Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/15/2015 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 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: 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. 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. 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 ___________10/06/2015________________, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SP-15-27 87, 95 & 101 South Jefferson Road – Sterling Construction DATE: September 15, 2015 DRB Meeting. Staff has prepared a draft Findings of Fact & Decision for the application for your consideration. However, as always, this draft decision is just that and the Board should feel free to make any changes to this draft decision. #SD-15-27 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING STERLING CONSTRUCTION, INC. SOUTH VILLAGE – 334 UNIT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 87, 95 & 101 SOUTH JEFFERSON ROAD FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-27 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Sterling Construction, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking approval for final plat application #SD-15-27 to create three (3) footprint lots, 87, 95 & 101 South Jefferson Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 2015. Bart Frisbie represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The project consists of Sterling Construction, Inc. seeking approval for final plat application #SD-15-27 to create three (3) footprint lots, 87, 95 & 101 South Jefferson Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject properties is Sterling Construction, Inc. 3. The application was received on August 4, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning subdistrict. 5. The plan submitted is entitled “Lands of Sterling Construction Frost St. & Madison Ln., South Burlington, VT Lot 40 Townhouses”, dated July 22, 2015 and prepared by Lamoreux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Dimensional Standards: The applicant proposes to create three (3) footprint lot lines in between the individual dwelling units and including front and year yard areas with each dwelling unit previously approved in this subdivision. This action would create non-conforming lots (being of insufficient individual size, and having zero setbacks in between each unit on a lot) and therefore will not be considered individual lots for the LDRs. For purposes of the LDRs, the three footprint lots included in this proposal shall be considered one lot (Lot 40) as approved previously. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. #SD-15-27 2 DECISION Motion by _________________, seconded by ______________, to approve final plat application #SD- 15-27 of Sterling Construction, Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations for the South Village project shall remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the 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 Mark 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 Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2015, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair #SD-15-27 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. #SD-15-24A - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF BURLINGTON / BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – 1200 AIRPORT DRIVE PRELIIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-24A FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-15-24A 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. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 2015. Jon Leinwohl 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. City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting Preliminary & Final Plat approval to alter the grade of the “airport quarry” by adding 5,000 cubic yards of material, 1200 Airport Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport. 3. The subject property is located in the Airport Industrial Zoning District. 4. The plan submitted consists of a two (2) page set of plans, page one entitled ”Burlington International Airport Material To Be Excavated From Marcelino Property And Placed In The Airport Quarry, prepared by Stantec Consulting Services and dated 7/24/2015. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Airport Industrial District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Airport Industrial Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 3 acres 770 acres 9,607 SF lease  Max. Building Coverage 40% n/a No change  Max. Overall Coverage 50% n/a No change  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. n/a No change  Min. Side Setback 35 ft. n/a No change  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. n/a No change - zoning compliance The current 770 acre parcel is in compliance with these requirements. #SD-15-24A - 2 – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The Board finds that the project has no impact on water supply or wastewater disposal capacity. (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 plans submitted indicate that this requirement will be met. The Board finds that this standard is met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Board finds that this project will have no affect on access, circulation or traffic. (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 project proposes to create a berm which will prevent stormwater from leaving the quarry site and entering Muddy Brook. The Board finds that this standard is met. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The City’s Land Development regulations note the purpose of the subject zoning district as follows: 6.03 AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AIR-I A. Purpose. In areas proximate to the Airport, an Airport Industrial AIR-I District is established to provide sufficient land area for the Vermont Air National Guard and Airport-related uses, support facilities, and commercial activities that may be incompatible with general residential or commercial uses. The standards and regulations for the Airport Industrial District recognize the importance of these facilities and uses to the operation of the City and regional economies while providing appropriate setbacks and buffering to offset their impacts on adjacent land uses. No changes are proposed to the buildings on the property nor to operations on the property. The Board finds that this standard is 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 Board finds that this project will have no impact on open space. #SD-15-24A - 3 – (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. The Fire Department had no comments on this project. The Board finds that this standard is met. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The Public Works Department had no comments on this project. The Board finds that this standard is met. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds this project is consistent with the operations of the Airport and therefore finds that this standard is met. 3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade A. Permit Required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation (see Section 13.16, Earth Products.) B. Standards and Conditions for Approval. (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07, Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section 15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these Regulations. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. #SD-15-24A - 4 – Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds the proposed project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (a) …. (b) …. (c) …. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. There are no parking facilities, buildings or utility services proposed or alternated as a part of this project and therefore criteria B. (1) through B. (4) and criteria C. (1) and C. (2) are not applicable to this project. 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. #SD-15-24A - 5 – 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 wire served utilities are required for this project. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The proposed project does not generate solid waste. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. No landscaping or screening is required as part of this project. 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. DECISION Motion by _________________, seconded by ______________, to approve preliminary & final plat application #SD-15-24A of the City of Burlington / Burlington International Airport, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. #SD-15-24A - 6 – 3. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 5. The mylar shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 6. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 7. The final plat plan (subdivision plat) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plat shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy 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 Mark 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: August 14, 2015 Plans received: April 30, 2015 916 Shelburne Road SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-29 Meeting date: September 15, 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 August 18th 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 City Arborist has not yet submitted comments on the revised plan. Staff will provide them at the meeting if available. 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. 2. The Board should determine: a) if the value of the new cedar plantings meets the value of the hedge that was removed or are additional plantings required, and b) how many additional trees (if any) should be planted to equal the caliper value of the tree that was removed. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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 show 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, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Charles and Janet Perkins, applicants 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SP-15-26 57 Hinesburg Road – Leon Brown DATE: September 15, 2015 DRB Meeting. 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 (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road. The Board previously reviewed the sketch plan more than six (6) months ago. Since it has been more than six (6) months since the last sketch plan review, the applicant must resubmit for review his sketch plan. There have been no changes to the staff notes from what was previously prepared and there have been no changes to the LDRs. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_s ketch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: September 11, 2015 Application received: July 23, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-26 LEON BROWN – 57 HINESBURG ROAD Meeting Date: September 15, 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_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 (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: First, the Board should note that DRB previously reviewed this project at sketch (#SD-14-36) on January 6, 2015. However, the applicant did not submit a preliminary plat application within the required 6 month time period. C1 – R12 – Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size (residential) 3,500 sq. ft./unit 16,025 sq. ft. 16,025 sq. ft.  