Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 10/06/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 6 OCTOBER 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 October 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Wrigley, J. Nick, D. Seff, M. Scollins, B. Goodrich, L. Brown, D. Henson, A. Rowe, C. Snyder, D. Warshaw, G. Farrell, A. Wyncoop 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 he had attended a class at the Regional Planning Commission regarding green infrastructure and ways to treat stormwater, etc. 4. Continued site plan application #SP-15-36 of Arlo Cota to amend a previously approved plan for an 11,074 sq. ft. boat, recreational vehicle and auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of 1) removing a large tree in the front yard, 2) adding four light poles, and 3) filling in a stormwater pond and constructing a new dry detention swale in front of auto display area, 3017 Williston Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 20 October. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-36 to 20 October 2015. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Conditional use application #CU-15-08 of Lee Wrigley to construct a 2.5’ x 10’ deck addition to an existing front deck, 57 Helen Avenue: Mr. Wrigley said the deck will extend 2.5 feet toward the road to make room for more people to use it. It will not be any higher. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-15-08. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued conditional use application #CU-15-06 of Robert & Marilyn Maddison for approval to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-story addition to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 7 Lyons Avenue: Mr. Belair said the applicant has requested a continuance until February. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-15-06 until 16 February 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued site plan application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road: Mr. Nick said they have added 2 additional river birches, approved by the City Arborist. He indicated the location for the 2 trees. The budget has been provided ($6964) They will also remove the light fixtures from the building. These won’t be replaced. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-29. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. 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 17 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing 13 2- family dwellings, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder said this plan is similar to what was presented in March 2015, but takes into account comments from that meeting. The connection to Vale Drive has been restored. It will be designed to slow traffic and may include a speed table on Vale Drive. They have also varied the building design. Mr. Barritt noted the park is higher than in the past. He also questioned having a public park accessed by a private road and expressed concern with people walking across a wetland to get to the community gardens. Mr. Snyder felt the tall grasses would discourage people from walking into the wetland. Mr. Wilking suggested making the road across the wetland public with a recreation path, then having the last few feet to the 2 homes be a private road. This would provide public access to the public park. Mr. Snyder said he might try to relocate the garden space. The question of the road dead-ending at the adjacent property was noted. Mr. Belair said the thought was to construct the road to city standards, so if it is ever extended through the adjacent property, the whole road would be to city specs. Mr. Barritt liked the fact that the recreation path is back on the eastern edge of the property. He did note the 820-foot block length which has to be broken up. Staff has suggested a mid-block crosswalk between units 8 and 9. Mr. Belair said staff feels the road can be designed without a speed table. With a new road, there is always an opportunity for other types of speed control. Mr. Barritt suggested the possibility of a parallel road behind some of the units to avoid individual curb cuts for the units. Mr. Snyder said that gets expensive. Mr. Wilking said the density feels tight to him, particularly on the long street. He felt the applicant should go back to 49 units. Mr. Barritt asked about phasing. Mr. Snyder said they would start on Spear Street and build Spear Meadow Drive, then Vale Drive, then the homes. The park would be done when Vale Drive is constructed. Mr. Parsons said the proposed park seems “removed” for a public park. Mr. Barritt indicated where the park had been on the previous plan and said he preferred that location. Mr. Seff, representing a number of neighbors, asked to present remarks in writing for the next meeting. He noted this plan is denser than the last plan. He said it is their contention that the city’s TDR policy is invalid and that the DRB can reject the excess density request. They feel 31 is the maximum number of units that can be supported on the property. Mr. Barritt noted the neighbors did support a previous plan with more units. Mr. Seff said that was with no connection to Vale Drive. When the board wouldn’t allow that, the OK for more units “went away.” Dr. Scollins said he feels the plan is too dense and the park doesn’t work where it is shown. That area is swampy and a park makes no sense there. He felt the recreation path belongs on the east border, but there are many tall trees there that would have to be removed. He suggested moving 10-12 feet to the west, but that would have the path 20 feet from homes. He said that with only 31 homes, they would need only one row of houses, not two. Mr. Warshaw, a Pinnacle resident, said he agreed that the density is too high. Mr. Gary Farrell, noted they acquired this property 40 years ago. They never asked for a special lower agriculture tax rate. They have been working on this development for 9 years. He said South Burlington has planned this community and has developed TDRs to save land and farms in the southern part of the city. This is one of the places where the city has decided those units would go. Mr. Farrell noted the property could actually allow 104 units, but they are trying to develop it in a reasonable way. He stressed that the city needs more affordable housing. They are trying to comply with regulations and are not asking for any waivers. He felt the neighbors just want to keep “knocking it down.” Mr. Snyder said the park can be shifted to the southeast corner, but the road then wouldn’t have a bend in it. Mr. Wilking said he would still want the road not to be a straightaway. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-37 to 15 December 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Preliminary plat application #SD-15-30 of Leon Brown for a planned unit development on a 0.37 acre lot developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) razing the existing single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a four unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Brown noted the reason setback waivers are needed is that staff encouraged them to go along with the plans for form based codes and develop to the “build to” line. Mr. Henson said they will be closing one curb cut and using a different new one. They will have a letter from VTrans for that. Mr. Barritt said he would like to see elevations from all 4 sides. Mr. Henson noted the Fire Chief would like a tree removed from in front of a window. They will try to put it elsewhere. Mr. Barritt noted that the applicant will be maintaining a fence that is actually being built on the adjacent property. Mr. Belair said technically it will be owned by that landowner. Members generally liked the plan. Mr. Barritt said he would like at least one window for each garage instead of a big blank wall. He also suggested a little shed roof over the back doors. Mr. Belair noted that Public Works has requested a hydrologic study. Mr. Wilking felt this was a good infill project. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-30. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Final Plat Application #SD-15-31 of the Snyder South Point Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of removing one single family dwelling and replacing it with four single family dwellings. The amendment consists of increasing the depth of the four footprint lots from 70 feet to 80 feet, 111 Upswept Lane: Mr. Wilking asked why they are asking for the extension. Mr. Snyder said it is for decks. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-31. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Minutes of 18 August and 15 September 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 18 August and 15 September as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for an extension of the approval for “Happy Tails” doggie day care. Mr. Miller moved to approve a one-year extension of the time to obtain a zoning permit for Happy Tails. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , Clerk ________10-20-2015_______________________ Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #CU-15-08 - 1 - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LEE WRIGLEY --- 57 HELEN AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-15-08 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-15-08 of Lee Wrigley to construct a 2.5’ X 10’ deck addition to an existing front deck, 57 Helen Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on October 6, 2015. The applicant represented himself. