The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/02/2017DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 August 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Kraft, D. Burke, B. Gardner, T. Hergenrother, D. Lewis, J. Larkin, G. Rabideau, K. Wagner, S. McClellan 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Reorganization: a. Elect Chair, Vice Chair & Clerk b. Set Regular Meeting Dates and Times Members agreed to delay the reorganization until there is a full Board present. 5. Continued Site Plat Application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers) of 324 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive: Ms. Britt noted the comments from the Stormwater Department directing the applicant to meet the requirements of the LDRs. The applicant must also maintain the porous concrete driveway. Mr. Kraft said that regarding traffic impact they will go with what staff says. Mr. Kraft also explained that the storage units are shipping containers for things that are used once a year or so. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Belair recommends that the Board approve them. Mr. Wilking then moved to close #SP-15-38. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-16-19 of Veronica Lambert to subdivide a 4.11 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling and a 2-family dwelling into two lots of 1.44 acres (lot #1) and 2.67 acres (lot #2), 1405 Hinesburg Road: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-19 to 6 September 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-16-15 of Gardner & Sons Development Corporation for a planned unit development to further develop a 2.16 acre parcel developed with a 2-family dwelling. The proposal consists of 1) constructing a single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 3‐unit multi‐family dwelling, O’Brien Drive: Mr. Parsons recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Burke indicated the location of the duplex on the site and also the proposed location of the single family and triplex buildings. He noted that they have moved unit #3 as far forward as possible. They will relocate a stockade fence to the property line. Mr. Burke also showed the location of other proposed stockade fencing. There are no waiver requests. Both the Fire Department and Public Works are satisfied with the plan. Staff is also satisfied with the exception of the parking space in front of unit #3. There are 2 drainage ways (Mr. Burke indicated these on the plan) which eventually connect. A shallow ravine somewhat separates 2 of the units. Mr. Burke noted that the regulations recommend redevelopment and reuse of properties in the city’s core. This project meets that recommendation. Mr. Burke explained why the parking space in front of unit #3 can’t work behind the unit. Staff had recommended placing it next to the garage, but the applicant felt this can’t work with the winter parking ban. They feel the one space in front meets the regulations. Ms. Britt said staff’s concern was that it would become a “persistent” parking space, not just one used for guests. Mr. Miller said he saw no reason to move the parking space. Other members voiced no objections to it remaining in front of unit #3. Mr. Burke indicated the location of “No Parking” signs as requested by staff. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Burke said that $12,100.00 is required. They are asking for a credit of $5850. The split rail fencing, which can be counted toward the requirement, is costing $10,500, and an acre of trees is being preserved. They felt there is no other place to put landscaping. Members agreed the site was densely landscaped. Ms. Britt said Mr. Belair was OK with the split rail fencing counting toward the landscape budget. The applicant was reminded to get a street name approved by the Planning Commission. Members then viewed the elevations and the cut sheet for the garage door. No other issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-15. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-16-21 of Hergenrother Construction, LLC, to subdivide a 1.55 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three lots consisting of: 1) a 37,832 sq. ft. lot with the existing house (lot #1), 2) a 14,602 sq. ft. lot (lot #2), and 3) a 14,369 sq. ft. lot (lot #3), 1410 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Parsons recused himself during this application due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Burke showed the location of the property across the road from Dubois Drive. He noted that the existing single family home has an access on Hinesburg Road. It utilizes on-site water and septic. Lots 2 and 3 would access off Highland Terrace and would have city sewer and water. The existing house will be on the city sewer system but will continue to use on-site water. The trees on the existing house lot will remain. Mr. Burke said the lots meet the lot size requirement and the garage setback requirements. The existing lot won’t meet the 2 to 1 ratio (it would be 1.6 to 1). In order to meet that, it would require a PUD. Mr. Burke said they don’t feel the parcel is conducive to a PUD and are suggesting a 4th lot instead. He showed how this configuration would work. All the lots would then meet the requirements. It would result in a lower resale value for the existing home. There would be a shared easement along the drive to serve the existing lot and the new lot. Staff had suggested moving the houses forward and having only a 25 foot setback. Mr. Burke said they prefer not to do this and noted that many of the existing houses are set back up to 60 feet. Mr. Wilking said only 3 of the existing houses have a 25-foot setback; all the others are about 60 feet on both sides of the road. Mr. Burke added that the homes with 25-foot setbacks are on very narrow lots. Mr. Wilking had no issue with the 60-foot setbacks. Other members voiced no objections as well. An abutting neighbor expressed concern with the trees adjacent to his property. Mr. Burke indicated the trees that would have to go. He said no trees on the property line would be taken down. Another neighbor asked that the dead trees be removed. No other issues were raised. Mr. Parsons rejoined the Board. 