Max. Building Coverage 40% 8% 35% (~5,570 SF)  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 38 ft.  Zoning compliance * Waiver required. The Planning & Zoning Department has encouraged the applicant to build towards 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 provide guidance to the applicant on whether they are acceptable. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc 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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. 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. Conformance with Criteria C (1) – (3) will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc 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. 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 38 ft. height would be compatible with this criterion. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Conformance with these two criteria will be addressed at preliminary plat review wherein elevations and landscaping plans will be presented. 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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. 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. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the City Arborist prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. 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. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc 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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (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. (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. (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. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Fire Chief prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. Presence of street trees along Hinesburg Road should be verified prior to preliminary plat review. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_26_57_HinesburgRd_LeonBrown_4plex_PUD_sketch.doc Conformance with this criterion will be addressed at preliminary plat review. The applicant should consult with the Department of Public Works prior to submission of a preliminary plat proposal. 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). 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 preliminary 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 Mr. Brown will truck plowed snow off site. Staff recommends the construction of outdoor amenities (garden areas, grilling area, etc.) for tenants if feasible. 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 '24'14'14'33.33'6'16'6'12'22'11'4'12'6'13.33 '14'27.33 'SB-1SB-2SB-3SB-4IT-1GW AT 311.7GW AT 310.5GW AT309.9GW AT 309.33'66'NEW PAVED ACCESS DRIVEHINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON ROADTO KENNEDY DRIVEEXIST ING STOCKADE FENCEEXISTING VINYL STOCKADE FENCE6'20'8'10'20' "BUILD TO" ZONESIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODE T-3 DISTRICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENT COMMERC IAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTFRONT YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODE T-3DISTRICTFRONT YARD SETBACK UNDERCURRENT COMMERCIAL 1 /RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDERPROPOSED FORM-BASEDCODE T-3 DISTRICTREAR YARD SETBACK UNDERCURRENT COMMERCIAL 1 /RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTREAR YARD SETBACK UNDERPROPOSED FORM-BASEDCODE T-3 D ISTRICT CHANG MING & XIANG YONG JIANGN/FRESIDENTIALANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FSHOPPING CENTERSONRISE PARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FRESIDENTIALJAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLE GILBERT-FULLERN/FRESIDENTIAL 8.0'23'23.6'EXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING SHRUBS(TO BE RETAINED)EXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING SHEDEXISTING TW IN CEDARJOHN L. WOLFF, IIIN/FRESIDENTIALHUEN YUN POONN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK8'DECKDECKDECKDECKENTRYWAYENTRYWAYENTRYWAYENTRYWAYGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE1234EXISTING 6" AC WATER MAINEXISTING 15" SEWER MAINPROJECTSITEMARKET 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 WIREPOSSIBLE LOCATION OF NEW TREEPOSSIBLE LOCATION OF NEW SHRUBPROVIDEDREQUIREDEXISTING USE - SINGLE FAM ILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED USE - MULTI FAM ILY RESIDENT IAL DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:MINIMUM LOT AREAMINIMUM FRONT SETBACKMINIMUM SIDE SETBACKMINIMUM REAR SETBACKMAXIMUM COVERAGE BUILD INGS ONLY TOTALMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTPROJECT STATISTICSWATER/WASTEWATER:MUNICIPAL SERVICES.ZONING DISTRICT - COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 123,500 SF/ UNIT6-20 FT8 FT20 FT40%75%4016,025 SF (0.37 ACRES) EXISTING8 FT8 FT23FT35%67%38PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTSKETCH PLANSK 1LOCATION PLANNTS57 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesign SurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering .comDate Rev ision ByThese plans shall only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch/ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing06-23-15DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLCAS NOTEDBROWN ESTATESP:\2014\14015\dwg\14015-S1.dwg, 7/23/2015 10:14:48 AM, 1:0.993007 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer RE: Sketch plan, #SD-15-28, Saxon Partners, LLC 65 Shunpike Road September 15, 2015 Meeting DATE: September 11, 2015 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 (2) 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 (6) gasoline fueling pumps with 12 positions, 65 Shunpike Road. COMMENTS: Staff has reviewed the application and materials received on June 26, 2015. As this is a large project, at this time, staff comments focus on a handful of major issues: 1) Proposed uses 2) Construction of a commercial access drive through a property in the R-4 zoning district. 