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Conditional use application #CU-15-08 of Lee Wrigley to construct a 2.5’ X 10’ deck addition to an existing front deck, 57 Helen Avenue. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Lee and Caroline Wrigley. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 District. 4. The application was received on August 10, 2015. 5. The plan set submitted consists of one (1) page hand drawn sketch entitled “Lee & Caroline Wrigley 57 Helen Ave. So. Burlington” with no date indicated. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. 6. The Board finds that the proposed deck addition will not have an undue adverse effect on community services. (b) The planned character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The property is located within the Residential 4 Zoning District. The purpose of the District is stated as follows: 4.03 (A) Purpose. A Residential 4 District is hereby formed in order to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods #CU-15-08 - 2 - and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. Any use not expressly permitted is prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The Comprehensive Plan, last adopted March 9, 2011, includes several objectives and recommendations related to housing in the community. Housing Objective 2 (page 40) states: “Identify and protect existing and developing residential neighborhoods” The Board discussed this item in concurrence with the standards within Section 3.06(J) of the LDRs. Currently, the existing dwellings on this street share a common setback that creates a neighborhood feel. An encroachment into this setback will allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach slightly further into the established setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. In this case, the proposed expansion of the front deck 30 inches into the setback would be more than the average of the abutting properties. The Board assessed whether such an encroachment creates an adverse effect, AND if so, whether the adverse effect is undue on the planned character of the area. 7. Based on this information above, the Board finds that this application does not rise to the level of creating an undue adverse affect on the planned character of the area. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. 8. The Board finds that the proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. An exception is allowed for lots existing prior to February 28, 1974 in Article 3, Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. See below for these standards. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. 9. The Board finds that the proposed additional deck space will not affect the utilization of renewable energy resources. 3.06(J) EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS EXISTING PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 28, 1974. The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling. #CU-15-08 - 3 - (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet. (2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage, but in no event shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (c) adequate on-site parking; and (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. See discussion above. 10. The Board finds that the proposed deck addition would not have an undue adverse affect on views of adjoining and/or nearby properties 11. The Board finds that the proposed deck addition would not have an undue adverse affect on access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties. 12. The Board finds that the proposed deck addition would not affect on adequacy of on- site parking. 13. The Board finds that the proposed deck addition would not have an undue adverse affect on safety of adjoining and/or nearby properties. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by _____________, to approve conditional use application #CU-15-08 of Lee Wrigley, subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. #CU-15-08 - 4 - 4. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present 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 permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.     CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_29_916_ShelburneRoad_Perkins_hedge_and_fence_ Aug18mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 2, 2015 Plans received: April 30, 2015 916 Shelburne Road SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-29 Meeting date: October 6, 2015 Owner/Applicant Charles and Janet Perkins 80 South Cove Road Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-00916 Commercial 1 – Residential 15 Zoning District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three (3) dwelling units in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road. The Board informed the applicant at the last meeting that replacing the hedge with a split rail fence was not acceptable and that the hedge had to be replaced. The applicant has since installed a 5’- 6’ high hedge. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on April 30, 2015 and subsequent revisions received on September 9, 2015 and have the following comments. This application was continued from the September 15th meeting to allow the applicant to revise the plan. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Staff considers the Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements continue to be met. Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the proposed building and uses to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes to existing parking are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. The parking located to the front of the building is pre-existing. (c)-(d) Not applicable (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING No changes to the building are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. No changes to the structures are proposed. 1. The applicant has removed a cedar hedge that provided a screen between the property and commercial and residential properties located to the north and a large deciduous tree in front of the building. See discussion below under 14.07 D. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. No changes to the structures are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is required. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. No changes to utility services are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant had a new screened dumpster enclosure constructed in early August. This criterion is met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Prior to submission of this application, the applicant removed a 280 ft. long cedar hedge along the north edge of the property. The applicant’s April 25, 2015 letter indicates that the applicants planted the hedge in 1982. The Planning & Zoning Office’s records indicate that a Findings of Fact & Decision issued on May 23, 1989 contained a requirement for the applicant to post a $2,250 landscaping bond and add nine (9) cedar plants in the center portion of the hedge to fill an existing gap. The applicant submitted a letter dated April 25, 2015 indicating the reasons why they removed the hedge and why they wish to install a split rail fence. Their reasons primarily have to do with their concerns over increased trash and inappropriate use of their property by members of the public using the adjacent CCTA bus stop. A large deciduous tree of unknown caliper located on the lawn to the northwest of the primary building was also removed. The Board provided guidance to the applicant at a previous meeting. The Board requested that the applicant show an eight (8) foot high hedge on the site plan to replace the 30 foot high hedge that was removed and that they enclose the dumpster storage area. In response to the Board’s direction at the June 16, 2015 hearing, the applicant has planted fifty (50) cedar trees (approximately 5’-6’ tall) along the north side of its property. This new planting starts 25 feet from the property’s northwest corner and continues until its northeast corner. The applicant has also planted two (2) Autumn Blaze maples (each about 1.5 inches in diameter and 8’ tall) in the lawn area to the northwest of the main building. The total cost of the newly installed cedar trees was $5,860.51. The value of the mature hedge that was removed is unknown. At the last meeting, August 18th, the Board asked the applicant to provide more detailed information regarding the hedge and the two (2) new trees and to also include a planting schedule and other information typically provided on a site plan when new landscaping is proposed. The applicant was requested to submit the revised plan no later than September 4th. The revised plan submitted on September 9th and was prepared by the applicant and not a landscape professional as required under Section 13.06 (F) of the LDRs. The Board at the last meeting agreed that the plan could be prepared by a non-landscape professional. The Board did not give the applicant specific indication as to whether the two (2) maple tree plantings to be an adequate or inadequate replacement the large tree that was removed. Based on Google earth street view photo the tree appeared to have been about 3-4 ft. in diameter. The applicant submitted a revised plan dated September 22, 2015. The plan notes the location of existing trees and shrubs as well as the 50 cedar trees and Autumn Blaze maples discussed above. The plan also details the location and dimensions of the dumpster storage enclosure. In response to discussions at prior meetings the applicant proposing to plant two 2.5 inch diameter Ash trees in the lawn area on the northwest portion of the property. The City Arborist has indicated to staff and to the applicant that Ash is not an acceptable tree for the property. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING On October 1, 2015, the applicant submitted a revised landscaping plan indicating that two (2), 8-10 ft. Clump River Birch trees are proposed instead of the Ash trees. The applicant’s email regarding the revised plan stated: Craig, Thank you for this recommendation. I will add the Clump River Birch to the site plan and get them over to Ray. Jeff Nick NAI JL Davis Realty The applicant also provided a Landscaping Budget document on October 1, 2015 indicating the total expenses for the cedar, maple and clump river birch trees and associated labor to be $6,964. Staff is comfortable with the plan as revised. 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. OTHER The property contains many flood lights which as not in compliance with Section 13.07 of the LDRs. All non- compliant flood lights should be removed and if replaced, replaced with compliant lighting fixtures. The site plan shows the location of the existing sign. This information should be removed from the plan. RECOMMENDATION The Board should determine if adequate information has been provided to close the hearing or continue it to another meeting. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Charles and Janet Perkins, applicants CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_ sketch_Oct_6_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 13, 2015 Plans received: March 9, 2015 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-37 Meeting date: October 6, 2015 Owner Spear Meadows, Inc Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Chris Snyder Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Plans not stamped by an Engineer Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 17 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three (3) 3- unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing 13 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. The above description has been revised from the original request to reflect the current proposal. Proposed development in this area has been discussed in depth at multiple prior DRB meetings in connection with applications #SD-11-51 and #MP-11-03. The proposal has a new applicant under this Sketch Plan, however. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for landscaping, traffic and other issues certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the revised plans submitted on September 16, 2015 and offer the following comments. Issues for discussion  Proposed Public Park Section 9 of the SBLDR states that “a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation.” Furthermore, “parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program” and “a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned recreation area.” The area set aside for the proposed public park is approximately 1.9 acres. This meets the minimum standard, of approximately 1 acre. The Board should consider the proposed park in the context of the overall PUD. In addition, staff has strong reservations about the location of the park being adjacent to homes, having to cross a wetland to access the park and the two (2) proposed homes, the proposed access itself, and how much this park can be used by nearby neighborhoods. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Staff recommends the Board discuss the proposed new location of the park, as it has moved to the southwest corner of the property. A few notes for consideration: o Given the somewhat isolated position of the park, who would be its users? How does the park contribute to the innovation and creativity requirement of being a PUD? o How would privacy / future noise issues be addressed with the park directly adjacent to proposed and existing single family house lots? o Is the park to be developed in some manner? If not, should it? o What is the applicant’s understanding of ownership of the roadway leading to the park? A public park would need to be accessed by a public roadway. In this case, the roadway does not appear to meet City specifications for width or turn-around. Further, the length of the road exceeds the maximum cul-de-sac distance in the SEQ-NR District. The Board, under previous applications, had expressed concerns about public roadways crossing the wetland and exceeding the maximum cul-de-sac standard. 1. Staff understands that this level of review is not yet complete and these details should be largely worked out prior to any decision on the preliminary plat application. The applicant should engage in discussions with the Director of Public Works, Director of the Recreation Department and with the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee and these should continue to as the application evolves. The Director and the applicant should address the location overall size of the park and which facilities shall be planned for the space (ie- basketball courts, play structures, etc), as well as parking needs.  Residential Parcels Adjacent to Proposed Park In the past the Board has seen various proposals for development of this area. One version showed a public street to serve a large park and another showed a private road serving 3 homes with a centralized park elsewhere in the development. The current proposal is a hybrid of both as it appears a private road is proposed to serve two (2) homes and the park. If this road were public it would only serve two (2) homes and an isolated park. This would be a significant maintenance expense and is not consistent with block standards in the LDRs, see below. The proposed road to serve lots #37 and #38 and the proposed park is approximately 500 feet long and is also a cul-de- sac. Staff remembers the Board expressing concerns over having homes in this location served by a road which crosses a wetland. 2. The Board should discuss this southwestern portion of the property in the context of the park, road, the house lots and the overall design of the PUD.  Agriculture The LDRs (Section 9.06 (C)) state: C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING community-supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly encouraged. The applicant has proposed extensive community garden space to be located in the eastern portion of the proposed park. Access to this garden area is problematic as discussed above since it appears that the access drive is not a public street. Also, where would the water supply come from for this garden area? 3. The Board should discuss the garden space in light of the issues raised and provided the applicant guidance on this issue. Recreation Path and Block Lengths The City’s official map depicts the proposed route of the recreation path to connect from Vale Drive to Spear Street. Staff recognizes and appreciates the applicant now placing the recreation path along the eastern edge of the property in response to guidance previously issued and the Board as well as the addition of a short path spur from the driveway area serving the triplex complex to the path. Staff notes that the proposed 820 ft. block length along single-family footprint lots, 1-13, is inconsistent with standards for the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict, stated as follows. 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. 4. Staff would recommend addition of a mid-block sidewalk connection in the portion of Vale Drive near lots #8 & #9 as well as the addition of a mid-block sidewalk connection near units #25 and #19. The Board should discuss whether the mid-block connection near lots #8 & #9 should extend to the recreation path in the rear. The applicant should address this. The standard above includes use of the word “must.” The Board should consider this standard, and address whether the proposed plan meets the regulation. Subsection 9.08(A) (2) (b) notes that “(d)ead end streets (e.g. culs-de-sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.” The proposed “private drive” serving lots #39 - #45, which is 320 ft. in length, should be constructed to City road standards if the Board determines that the property to the south is potentially developable. Otherwise, this is a dead end street which exceeds the 200 ft. length limit CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 5. The Board should discuss the access for these two (2) homes in light of the wetland crossing and the proposed adjacent park and whether it is acceptable for these homes to be in this location given the issues raised. Also, the Board should discuss the “private drive” and whether it should be constructed to City road standards such that it could be extended into the adjacent property to serve future development. 14.06 General Review Standards ……………. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re-used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation; or (vi) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District and meets the following criteria: Staff notes that the proposed triplexes in the project appear to have vehicle parking in the rear of the units with access via a private driveway. This is acceptable. The proposed sidewalk along units 1 – 15, 25 – 36 and 46-52 is impacted by driveways. 