Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/05/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 5 APRIL 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Myers, K. McQuillan, R. Bourbeau, J. Kournan, D. Vardakas, E. Townsend, P. Kahn, J. & S. Jewett, T. Barnes, E. Abrams, J. Doig, M. Morin, J. DuBois, D. Main, D. Heil, D. Burke, B. Gardner, T. Sheppard, C. Ruggerio, E. Levite, B. Bartlett, J. Goodwin, P. O’Leary, T. Barritt 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: It was noted that the items for Saxon Partners and Allen Brook would not be heard at this meeting and would be continued to a later date. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-16-02 of Jeffery & Elizabeth Goldberg to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) six two-family dwellings, and 2) three single family lots. The amendment consists of planting additional landscaping to replace existing plantings which were removed without approval, Windswept Lane: Mr. Burke noted that most of the Board members visited the site and looked at Autumn Hill Road. The current plan incorporates what was said at the site. They have saved 2 large pine trees behind units 11 & 12 and shifted the deck 3 feet to provide more room. They are proposing a six (6) ft. high Arborvitae hedge 75 ft. in length (Mr. Burke showed the location) and also a 6-foot vinyl fence, 48 feet long, from the edge of the cedar hedge to the end of the right-of-way. Mr. Burke also showed the additional plantings in front that were part of the Act 250 requirements. Mr. Wilking said he was surprised to see how close the lot line was to the street. He also questioned the closeness of the deck to the cedar hedge. Mr. Burke said that would just be a maintenance issue. Mr. Jewett gave members documents including maps from before the project began and after the road was started. He indicated a gap which is a pathway to the stream. The area was planted by the first owners of the property. The Jewetts also planted 2 rows of trees. Mr. Jewett said that for 30 years that gap protected their property. He noted that no fewer than 12 trees are dying. He hoped the DRB would require a barrier such as they had before. Mr. Burke said that what is there is what was approved. There was never an intent to add trees, other than street trees in that area. Mr. Jewett said he had removed his objection because he thought there were going to be more trees. He also never knew how close that house would be. Mr. Ruggerio said he has the same perspective as the Jewetts. He hoped they could get protection from drifting snow. Since the road was raised, trees are sitting in a foot of water. He felt that if the water stays there, those trees will die. Mr. Wilking asked if they have considered putting up snow fencing. Mr. Burke acknowledged that unit 11-12 is close to the property line, but it is where it is supposed to be. He felt it does not make sense to put in a buffer across the right-of-way. Mr. Jewett said their property is not likely to be developed, and the DRB shouldn’t consider any future potential development there. The LDRs require the right- of‐way, but they don’t require them to use it. To have trees across it now is not an issue; if it were to get used, those trees could be cut down. Mr. Burke said trees were not proposed to be there, and they shouldn’t be planting trees in a right‐of‐way, whether or not it is used. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Burke that there shouldn’t be plantings in the right‐of‐way. Mr. Wilking said that most of the trees that were taken down were clearly on the Goldberg property. He added he would have liked to see all the neighbors agree on the snow maintenance issue and put up snow fencing. To be effective, a snow fence would have to be on the Goldberg property. Mr. Jewett felt the vinyl fence should be longer to deal with the problem. He said it is less attractive than trees, but they would be OK with it. Mrs. Jewett said that if two properties are different, there should be a barrier between them. She wanted trees put there. She added that they don’t want to see that “different type of community” in what was supposed to be rural, and she would bring that case to the City Council. Mr. Parsons said there is a limit to what can be done in a right-of-way, and the plan being presented is what the DRB can approve. Mr. Wilking said he understood the Jewetts’ concerns, but this is what was approved. Mr. Jewett said the issue of 2 different properties was never discussed, and building 11-12 was moved in the very last iteration. There had previously been a 23 foot setback. He felt the DRB made a mistake that should be rectified. Mr. Wilking then moved to close #SD-16-02. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-16-03 of Gardner Construction, Inc., for a planned unit development to develop two adjacent parcels totaling 6.07 acres with 22 residential units consisting of the following: 1) 14 single family dwellings (one existing), and 2) four duplex buildings, totaling 21 new units, 1398 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Burke indicated the location of the property and a driveway across from Butler Drive going back to the existing house. He also indicated the piece of property added to the original parcel to square it off. The total is now just over 6 acres. There are temporary easements obtained from Mr. Gardner for a turnaround. Mr. Burke said they will preserve the existing house and add 14 single family homes (some of which are carriage units) and 4 duplexes. Mr. Burke indicated what is included in “common land.” There is also an area where there will be “common amenities.” After meeting with staff, the road width was reduced from 26 feet to 24 feet at Public Works’ request. Garages are set back and all the units will have front façade/porches. They will meet all setbacks and coverages and will not require any waivers. They are also 2 below the maximum allowable density. Mr. Gardner already owns the TDRs needed to meet the project density. Mr. Burke noted they have moved the units closer to the road because that is what the regulations now require. Mr. Burke said they do not intend to have on-street parking as it would inhibit 2-way traffic on the road. Driveways can accommodate 2 cars, and there are 2-car garages. They could put up “no parking” signs, but they don’t anticipate an issue. Mr. Wilking noted that Ms. Smith’s comments suggest a 26 ft. street because of the density and the shorter driveways. Mr. Behr’s written comments also suggest this. Regarding the potential for future development on the adjacent property, Mr. Burke noted that with TDRs a few more units could be allowed, but it would be hard to do. The same person owns both properties. A floating easement exists to allow development potential. Mr. Burke noted the existing private road is 220 feet long. The regulations allow only 200. He said it is their intention to get it down to 200 feet. Units 8, 9 and 10 involve Class 2 wetlands. They will preserve the 50-foot buffer except at the 4-way intersection. Mr. Burke felt the State would approve the impact. Mr. Belair noted the Board has to approve the encroachment and require a State permit (with a copy of the permit to the Board). Mr. Burke said there will be a cedar fence as recommended by staff. Mr. Parsons noted that both Mr. Behr and Ms. Smith would prefer a cedar hedge. Mr. Wilking and Mr. Miller said either one is fine with them. Mr. Burke indicated a green‐hatched area of just over 10,000 sq. ft. for “common amenities.” He noted that staff was concerned with the proximity of this area to 5 units. Mr. Burke said they feel this would be a focal point of the development. They are considering picnic tables, planter boxes, barbeque pits, etc. A landscape architect will do a plan for that. Mr. Wilking had no problem with this not being park land. He did have a problem with density and felt it looks like they were trying to cram the last unit in. He said the Board does not have to approve 4 units per acre as the regulations say “up to” 4 units per acre. Mr. Miller agreed that it is a little too dense. He had no issue with the mix of building types. Mr. Burke said they would like some flexibility on the design of single family units so buyers have some say. The other units would be “fixed.” Information on this will be presented a preliminary plat. Mr. Miller reminded the applicant that they must meet the stretch energy code. Mr. Burke said they will and they will also meet the Fire Chief’s comments. Mr. Barnes, speaking on behalf of residents of Wildflower Drive, said they are excited about the development but have some concerns. Density is the biggest issue as it is a dramatic change in the character of the existing neighborhood. He felt the buildings are located just to maximize the density. He also noted that the minimum distance between 2 homes in their development is 40 feet; in this project it is 10 feet. Regarding access and street configuration, Mr. Barnes questioned what is a “private road” vs. a “driveway.” He felt that what is called a “private road” is a “driveway” and there shouldn’t be units facing it. Mr. Belair said that staff feels that if a roadway serves more than one home, it is not a “driveway” but a “private road.” In this case, if the lower street is ever extended to the adjacent property, it would become a city street. Mr. Barnes said that would further affect the character of their neighborhood. Mr. Barritt said the DRB doesn’t have to honor any number of TDRs. He agreed that the project is too dense and the park space too small. He asked the Board to scrutinize this very closely. No other issues were raised. 