9. (#10 on the agenda) Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-20 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of 6 commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing an 1800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road: Mr. Lewis identified the property as Lakewood Commons. He noted this is the last lot in the development. The proposed business would be a cell phone store with few employees. The condo association wants the new building to “look into” the development, and they have OK’d this plan. Mr. Lewis said according to their engineer, the parking is in compliance. Ms. Britt said staff is concerned with the parking between the 2 buildings. Mr. Lewis said all parking in the development is “shared.” The Eagles Club has light use during the day and more at night when the retail building would be closed. Ms. Smith asked if the store would have a conference room like the one across the road. Mr. Lewis said it would not. Regarding building orientation, Ms. Britt said staff is looking for an “on‐street presence” in that part of the city, and new projects are being oriented toward the street. She noted that Mr. Conner feels strongly about a presence on the street. Mr. Wilking felt that made no sense as it would be blocking a view of an historic building. Mr. Parsons agreed and suggested the new building could be made to look like it has a Shelburne Rd. presence. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t feel that blocking the view of the historic building was a compelling argument as it was only blocked significantly from one direction. Members agreed to keep this issue open. Staff is recommending implementation of a street connection and location of a future street. Ms. Britt indicated the street that appears on the Official City Map. Mr. Lewis said they are working on that connection with Mr. Larkin. The condo association board is OK with it. The location will depend on what happens on the next door property. Regarding trees, Mr. Lewis said one large tree will be removed. They will meet the dollar requirement for landscaping. Mr. Miller noted that staff was OK with a 21 foot front setback and a 10 foot side setback is the building is reoriented. Mr. Wilking suggested the building have a pitched roof to match other buildings in the development and also the Acura building. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Lewis said they would consider that. No other issues were raised. 10. (#9 on the Agenda) Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) a 100 room hotel; 3) 20,000 sq. ft. of leasable commercial/retail space; 4) 200 residential units; 5) 5,000 sq. ft. of leasable recreation/fitness space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Parsons recused himself during this application due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Rabideau said they feel it is important to have a Master Plan process. This is a long-term vision of 4 phases. Mr. Rabideau indicated there would be 2 north/south roads parallel to Shelburne Road and a third road that would connect through the Lewis property and eventually to Holmes Road. Mr. Rabideau said they feel this is a place for a more urban development. They would like to apply some Form Based Code principles as well. He also noted that phase 4 is very speculative, and they have no plans for it now as there is a long-term lease for the movie theatre. The theatre will continue to have all the parking it needs. Mr. Wagner said they have been looking at urban character consisting of mixed use, walkability, and location on a mass transit line. They also are committed to an architectural richness that makes the spaces more meaningful. Buildings are sited 15-feet from the right-of-way. This allows creation of south-facing outdoor spaces and terraces. It also reinforces the urban character. Pedestrian links are 10-12 feet wide. Road A would have on-street parking (which would calm traffic). All streets will be tree-lined. There would be parking under all buildings. Mr. Rabideau said Phase 1 would be a mixed use residential building with retail on the first floor. Phase 2 would be a mixed use building with apartments and a gym. Phase 3 would be the hotel. Phase 4 (speculative) could have commercial on the first floor with residential above or it could be all commercial. Mr. Wagner said other amenities would include special paving, a planting belt with street trees, the potential for outdoor dining, awnings, pedestrian scale lighting along the walks, possible roof decks to capture lake views, sidewalks that interact with store fronts, etc. Mr. Rabideau said they anticipate more than one building height, and they might ask for a waiver to allow for that variety. He then showed some images of building concepts. Mr. Kochman said he liked the variety of facades. Mr. Cota agreed. (Mr. Cota left the meeting at this point to meet a family obligation.) Mr. Kochman asked if there are plans for roof solar. Mr. Larkin said they will certainly look at that. The rooftops are flat. Mr. Rabideau said they will at least be solar ready. They are also looking at other technologies. Mr. Kochman had no issue with the setbacks but was concerned with the proliferation of waivers. Ms. Britt noted that when the regulations were put in place there were different ideas on what the street should look like. Zoning hasn’t yet caught up with the new concepts. Mr. Wilking said his concern was getting traffic up and down Shelburne Road. He noted that the existing car dealers have problems getting in and out of their lots at certain times of day. Ms. Smith liked this iteration better than the previous one but was concerned with the little space between the road and the sidewalk. Mr. Rabideau said that staff told them to “put aside the rule book and come in with what you think is best.” He added that there is a trade-off for better design. He felt the answer to traffic management is to look at the secondary and tertiary connections to get traffic off Shelburne Road. He did feel the planting strip could be made a little wider between Shelburne Road and the