6. Staff recommends the applicant explore the use of shared driveway entrances for duplex units where possible the development to reduce sidewalk interruptions. Staff recommends that the applicant explore different building orientations for units 25 and units 36 such as facing the end units and their driveways towards the east-west side streets and/or having rear loaded garages accessed via those same side streets. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 7. Staff also notes that the applicant will need to comply with Section 9.08, C.(4) which requires that “the front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet.” 8. Given that the length of Vale Drive exceeds the required block length, staff recommends that the applicant address this with a solution consistent with the regulations.  Parcel 1 The plans depict a building, lot 52, along the western edge of the parcel. As currently shown, the building is oriented to the proposed new street, as opposed to facing Spear Street. The proposed setback of the building approximates those of abutting properties on Spear Street. All the other homes along Spear Street face Spear Street. 9. Staff recommends that the Board discuss this issue with the applicant and provide guidance on the orientation of the building.  Density The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.15 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood Residential sub-district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing to construct 52 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and one to remain, for a total of 53 units within the PUD. Lot 1 1 unit one, existing SF home to remain Units 37 & 38 2 units SF home lots Units 1, 6-11, 25-26, 35-36, 41-42, 45 and 52 15 units SF home footprint lots Units 2-3, 4-5, 12-13, 14-15, 27-28, 29-30, 31-32, 33-34, 39-40 43-44, 46-47, 48-49 and 50-51 26 units 13 duplexes Units 16 thru 24 9 units 3 triplexes This is a proposed density of approximately 2.03 units per acre. A total of 22 transferred development rights (TDRs) would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. The Board has previously required that the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney as part of the preliminary plat submittal. Staff has also recommended that the TDRs be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property’s inherent density. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 10. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. a. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. b. Staff recommends that the applicant submit all legal documents showing clear ownership and transfer of the development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit.  Roads and Circulation and Stormwater Given the different versions of this plan that have been discussed, staff feels that it is best for the Board to provide guidance on the outlines of the plan prior to a more detail analysis by Public Works staff  Phasing The Board should discuss phasing for the following items:  Road completion;  Road connection to Vale Drive;  Timing for construction and completion of Park;  General phasing for the order of construction of buildings;  Improvements on Spear Street and at the Spear Street intersection;  Notice of Conditions There are “footprint” lots proposed around several of the units. For purposes of the LDRs, all lots will be considered one lot. 11. For purposes of the LDRs, the footprint lots in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot within each grouping. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plans.  Mix of Housing Types (1) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. Staff notes that the applicant has mixed duplexes and single family homes on both Vale Drive and the proposed private drive. The triplex building with units #16-18 does not face the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING stree.t This does not comply with the residential design standards requiring that “residential buildings must be oriented to the street”. 12. While most details will be addressed at preliminary and final plat, staff notes the applicant’s proposal may or may not be consistent with Section 9.08 C.(5) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. Staff notes that as the project evolves, additional questions not raised herein may be posed. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Christopher Snyder, applicant CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_P relim DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 2, 2015 Application received: July 23, 2015 PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-30 LEON BROWN – 57 HINESBURG ROAD Meeting Date: October 6, 2015 Applicant Leon Brown 15 Ruth Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Person Doug Henson Lamoureux & Dickinson 14 Morse Drive Essex, VT 05452 Owner Same as applicant Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary application #SD-15-30 of Leon Brown for a planned unit development on a 0.37 acre lot developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) razing the existing single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a four (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 23, 2015 and offer the following comments: C1 – R12 – Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size (residential) 3,500 sq. ft./unit 16,025 sq. ft. <3,500 s.f./unit  Max. Building Coverage 40% 8% 35%  Max. Overall Coverage 70% 22% 67% *Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. unknown 8 ft. *Min. Side Setback 10 ft. unknown 8 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. unknown 23 ft.  Max. Building Height 40ft. (pitched roof) unknown 30 ft.  Zoning compliance * Waiver required. The Planning & Zoning Department has encouraged the applicant to consider and advance the intent of the draft Form Based Code requirements which this proposal approaches with regards to setbacks. Therefore, waivers to the front, side and rear setbacks would be required. 1. The Board should discuss the proposed setbacks and take action on the requested waivers. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. While not a mixed use development the proposed project uses most all of the lot and provides needed housing within the City’s core. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to be generally consistent with this standard. B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc Only one structure and one type of use (multi-family residential) is proposed. This criterion is not applicable. C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. The applicant is proposing to abandon its existing curb cut near the southeast corner of the property and create a new one at the northeast corner. In response to the Board’s request at the September 15th meeting, the applicant has added an entry sidewalk from Hinesburg Road to the entry porch of the easternmost unit. Staff considers Criterion C above to be met. Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations. This criterion is not applicable. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the applicant’s proposal to be generally consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc (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. No parking is proposed to the front 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. While the proposed units would be taller than those on adjoining residential parcels, the proposed 30 ft. height would be compatible with this criterion. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 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. Only one building is proposed. This criterion is not applicable. (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 structure is consistent with existing buildings in the neighborhood. The layout of unit #4 (which will have a wrap around porch and an entrance walkway to the sidewalk along Hinesburg Road) will serve to tie in the building with Hinesburg Road. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The reservation of land is not 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 applicant submitted a revised plan dated September 28, 2015 indicating that wire-served utility lines would be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc to be fenced or screened. The applicant’s letter indicates that residents of the four units will keep their trash containers in their garages and then put them out for pickup on trash collection days. Staff considers this criterion to be met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The applicant submitted a Landscaping plan and schedule. In an email dated September 21, 2015, the City Arborist provided the following comments: Ray, the landscape plan for Brown Estate, 57 Hinesburgh Rd look good. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist The applicant is proposing to erect a new vinyl stockade fence on the two neighboring properties to the north to provide screening. The applicant has indicated that he has obtained the permission from the two (2) respective property owners to do so. 2. The Board should establish a condition that the applicant provide a written statement from each property owner agreeing to allow the applicant to install the proposed fence on their respective properties with the final plat submittal. Staff considers this Criterion to be met. 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. As noted above, the project as proposed would require waivers to the front, side and rear yard setback requirements. 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 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. Applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to submittal of a final plat. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant’s plan details the use of silt fencing. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The applicant is proposing to abandon its existing curb cut near the southeast corner of the property and create a new one at the northeast corner. In response to the Board’s request at the September 15th meeting, the applicant has added an entry sidewalk from Hinesburg Road to the entry porch of the easternmost unit. Staff considers this Criterion to be met. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The parcel contains neither resources identified in the Open Space strategy nor any unique natural features. (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 project will increase the overall density on the parcel from one residential unit to four residential units. The scale and design of the building is visually compatible with planned development pattern in the area and the purposes of the C-1 / R-12 zoning district. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The property contains no open space areas. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In a letter to staff dated September 30, 2015 the Fire Department commented as follows: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of a 4 unit multi-family dwelling at 57 Hinesburg Road. We have the following recommendations: 1. Compliance with all requirements of the Vermont Fire Building and Safety Code for any applicable structures. 2. 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. 3. The dead-end driveway is an issue for us, but in addressing this the builders representative at the staff review meeting indicated that the units would have residential sprinklers installed. 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 applicant should address the above comments with the final plat submission. (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. (A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. See note above regarding sidewalk. The final plat submittal should include details and locations of all exterior lighting fixtures. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc Staff considers the project, as currently proposed, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 10.02 Traffic Overlay District The property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 3. Based on a parcel size of 16,025 square feet, which is 40.10% of 40,000 SF, the maximum number of trip ends allowed is 18.05. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers TRIP GENERATION manual, the four residential units would generate an estimated 3.12 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends. Although formal conformance with this criterion will be addressed at final plat review, the project as proposed appears to be consistent with the requirements of the Traffic Overlay District. MISCELLANEOUS No snow storage areas are shown on the plan. The applicant’s engineer has communicated to staff that the applicant will truck plowed snow off site. In response to the Board’s request at the September 15th meeting, the revised plans submitted September 28, 2015 indicate the installation of two (2) ft. wide islands between the parking areas in front of the garages. The applicant has recently indicated verbally to staff that they would prefer to use red pavers or another material flush to the ground to facilitate snow plowing in place of a landscaped island. 3. The Board and the applicant should discuss the proposed delineation and landscaping of the areas between the driveways in front of the units’ respective garages. STORMWATER In an email to staff dated September 18, 2015 the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Planned 4-Unit Development Site & Utilities Plan” site plan prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineer, Inc., dated 6/23/15. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. 2. The plans should indicate the total proposed impervious surface. 3. Provide a map showing the drainage area flowing to the proposed infiltration area. 4. If any hydraulic modeling has been developed for the infiltration practice, please provide it for record. 5. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A “Permit to Open Streets or Right-Of-Way” can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_30_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_Prelim.doc 6. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment practice. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Dave Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 4. The Board should direct the applicant to comply with these recommendations. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Doug Henson 34'28'4'10'17'14'27.33 '24'13.33'17'28'4'10'34'6'12'6'12'14'27.33'6'12'7'13.33'17'28'10'13.33 '24'14'14'33.33 '6'16'6'12'17'8'4'12'6'13.33'14'27.33 ' 3 1 4 315316315315314315314 SB-1SB-2SB-3SB-4IT-1GW AT 311.7GW AT 310.5GW AT309.9GW AT 309.3SS SSSSSSSSS S SWWWWW WWW W W W 3144'5'3'SSSWWWWWWWSSSSSX 316.0X 3 1 6 . 0X 316.0X 315.5X 315.5NEW PAVEDACCESS DRIVEHINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON ROADTO KENNEDY DRIVEEXISTING STOCKADE FENCEEXISTING VINYL STOCKADE FENCECHANG MING & XIANGYONG JIANGN/FRESIDENTIALANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FSHOPPING CENTERSONRISEPARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FRESIDENTIALJAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLE GILBERT-FULLERN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTINGSHEDJOHN L. WOLFF, IIIN/FRESIDENTIALHUEN YUN POONN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING PAVED SIDEWALKINFILTRATIONAREAENTRYWAYENTRYWAYENTRYWAYENTRYWAYGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE1234NEW 4" PVCINV. = 311.19NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYEINV. = 309.28NEW 6" CLEANOUTINV. = 309.33NEW 4" PVCINV. = 310.00NEW 4" PVCINV. = 310.00NEW 4" PVCINV. = 310.00NEW SEWER MANHOLERIM ELEV = 316.415" INV IN = 306.2615" INV OUT = 306.266" PVC INV. IN = 306.26THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACTUALSIZE AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SEWERMAIN PRIOR TO ORDERING STRUCTURE205 LF NEW 6" SDR 35PVC, S = 0.015 FT /FTS = 1/4" / FT(MIN.)NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYEINV. = 308.53NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYEINV. = 308.08NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYE INV . = 307.21180 LF NEW 2" PEWATER SERVICENEW GRASS-L INED SWALE5' x 32' INFILTRATION AREASEE DETAIL ON SHEET 43/4" CURB STOP, (TYP.)EXISTING 6" ACWATER MAINEXISTING 15" SEWER MAINPAVEMENTREPLACEMENTAREA. SEE DETAILON SHEET #3.66'CONCRETECURB2" CURB STOPTAPER CURB ENDDECK (TYP.)F.F.E. = 317.0F.F.E. = 317.0F.F.E. = 317.0F.F.E. = 317.0APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER& SEWER SERVICES. WHEN ENCOUNTEREDDURING EXISTING BUILDING DEMOLITION, CUTAND CAP BOTH SERVICES.EXISTING CURB STOP LOCATION ISUNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALLATTEMPT TO LOCATE CURB STOP,(CONTACT CITY IF NEEDED) , ANDCLOSE CURB STOP AND REMOVE ROD.REMOVE EXISTING PAVEDAPRON AND DRIVEWAYSIDEWALK PAVEMENTREPLACEMENT TO MATCHPAVEMENT CROSS-SECTION3/4" PE SERVICE PIPE2" x 3/4" REDUCER FITTINGSTONE LINED EMERGENCYOVERFLOWBERMNEW DOUBLE STRAPSERVICE SADDLEREMOVEEXISTINGLIGHT NEW VINYLSTOCKADE FENCE2' GRASS ISLAND(TYPICAL)X 3 1 6 . 0 X 315.8 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 31 6 . 5 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 316 . 9 X 316.6X 316.4X 3 1 5 . 5WATERSHED DRAINING TOINFILTRATION AREA20' "BU ILD TO ZONE"SIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODE T-3 DISTRICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 D ISTR ICT FRONT YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODET-3 DISTRICTFRONT YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RES IDENT IAL 12 D ISTR ICTSIDE YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODET-3 DISTR ICT REAR YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTREAR YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODET-3 DISTR ICT 20'8'10'8'8'6'SITE LAYOUT IS BASED ON POSSIBLE NEW ZONINGFORM BASED CODE T-3 ZONING DISTRICT23'23.4'57 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON , VT 05403DateSheet numberScale CheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineer ing.comDate Rev is ion ByThese plans shal l only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch /ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing06-23-15DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLCAS NOTEDBROWN ESTATES9-22-15REVISED PER DRB COMMENTSDLHPROJECTSITEMARKET STREETRICKMARCOTTECENTRALSCHOOLWILLISTON ROADTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLEGENDEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING GROUND CONTOUREXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING UTILITY POLE AND OVERHEAD WIREPROVIDEDREQUIREDEXISTING USE - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED USE - MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:MINIMUM LOT AREAMINIMUM FRONT SETBACKMINIMUM SIDE SETBACKMINIMUM REAR SETBACKMAXIMUM COVERAGE BUILDINGS ONLY TOTALMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTPROJECT STATISTICSUTILITIES:WATER/WASTEWATER - MUNICIPAL SERVICES.ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISIONS SERVICES TO BEUNDERGROUND.EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT - COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 12POSSIBLE NEW ZONING DISTRICT - FORM BASE CODE T-33,500 SF/ UNIT6-20 FT8 FT20 FT40%75%4016,025 SF (0.37 ACRES) EXISTING8 FT8 FT23FT35% (5,559 sf, 0.13 ACRES)67% (10,616 sf, 0.24 ACRES)30PLANNED 4-UNIT DEVELOPMENTSITE & UTILITIES PLAN1LOCATION PLANNTSZONING SETBACK PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'EXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING WATER LINEPROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED SEWER LINESOIL BORING - G.W. MEASURED ON 6-__-15315PROPOSED CONTOURWATERSHED:POTASH BROOK 314 315 316315315314315314SSSSSSS SSSS S SWWWWW WWW W W W 314SSWWWWWWWSSSSSX 316.0X 3 1 6 . 0X 316.0X 315.5X 316.6X 316.4X 3 1 6 . 0 X 315.8 X 315.5X 3 1 6 . 0 X 31 6 . 5 X 3 1 5 . 5 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 316. 9 NEW PAVEDACCESS DRIVEHINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON ROADTO KENNEDY DRIVECHANG MING & XIANGYONG JIANGN/FRESIDENTIALANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FSHOPPING CENTERSONRISEPARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FRESIDENTIALJAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLE GILBERT-FULLERN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING SHRUBS(TO BE RETAINED)EXISTING DWELLINGEXISTINGSHEDGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE1234REMOVE EXISTINGTREES AND SHRUBSREMOVE EXISTINGTREES AND SHRUBSREMOVE EXISTING TREETEMPORARY SILT FENCE3 CE3 CM3 CE3 CL3 CE3 LB3 IVf + 1 IVm3 CLARQBCCBNQBARHVCOHVOVCOHVOVOVHVCCAFBNALAL4 AM3 CL3 PO1 IV f 1 IVm 2 AM2 IV f 1 AM5 PO57 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON , VT 05403DateSheet numberScale CheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineer ing.comDate Rev is ion ByThese plans shal l only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch /ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing06-23-15DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLCAS NOTEDBROWN ESTATES9-22-15REVISED PER DRB COMMENTSDLHTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONLEGENDEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING GROUND CONTOUREXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING UT ILITY POLE AND OVERHEAD WIREPLANNED 4-UNIT DEVELOPMENTLANDSCAPE PLAN2EXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING WATER LINEPROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED SEWER LINE315PROPOSED CONTOURNEW TREE LINEPLANTING SCHEDULEKey Botanical Name Common Name RemarksTreesShrubsCommon HackberryCeltis occidentalis 'Prairie Pride'CC2 1/2" caliper, B&B2 1/2" caliper, 6' branching heigh t, s ingle stem, B&BRiver BirchBetula nigra 'Heritage'BNBlack ChokeberryAMAronia melanocarpa 'Autumn Magic'Winterberry (female)IVfIlex verticillata 'Afterglow'Winterberry (male)IVmIlex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'Sweet PepperbushCLClethra alnifolia 'Ruby Spice'18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerNorthern SpicebushLBLindera benzoinButtonbushCECephalanthus occidentalis18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerSOIL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING AREAS1. LANDSCAPE BACKFILL SHALL BE PREM IXED, CONS ISTING OF APPROX IMATELY 50% TOPSO IL , 25% COMPOST , AND 25%NATIVE SOIL. IN CASES WHERE THE NATIVE SOIL MEETS THE TOPSO IL SPECIFICAT ION, THE PROPORT IONS OFNATIVE SOIL MAY BE ADJUSTED UP TO 75% .2. TOPSO IL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM NATURALLY WELL DRA INED S ITES WHERE TOPSOIL OCCURS AT LEAST 4 INCHESDEEP. TOPSOIL SHALL NOT BE OBTA INED FROM WETLANDS. TOPSOIL SHALL BE LOOSE, FR IABLE , FREE OF ROOTS ,NOXIOUS WEEDS, STONES LARGER THAN 1 INCH , AND OTHER DEBRIS .3. ALL IMPORTED SOIL SHALL BE REASONABLY FREE FROM ROOTS , HARD CLAY , COARSE GRAVEL, STONES LARGERTHAN TWO INCHES IN ANY DIMENS ION, NOX IOUS WEEDS, TALL GRASS, BRUSH, ST ICKS, STUBBLE , AND ANYMATERIALS THAT WOULD BE DETR IMENTAL TO HEALTHY VEGETATIVE GROWTH.4. BOTH TOPSOIL AND SUBSO IL SHALL HAVE A TEXTURE OF FINE SANDY LOAM PER THE USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLEAND CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING SPEC IFICATIONS:SIEVE NO.%PASSING2" 10010 90 -10040 80 -9060 50 -70100 20 -40200 10-40CLAY LESS THAN 10%pH 5 .5 TO 7 .0ORGANIC MATTER TOPSO IL : 10 - 15%, SUBSO IL : LESS THAN 10%5. COMPOST SHALL BE FREE OF WEED SEEDS AND COMPLY WITH EPA REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPOST. THE COMPOSTSHALL HAVE A LOOSE AND GRANULAR TEXTURE, AND SHALL POSSESS NO OBJECT IONABLE ODORS , AND SHALL NOTRESEMBLE THE RAW MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT WAS DERIVED. COMPOST SHALL COMPLY W ITH TABLE 755 .05A(PHYSICAL PROPERTIES / EPA COMPOST MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS) OF THE VTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICAT IONSFOR CONSTRUCTION.6. TO ASSURE THE GROWTH OF TREES, SHRUBS , AND OTHER PLANTS, THE SO IL MUST NOT BE COMPACTED. ANYAREAS OF INADVERTENTLY COMPACTED SOIL WILL NEED TO BE DECOMPACTED US ING A SUBSOILER , CH ISEL PLOW ,OR BY EXCAVAT ION AND REPLACEMENT WITH UNCOMPACTED SOIL. DO NOT DRIVE EQUIPMENT ON THE SOIL AFTERIT HAS BEEN PLACED OR DECOMPACTED. FINE GRAD ING AND PLANTING OF SPECIFIED LANDSCAP ING MAY BE DONEUSING LOW GROUND PRESSURE EQUIPMENT, IF TH IS CAN BE ACHIEVED W ITHOUT COMPACTION .7. DO NOT STOCKPILE SOIL OR COMPOST IN WET OR MUDDY CONDITIONS. PROVIDE EROS ION CONTROL TO PREVENTTRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT OR DUST AWAY FROM THE STORAGE AREA .8. SO ILS WITHIN THE FULL SPECIFIED DEPTH SHALL HAVE A BULK DENSITY NOT EXCEEDING 1 .5 g /cm ². SOILS SHALLEXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONE PENETROMETER READINGS:- SURFACE RES ISTANCE - LESS THAN 110 PSI (7 .7 kg/cm² )- SUBSURFACE RES ISTANCE - LESS THAN 260 PSI (18.3 kg/cm²)9. SO IL QUALITY AND DEPTH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TOWARD THE END OF CONSTRUCTION AND , ONCE ESTABLISHED,SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM COMPACT ION, EROSION , AND OTHER DETRIMENTAL INFLUENCES THROUGH THE ENDOF CONSTRUCTION.2 1/2" caliper, B&BRed MapleAcer rubrum 'Autumn Flame'AR2" caliper, B&BAllegheny ServiceberryAmelanchier laevis 'Snowcloud' or 'Majestic'ALPagoda DogwoodCornis alternifoliaCO2" caliper, B&BAmerican Witch-hazelHVHamamelis virginiana2" caliper, B&BEastern Hop-hornbeamOVOstrya virginiana2 1/2" caliper, B&B2 1/2" caliper, B&BFreeman MapleAcer x freemanii "Autumn Fantasy'AFSilky DogwoodCMCornus ammomum18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerSwamp White OakQBQuercus bicolor2 1/2" caliper, B&BCommon NinebarkPOPhysocarpus opulifolius 'Center Glow'18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerP:\2014\14015\dwg\14015-2.dwg, 9/25/2015 10:15:29 AM, 1:1 SSSSWWWWWWWWSSSSSConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450THESE PLANS WITH LATEST REVISIONS SHOULD ONLY BEUSED FOR THE PURPOSE SHOWN BELOW:REVISIONSFINALPRELIMINARY REVIEW57 HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT14015KMR---DLHDLH/DJG9-8-15SHT. NO.SCALEDATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNSURVEYPROJECT NO.AS NOTEDBOUNDARYSURVEYLANDS OF# OFSHEETS.DATE BYBROWNESTATES, LLC.PLPROJECTSITEMARKET STREETMAGNETIC RICKMARCOTTECENTRALSCHOOLWILLISTON ROADWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLOCATION PLANNTSCHANG MING & XIANGYONG JIANGN/FVOL. 1005, PG 342ANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FVOL. 687, PG. 331SONRISEPARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FVOL. 767, PG. 327JAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLEGILBERT-FULLERN/FVOL. 391, PG. 125JOHN L. WOLFF, IIIN/FVOL. 804, PG. 733HUEN YUN POONN/FVOL. 783, PG. 140 N/F LEGENDTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS PLAT IS BASEDON INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM PERTINENTDEEDS AND/OR OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS, ANDMARKERS EVIDENT ON THE PROPERTY, ANDCONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 27 VSA§1403. DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____, 2015__________________________PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON PIPE SETNOW OR FORMERLYUNDERGROUND ELECTRIC,TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICEWATER SERVICESEWER SERVICEWOOD STOCKADE FENCEVINYL STOCKADE FENCEABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADEWSA,E&TLANDOWNERBROWN ESTATES, LLC.57 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403DEED REFERENCE: VOL. 1202, PAGE 311AREA: 0.37 ACRE1" IPF0.1' AG.5" IPF0.3' AG.5" IPF0.1' AG1.5" IPF0.1' AG1.5" IPF0.4' BGIPFIPSIPS .1 BG66'HINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON RD.TO KENNEDY DR.166.82S 83°10'05" W70.0039.84S 84°23'04" W84.06N 06°18'22" W105.37N 86°49'42" E100.35N 87°50'34" ES 07°24'26" ENOTES:1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORD RESEARCHINCLUDING THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING PLATS:A."PLAT OF SURVEY OF LANDS OF POMERLEAU REAL ESTATE COMPANY.SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT." BY FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INC., DATEDJAN., 1987, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 198 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONLAND RECORDS.B. "PLAN OF PROPERTY OF ERNEST LEBLANC, HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT." BY ARTHUR W. HOAG, LAND SURVEYOR.BURLINGTON, VERMONT. DATED MAY 27 1947, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 4 OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "PLAN OF PROPERTY OF WM. & GRETA G. WARD. SO. BURLINGTON,VERMONT." BY ARTHUR W. HOAG & ASSOCIATES. DATED MAY, 1949, ASRECORDED IN SLIDE 73 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDRECORDS.D. "PLAN OF PROPERTY OF LAWRENCE G. & GERALDINE L. MENARD.HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT." BY HOAG, STONE &ASSOCIATES. DATED DECEMBER 1946, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 3 OF THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.E. "VTRANS PROJECT RS-140" DATED 1933 ON FILE AT THE DISTRICT 5 OFFICE2. BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONSRECORDED IN FEBRUARY, 2014,3. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/ORRIGHTS-OF-WAY.4. A CLOSED TRAVERSE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY, 2014. THEMETHODS AND THE RESULTING ERROR OF CLOSURE MEET OR EXCEED THEMINIMUM PRECISION REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN SURVEYS.5. MONUMENTATION FOUND IS AS NOTED ON PLAN. IRON PIPES SET ARE 1"DIAMETER WITH A PLASTIC CAP.6. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR HINESBURG ROAD OF 66' IS BASED ON THEABOVE REFERENCED PLANS.CITY CLERK'S OFFICECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. _____________________ , 2015RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT______ O'CLOCK __ M., ANDRECORDED IN SLIDE# _____ ATTEST: ___________________________CITY CLERKAGBGP:\2014\14015\dwg\14015-PL.dwg, 9/10/2015 10:55:41 AM, 1:1 #SD-15-31 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING THE SNYDER SOUTH POINTE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - 111 UPSWEPT LANE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-31 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-15-31 of The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of removing one (1) single family dwelling and replacing it with four (4) single family dwellings. The amendment consists of increasing the depth of the four (4) footprint lots from 70 ft. to 80 ft., 111 Upswept Lane. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 6, 2015. ___________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 project consists of amending a previously approved planned unit development consisting of removing one (1) single family dwelling and replacing it with four (4) single family dwellings. The amendment consists of increasing the depth of the four (4) footprint lots from 70 ft. to 80 ft., 111 Upswept Lane. 2. The owner of record of the subject properties is The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership. 3. The application was received on August 10, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of a five (5) page set of plans, page one (1) is entitled “Unsworth Homestead South Pointe Lot #32 Upswept Drive (sic) South Burlington, VT”, prepared by Lamoreux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 3/14/14 and last revised on 06/07/15. 6. The applicant previously obtained approval from the DRB for the creation of the four (4) footprint lots in June 2014 (cf. #SD-14-14). Dimensional Standards: The applicant proposes to amend the depth of the previously approved (4) footprint lot lines previously approved in this subdivision. This action would create non-conforming lots (being of insufficient individual size, and having zero setbacks, and no road frontage) and therefore will not be considered individual lots for the LDRs. For purposes of the LDRs, the four (4) footprint lots included in this proposal shall be considered one lot. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. #SD-15-31 2 DECISION Motion by ______________, seconded by ________________, to approve final plat application #SD-15- 31 of The Snyder South Pointe Limited Partnership subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations for the South Pointe project shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat plan shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plat shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. The plat plan shall be revised to include the signature of the land surveyor. 4. For purposes of the LDRs, all lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot as approved previously. The applicants shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. 5. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plat shall be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plan. 6. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 7. The final plat plan (survey plat) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plat plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit copies of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Tim Barritt– yea nay abstain not present Mark Behr – yea nay abstain not present 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 #SD-15-31 3 Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 August 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, D. Parsons, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Nick, J. Leinwohl, K. Abnet, J. Entis, T & J. Lavanway, J. Lavanway, C. Plante, A. & P. Irish, N. & P. Goddard, A. Jolles, N. Beck, M. Janswold, M. Abrams, E. Vizvarie, D. Viehmann 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Belair noted that the applicant for Agenda Item #4 did not send out the abutter notices. As this is a requirement, the Board will be asked to consider continuing the application. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: The Chair welcomed the Board’s new member, Matt Cota. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-24 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to alter the grade of the “airport quarry” by adding 5,000 cubic yards of material, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl apologized for not sending out the abutter notices and noted it involved an IT issue at the Airport, and they didn’t get the notices in time. He asked if the sketch plan, preliminary and final plats can all be heard together at a later date. Mr. Belair said he would have to check with the City Attorney to see if that is possible. Mr. Barritt said the Board can at least hear the sketch plan on September 1. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-24 to 1 September 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2015 PAGE 2 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road: Mr. Barritt reviewed the history and noted that the DRB had asked Mr. Perkins for a plan. Instead, some cedars have been planted and a large silver maple that was cut down has been replaced by 2 small maple trees. Mr. Nick said he was representing the Perkins’s as they were celebrating an anniversary. He reviewed the history of ownership of the property and noted that the building has been repainted and the property upgraded. He then showed a plan of the property. He indicated the new cedar hedge which he said is nicer than the previous one. He also said the large silver maple that was cut down was dying and was a danger. He showed the location of the 2 new maple trees. He also noted that a complete new plan had not been done. Mr. Barritt said the plan does not indicate where the new hedge begins and does not indicate its monetary value. The Board had wanted the hedge to be at least 8 feet high, and this is not. Mr. Barritt also wasn’t sure if the replacement maples are equal in value to the large tree that was cut down. He suggested the applicant have conversation with the City Arborist. Mr. Belair spoke to the need for the Board to be consistent with applicants regarding the replacement value of trees. Mr. Nick said if the large tree had fallen down, it would just have been cut up and taken away. He also said this will be a whole new property soon as it is for sale or lease. The property also has a number of mature trees. Mr. Barritt said he didn’t feel the 2 replacement maples were adequate. He asked that the Board be given a plan that shows an adequate number of trees, species, location, size, cost, and accurate dimensions. Mr. Belair noted there is a requirement to maintain the landscaping that is on an approved plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2015 PAGE 3 Mr. Irish, an abutting neighbor, said he has photos of machines taking down trees on the Perkins property. He said that when the original hedge was approved to allow the property to become commercial, it was supposed to be between the Irish house and the Perkins property and had to be at least 8 feet high. The one that was just planted is 5 feet high and planted on center. Mr. Irish was hopeful that it would grow. The question he had is whether the trees will be maintained as there is a history that they have not been. Mr. Nick said the trees will grow 13-23 inches a year and have been spaced so they will grow fuller. The 2 maples were installed by a professional. He also noted that the dumpster has been enclosed. Mr. Belair said the dumpster must be shown on the plan. Mr. Belair also said the proposed addition should not be shown on the plan and the tree that was cut down should not be on the plan. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SP-15-29 to 15 September 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Continued site plan application #SP-15-36 of Arlo Cota to amend a previously approved plan for an 11,074 sq. ft. boat, recreational vehicle and auto sales and service facility. The amendment consists of: 1) removing a large tree in the front yard, 2) adding 4 light poles, and 3) filling in a stormwater pond and constructing a new dry detention swale in front of auto display area, 3017 Williston Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has requested a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-36 to 6 October 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. 