6. Sketch plan application #SD-16-04 of Mary Jo Capotrio to subdivide a 44,528 sq. ft. parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 19,168 sq. ft. (Lot #1) and 25,360 sq. ft. (Lot #2) and developing lot #2 with a two- family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Vardakas, speaking on behalf of her mother, said they want to have a separate home for her mother and husband which is more adapted to their needs. There is a TDR for another house. Mr. Miller said the issue is that if you look at the property from Hinesburg Road, the lot ratio is fine, but if you look at it from Dubois Drive, it is much too shallow. Mr. Miller recommended they look at it from Hinesburg Road and say the lot ratio is OK. Mr. Parsons agreed and asked that the applicant make the house more “welcoming” from the Hinesburg Road side. Mr. Wilking said that at the next level the Board will have to see what it looks like and whether bending the rules is OK. He had no problem with the concept. Mr. Cota was concerned with how far back the driveway is from Hinesburg Road. A neighbor felt it seems “forced” and said that if this were a vacant property, you would never construct it that way. He felt they were trying to “shoehorn” something in. He was also concerned that his water lines aren’t cut during construction. Mr. Bourbeau, another neighbor, noted that nearby properties are set back 80 feet and are single family houses. He didn’t see how this can be viewed from Hinesburg Road as the house address would be 1 Dubois Drive. The house would be only 20 feet from Dubois Drive. This would be closer than neighboring houses. Mr. Belair noted the regulations have changed and the maximum allowable setback is 25 feet. Mr. Parsons added that the existing lot is on Hinesburg Road, which is why the plan is being looked at from that road. Another neighbor felt this does not meet the intent of the rules since this is an L-shaped lot. Mr. Wilking said the Board sees odd-shaped lots all the time, and this is not unusual. Mr. Belair explained the next steps including meeting residential design requirements and having a survey done. 7. Continued site plan application #SP-16-10 of Allen Brook Development, Inc., to construct a 50,155 sq. ft. building which will consist of: 1) 44,155 sq. ft. of warehouse & distribution use, and 2) 6,000 sq. ft. of retail warehouse outlet use, 6 Ethan Allen Drive: It was noted that the applicant has requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-10 to 3 May 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-16-15 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC, to reactivate condition #19 of #SD-15-04 which required that the zoning permit for the first building be obtained within 6 months from the approval date of 20 March 2015, Willowbrook Lane: Mr. O’Leary said this is the only change being requested. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SP-16-15. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-16-14 of G. E. Healthcare to amend a previously approved plan for a 233,133 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate 3 trees, 2) after-the-fact approval to remove 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two sediment ponds, and 3) expanding a parking area, 40 IDX Drive: Mr. Myers showed where the trees had been located and where they have been relocated. He also noted that the sediment was cleaned out as part of their stormwater approval. With regard to the parking lot, Mr. Myers noted that building #100 has been only partly occupied. When it is fully leased out, more parking will be needed. They are expanding the parking lot at the southeast corner. This will exceed required parking by 35 spaces which are needed for one of the new tenants. Mr. Miller noted that staff recommends that aisles be 24 feet. He questioned the safety of having people walking through the parking lot and suggested walkways around the lot. Mr. Myers said this would be hard to do, but they could stripe some walkways for safety. Mr. Miller stressed that the Board wants parking lots to be as pedestrian friendly as possible. Mr. Wilking asked how people would get to building #100. Mr. Myers said they are 2 sets of stairs coming down. He added that more people park in front of building #100. The lot is used more for building #200. Mr. Miller asked about bicycle parking. Mr. Myers said it is there, they just didn’t show it on the plan. Mr. Belair noted that 2% of the parking must be for handicapped use. These have to be shown on the plan. The applicant said they will be shown on another application. Mr. Miller asked if the trees were moved to accommodate parking expansion. Mr. Myers said yes, but there is still a lot of screening in that area. Mr. Miller asked that the plan be updated with landscaping. He also noted the need to landscape the parking area islands. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-14 to 19 April 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 17 May 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Minutes of 15 March 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 15 March 2016 as written. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. , Clerk 05/17/2016 , Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_02_WindsweptLane_Goldberg_PUD_amend_new_t rees DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 1, 2016 Plans received: February 1, 2016, revised March 29, 2016 WEDGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – WINDSWEPT LANE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD 16-02 Meeting date: April 5, 2016 Applicant Wedgewood Development Corp. 41 Gauthier Drive, Suite 1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Owners Jeffrey & Elizabeth Goldberg 232 Autumn Hill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer David Burke O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite #1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel Volume 333, Page 292 SEQ & BBW Districts 27.2 Acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_02_WindsweptLane_Goldberg_PUD_amend_new_trees.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat application #SD-16-02 of Jeffery & Elizabeth Goldberg to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) six (6) two-family dwellings, and 2) three (3) single family lots. The amendment consists of planting additional landscaping to replace existing plantings which were removed without approval, Windswept Lane. COMMENTS Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner; and Administrative Officer Raymond Belair, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 29, 2016 and offer the following comments. The Board conducted a site visit on March 7, 2016 and the plan has been revised to reflect the changes discussed at the site visit. The overall development was approved in the Board’s Findings of Fact & Decision for application #SD- 14-17. Stormwater In an email to staff on February 17, 2016, the Deputy Stormwater Superintendent commented on this Plan as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Goldberg Parcel” site plan prepared by O'Leary-Burke, dated 3/17/14, last updated 11/16/15. We do not have any comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave Wheeler Deputy Stormwater Superintendent Landscaping and Screening Requirements The applicant’s March 29, 2016 submission included a revised Site Plan and accompanying letter indicating the location of new plantings and a fence as follows: -preserving two (2) White Pines behind units 11 and 12 -behind units 9 and 10 -along Dorset Street -a six (6) ft. high Arborvitae hedge 75 ft. in length 11 ft. south of the north property line -a new six (6) ft. high vinyl fence 48 ft. in length continuous from the Arborvitae hedge In an email to staff on March 30, 2016, the City Arborist commented on this Plan as follows: I don’t have any issues with the revisions. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist 1. The Board should determine if the proposed new landscaping adequately replaces the pre-existing CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_02_WindsweptLane_Goldberg_PUD_amend_new_trees.doc plantings which were removed without approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review item #1 and then decide whether or not to close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: David Burke, O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_03_1398HinesburgRoad_GardnerParcel_22_units_s ketch_March_15_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 1, 2016 Plans received: January 15, 2016, revised March 25, 2016 1398 Hinesburg Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-03 Meeting date: April 5, 2016 Owner Parcel 0860-01398: Bradley Gardner PO Box 21 Colchester, VT 06446 Parcel 1155-00284: SBRC Properties, LLC c/o Tim McKenzie 85 Shunpike Dr. Williston, VT 05495 Applicant Gardner Construction, Inc. c/o Bradley Gardner PO Box 21 Colchester, VT 05446 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860-01398 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 4.77 acres Tax Parcel 1155-00284 SEQ Zoning District- Industrial and Open Space 1.29 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-03 of Gardner Construction, Inc. for a planned unit development to develop two (2) adjacent parcels totaling 6.07 acres with 22 residential units consisting of the following: 1) 14 single family dwellings (one (1) existing), and 2) four (4) duplex buildings, totaling 21 new units, 1398 Hinesburg Road. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements: Parcel 0860-1398 is in zoning district SEQ-NR and Parcel 1155-00284 is currently in zoning district SEQ-IO; however, the City Council on March 21, 2016 approved amendments including the change of parcel 1155- 00284 to SEQ-NR. These amendments will be effective April 11, 2016 and therefore these comments will be based on that rezoning. SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft/single family, 24,000 sq. ft/two family 4.77 acres, 1.29 acres 6.06 acres Max. Building Coverage 15% 3% ?? Max. Overall Coverage 30% 8.9% ?? Max. Front Setback 25 ft. > 20 ft. ?? Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. ?? Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft ?? Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. ?? ?? Density* 4 units/acre 1 unit 3.63 units/acre *The SEQ-NR district allows a base density of 1.2 units per acre and a density of four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights. The combined parcels allow for a maximum density of 24 units (6.06 x 4=24.24 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). The property has seven (7) inherent TDRs (6.06 acres x 1.2 units/acre=7.27). The applicant has proposed 22 units (one existing single family and 21 new units), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the use of 15 TDRs (22 units - 7 existing TDRs=15). 