sidewalk. Mr. Miller liked the plan and felt the trees along the sidewalk can help reduce the speed of traffic. Ms. Smith asked if there is a percentage of the housing that needs to be affordable. Members noted the number of people being displaced from Larkin Terrace. Mr. Rabideau said they are going to try to find a place for those people, either here or in L&M Park. He noted that one building of Larkin Terrace has been condemned due to water issues. Mr. Rabideau said the next thing the Board will see is Phase 1 with the corner concept along with the Master Plan. Staff has suggested the applicant consider ways for an innovative PUD application. Mr. Larkin said they will have that dialog with Eric Farrell and the movie theatre people. He didn’t see huge barriers. Staff also recommends considering building envelope standards for a T-4 zone. Mr. Rabideau said “absolutely.” It was noted that staff recommends support of the reduced setbacks and also asks that landscaping be allowed on rooftops. Mr. Kochman said he shares the concern regarding the displacement of existing Larkin Terrace residents. Mr. Larkin said they are meeting with them regularly. Ms. Britt noted that issue is not within the purview of the DRB in judging the application. It was noted that a letter from C. H. Partners was received indicating their interest in the project and possible future comments. An audience member said it was nice to see “some quality development” in South Burlington. 11. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corporation to develop a 12-unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six 2-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: This item could not be heard as Mr. Kochman would have to recuse himself, resulting in there not being a quorum present. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 23 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed. 12. Minutes of 19 July 2016: The Minutes could not be considered as there was not a quorum present. 13. Other Business: No other business was discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. , Clerk _______1/17/2017______________________________ Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SP-16-38 - 14 Berard Drive—Moveable Peaks, Inc. DATE: August 2, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Continued site plan application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers) of 342 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive. Traffic generation was not discussed in the previous staff comments; however, it has been included in the draft decision. 1. Staff recommends the Board note the section on traffic in the draft decision. #SP-16-38 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MOVEABLE PEAKS, INC.—14 BERARD DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-38 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers) of 342 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 19, 2016. The applicant was represented by Skip McClellan and John Crabbe, Jr. 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, Moveable Peaks, Inc., seeks to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers) of 342 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Moveable Peaks, Inc. 3. The application was received on June 13, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of seven (7) pages with the first page titled “Site Plan Vermont Tent Company” prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, and dated 6/7/2016. A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS All dimensional standards are being met by the applicant and the proposed changes (addition and accessory structures) will also meet the standards. B. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal #SP-16-38 2 structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. The lot on which the accessory structures are located is greater than one (1) acre in size and therefore may have more than two (2) accessory structures. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. The twelve (12) accessory structures are located behind the building. The Board finds this criteria met. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The accessory structures are more than five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The Board finds this criteria met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. The accessory structures comply with the front setback requirements for the principal structure. The Board finds this criteria met. (8) … (9) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. The applicant states that the accessory structures are each 342 square feet in size and therefore the total area for all the accessory structures is 4,104 square feet. The existing building is 28,514 square feet, which results in the accessory structures being 14.4% of the total square footage. If the proposed addition is built the accessory structures will be 12.3% of the total square footage. The Board finds this criteria met. (10) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. #SP-16-38 3 The applicant confirmed in an email dated July 14, 2016 that the accessory structures were included in the lot coverage calculations. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14 of the Land Development Regulations establish the following general review standards for site plan applications: 1) 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 property is located in the Northeast Quadrant where the pattern of land use has “focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers an ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City.” The Board considers that the services provided by Moveable Peaks are those which are not critical to the core of the City and that this type of businesses would not be easily compatible with a residential area. The Board finds this criteria met. 2) 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. The accessory structures on the site do not appear to have a planned relationship to the principal existing building or to each other. The accessory structures are predominantly located around the perimeter of the rear parking area. 2) Parking The number of