3) Circulation and traffic 4) Lot layout and PUD status 5) Related applications 6) Initial comments regarding Stormwater 7) Fire Department Please note that this represents a partial sketch plan-level review, focused solely on the items above and not addressing all applicable elements and standards of the Land Development Regulations. 1) Proposed Uses: As stated in the application, the applicant proposes the following uses: “Retail Store (81,840 SF Base Building, 3,360 SF Receiving Appendage, 3,348 SF Tire Center, 2,052 SF Breezeway) and related uses including ancillary fuel pumps. Approximately 300 total parking spaces.” 2 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc The purpose of the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District is as follows: 6.01 MIXED INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IC A. Purpose. The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. In preparing this initial review, staff has broken the proposal into its potential component features as they relate to the Table of Uses in the LDRs. In staff’s view, the proposal contains components of four use categories from the Land Development Regulations:  Retail Sales  Auto & motorcycle service & repair  Service Station  Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets The Table of Uses establishes the Permitted and Conditional Uses in each Zoning District. [ 1 . ] Retail Sales: Use category: Retail Sales, Excluding General Merchandise Stores Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Permitted Use Definitions: Retail sales. An establishment engaged in selling goods or merchandise to the general public at retail or wholesale for personal or household consumption or for business use and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods. Typically such an establishment (A) is a place of business and is engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy, (B) buys and receives as well as sells merchandise, (C) may process or manufacture some of the products for sale, such as a jeweler or baker, but such production or manufacture is incidental and subordinate to the selling activities, and (D) sells to customers for their own personal, household, or business use. Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own. General Merchandise Store. See retail sales. It is staff’s understanding that a portion of the BJ’s base building will be dedicated to selling a variety of goods or merchandise consistent with this definition. Staff notes that while “general merchandise 3 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc stores” are not permitted in this district, the definition for a general merchandise store does not provide great clarity as to how it should be distinguished from retail sales. Staff therefore recommends that “general merchandise” be treated no different than retail sales. See below under “retail food establishment” for additional discussion regarding the definition above. [ 2. ] Auto & motorcycle service & repair: Use category: Auto & motorcycle service & repair Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Permitted Use Definitions: Auto & motorcycle service and repair. A business enterprise engaged in the servicing and repair of automobiles and/or motorcycles, including auto body repair or auto detailing, including the sale and installation of automobile and/or motorcycle parts and accessories. Includes Auto & Motorcycle Sales, Limited in conformance with these regulations. Staff understands that the project will include a 3,348 SF Tire Center operating consistent with this definition. The facility will sell, install, and replace tires. [ 3. ] Service Station: Use category: Service Station with convenience store Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Prohibited Use Definitions: Service station. A business enterprise or building, land area, or other premises, or portion thereof, engaged in the retail dispensing or sale of gasoline and other vehicular fuels, and which may include the sale of oil, tires, accessories, repair, and services for motor vehicles. See also gasoline filling station. The applicant is proposing to install six (6) gasoline fueling pumps for use by customers of BJ’s. In the enclosed letter from the applicant’s attorney, dated September 18, 2014, the applicant states that BJ’s be considered as either retail or retail service or wholesale establishment and therefore that the proposed fuel pumps could be allowed as retail use or as an accessory use. The applicant also argues that any ambiguity in zoning regulations be resolved in favor of the property owner pursuant to rulings of the Vermont Supreme Court. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed activity is a Service Station as defined within the Land Development Regulations, a use that is prohibited in this zoning district. 4 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc Regulations generally follow a rule of specificity. Where there is a broad umbrella category of uses, and then alongside it are more detailed and specific categories, one should look to the specific rather than the broad. In this case, there are broad use categories such as retail, and there are also specific use categories such as service station. From there, there are three broad categories of how an element of a project can be viewed.  