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss the need for Transfer of Development Rights to develop this property as proposed. Staff noted information on the application and site plan was unclear and/or not provided regarding some dimensional figures. 2. Staff recommends the Board request that at the Preliminary Plat review stage the applicant provide clarity regarding the proposed coverages, setbacks, and heights and direct the applicant to Section 9.08 and Appendix C of the South Burlington Land Use Regulations for the current standards. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major land use regulations that impact a planned unit development and are, at this stage, intended to provide feedback on 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. 3 Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: density, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, parks planning, and building orientation and design. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, adequacy of parking, etc., certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, all hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these issues: A. Density The SEQ-NR district allows up to four (4) units per acre with the use of Transfer of Development Rights. If the parcels in question are combined as the applicant requests then there will be a resulting parcel of 6.06 acres, which would allow for a maximum density of 24 units. The applicant has proposed 22 units (one existing and 21 new), which is within the density calculation if TDRs are used. (See note above in Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements section for further details.) B. Access and Street Configuration Access is proposed via a public street connection to Hinesburg Road with an extension of the existing Wildflower Drive. The proposal also includes two, dead end private drives. Staff has reviewed the proposed street layout in relation to Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDR), which states that the intention of the street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian-oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. And further states Dead end streets are strongly discouraged (e.g. cul de sacs). Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels… Additionally staff have reviewed the proposed street layout in relation to Articles 3 and 15 of the SBLDR, which include regulations on the number of dwelling units allowed on private right-of-ways. Staff finds that the development as proposed offers a sidewalk on the east side of the extended Wildflower Drive which meets width requirements and that connects to an existing sidewalk on Wildflower Drive. Street trees are shown as planted along the length of the sidewalk and on both sides of the road. These features encourage pedestrian mobility and neighborhood connectivity. There is also a shorter length of sidewalk on the west side of the road. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss the usefulness of the sidewalk on the west side of the road with the applicant. The new portion of Wildflower Drive is proposed to match the width of the existing, which is 24 feet. The applicant has stated this uniformity was indicated to them as the preference of the Public Works 4 Department. Twenty-four feet is less than the required street width, which is 26 feet, in the SEQ-NR district; however, a modification to roadway standards is allowed by Section 15.12(E)(4) and specifically this section states that in “making such a finding, the DRB shall consider the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works and Fire Chief with respect to the City’s ability to provide public services to the proposed subdivision or PUD.” 4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need for and availability of street parking. 5. Staff recommends that, if it is determined street parking is unnecessary, the Board allow the modification of the roadway standards. There are, additionally, two dead end private drives in the development. The one at the north end of the property serves three units and is not expected to connect to any other streets in the future. The one at the southern end of the property is 20 feet wide, 223 feet long, serves seven units, and the applicant has indicated that their past conversations with abutting landowners Hannon and Applebaum may lead to future development on those parcels; however, there is no current agreement or plan for such development. The applicant is requesting a waiver to the 200 foot maximum private drive length. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss the possibility of future development on the abutting properties in relation to the southern dead end private drive currently being proposed which, as designed, would not meet public roadway standards in the SEQ-NR. 7. If the Board finds that it is reasonable to expect the need for a roadway extension in the future then staff recommends the Board require the drive be designed to public roadway standards. Of particular relevance is Section 15.12(D)(4) of the SBLDR, which states that If the DRB finds that a roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future…the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the connector roadway to the property line or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection. This section further states that the roadway shall be constructed to accommodate two lanes of traffic, City utilities, and a right-of-way for a recreation path. If the Board finds a roadway extension will likely be needed in the future then staff can work with the applicant on street design to include vehicular and pedestrian amenities prior to the next stage of review. C. Wetlands Impact The plan shows an area of impact to a Class 2 wetland on the northern side of the corner of Hinesburg Road and the proposed extension of Wildflower Drive. Sidewalk and street tree plantings are shown within and abutting the wetland. The wetland and wetland buffers shall be protected and should not in any case be used as useable lawn or other recreational areas. Possibilities include a line of planted cedars, split rail fencing, or other physical barrier between what is to be the grassed lawn area and the more sensitive wetland buffer. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant that a detailed grading and erosion control plan for construction be included in future plans if this project proceeds beyond the sketch plan phase. 9. Due to the wetland encroachments, staff recommends the Board require the applicant provide full functions and values reports of all wetlands on site in future plans. 5 10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant provide in future plans a ground delineation of the wetland buffer where it gets close to the western side of Unit 1 and along the sidewalk. Staff also suggests additional measures of protection, including limitations on fertilizers and mowing. The following are suggested conditions: There shall be no use of pesticides or non-organic fertilizers within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property. Deeds and association covenants shall reflect all of the standards included above, especially the use of the wetland buffer as lawn or other recreation areas, and the use of pesticides on site. D. Parks and Open Space Planning Staff has reviewed the proposed open space in relation to Article 9 of the LDR, which reads in part A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation. Parks should serve as the focus of neighborhoods and be located at the heart of residential areas… The proposed plan shows an area marked as “common amenity area” (of yet-to-be determined purpose/design) to the west of the road and behind Units 6, 7, 16, 17, and 18. The size of the common amenity area is not shown on the plan. The LDRs recommend 7.5 acres of park per 1,000 residents. The Department of Planning and Zoning expects 2.5 people/unit and this project proposes 22 units. Therefore the amount of parkland required in this development is 0.41 acres ((7.5/1000) x 2.5 x 22=0.4125 acres). 11. Staff recommends the Board discuss this item with the applicant to determine the usability of the common amenity area by residents given its proximity to the housing units and whether the area will meet the size recommendations of Section 9.07(D) of the LDRs. 12. The applicant has requested input from the Board regarding the types of amenities the Board would be interested in seeing at this site. E. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.08 of the LDR lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff found that the submitted sketch plan shows all housing units with entrances facing either a public road or private drive—a requirement of the regulations—and with front setbacks of not more than 25 feet, which is suggested by the regulations. The sketch plan indicates that all garages will be set back at least eight feet from the front façade of each unit. The LDR encourages a mix of housing sizes and styles (cape cod, ranch, colonial, etc.) in a neighborhood/development. There are both single family and duplex housing units proposed in the development and staff believes they are sufficiently intermingled to create some size and style diversity. Staff notes that units 18 and 22 have wraparound porches, which will help to create additional interest 6 and relationship to the two streets on which these units will have frontage. At the request of staff, the applicant has submitted additional information regarding the western facing façade of Unit 1, which has frontage on Hinesburg Rd. 13. Staff recommends the Board discuss the western facing façade of Unit 1 with the applicant as well as how the applicant plans to take advantage of the southerly exposure for Units 19-22. 