parking spaces will increase from 32 to 42 to accommodate the increase in square footage that is the result of the proposed addition (two (2) spaces/1,000 sq. ft. for equipment rental use). This increase in parking is being achieved without increasing the overall lot coverage by removing a portion of impervious pavement and replacing with pervious pavement. The Board finds this criteria met. 3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed addition is the same height as the existing building and will have the same color, type, and style of siding. The Board finds this criteria met. 3) 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, #SP-16-38 4 form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed addition and accessory structures are within an area that is predominantly industrial and commercial without any adjacent housing and it is very near the airport. The buildings in this area tend to reflect that setting by being more industrial looking and this site follows that pattern. The proposed addition will blend with the existing building by having the same color, type, and style of siding. The construction of the addition will result in the building being closer to an existing gravel parking area on an adjacent lot. D. 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 plans do not show the addition of any utility infrastructure. 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; however, the dumpsters are proposed to be moved to a new location on the site which will be closer to the adjacent property. The applicant confirmed to the Board that opaque screening will be installed around the dumpsters. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The applicant is requesting that the value of some existing trees on the property be counted towards the total landscaping budget requirement (Section 13.06(G)). The applicant’s landscape architect has estimated the combined value of the trees is $12,366. Proposed new landscaping totals $2,489 for a combined total of $14,855. According to landscaping information submitted by the applicant, building construction cost is estimated at $450,000. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: #SP-16-38 5 Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $4,000 Remainder over $500,000 1% N/A Total: $11,500 Landscaping Estimated Value Existing trees to remain $12,366 New plantings $2,489 Total: $14,855 The Board received an email from the property owner, Scott Pidgeon of Engineers Construction, Inc., to the west on July 20, 2016 stating: The property at 24 Berard Drive is being used as a recycle/fill site. It will continue like this for the next ten to fifteen years, so there is no need to have screening between us and Vermont Tent property for our behalf. Pursuant to Section 13.06(G), the Board may grant some credit for existing trees as long as the objectives of Section 13.06 are not reduced. Due to the location of the property, neighboring land uses, and the plan to retain trees near the proposed addition, the Board finds a credit to be acceptable as proposed by the applicant. The Board authorizes a credit of $9,011. E. LIGHTING Pursuant to Section 13.07(A) of the Land Development Regulations, all exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcast to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. In an email dated July 14, 2016 the applicant confirmed that the lighting fixtures met the requirements of the LDRs. F. TRAFFIC GENERATION The proposed addition and accessory structures (totaling 8,924 sq. ft.) is estimated to contribute 8.84 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends according to the Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) of the Institute of Transportation Engineers using land use code 811. The applicant will be responsible for paying the resulting traffic impact fees. G. STORMWATER The following comment was shared in an email from the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent on July 12, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Vermont Tent Company” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing, dated 6/7/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. For projects where the combination of New Impervious Area and Redeveloped/Substantially Reconstructed Existing Impervious Surface is equal to or greater than 5,000 sf, the application #SP-16-38 6 must meet the requirements of Section 12.03(C) of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). 2. If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than 50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C) of the LDRs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave In an email dated July 14, 2016 the applicant confirmed that the new and reconfigured impervious surfaces will be less than 5,000 sq. ft., that the improvements to the property represent less than 50% of the property, and the development is proposed to conform with stormwater regulations. The Board finds stormwater standards to be met. DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by ___________, to approve site plan application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 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. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant must post an $11,500 landscaping bond. This bond must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 4. The applicant must receive final water and wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 5. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 6. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the addition and accessory structures (storage containers) will generate 8.84 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 7. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 8. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 9. All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources #SP-16-38 7 and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be illuminated. 10. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the new addition and accessory structures. 