and metal skin. Upon learning that this material was not permitted, the applicant revised their plans to use only approved materials. 7. The plans submitted consist of three (3) pages with page one (1) of the plans entitled “Neville Sportshoe Center Vermont, Sheet A101” prepared by G4 Design Studios and dated 10/16/15. The subject property falls within Design District 1 of the City Center Design Review Overlay District. #DR-15-05 2 C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. A brief description of the location and proposed design character of each district is provided below: (1) Design District 1 - ………… - This area is generally located on both sides of Market Street and extends south to San Remo Drive. This area is planned to be the core area of the City Center, with the highest density and greatest mix of uses. It is the intent of this area is to be the main “downtown” for South Burlington, and therefore, should uphold the highest quality of design. Building materials should consist only of natural, indigenous materials (brick or stone) and the buildings themselves should relate directly to the public street. They should be placed up front on the property line and the main entrance should face the street rather than parking lots. In addition, a pedestrian promenade shall be provided along Market Street in order to promote pedestrian activity and provide cover from inclement weather. Design plans for properties within Design District 1 shall comply with the following design criteria, as outlined in Section 11.01(F) of the Land Development Regulations: F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. The proposed siding and other accents are compatible with other elements of the building. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows:. ………………. (i) Design District 1. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry shall predominate. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), and architectural concrete. Glass may predominate if used in combination with brick or stone. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include vinyl siding, metal skin, synthetic stucco and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). Via a submission of a new sheet A101 received on October 23, 2015, the applicant proposed fiber cement panel siding and cultured stone along the base to also include details of additional architectural features to the columns which was requested by the Board at the last meeting. #DR-15-05 3 The Board finds that this criterion is met. (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. The color and texture of the proposed siding is harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. There are no more than three predominant colors proposed. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. The proposed siding and cultured stone base would add a further design element to the façade. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. There are no changes proposed to the roof or roofline of the building with the exception of adding a gable roof over an existing entry. The proposed gable is approximately 2 on 4. Other entrances in the shopping complex also have gables. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an #DR-15-05 4 inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. The entrance is not oriented to the street as the building was constructed before this standard was in place. However, the façade that faces Dorset Street includes substantial glass to facilitate engagement with the public street. The Board finds that this criterion is met. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. There are no new rooftop devices. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. As the building is not new, the Board finds that it would not be feasible to apply this criterion. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. This criterion is not applicable to the subject application. The Board finds that the proposed project represents a negligible change to the façade of the building and that the property remains in compliance with the standards noted above. #DR-15-05 5 DECISION Motion by _______________, seconded by _____________, to approve Design Review application #DR- 15-05, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans and documents submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer upon completion of the project. 5. Any change to this design 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 Matt Cota 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 #DR-15-05 6 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 RE: Sketch plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC, 65 Shunpike Road, November 3, 2015 Meeting DATE: October 30, 2015 Sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) two (2) boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road. COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and materials received on June 26, 2015 and the revised plan submitted on October 13, 2015. Additional information was also submitted on October 29th that is included in the DRB’s packet. Notes: 1. This project is modified from the original application received on June 26th, 2015 and for which staff notes had been issued for a DRB hearing that was scheduled for September 11th but was ultimately continued to this week at the applicant’s request. Several site plan changes have been made, and notably the application is no longer proposing the six (6) gasoline pumps with twelve fueling positions. 