14. Staff suggests the Board request additional information regarding the housing styles (façades, color, etc.) to better understand the character of the various units. F. Stormwater Comments The Stormwater Section provided the following comments via email on March 3, 2016: “The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Gardner Parcel - 1398 Hinesburg Road” sketch plan prepared by O'Leary-Burke, dated 1/6/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The proposed project includes the construction of 2.0 acres of impervious surface. Therefore the project will require a stormwater permit from the VT DEC Stormwater Division. 3. As the project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area, the applicant will be required to obtain a construction stormwater permit. 4. As the site plan proposes more than 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2015. These requirements include infiltration of the WQv on site using Low Impact Development (LID) practices in lieu of a stormwater detention pond. Stormwater ponds will only be approved if the applicant can demonstrate that it is unfeasible to infiltrate the volume of stormwater runoff specified in 12.03 (C)(1). Additional requirements listed in the LDRs included, but are not limited to, controlling the post construction peak runoff rate for the 1-yr, 24-hr rain event as to not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event. 5. Should the applicant utilize stormwater detention practices or infiltration basins, it is the City’s preference to consolidate such stormwater treatment practices into a single, easily accessible location in order to improve maintenance services. 6. The proposed stormwater management area behind units 3 and 4 does not appear to have any maintenance access. 7. Consider installation of a drainage swale in the rear of parcels 11-15 to prevent water from flowing onto adjacent properties to the east. 8. The applicant should provide a drainage area map for the proposed stormwater treatment practices. 9. The City’s minimum drainage pipe size is 15”. All pipe in proposed future ROW or City easements must be a minimum 15” in diameter. 10. In order to confirm compliance with section 15.13.F(3) the applicant must submit modeling for the 25 year storm event. The proposed culvert located at the intersection of Hinesburg Road must be sized to adequately convey flow. We have previously observed water pooling in the area to the south of the existing road because drainage through the existing culvert and downstream wetland is poor. The applicant should confirm that downstream drainage infrastructure, including the existing culvert located within the wetland area, has adequate capacity to convey discharge from the respective upstream drainage area during the 25 year storm event. 7 11. Additionally, natural drainage along the eastern property boundary is noted to be poor and should be taken into consideration of the design. 12. The project proposes to impact wetlands and wetland buffer areas. a. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. 13. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) will require a “Permit to Open Streets or Right-Of-Way”.” Regards, Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 15. Staff recommends the Board support the comments provided by the Stormwater Section and ask the applicant to provide the information requested. G. Fire Fire Chief Brent shared his comments in a meeting with the applicant on January 20, 2016. H. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_04_1408HinesburgRoad_CapotrioParcel_2_lots_ske tch_April_5_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 1, 2016 Plans received: February 22, 2016 1408 Hinesburg Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-04 Meeting date: April 5, 2016 Owner Parcel 0860-01408: Mary Jo Capotrio 1408 Hinesburg Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Mary Jo Capotrio 1408 Hinesburg Rd. South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Grover Engineering PC 2044 Main Rd. Huntington, VT 05462 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860-01408 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 1.02 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-04 of Mary Jo Capotrio to subdivide a 44,528 sq. ft. parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots of 19,168 sq. ft. (lot #1) and 25,360 sq. ft. (lot #2) and developing lot #2 with a two family dwelling, 1408 Hinesburg Road. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements: SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Required Existing Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft/single family, 24,000 sq. ft/two family 44,431 sq. ft. 19,168 sq. ft. 25,360 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage 15% 4.5% 12.2%* Max. Overall Coverage 30% 10.5% 22%* Max. Front Setback 25 ft. > 20 ft. 124 ft. 20 ft, Dubois Dr. 50 ft., Hinesburg Rd. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft 30 ft. N/A Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. ?? ?? ?? Density** 4 units/acre 1 unit 2.94 units/acre =In compliance *Current plans provide percentages for the maximum building coverage and maximum overall coverage for the entire project. Preliminary and Final Plat applications will require these percentages to be calculated separately for each lot. ** The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights. The parcel allows for a maximum density of 4 units (1.02 x 4=4.08 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). The applicant has proposed 3 units (one existing single family and one new duplex), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the purchase of two TDRs. They propose to purchase these TDRs from the Diane J. Wessel Trust, 70 Highland Terrace. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments: Planned Unit Development Standards (Article 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations) A. Water and Wastewater The existing house will continue to be served by a private well. The sketch plan submitted does not indicate how wastewater is handled at the existing house; this information should be provided at the next level of review. The proposed duplex on Lot 2 would be served by public sewer and water service. 3 B. Access Both proposed lots would have access to public streets. Lot 2 would front on the less busy street, Dubois Drive. C. Wetlands and Natural Features At this level of review, it does not appear that this project will impact any unique natural features and no wetlands are shown on the sketch plan. A review of city wetland maps indicates existing wetlands are more than 250 feet from the site. D. Development Patterns A duplex is an allowed use within the SEQ-NR district and the proposed new lot would have frontage on a street with sidewalks, which contributes to neighborhood livability and pedestrian travel. E. Open Space Open space is maintained between the two lots by siting the proposed duplex on Lot 2 close to Dubois Drive and parallel to the existing house on Lot 1. F. Fire Planning and Zoning staff will seek comments from Fire at the next stage in the review process. Southeast Quandrant District (Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations) Many of the standards within Article 9 do not apply to this project at this time, because details on the proposed duplex are not before the Board; however, staff has provided comments related to those topics which are presently relevant. G. Density The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights. The parcel allows for a maximum density of 4 units (1.02 x 4=4.08 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). The applicant has proposed 3 units (one existing single family and one new duplex), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the purchase of two TDRs. They propose to purchase these TDRs from the Diane J. Wessel Trust, 70 Highland Terrace. H. Access and Circulation Access for Lot 1 is with an existing driveway onto Hinesburg Road and access for Lot 2 is proposed via a driveway onto Dubois Drive. The proposed driveway for Lot 2 is located over 100 ft. from the intersection of Dubois Drive and Hinesburg Road. The Department of Public Works will review this project at the Preliminary and Final Plat application stages. I. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.08 of the SBLDR lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff found that the submitted sketch plan shows the proposed housing units and existing housing unit with entrances facing public roads—a requirement of the regulations. Lot 2 has a front setback of less than 25 feet on Dubois Drive, which is suggested by the regulations, and a setback of 50 ft. on Hinesburg Road. The sketch plan indicates that the garage will be set back at least eight feet from the front façade of the duplex. 4 J. Lot Ratios Section 9.08.A.4 of the SBLDR states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” Lot 1 has a ratio of 1:2 and Lot 2 has a ratio of 2.2:1 when viewed from Dubois Drive; however, if the lot is considered from Hinesburg Road then the ratio is approximately 3:8. 1. Staff recommends the Board consider whether this lot ratio is acceptable given the development standards of the SEQ. K. Stormwater Comments Planning and Zoning staff will seek comments from Stormwater at the next stage in the review process. L. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the Land Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: SP-16-15 1675 Dorset Street—Willowbrook Homes, LLC DATE: April 5, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Site plan application #SP-16-15 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC to renew condition #19 of #SD-15-04 which required that the zoning permit for the first building be obtained within six (6) months from the approval date of 3/20/15, Willowbrook Lane. The Board signed the decision on final plat application #SD-15-04 more than six (6) months ago (March 20, 2015). The applicant is asking the Board to renew condition #19, which will reset the timeline for acquiring a zoning permit. Staff notes that pursuant to the amended Land Development Regulations Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards, all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code. The Findings of Fact and Decision from #SD-15-04 and the final plat are in the packet for your review. There are no additional staff comments on this application. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING WILLOWBROOK HOMES, LLC – 1675 DORSET STREET FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SP-16-15 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-16-15 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC to reactivate condition #19 of #SD-15-04 which required that the zoning permit for the first building be obtained within six (6) months from the approval date of 3/20/15, Willowbrook Lane. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 5, 2016. Peter Kahn represented the applicant. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Willowbrook Homes LLC, seeks to renew condition #19 of #SD-15-04, which required that the zoning permit for the first building be obtained within six (6) months from the approval date of 3/20/15, Willowbrook Lane. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Willowbrook Homes, LLC. 3. The application was received on March 10, 2016. 4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential, Village Residential and Natural Resource Protection Zoning Districts. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page entitled, “Planned Unit Development 1675 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT Site Plan Overall,” prepared by O’Leary – Burke Civil Associates, Inc., dated October 8, 2014, and last revised on March 10, 2016. 6. The Board signed the decision on final plat application #SD-15-04 more than six (6) months ago (March 20, 2015). The applicant is asking the Board to renew the contents of condition #19 of #SD-15-04, which will reset the timeline for acquiring a zoning permit. DECISION Motion by ____________, seconded by _____________, to approve site plan application #SP-16-15 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the Land Development Regulations. 4. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit for the first of the nine (9) homes within six (6) months of this approval. The Development Review Board grants a period of five (5) years for approval of the remainder of the homes. At such time as the five years is reached and the applicant has not sought a zoning permit for the remainder of the homes, they will be eligible, per Section 17.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, for one (1) extension to an approval if the application takes place before the approval has expired and if the Development Review Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Development Review Board may specify a period of time up to one (1) year for the extension. 5. All changes to the plan will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board or Administrative Officer. 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 __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-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. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_14_40IDXDrive_GEHealthcare_parking_April_5_2016 _mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 1, 2016 Plans received: March 4, 2016 40 IDX Drive SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-14 Meeting date: April 5, 2016 Owner IDX Systems Corporation PO Box 4900 Department 201 Scotsdale, AZ 85264 Applicant GE Healthcare 40 IDX Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0915-00040 Commercial 2 Zoning District Location 2 Project Description Site plan application #SP-16-14 of G.E. Healthcare to amend a previously approved plan for a 233,133 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate three (3) trees, 2) after-the-fact approval to remove 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, and 3) expanding a parking area, 40 IDX Drive. Comments Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following comments to offer. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 713,985 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 11.49% No change Max. Overall Coverage 70% 51.6 % 53.6% Max. Front Yard Coverage (Shelburne Rd.) 30% ? ? Max. Front Yard Coverage (IDX Dr.) 30% ? ? Max. Front Yard Coverage (Green Mountain Dr.) 30% ? ? Min. Front Setback (Shelburne Rd.) 30 ft. ? ? Min. Front Setback (IDX Dr.) 30 ft. ? ? Min. Front Setback (Green Mountain Dr.) 30 ft. ? ? Min. Side Setback 10 ft. ? ? Max. Building Height (pitched) 40 ft. 40 ft. No change  Zoning Compliance Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of parking at 40 IDX Drive is the result of the office space within the existing buildings being used at greater intensity than in recent years. This efficient use of already existing office space within the Commercial 2 zoning district supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by prioritizing development into the higher intensity areas identified within the Plan. Furthermore, Comprehensive Plan Map 11: Future Land Use identifies areas of the city where differing intensity levels of development should occur and 40 IDX Drive is within an area marked as medium-higher intensity. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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. 3 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area are required for general office use, which results in this site requiring 816 parking spaces ((233,133 sq. ft. /1,000 sq. ft.) x 3.5=815.9655 rounded up to the nearest whole number). Currently there are 727 parking spaces. The additional proposed parking will result in a total of 851 parking spaces. On the west side of the parking lot there will be two walkways each with stairs on both ends which will connect the new parking area to an existing lot. 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) … (ii) … (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) … (vi) … (c) … (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic… This parcel is bound on three sides by public roads. The parking spaces being added will be located in the southeast corner of the lot which is closest to Green Mountain Drive and the side lot line which borders 40 Green Mountain Drive. While this parking area will occur between a public street and a building, that street—Green Mountain Drive—has a lower traffic volume than Shelburne Road, which this parcel also lies along. Staff finds this parking area meets the criterion listed above to be permitted by the Development Review Board. According to Section 13.01(G) there are certain design requirements for parking lots: 1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-8 and Figure 13-1 within Section 13.01, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 13.06, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited. The plans show that all parking spaces will be delimited by four inch white lines and that parking spaces will be 18 feet deep by nine feet wide (curb length). There are three circulation aisles running north/south. One of those is 24 feet wide while the other two are 23.5 feet wide. An aisle that serves two rows of parking that occur at a 90 degree angle is required to be 24 feet wide. 4 1. Staff recommends the Board request the width of the aisles be made conforming to the standard of 24 feet. 2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and exiting traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street. 3) … 4) … 5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. At least one (1) bicycle parking or storage facility shall be provided for all uses subject to site plan or Planned Unit Development review to serve persons employed or residing on the premises as well as the visiting public. Additional such facilities may be required as deemed necessary by the Development Review Board or as required within the City Center FBC District. The proposed parking area has 127 parking spaces arranged around the outer perimeter and down center aisles. From some areas of the lot a person could travel over 170 feet from their car before arriving at one of the connecting walkways to the next parking lot. 2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the provision of walkways around the outside perimeter of the lot would help to prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. There are no bicycle parking or storage areas noted on the plans. According to the applicant the site will be serving an additional 400 office employees in the near future. Staff finds this change in the number of people using the site on a regular basis to be relevant when considering the importance and necessity of providing onsite bicycle parking/storage. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the provision of bicycle parking or storage onsite. 6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area. See the discussion below under Landscaping and Screening Requirements and staff recommendations #7 and #8. Handicap accessible spaces and aisles are to be provided for all non-residential uses. Handicap accessible spaces and access aisles are not shown on the plan for the proposed parking area. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant update their plans to show the necessary handicap accessible parking spaces and aisles, which are outlined in Section 13.01(I) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Relationship of Structure 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 5 detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. No new buildings are proposed on the site. There is a large stand of trees along Green Mountain Drive which buffer the site from that road and additional trees are proposed on the borders of the parking area. It is unclear from the plans whether any of the existing trees on Green Mountain Drive will be removed. Parking appears to be shown within the tree line in Drawing No. C-104 of the site plan. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether any existing trees will be removed to make space for the new parking area and if this will impact the buffering and screening provided by the existing trees. 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 necessary. 