As an integral element of the use category. For example, a small office space for the payroll and management of a retail store is considered part of a retailer, it’s not a separate use even if there is a separate use called office.  As an accessory use. An accessory use is one that is specifically permitted, either in the table of uses or within the definition of another use category.  As a principal use. A principal use is one that is allowed to exist on a property without connection to another. In this instance, the proposed Service Station function is, in staff’s view, not a part of the use category of retailer. In other words, it is not simply assumed that any and all retailers have gas pumps like a retailer would have a back office or a storage area for goods not on the floor yet. The Land Development Regulations do not permit Service Stations, as either accessory or principal uses in this district. Further, the definition of a retail establishment or of a retail food establishment do not list Service Stations as an accessory component. There is no ambiguity in Appendix C, Uses and Dimension Standards of the City’s LDR’s. Service stations are expressly not allowed in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District not even as Conditional Use nor as an Accessory Use. The Board should also note the Purpose statement is applicable to this Service Station question as “(a)ny uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. [ 4. ] Retail food establishment: Use categories: Retail food establishments < 5,000 SF GFA Retail food establishments > 5,000 GFA and supermarkets Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Prohibited Use Definitions: Retail food establishment. An establishment, including supermarkets, which by design of physical facilities or by service and packaging procedures permits or encourages the purchase of prepared ready-to-eat foods intended primarily to be consumed off the premises, and where the consumption of food on site is limited to sixteen (16) or fewer indoor seats. Additional seasonal outdoor seating may be permitted in conjunction with a retail food establishment. Retail food establishment is the term used in the Land Development Regulations for a grocery store. Examples include Hannaford’s, Price Chopper, Trader Joe’s, Healthy Living, and the Euro Market. 5 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc It is staff’s understanding that the sale of groceries is a significant and substantial portion of the proposed BJ’s. It is not unusual for a lot, a property, or a single business to contain multiple principal uses under the City’s Land Development Regulations, and this is an evident example of this. The proposed main building is 88,548 square feet in size. The retail food sales portion of this building, based on general information provided by the applicant and a brief review of the BJ’s website, appears to clearly indicate a business that includes a full-scale grocery operation. Accessory vs. principal use Staff notes that the definition for retails sales in the Land Development Regulations includes an allowance for some amount of retail food sales: “Such an establishment may have a retail food establishment as an accessory use located entirely within the principal structure and with no dedicated exterior entrance of its own.” In order to determine where the proposed BJ’s lies with respect to this provision, staff turns to the definition of Accessory Use: Accessory Use. A use of land or property or a building, or a portion thereof, whose area, extent, or purpose is incidental and subordinate to the principal use of the building or land. The accessory use shall be located on the same lot. An accessory use shall not be accessory to another accessory use. Based on the definition above, it appears clear that a full-sized grocery store located within a much larger building is not an accessory use. Staff’s understanding of the BJ’s model, assuming this store would be similar to others, is that the retail food portion is not incidental and subordinate in its area, extent, or purpose. Therefore, the retail food sales portion of the facility should be treated as an additional principal use. Staff notes that there is no ambiguity in Appendix C, Uses and Dimension Standards of the City’s LDR’s. “Retail food establishment > 5,000 SF GRA and supermarkets” are expressly not allowed in the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District. The Purpose Statement of the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District adds further clarity. A. Purpose. The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. [emphasis added]. [4a… Wholesale Establishment] 6 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc An additional note regarding one other relevant use category within the Land Development Regulations: wholesale establishment. Use category: Wholesale Establishment Status in Mixed I/C Zoning District: Permitted Use Definition: Wholesale establishment. An establishment or place of business primarily engaged in selling goods, products, material, and merchandise stored on the premises to retailers or persons who are the intermediaries between the producer and the consumer; to industrial, commercial, institutional or professional business users; to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies. Staff understands that while BJ’s may use the colloquial term of “wholesaler” for marketing purposes, the business’s use of the term is not consistent with the definition of the word in the Land Development Regulations. Staff understands that BJ’s primary customers are not intermediaries; they are individuals and households who have chosen to purchase a membership. The LDRs’ definition of wholesale establishment is clear on this. Staff, in brief, does not see the proposed use as being a “wholesale establishment” 1. Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed use or uses on the property, pose questions to the applicant, deliberate to discuss whether the proposed activities are permissible in this location, and then provide guidance to the applicant 2) Proposed commercial uses in the R-4 zoning district. The applicant is proposing to purchase the Ezra Spring property on Shunpike Road, raze the Spring dwelling, merge the property with the LNP property which hosts the BJ’s structure and then construct a driveway on the former Spring property to serve as one of the two entrances to the proposed BJ’s. This would make the former Spring property part of the overall proposed commercial PUD. The the underlying land of the Spring property, however, is still located in the Residential 4 Zoning District. While no building is proposed on this former Spring property, the property is part of the overall use and function of the BJ’s development. As noted in the LDR’s, “use” is defined as follows: Use. The specific purpose or activity for which a structure, building, or land is or may be designed, arranged, designated, or intended or for which a structure, building, or land is or may be occupied and maintained. The term "permitted use" or its equivalent shall not be deemed to include any nonconforming use. As noted at the start of these staff comments, the project has four uses: Retail Sales, Auto & motorcycle service & repair, Service Station and Retail food establishment >5,000 SF GFA and supermarkets. None 7 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc of these four (4) uses are an allowed Permitted, Conditional or Accessory Use in the R-4 Zoning District and therefore the proposed commercial use of the Spring property is not allowed. 2. Staff recommends that the Board hear from the applicant on this question and then deliberate on the subject. 3) Circulation and Traffic The Department of Public Works offered the following comments to staff via email on September 2, 2015. Ray, I have looked at the sketch plans for the referenced project and have the following big picture comments to offer: 1. The main technical component of this project for Public Works is the overall traffic impact of the proposal, including: a. Proposed mitigation measures to provide safe and efficient traffic flow for all modes at the project’s three main intersections b. The offset nature of the Kimball Drive intersection relative to Community Drive west c. The reliance of a primarily residential street, Shunpike Road, as an access/egress point d. The offset nature of the US2 intersection relative to Calkins Court especially considering Valley Road is not a public street e. The regional transportation impact of the project f. How will the project provide for and enhance bicycle and pedestrian movements through this area 2. Other staff members have provided comments on the stormwater concept Thank you, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works/City Engineer 3. Staff recommends that the Board request the applicant to address the questions above and propose a methodology to respond. The applicant should address the questions above – at least at a broad level – to the satisfaction of the public works director and board prior to proceeding to a next step in the application. 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation in PUDs and Subdivisions A. Street Layout. The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more than one 8 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc dwelling unit. Staff notes that it is not standard practice to have a public street (Comcast Way) end into a private drive. Public streets should connect through to another street or to other lots pursuant to 15.12 above. The proposed application does not continue Comcast Way; it simply ends it into a parking area. Its function, therefore, is not a public street, rather a driveway. 4. Staff recommends that the Board discuss and provide feedback to the applicant regarding continuation of Comcast Way and/or altering its intent. 4) Lot Layout / PUD status / Relationship to buildings in the vicinity Staff notes the proposed lot layout is potentially problematic and does not seem to be creative, efficient or innovative as is required by the PUD standards. PUD Provision The following is a portion of the purpose statement for PUDs: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant should provide information to substantiate that this project is innovative in design and layout, makes efficient use of land and is a viable infill project. 5. Staff recommends that the Board make a determination as to whether or not this project qualifies as a PUD and is therefore entitled to relief from the strict dimensional standards. 15.10 Lot Layout: Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions. As an example, the applicant proposes purchasing an 8-ft. wide strip along Shunpike Road all the way to Williston Road. Aside from gaining access to Williston Road in order to install a sign that is not “off- premise” (off-premise signs are prohibited in Vermont), the planning purpose for having this land configuration is not clear. This also poses the question of where the “front lot line” of the property is and therefore where parking can and cannot be located. The applicant should provide information explaining how this proposed 8-ft. wide strip along Shunpike Road promotes a clear planning objective. 