2. Staff, the applicant, and DRB chair discussed the process for this initial meeting and agreed that the best approach would be for this meeting to be a short introduction to the project by the applicant, and not significant review or discussion of the project’s compliance with standards. The applicant is preparing for a 20-30 minute presentation and limited engagement with the Board on the compliance of the project with the LDRs. 3. For this reason, and because the applicant’s letter of Robert H. Rushford was received by staff on October 29th and staff has not had the opportunity to review and provide feedback regarding the letter to the Board, the following staff notes are very brief and are intended to VERY BROADLY outline items for future consideration by the Board. Future staff notes will discuss compliance of the application with the Land Development Regulations. As this is a large project, at this time, staff recommends the Board’s initial reviews focus on a handful of major issues: 2 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Nov3_mtg.doc 1) Proposed uses 2) Access, Circulation and traffic 3) Lot layout / PUD status / Relationship to buildings in the vicinity 4) Related necessary applications 5) Lot survey 6) Stormwater 7) Fire Department comments Please note that this represents a partial sketch plan-level review, focused solely on the items above and not addressing all applicable elements and standards of the Land Development Regulations. 1) PROPOSED USES: The revised plan submitted on October 13, 2015 is described by the applicant as consisting ofa “Retail Store (81,840 SF Base Building, 3,300 SF Receiving Appendage, 3,348 SF Tire Center, 1,9762 SF Breezeway) and 289 parking spaces. The purpose of the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District is as follows: 6.01 MIXED INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IC A. Purpose. The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. In preparing this initial review, staff has broken the proposal into its potential component features as they relate to the Table of Uses in the LDRs. The following three use categories from the Land Development Regulations may be relevant to the application.  Retail Sales  Auto & motorcycle service & repair  Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets The Table of Uses establishes the Permitted and Conditional Uses in each Zoning District. In the notes below, staff at this time make NO assessment of applicability. As noted above, information was provided on October 29th by the applicant. Rather than include a partial assessment, these staff notes only outline the uses and definitions. A staff assessment will follow in a future meeting’s staff notes. [ 1 . ] Retail Sales: 3 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Nov3_mtg.doc Use category: Retail Sales, Excluding General Merchandise Stores Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Permitted Use Definitions: Retail sales. An establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Typically such an establishment (A) is a place of business and is engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy, (B) buys and receives as well as sells merchandise, (C) may process or manufacture some of the products for sale, such as a jeweler or baker, but such production or manufacture is incidental and subordinate to the selling activities, and (D) sells to customers for their own personal, household, or business use. Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own. General Merchandise Store. See retail sales. [ 2. ] Auto & motorcycle service & repair: Use category: Auto & motorcycle service & repair Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Permitted Use Definitions: Auto & motorcycle service and repair. A business enterprise engaged in the servicing and repair of automobiles and/or motorcycles, including auto body repair or auto detailing, including the sale and installation of automobile and/or motorcycle parts and accessories. Includes Auto & Motorcycle Sales, Limited in conformance with these regulations. [ 3. ] Retail food establishment: Use categories: Retail food establishments < 5,000 SF GFA Retail food establishments > 5,000 GFA and supermarkets Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Prohibited Use Definitions: Retail food establishment. An establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready-to-eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises, and where the consumption of food on site is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats. Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with a retail food establishment. 2) ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC As this project has the potential for significant traffic impacts, staff recommends that the applicant provide an initial overview of the proposed circulation at this first stage. 4 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Nov3_mtg.doc Additionally, the Department of Public Works offered the following comments to staff via email on September 2, 2015 and updated them on October 27, 2015: Ray, I have looked at the sketch plans for the referenced project and have the following big picture comments to offer: 1. The main technical component of this project for Public Works is the overall traffic impact of the proposal, including: a. Proposed mitigation measures to provide safe and efficient traffic flow for all modes at the project’s three main intersections b. The offset nature of the Kimball Drive intersection relative to Community Drive west c. The reliance of a primarily residential street, Shunpike Road, as an access and/or egress point d. The offset nature of the US2 intersection relative to Calkins Court especially considering Valley Road is not a public street e. The regional transportation impact of the project f. How will the project provide for and enhance bicycle and pedestrian movements through this area 2. Other staff members have provided comments on the stormwater concept Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer 3) LOT LAYOUT / PUD STATUS / RELATIONSHIP TO BUILDINGS IN THE VICINITY Staff recommends that the applicant provide an overview of the proposal, its status as a PUD, the proposed lot layout and relationship to buildings in the vicinity, and the proposed related subdivisions and/ or boundary line adjustments being proposed as part of this application. 