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: The applicants said when they built the addition to their house they hadn’t been sure what they were going to do. In the end, they constructed a deck which wasn’t on the original plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2015 PAGE 4 Mr. Barritt said staff has no issue with what was done, nor does he. Ms. Entis, a neighbor, was concerned with the rebuilding of a woodshed on the property which she felt is larger than the previous one. She felt the project is “continuing to grow.” Ms. Beck said they just replaced the old woodshed that was falling apart. It had been there for 20 years. The new one is no larger than the old one as it fits in exactly the same constricted space. She showed the Board a photo of the shed. Mr. Barrett said the percentage of coverage should be recalculated. He also said there can be no further structures on the property without Board approval. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-15-05 to 3 November 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Conditional Use Application #CU-15-06 of Robert & Marilyn Maddison for approval to construct a 300 sq. ft. one-story addition to a non-conforming single family dwelling structure, 7 Lyons Avenue: Mr. Belair advised that the applicants have asked for a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #CU-15-06 to 6 October 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Conditional Use Application #CU-15-07 of Paul & Nancy Godard for approval to construct a 6’ x 18’ roof to cover deck which will encroach six feet into the front setback, 3 Duchess Avenue: Ms. Godard said originally there was just a porch out front. They feel that if they put a roof over it they can spend more time there and neighbors can come by and chat. She showed a photo of where the porch will be, under an overhang and indicated how much farther it will come out. The porch will not be enclosed but it will have a “nice railing.” No issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2015 PAGE 5 Mr. Miller moved to close #CU-15-07. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Sketch plan application #SD-15-23 of Josef Lavanway to subdivide a 51,708 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 35,704 sq. ft. (lot #1) and 16,004 sq. ft. (lot #2), 1440 Hinesburg Road: The applicants indicated this is just a subdivision, and they have no present plans to construct anything. They showed an overhead photo of the site. Ms. Trudeau, a neighbor, questioned whether the smaller lot is large enough given the zoning regulations. Mr. Belair said it can be subdivided, but it can’t be built on without the transfer of a TDR to the lot. Ms. Trutor felt the access to the property should be off Hinesburg Road, not Highland Terrace as the driveways on the east site of Highland Terrace are very short and cars are regularly parked on the street. She felt development of the property would change the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Belair said the Fire Chief has asked for access to be off Highland Terrace. Mr. Barritt added that traffic won’t be affected by this subdivision as no further development is planned. Mr. Barritt suggested neighbors discuss any parking issues with the city Council or Public Works Department. Mr. Abrams, a neighbor, had no issue with houses on this property as long as the property was accessed through Hinesburg Road. He cited issues with the 3 houses that were built. Mr. Barritt said that was in the past. He explained the process for this application and suggested the applicants talk with the neighbors before coming back to have the subdivision plan considered for approval. 11. Design Review Application #DR-15-04 of Howard Center, Inc., to alter the design of a building by: 1) adding two louvers on the east façade and 2) making other minor building façade alterations, 364 Dorset Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 AUGUST 2015 PAGE 6 Mr. Visvarie said they are trying to bring fresh air into the center of the building. This is a very secure site, and CO2 levels are too high. The engineer has created a system that will exchange air more frequently. He then showed a plan of where the new vents will be. Mr. Barritt asked if there are any safety issues with the building. Mr. Vizvarie said there are not. They have security all the time. No issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #DR-15-04. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12. Board Reorganization: Members agreed to continue this item until there was a full Board present. 13. Minutes of 21 July 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 21 July 2015 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 14. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business the come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. ________________________________ Clerk ________________________________ Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 September 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; B. Frisbee, J. Leinwohl, J. Nick, D. Henson, D. Fisette, S. Ploesser, R. Jewett, P. J. Irish, A. Irish, P. Irish, L. Brown 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: It was noted that item #8 would be continued. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-15-27 of Sterling Construction, Inc., to create three footprint lots, 87, 95, & 101 South Jefferson Street: Mr. Barritt noted that at the northern entrance gravel spills onto Spear Street, which is dangerous for bikers. He suggested that at the end of the day, they get put back off the shoulder. Mr. Frisbee said that isn’t under their control, but he will pass the request onto S. D. Ireland. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-15-27. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-15-24A of City of Burlington Burlington International Airport to alter the grade of the “airport quarry” by adding 5,000 cubic yards of material, 1200 Airport Drive: SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 2 Mr. Leinwohl advised that the Stormwater Control Permit has been issued. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-15-24A. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued site plan application #SP-15-29 of Charles & Janet Perkins for after-the- fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,738 sq. ft. retail building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing a 280 ft. long cedar hedge and replacing it with a split rail fence, 916 Shelburne Road: Mr. Nick showed the revised plan, including the start of the new cedar plantings. He said there are 50 new cedars. Mr. Nick also indicated the snow storage area, bike rack area (the rack has been ordered), 2 landscaping stones, split rail fencing, and the enclosed dumpster. An aerial photo was shown indicating 2 newly planted trees and the existing oak tree. Mr. Barritt noted that the previous cedars had grown together to form a wall; these are spaced, allowing sound to get through. He also noted that the arborist has said that a few of the new cedars will need to be replaced in the spring. He also felt the two more 2-1/2 caliper trees should be planted to replace the large tree that was cut down. The plan should also indicate the length of the cedar plantings and where each tree was planted (a dot can indicate this). Mr. Barritt pointed out that the floodlights should be replaced with compliant lighting. Ms. Smith noted that the previous hedge provided noise protection for the adjoining residential neighborhood. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-15-29 to 6 October 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 3 7. Sketch plan application #SD-15-26 of Leon Brown for a planned unit development on a 0.37 acre lot developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) razing the existing single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a four unit multi- family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Henson showed the proposed plan. He noted that each unit has an indoor space in the garage and room in front of the garage. There are also 2 visitor parking spaces. Mr. Behr asked for delineation between the driveways. Board members were OK with the setbacks. A representative from the adjacent property asked about the plan for stormwater and wanted to be sure there was no interference with the stormwater work they are doing. Mr. Henson said the intention is to have a swale along the property going into a detention basin and then into the existing swale. No other issues were raised. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of (as proposed by the applicant): 1) razing an existing single family dwelling, 2) two boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, 3) 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), and 4) six gasoline fueling pumps with 12 positions, 65 Shunpike Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 3 November. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 3 November 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 1 September 2015: Mr. Wilking moved that the Minutes of 1 September 2015 be approved as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 4 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:40 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk _______________________________ Date