6. Staff recommends that the Board make a determination as to whether or not this 8-ft. wide strip along Shunpike Road promotes a clear planning objective. Section 14.08 of the LDRs state, as part of site Plan review: 9 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc (C)Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be harmoniously related to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed development is located very close to the Shunpike Road neighborhood. Staff is concerned that the proposed development is not consistent with these standards. 7. The Board should review, at a big-picture scale, the consistency of the proposed project with standards regarding Lot Layout, innovation in PUD status, and relationship to buildings in the vicinity 5) Related applications Staff has questions with regards to the various lot acquisitions and redevelopment of neighboring parcels proposed. With regards to the purchase of the two smaller lots to the north side of the proposed building, when will the city receive revised subdivision and site plans? Staff notes that reducing the size of the Cota parcel via the proposed purchase of 37,597 SF from it may render the Cota parcel non-compliant with lot coverage maximums. That would not be permissible. 8. The Board should inquire as to the status of applications from adjacent properties. Staff recommends that this present application not proceed to a next step without receipt and review of these related applications. Stormwater The Department of Public Works has performed an initial review of the application. For the purposes of this initial, broad-level discussion, staff is highlighting one component: The City would prefer to see stormwater infiltration practices utilized as opposed to a wet detention pond. Further comments can be provided to the applicant at any time and / or to the Board at a future meeting. 9. Staff recommends that any future versions of the application address the stormwater recommendations. 10 SD_15_28_65_ShunpikeRoad_SaxonPartners_PUD_BJsWholesale_sketch.doc Fire Department comments In an email to staff dated August 31, 2015, the Fire Department provided the following comments: From: Terry Francis Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:04 PM To: ray <ray@sburl.com> Subject: BJ & Commerce Ave projects Ray: Regarding the very preliminary plan for the three structures on or about 7 Commerce, SBFD has no significant issues at this juncture. BJs: Gas islands shall have gas island suppression system installed. LPG storage/dispensary is in a high traffic area and shall be relocated to an area away from the building access for the general public. Coordinate with SBFD. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department 1. The applicant should address the Department’s comments in detail in its Preliminary Plat application. ………………. In conclusion, staff encourages the Board to address the major issues noted above with the applicant and provide direction to the applicant. Staff notes that the proposed project also raises other issues such as wetland impacts, floodplain impacts, setback waivers and performance standards such as noise and fumes from delivery truck operations. Staff will provide additional analysis on these issues and others in future staff comments regarding this application. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board and applicants address the above-listed items before proceeding to additional levels of detail in review of the sketch plan or any future stage in the application process. BJs Wholesale Club Illustrative Site PlanSouth Burlington, VT - June 19, 2015BJs WholesaleClubShunpike Road 30’0’60’120’SCALE 1” = 30’NLEGENDLARGE DECIDUOUS TREE MEDIUM DECIDUOUS TREEMULTI-STEM DECIDUOUS TREELARGE CONIFER TREESHADE CONIFER TREESMALL CONIFER TREEORNAMENTAL TREE ORNAMENTAL SHRUBSMALL SHRUB BJs Wholesale Club Illustrative Context PlanSouth Burlington, VT - June 19, 2015BJs Wholesale ClubRoute 2Kimball AvenueShunpike Road 80’0’160’320’SCALE 1” = 80’N SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 September 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. O’Leary, B. Gilbert, A. Rowe, C. Snyder, D. Seff, J. Leinwohl, A. Senecal, G. Farrell, M. Scollins, E. Toupin, H. Robare, A. Burke 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 26 single family dwellings, 3) constructing seven 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing three 2- family dwellings, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder noted this is a new plan. Mr. Barritt said he had noticed there is no connection between the new street and Vale Drive which, for him, is a “non-starter.” Both the Fire Chief and Public Works Director agree. Mr. Snyder said they have reduced the number of homes to 49, and it was his understanding that the DRB could then OK a plan without that connection. He asked what other Board members felt. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 2 All Board members said they want the connection. Mr. Behr also said that from a PUD standpoint he would like more diversification as to layout, specifically not grouping similar types of houses (e.g., single family, 2-unit, etc.) together. Mr. Barritt stressed that any deviation from the standard will have to be addressed. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-37 to 6 October 2015. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-15-41 of 73 Ethan Allen Drive/2 Commerce Ave., LLC, to construct a 28,200 sq. ft. warehousing, processing, storage & distribution facility, 73 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. O’Leary showed some changes to landscaping to screen the front parking area and the area near the rear loading dock. Changes include the addition of 26 white cedars. The City Arborist is not happy with the fertilizer specs, and Mr. O’Leary asked that an approval be conditioned on pleasing the Arborist. Members agreed. This is also the case with one remaining item to please the Public Works Director. Mr. Barritt asked if the applicant is still happy with 17 paved parking spaces. Mr. O’Leary said they are. Mr. Barritt asked about snow storage. Mr. O’Leary showed an area on the plan for snow storage. Mr. O’Leary indicated that they are planning for uses similar to what is in the area today. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-41. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-24 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 1, 2015 3 Mr. Leinwohl said they are correcting a situation on the adjoining property belonging to Mr. Marcelino. He showed the location of the property line and noted that fill was placed in a ravine area by Mr. Marcelino that encroached on Airport property and also covered a CWD water line. The Environmental Court ruled that the fill had to be removed and that the Airport had to accept the fill coming out of the ravine. Mr. Leinwohl indicated where the fill would be placed on Airport property to expand an existing berm. Mr. Leinwohl also noted that they have a permit to address erosion control. No impervious areas are involved. No issues were raised. 7. Preliminary and 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: Mr. Barritt indicated this item will be continued to the next meeting when the applicant should have the erosion control permit. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-24A to 15 September 2015. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-25 of Robert Shand for a planned unit development to construct three buildings consisting of: 1) a 27,500 sq. ft. building (building A) for retail warehouse and indoor self-storage as an accessory use, and 2) two 2,000 sq. ft. buildings (building B & C) for warehouse use, 6 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. O’Leary said the property is 7.3 acres and used to be the site of the Snack Shack. He showed the location of the 100-year flood elevation of the Winooski River and also a Class 2 wetland. He said that the plan does not impact the flood plain or the buffer of the wetland. Because of the elevation change, they are proposing that the bottom 20-25 feet of the building will be warehouse spaces with 2 yard areas and some retail area. The upper level will be individual storage facilities. This is not now an allowed use, but there is a plan to allow it. They are proposing a large stormwater pond in the rear which will discharge into a drainage area. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 4 Mr. O’Leary showed an overview photo and indicated the proposed entrance location. Mr. Miller said he would like to see a “nice looking building” as the area has been upgraded lately and looks very nice. Mr. O’Leary said that most traffic will see only the top part of the building, but they will take the request seriously. Mr. Senecal noted the 2 smaller buildings are being put on the site because of the zoning regulations which require parking “behind buildings.” He added that the money for those 2 buildings could have been used to make the large building look nicer. Mr. Belair asked the Board whether the applicant should be required to provide a sidewalk or just an easement for one. Mr. O’Leary said they were OK with the sidewalk. Mr. Barritt asked about outdoor storage. Mr. O’Leary showed the location. Mr. Senecal said there will be a security fence, and most of the storage area will be screened. No other issues were raised. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-15-47 of Tony Handy for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a multi-building complex used for: 1) convenience store with gas sales, 2) standard restaurant, and 3) retail and personal service. The amendment consists of revising the landscaping plan to replace a tree removed without approval, 1333 Williston Road: Mr. Robare showed a photo of where the tree had been and a photo of the area with the tree that was removed. He said the roots of the tree were under the cooler and were buckling the building. He added they didn’t know they needed a permit to remove it. He showed the plan to replace the tree with 4 trees along Hinesburg Road and one (1) shrub where the tree used to be. There were no issues raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-47. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Reorganization: Mr. Belair presided over the election of a Board Chair. He opened the floor for nominations. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 2015 5 Mr. Behr nominated Mr. Barritt for Chair. Mr. Barritt nominated Mr. Behr. There were no further nominations. In the vote that followed, Mr. Barritt was elected by a vote of 6-1. Mr. Barritt then presided over the election of a Vice Chair and Clerk. Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Parsons for Clerk. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Parsons was elected unanimously. Mr. Wilking nominated Mr. Miller for Vice Chair. There were no further nominations, and Mr. Miller was elected unanimously. 11. Minutes: No Minutes were presented for approval. 12. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for a one-year extension for the BlackRock project. Staff had no issues with the request. Mr. Miller moved to approve a one-year extension to 6 September 2016 for #SD-14-42. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by mutual consent at 8:10 p.m. ____________________________Clerk ____________________________Date