4) RELATED NECESSARY APPLICATIONS Staff notes that the proposed application will involve changes to other parcels in the area and that applications for those parcels should be submitted so that continued compliance of those parcels with the LDRs can be evaluated in a timely manner. 6. SURVEY OF LOT Staff has explored the history of the lot in question via a review of land development records. The lot was originally part of the Imported Car Center lot abutting Shelburne Road. In 1981, the lot was subdivided from this lot and was 12 acres in size and included approximately 165 feet of road frontage along Shunpike Road. In 1994 the lot was apparently reduced to slightly more than 10 acres in size and there was no longer any road frontage and the lot was landlocked. Staff recommends that the applicant review this history and provide additional clarity on the status and configuration of the lot presently. 7. STORMWATER The Department of Public Works performed an initial review of the application submitted in June. For the purposes of this initial, broad-level discussion, staff is highlighting one component: 5 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch_Nov3_mtg.doc The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. Further comments will be provided to the applicant at any time and / or to the Board at a future meeting. 8. FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS In an email to staff dated August 31, 2015, the Fire Department provided the following comments: Ray: Regarding the very preliminary plan for the three structures on or about 7 Commerce, SBFD has no significant issues at this juncture. BJs: Gas islands shall have gas island suppression system installed. LPG storage/dispensary is in a high traffic area and shall be relocated to an area away from the building access for the general public. Coordinate with SBFD. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department Staff notes that the October 13, 2015 plan moved the LPG storage/dispensary; As this is only an introductory presentation to the Board, the revised location has not been reviewed by the Fire Department. BJs Wholesale Club Illustrative Context PlanSouth Burlington, VT - October 2015BJs Wholesale ClubRoute 2Kimball AvenueShunpike Road 80’0’160’320’SCALE 1” = 80’N BJs Wholesale Club Illustrative Site PlanSouth Burlington, VT - October 2015BJs WholesaleClubShunpike Road 30’0’60’120’SCALE 1” = 30’NLEGENDLARGE DECIDUOUS TREE MEDIUM DECIDUOUS TREEMULTI-STEM DECIDUOUS TREELARGE CONIFER TREESHADE CONIFER TREESMALL CONIFER TREEORNAMENTAL TREE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBSMALL SHRUB CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_35_1510_1530_WillistonRoad_JohnLarkinInc_2 6unit_congregate_care_facility_sketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 30, 2015 Plans received: September 21, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-35 JOHN LARKIN, INC. – 1510 & 1530 WILLISTON ROAD Meeting Date: November 3, 2015 Applicant John Larkin, Inc. 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Owners same Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_35_1510_1530_WillistonRoad_JohnLarkinInc_26unit_congregate_care_facility_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-35 of John Larkin, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a 69 unit congregate care facility in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a 26 unit congregate care facility, 1510, & 1530 Williston Road. COMMENTS The Board reviewed a similar sketch proposal concerning this property on June 2, 2015. Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on September 21, 2015 and offer the following comments: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Residential 4 Zoning District. R-4 Zoning District (non-res) Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 6,000SF ?? ???  Max. Building Coverage 30% 16.8 % 29.3 %  Max. Overall Coverage 60% 37.6 % 50 %  Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 10.0 % 10.0 %  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. > 30 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. > 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. > 30 ft.  Max. Building Height 28ft. (pitched) ?? 28 ft.  zoning compliance The LDRs consider a congregate care housing facility as a non-residential use, therefore density limits do not apply. This type of facility is defined as follows: Congregate housing. A housing facility that has significant facilities and services specifically designed to meet the physical or social needs of older or handicapped persons. Significant facilities and services may include, but are not limited to, social and recreational programs, continuing education, information and counseling, recreational, homemaker, outside maintenance and referral services, emergency and preventive health care programs, congregate dining facilities, and transportation to social, medical, or personal services. This is not a group home; see definition below. 1. The applicant should demonstrate that the new building meets the definition of “congregate housing.” 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_35_1510_1530_WillistonRoad_JohnLarkinInc_26unit_congregate_care_facility_sketch.doc (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. Compliance with these two standards will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The proposed new development would be served by an existing curb cut with separate access and egress lanes. Using an existing curb cut in the southeastern portion of the property, the applicant is proposing a possible Rescue/Fire lane would be constructed along the eastern edge of the property connecting to the parking lots in the rear of the property. 