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 plan indicates utilities will 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 to be fenced or screened. No new dumpsters, recycling, or composting areas are proposed. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Seventeen deciduous trees are shown planted around the edge of the new parking area, which is delineated by curbing. The City Arborist provided the following comments on March 28, 2016:  Tree species and size need to be specified in the plan  Tree planting details and specifications need to be included in the plan 6. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant update the site plan with a planting schedule, a budget, and the location of plantings, particularly trees in relation to the Landscaping and Screening Requirements, which reads in part: 6 At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. Section 13.06(B)(1) requires 10% of the interior of a parking lot with 28 or more contiguous parking spaces to have landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs, and other plants. There are over 28 contiguous parking spaces and islands are shown; however, no landscaping is shown and it is not clear whether the islands account for 10% of the parking lot area. Section 13.01(G)(6) mentioned earlier in these comments states that “stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area.” 7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their plans for providing landscaped islands within the parking lot that meet the 10% requirement. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether their plans for the landscaped islands will include the preferred stormwater management strategies outlined above, including infiltration and recessed planting islands. E. Modification of Standards No modifications have been requested. Exterior Lighting Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations discusses exterior lighting and states that: A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 7 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. 6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher than the roof of the structure. The applicant has submitted information about the light fixtures to be used which shows they are shielded to cast light downward, will not be cast light onto adjacent properties, use LED bulbs, and are approved by the International Dark Sky Association. Along the north-south axis the light fixtures are 70 to 80 feet apart from one another, which is less than four times the mounting height (25 ft.). Staff finds this arrangement to be sensible given the size of the parking area. The specifications for the light fixtures show a polyester powder coating that is intended to be durable. 7) Safe pole locations: Breakaway poles shall not be used in parking lots. Poles shall not be erected along the outside of roadway and ramp curves or where vehicles must make sharp turns. Poles should not be located where they might be susceptible to collision strikes. Poles located behind longitudinal traffic barriers should be offset sufficiently to allow for barrier deflection under impact. 8) Pole location in parking lots: Pole locations shall be coordinated with stall and aisle layouts. Where practical, poles should be near the end of parking rows or around the perimeter of the lot. When located at parking stall boundaries, light poles should be mounted on concrete pedestals. Where raised medians or islands are used to separate adjacent stalls, light poles should be placed in these areas unless pedestrian traffic will be inconvenienced. Where light poles are placed between parking rows in the interior of the lot, the poles should be located on the center line of double rows of parking stalls and on the center line of two opposing stalls and should not be placed on the stall line between cars where fender damage might occur. Staff finds these criteria to be met. Stormwater Management Standards The plans were reviewed using the Stormwater Management Standards found in Section 12.03 of the LDRs. The following comments were provided by the Stormwater Section of the Department of Public Works via email on March 29, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “GE Healthcare” site plan prepared by Stantec, dated 2/3/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the North Brook watershed and includes the redevelopment of 0.5 acres of impervious surface. 8 2. The property is covered under an existing State Stormwater permit (3347-9010.R). This permit requests that the permittee notify the Department of any planned development or facility expansions or changes that may result in new or increased stormwater discharges. The applicant should confirm that changes on this site are allowed under the terms and conditions of the existing permit. 3. As the site includes more than 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of §12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2015. These requirements include, but are not limited to, infiltration of the WQv on site using Low Impact Development (LID) practices and incorporation of LID practices necessary to achieve the maximum allowed post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1 inch) rain event. 4. Please submit modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv (0.9-inch) and the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1-inch) rain event, along with drainage area delineations for all stromwater treatment practices. 5. Please provide a written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management techniques, a detailed maintenance plan, as well as the results of any soil borings, infiltration testing, or soil compaction testing conducted on the site. 6. In order to confirm compliance with section 12.03.E(3) the applicant is requested to submit modeling for the 25 year storm event to confirm that downstream drainage infrastructure has adequate capacity to convey discharge from the lot during the 25 year storm event. Regards, Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 9. Staff recommends the Board support the comments provided by the Stormwater Section and ask the applicant to provide the information requested. The applicant provided the following email dated November 10, 2015 from Jenna Calvi, Stormwater District Manager in the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Watershed Management Division, Stormwater Program: Hi Kaytee, This one is actually easier than I expected. As long as they are building the lot exactly to the original plans, and the permit does not need to be changed or renewed at this time, they do not need to meet the phosphorous procedure. If anything is changing requiring a change to the permit, they would need to meet it. If you have additional questions let me know. --Jenna The contents of the above email from Jenna Calvi were forwarded to David Wheeler, Assistant Stormwater Superintendent, who sent a reply on March 30, 2016: 9 The email provided answers my question in comment 2, but it has no bearing on my other previous comments. Thanks, Dave Traffic Generation Expanding the parking lot does not generate additional traffic. Alteration of Existing Grade A permit is needed to remove land when the amount is equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. When the grade is being altered site plans must show the area to be filled or removed and the existing grade and the proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted the document “Pre & Post Excavation Pond Bottom Elevations” that was part of a previous application, #MS-14-11, for the same type of sediment removal on the site. #MS-14-11 has since expired due to the applicant not obtaining a Zoning Permit within six months. Staff finds this criterion to be met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer From:Calvi, Jenna To:Manchester, Kaytee Cc:Carr, Helen Subject:3347-9010.R Date:Tuesday, November 10, 2015 10:37:43 AM Hi Kaytee, This one is actually easier than I expected. As long as they are building the lot exactly to the original plans, and the permit does not need to be changed or renewed at this time, they do not need to meet the phosphorous procedure. If anything is changing requiring a change to the permit, they would need to meet it. If you have additional questions let me know. -Jenna Jenna Calvi, Stormwater District Manager 1 National Life Drive, Main 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3522 802-490-6166 / jenna.calvi@vermont.gov www.watershedmanagement.vermont.gov A B C D E F 1 2 3 4 SOUTH - 1SOUTH - 2 & DUPLICATESOUTH - 3SOUTH - 4SOUTH - 5SOUTH - 6 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT FEBRUARY 2016 Project Number: 195113127 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LOCATION MAP INDEX OF SHEETS BENNI N GT O N WINDHAM CHITTE N DE N ORANGE WASHINGTON WINDSOR RUTLAND ADDISON ORLEANS FRANKLIN GRAND ISLELAMOILLE ESSEX CALEDONIA VICINITY MAP 1" = 2000' Set No. __ VICINITY MAP 1" = 2000' ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDUD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 ISSUED FOR PERMIT MARCH 2016 Filename: Z:\Job Files\Holbrook Associated\Green Mountain Electric\Colchester 110256\GE Healthcare\Working Files\AGI\GE Healthcare layout 00024240B.AGIThe Lighting Analysis, ezLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design") provided byRAB Lighting Inc. ("RAB") represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upon designparameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others havenot been field verified by RAB and therefore actual measured results may vary from the actual field conditions.RAB recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation.RAB neither warranties, either implied or stated with regard to actual measured light levels or energy consumptionlevels as compared to those illustrated by the Lighting Design. RAB neither warranties, either implied or stated, norrepresents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design intent as compliant with anyapplicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those specifically stated on drawings created andsubmitted by RAB. The Lighting design is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational purposesand is not intended for construction nor as being part of a project's construction documentation package.Scale: as notedDate:2/24/2016Filename: GE Healthcare layout 00024240B.AGIDrawn By:Donald G. AndrewsLighting LayoutVersion BJob Name:GE HealthcareSo Burlington, VTPrepared For:Holbrook Associated35 Reservoir Park DriveRockland, MA 02370Tel: 888-839-1578CASE # 00024240Scale: 1 inch= 20 Ft.UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 4900 4920 4940 4960 4980 5000 5020 5040 5060 5080 5100 5120 5140 5160 5180 5200 5220 5240 5260 52805220524052605280530053205340536053805400542054405460548055005520554055601234567890.00.2 0.80.3 0.2 0.10.00.10.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.60.00.00.20.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.10.00.40.00.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.10.80.10.0 0.00.1 0.3 0.6 0.70.30.10.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.30.50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.10.00.3 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.10.00.00.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.20.1 0.1 0.50.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.00.00.0 0.00.1 0.2 0.60.3 0.20.40.10.50.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.10.00.10.00.00.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.00.20.00.10.00.1 0.2 0.90.4 0.20.10.00.10.10.00.0 0.00.1 0.2 0.60.60.20.00.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.40.10.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.10.10.10.00.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.00.10.10.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.00.10.00.10.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.10.20.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.10.10.00.10.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.10.00.10.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.10.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.20.00.00.30.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.30.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.10.00.00.2 0.4 0.50.7 0.5 0.3 0.10.20.00.10.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.30.10.00.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.00.10.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.20.00.00.40.20.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.40.00.40.20.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.10.40.50.0 0.00.1 0.4 0.9 0.80.40.60.00.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.00.70.10.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.20.00.20.00.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.30.20.00.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.00.40.00.50.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.81.80.70.00.00.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.00.50.01.30.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.10.20.00.00.00.10.1 0.10.0 0.00.20.00.10.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.2 0.20.00.20.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.30.20.10.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.10.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.30.10.00.20.20.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.10.00.20.30.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.20.70.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.10.20.20.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.10.00.50.50.4 0.2 0.1 0.10.00.10.00.10.0 0.00.1 0.2 0.60.40.00.00.20.00.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.20.10.40.70.3 0.2 0.1 0.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.2 0.80.4 0.2 0.10.10.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.80.10.10.00.0 0.0 0.00.2 0.80.20.10.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.00.30.00.00.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.80.3 0.1 0.10.00.60.00.20.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.1 0.10.00.40.00.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.50.00.20.3 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.20.0 0.00.2 0.50.3 0.1 0.10.00.10.00.10.00.00.10.10.10.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.10.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.1 0.10.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0.00.0 0.00.00.00.00.51.6 1.7 1.41.4 1.5 1.61.41.4 1.40.81.11.41.51.41.41.41.61.51.51.31.31.51.01.71.31.91.71.41.81.61.81.61.91.71.41.81.51.91.90.60.91.21.51.11.61.51.51.51.60.81.31.81.61.61.91.61.61.81.51.41.71.11.00.61.11.42.21.72.31.91.61.91.51.21.41.31.41.10.60.91.11.51.11.51.51.81.51.31.61.41.31.61.41.41.21.20.90.61.41.41.40.50.91.11.61.11.61.51.31.51.31.62.11.21.81.21.10.51.01.32.21.72.51.81.60.50.70.50.70.70.70.70.70.80.60.60.80.60.91.20.91.21.11.01.11.01.21.11.01.40.81.61.51.31.00.61.01.52.41.72.62.01.51.81.62.42.32.22.31.61.71.31.71.70.61.01.61.51.32.12.22.22.11.41.41.00.90.71.11.01.72.71.52.82.01.51.71.52.52.52.42.60.52.41.00.50.9 1.1 1.22.11.61.52.3 2.3 2.4 1.6 1.80.51.62.41.71.31.21.6 1.6 2.51.52.22.51.5 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.72.72.20.91.8 1.9 1.3 1.9 1.31.60.61.61.1 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.41.01.51.7 2.4 1.5 1.0 0.60.81.61.21.81.5 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.91.01.11.01.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.01.41.01.21.1 0.8 1.11.9 1.91.11.00.71.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.61.00.71.20.6 0.7 0.70.50.71.30.71.61.6 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.11.31.41.71.4 1.7 2.3 1.6 2.1 1.32.01.61.6 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.3 1.41.31.41.71.1 1.5 1.1 0.90.51.41.32.51.1 0.61.3 1.5 1.32.71.71.42.3 2.3 2.5 1.6 1.81.41.72.01.8 1.9 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.91.41.71.91.6 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.92.51.71.21.6 2.5 1.5 1.0 0.61.61.11.61.6 1.6 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.10.82.51.5 1.1 0.61.0 1.3 1.22.71.72.12.2 2.3 2.5 1.6 1.81.21.61.01.2 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.30.61.41.31.4 1.1 0.80.51.3 1.51.40.91.61.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.11.21.21.50.61.0 1.3 1.2 1.41.31.51.61.31.61.41.6 1.4 1.41.91.51.81.5 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.61.61.71.40.91.4 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.31.51.31.51.4 1.0 1.4 1.1 0.80.51.41 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.1 fc0.6 fc0.6 fc0.6 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc1 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc 2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc2 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.75 fc0.6 fc0.6 fc0.6 fc Filename: Z:\Job Files\Holbrook Associated\Green Mountain Electric\Colchester 110256\GE Healthcare\Working Files\AGI\GE Healthcare layout 00024240B.AGIThe Lighting Analysis, ezLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design") provided byRAB Lighting Inc. ("RAB") represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upon designparameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others havenot been field verified by RAB and therefore actual measured results may vary from the actual field conditions.RAB recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation.RAB neither warranties, either implied or stated with regard to actual measured light levels or energy consumptionlevels as compared to those illustrated by the Lighting Design. RAB neither warranties, either implied or stated, norrepresents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design intent as compliant with anyapplicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those specifically stated on drawings created andsubmitted by RAB. The Lighting design is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational purposesand is not intended for construction nor as being part of a project's construction documentation package.Scale: as notedDate:2/24/2016Filename: GE Healthcare layout 00024240B.AGIDrawn By:Donald G. AndrewsPrepared For:Holbrook Associated35 Reservoir Park DriveRockland, MA 02370Tel: 888-839-1578CASE # 00024240Job Name:GE HealthcareSo Burlington, VTLighting LayoutVersion B Filename: Z:\Job Files\Holbrook Associated\Green Mountain Electric\Colchester 110256\GE Healthcare\Working Files\AGI\GE Healthcare layout 00024240B.AGIThe Lighting Analysis, ezLayout, Energy Analysis and/or Visual Simulation ("Lighting Design") provided byRAB Lighting Inc. ("RAB") represents an anticipated prediction of lighting system performance based upon designparameters and information supplied by others. These design parameters and information provided by others havenot been field verified by RAB and therefore actual measured results may vary from the actual field conditions.RAB recommends that design parameters and other information be field verified to reduce variation.RAB neither warranties, either implied or stated with regard to actual measured light levels or energy consumptionlevels as compared to those illustrated by the Lighting Design. RAB neither warranties, either implied or stated, norrepresents the appropriateness, completeness or suitability of the Lighting Design intent as compliant with anyapplicable regulatory code requirements with the exception of those specifically stated on drawings created andsubmitted by RAB. The Lighting design is issued, in whole or in part, as advisory documents for informational purposesand is not intended for construction nor as being part of a project's construction documentation package.Scale: as notedDate:2/24/2016Filename: GE Healthcare layout 00024240B.AGIDrawn By:Donald G. AndrewsPrepared For:Holbrook Associated35 Reservoir Park DriveRockland, MA 02370Tel: 888-839-1578CASE # 00024240So Burlington, VTLighting LayoutVersion BJob Name:GE Healthcare 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: #SD-15-28, 65 Shunpike Road – Saxon Partners, LLC DATE: April 5, 2016 DRB Meeting. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six (6) boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road. The applicant has verbally requested that this application be continued to a future meeting. We expect a written request will be available for the meeting. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 MARCH 2016 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 March 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Vice Chair; M. Behr, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Planning Department; T. McKenzie, J. Svitarsky, T. Easton, R. Flood, R. Lowrey, B. Bertsch, P. O’Leary, A. Senecal, B. Currier, E. Farrell, J. Beatty 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #9 to #8. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller introduced Lindsey Britt, the City’s new Development Review Planner. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-03 of Gardner Construction, Inc., for a planned unit development to develop two adjacent parcels totaling 6.07 acres with 22 residential units consisting of the following: 1) 14 single family dwellings (one existing), and 2) four duplex buildings, totaling 21 new units, 1398 Hinesburg Rd.: Mr. Miller noted that the applicant had asked for a continuance until 5 April. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-03 to 5 April 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-05 and Design Review Application #DR-16- 01 of South Burlington Realty Company to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,200 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) changing the use of the building to personal instruction, 2) altering the exterior design of the SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 MARCH 2016 2 building, and 3) adding an HVAC unit on the north side of the building, 40 San Remo Drive: Mr. McKenzie indicated a rendering of what the building will look like and showed samples of the siding product (smooth insulated panels) in a “regal grey” color. He noted that where the overhead door is now, there will be a wall of glass to bring light to the back of the building. The door under the overhang will be replaced with a glass door. The intent is to make the building look more commercial than industrial. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SP-16-05 and #DR-16-01. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-16-10 of Allen Brook Development, Inc., to construct a 50,155 sq. ft. building which will consist of: 1) 44,155 sq. ft. of warehouse and distribution use, and 2) 6,000 sq. ft. of retail warehouse outlet use, 6 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. O’Leary showed elevations of the building. He noted that it is built into the bank quite a bit, and at some points you can see only 120 feet of the building. At the other end, you can see about 20 feet. He felt the windows are adequate for what would be seen from Lime Kiln Road. Mr. O’Leary noted the 2 small buildings on Lime Kiln Road have been removed from the plan, and all parking will now be behind the proposed building. The building will be single story, with three separate units. The 2 units at the ends will have outside storage. Members suggested possibly adding some visual interest to the northwest corner of the building. Mr. O’Leary said there is a lot of landscaping on that corner, but they would be willing to add a window on the corner (he showed where) and continue the green stripe for several feet. He added that most of the building will disappear behind a retaining wall. Members were comfortable with the added window and striping. Mr. O’Leary showed the location of the dumpster on the site plan. This will be fenced in. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 MARCH 2016 3 The landscaping budget has been increased by $109. Mr. O’Leary showed the location of 11 trees on the parking island and near the dumpster. He also indicated other landscaping on the site. They will try to depict the landscaping so the Board can see how much of it will be visible. Members were OK with landscaping. Regarding issues of vibration, noise and air pollution, Mr. O’Leary said they anticipate a business like a concrete product supplier, pipe storage, and warehousing. They don’t anticipate a manufacturing use, so there would be no vibration issue. There will be no loud speakers, horns or radios, just standard vehicles coming and going. They also don’t anticipate any business being open at night. They will be heating with natural gas and easily meet the air pollution standards. No odors are anticipated. Mr. Belair directed attention to a letter from Richard Grzywna, a neighbor on Lime Kiln Road, regarding concern with dust during construction. Mr. O’Leary said they will use standard methods of dust control, mostly water. He said it is not a very dusty site, and most of the work will be below the bank. He did not anticipate dust going in Mr. Grzywna’s direction. Construction will take 5-7 months. Mr. Senecal said they will be mindful of neighbors, and there will be a water truck on site. Mr. O’Leary noted that the parking lot pull-off next to the main road on Lime Kiln Road. will be removed. Mr. Behr felt conditions in the area should be improved with this development as it will no longer be a “speedway.” Mr. Wilking stressed that this is a heavily traveled street and they need to be attentive to what is built there and what it will look like as you come down the street. Mr. Behr asked that landscaping be shown on the elevations. He also felt the gable should be centered and be a little bit higher. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-10 to 5 April 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 MARCH 2016 4 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-40 of John Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), constructing a 100 room hotel, 3) constructing a 51 room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185and 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Miller noted that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 3 May. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-15-40 to 3 May 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued site plan application #SP-15-79 of Jon Svitarsky to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,020 sq. ft. building used as a radio station and television station. The amendment consists of converting the building to a Group Home (community residence) use to house a maximum of 25 residents, 372 Dorset Street: Mr. Svitarsky provided a site plan, planting plan and budget. He indicated on the plan where landscaping will go. Members were OK with this. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wiling moved to close #SP-15-79. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-41 of Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 6.7 acre parcel into two lots of 4.1 acres and 2.6 acres, and 2) construction of a 50-unit multi-family dwelling on the 4.1 acre parcel, 1195 Shelburne Road: Regarding the subdivision, Mr. Farrell showed the diving line and the piece that will be sold for the Larkin development. He noted that Paul Conner has said the subdivision can be a separate application. Mr. Farrell asked to do preliminary and final plat of that application together. Mr. Farrell then showed the potential recreation easement. There will be an easement from Larkin to get from lot 2 to Fayette Road. Members were OK with doing the subdivision as a separate application. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 MARCH 2016 5 Mr. Farrell noted the development plans are the same as the last presentation. The average pre-construction grade is 13 feet below Shelburne Road. They are asking for a height waiver of 22.5 feet. Mr. Farrell said if they were closer to Shelburne Road the waiver would be 9 feet. He showed a rendering indicating the difference in grade from Shelburne Road. He also showed a view from Shelburne Road and noted that the Larkin building will be in front of this proposed building. They are not removing any significant public view, even with the added height of the building. Mr. Farrell noted it is within the discretion of the board to approve the height waiver. He felt it fits in with the commercial nature of the area. Mr. Wilking noted they are also leaving a lot of open land. Mr. Belair indicated the 2 ways in which the Board can grant a height waiver. He noted this application meets the second option. Mr. Farrell said he met with Justin Rabidoux on site, and he has no concerns. There is a pond that people “upstream” have been draining into without the right to do that. Mr. Farrell said they won’t change that. Members were comfortable with the height and preferred the smaller footprint this allows for. Mr. Easton, a Holmes Road neighbor, asked when neighbors will learn how stormwater runoff will be collected. He said recent rains have had the stream working overtime. He didn’t want the wetland to have more water in it than it has now. Mr. Farrell said they will have to meet State stormwater regulations. They can’t use that Class 2 wetland and will do state-of-the-art water management. He agreed to keep in touch with neighbors. 10. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-04 of Eric Farrell for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30-unit multi-family dwelling & 3,700 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63-unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 54 unit multi-family dwelling. The amendment consists of: 1) altering a pedestrian access along the east side of the building, and 2) revising the landscaping plan, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive: Mr. Farrell showed the kind of striping that will be done across the driveway. He also showed the path down the sidewalk and where the striping will go. Members were OK with this and raised no other issues. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 MARCH 2016 6 Mr. Wilking moved to close #SP-16-04. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Minutes of 1 March and 7 March 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 1 March and 7 March 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:25 p.m. __________________________________ Clerk __________________________________ Date