2. The Board should discuss the benefits and drawbacks of the “possible Rescue/Fire lane”. (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 neither 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. The proposed building, a u-shaped two story building with a courtyard, appears to be generally compatible to the scale of planned development in the area. At sketch level, staff considers the scale of the proposed development to be generally compliant with this standard. Full compliance with these standards will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 3. The Board should discuss the proposed design and provide any guidance necessary to the applicant. (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. Compliance with these two standards will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Compliance with these two standards will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_35_1510_1530_WillistonRoad_JohnLarkinInc_26unit_congregate_care_facility_sketch.doc (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, one of the goals and objectives for this area of the City is as follows: Strive for a diversity in land use types including safe residential neighborhoods, healthy commercial and industrial centers, accessible public facilities, schools and recreation areas, well protected natural areas and resources, adequate open space and continued agricultural use. Staff feels that this requirement is 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. Staff considers the proposed project to be generally consistent with this standard 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. Pedestrian access to the site is being provided by an existing sidewalk connection between existing and proposed buildings and Williston Road. Adequate parking area will be provided. (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. Parking will be located to the rear or sides of the buildings. (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 applicant provided architectural renderings via email on October 28, 2015 however staff has not yet had an opportunity to review them. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. See discussion below for questions concerning compliance with Section 3.07 Height of Structures. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_35_1510_1530_WillistonRoad_JohnLarkinInc_26unit_congregate_care_facility_sketch.doc alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The applicant is proposing a courtyard style building. The applicant provided architectural renderings via email on October 28, 2015 however staff has not yet had an opportunity to review them. Full compliance with these two standards will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 4. The applicant should provide information on the anticipated orientation and architectural characteristics of the various units in the building including porches, overhangs, roofline, etc.. The applicant should also provide any information on any non-building items to be proposed such as landscaping, walkways, screens, etc. After hearing this information, the Board should provide any guidance if desired on any needed changes or details that should be provided in a preliminary/final plat application. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: 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. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 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. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_35_1510_1530_WillistonRoad_JohnLarkinInc_26unit_congregate_care_facility_sketch.doc and Street Trees. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 3.07 Height of Structures A. General Provisions. Structures in all districts shall comply with the height standards presented below in this section. Maximum allowable building heights are illustrated in Figure 3-1, Height of Structures. B. Stories. The requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, shall apply. (1) Where a roofline story is placed on a building that contains or is planned to contain the maximum permitted number of stories below the roofline, the following conditions shall apply: (a) dormers on such story shall not exceed the height of the roof peak, and (b) the total width of the dormers on any single side does not exceed fifty thirty-three percent (33%) of the horizontal distance of the roof line along that side. Vertical extensions that exceed thirty-three percent (33%) of the horizontal width (i.e., step dormers) are permitted, but are limited to a maximum height of five (5) feet above the average height of the principal roof structure and shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the horizontal width of any side. (2) In the R1, R1-Lakeview, R1-PRD, R1-Lakeview, R2, R4, R7, Lakeshore Neighborhood, and Queen City Park districts, the total number of stories for any given structure shall not be more than one (1) greater than that of any principal structure on an abutting lot within the same zoning district, without regard to public rights-of-way. A principal structure on an abutting lot that is more than 150 feet from the subject structure shall be excluded from calculation. The proposed buildings are two story buildings which is no more than one story greater than structures on abutting lots. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move forward through preliminary and final review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Deborah Sherman, Larkin Realty Co.