11. Any change to the approved plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman 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 SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_fin al_plat_Aug_2_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 29, 2016 Plans received: June 8, 2016, updates July 21, 2016 PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-15 GARDNER & SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – O’BRIEN DRIVE Meeting Date: August 2, 2016 Applicant /Owner Gardner & Sons Development Corporation 269 Lakeshore Drive Colchester, VT 054446 Property Information Tax Parcel 0230-00039 Residential 4 Zoning District Engineer O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-15 of Gardner & Sons Development Corporation for a planned unit development to further develop a 2.16 acre parcel developed with a two (2) family dwelling. The proposal consists of: 1) constructing a single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 3-unit multi-family dwelling, O’Brien Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans and offer the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: R-4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 0.83 acres 2.16 acres No Change  Max. Building Coverage 30% 3.2 % 9.1 %  Max. Overall Coverage 40% 6.5 % 20.2%  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. n/a 75 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. n/a 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. n/a 47 ft.  Building Height (pitched) 28 ft. 25’-9.5” <28 ft.  Density Max. 4 units/acre .92 units/acre 2.83 units/acre  Zoning compliance APPLICABILITY OF USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROACH Due to the relatively narrow frontage along O’Brien Drive coupled with the presence of a wetland, the applicant is proposing this project be reviewed under PUD standards so as to allow there to be more than one principal building on the lot and to avoid having to create multiple lots each subject to coverage and setback requirements. The applicant is, however proposing footprint lots for each of the new units. It should also be noted that the lot is currently partially developed with a duplex on the eastern portion of the property, which is separated from the western portion by wetlands. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 3 administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The standards for determining whether a project warrants the flexibility provided by PUD review include the following:  to encourage innovation in design and layout,  efficient use of land, and  viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The plans detail the proposed locations of the buildings and the driveway. Renderings of the buildings are also provided. Staff notes that there is an informal, unimproved footpath along the northern edge of the property from Birch Street to O’Brien Drive. The applicant proposes to provide the City of South Burlington with a five (5) foot wide easement around the path and to install a three (3) foot high split rail fence along the length of the path. The proposed buildings are served by one driveway and are located on the few developable portions of the lot outside of the wetland and its buffer. The applicant has indicated that the reasons that this project qualifies as a PUD are:  The walking path which connects the Birch Street side of the lot with the O’Brien Drive side of the lot.  The project is an infill re-development providing housing choices other than the predominant single family lots in the immediate area.  The project provides common land with raised gardening beds. Staff considers this project to be an efficient use of land and to provide needed infill development; however, staff considers that the guest parking associated with Unit #3 could be rearranged to not be in front of the house where it could likely become a frequent parking spot for residents. The applicant has stated that the parking cannot be behind the house due to the steep slope. Staff considers that a parking spot immediately adjacent to the garage would be more suitable and consolidate the parking for the unit in a single place on the property. Staff also notes that on-street parking is available for guests on O’Brien Drive. 1. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant move the parking space in front of Unit #3 to an area immediately adjacent to the garage associated with the unit. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 4 (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. Plans show the use of erosion controls to protect the wetlands. Public Works stated in an email to staff dated 6/29/2016 that the department was “all set on this project.” Staff considers this criteria met. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The application materials state there will be three (3) P.M. Peak Hour trip ends on the property. All four (4) units will be accessed via a common 20 foot wide private roadway. A private roadway is allowed to serve up to nine (9) dwelling units in any combination of single-family, duplex, or multi-family when there is only one point of access according to Section 15.12(D)(3) of the LDRs. Furthermore, the homes built on a private roadway must have sprinkler systems that satisfy the requirements of the Fire Chief, or the DRB may waive that requirement if recommended by the Fire Chief. The application indicates the triplex units will have sprinkler systems as requested by the Fire Department. Additional circulation is provided on the site by the footpath along the northern boundary line. Staff considers this criterion met. (A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project’s layout avoids the centrally located wetland and its buffers. Plans show that during construction and until all disturbed areas are stabilized a silt fence will be installed to prevent runoff to the wetlands. The applicant will install a split rail fence along the wetland buffer to delineate its location. (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. As presently developed, houses along O’Brien Drive are arranged in a pattern where all the houses are generally the same distance from the roadway and spaced at fairly regular intervals from one another. The proposed development will depart from that layout by placing a triplex behind an existing duplex located on O’Brien Drive. Since the triplex will be behind the duplex and the house fronting to O’Brien Drive will follow the established pattern of development along the street, staff considers the placement of the triplex to be acceptable and the development to be visually compatible with the area. Furthermore, staff considers the clustering of housing in the City’s Core Area to be aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. (A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The project’s layout includes open space around the wetland and abutting the South Burlington School District parcel to the south. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 5 (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The South Burlington Fire Department shared with staff on July 25, 2016 that, in accordance with their previous recommendations, sprinklers should be installed in the triplex and no parking signs should be installed along the driveway and in the hammerhead turnaround area. The site plan indicates no parking signage in the hammerhead turnaround area and that the triplex will have a sprinkler system. There do not appear to be no parking signs along the driveway. 2. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant update the site plan to show the locations of no parking signs along the driveway. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. Public Works stated in an email to staff dated 6/29/2016 that the department was “all set on this project.” Staff considers this criteria met. (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. Public Works stated in an email to staff dated 6/29/2016 that the department was “all set on this project.” Staff considers this criteria met. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). As discussed above, staff considers that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the R-4 Zoning District. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, staff considers that this criterion is being met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 6 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. The proposed buildings are located on a proposed new driveway while the two (2) existing units on the east side of the parcel are accessed via Birch Street. The proposed and existing units are separated by a wetland. Adequate parking appears to be provided for each of the new units. No internal sidewalks are proposed to serve the 3 unit building, however given the lack of traffic generated by the units pedestrian safety should be adequate. Staff appreciates the placement of a relatively small house on the same lot as the proposed triplex. (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. This standard only applies to the triplex. Parking is located to the side of the multi-family home on the Gardner/Zhang lot which forms the building line of the development facing O’Brien Drive. Staff considers that this criterion is being met. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed buildings would be less than 28 ft and similar in scale to other two story homes in the zoning district. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 7 (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Staff considers that the proposed buildings are similar to each other and surrounding houses in style and height. The single family house (unit #3) will have a smaller footprint than some nearby houses and staff considers its impact to thus be minimal. While the immediate neighborhood on O’Brien Drive is predominantly single family houses, there are other more dense housing arrangements in the vicinity of the proposed project, including duplex units on Lilac Lane and O’Brien Drive. Staff considers this criterion to be met. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: 1. 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. Staff does not consider the reservation of land to be necessary. 2. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 3. 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). The applicant submitted material stating that garbage will be stored in the garage units of each individual unit and that there is room for onsite composting in the vicinity of the raised garden beds. 5. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the project is estimated at $480,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $12,100; however, the applicant is requesting a credit of $5,850 for existing mature trees and proposed split rail fence, which is estimated to cost $10,500, to allow a reduced budget of $6,250. Staff considers that a credit could be acceptable given the addition of the split rail fencing if the proposed landscaping, especially in the vicinity of Unit #3, were considered by the Board to meet the objectives of Section 13.06. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss the landscaping and proposed fencing with the applicant to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_15_OBrienDrive_GardnerSons_subdivision_prelim_final_plat_Aug_2_2016.doc 8 determine whether it is adequate and if a credit is justified. Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $4,600 Additional over $500,000 1% $0 Minimum Landscaping $ $12,100 Proposed Landscaping $6,250 The applicant is proposing a cedar hedge to screen the triplex from the duplex that fronts on O’Brien Drive. Additional plantings are proposed between the parking areas in front of the triplex and to provide some privacy between the porch of the single family house and the footpath to its north. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans depict snow storage areas. Stormwater The Stormwater Division told staff in an email dated 6/29/16 that there were no stormwater-related concerns. Other Issues The private street serving the proposed units should have a name approved by the Planning Commission. The embankment between the proposed units and the wetland area is steep. Plans show a split rail fence delineating the embankment. Staff considers that this will be sufficient for preventing vehicular traffic from entering the wetland area and provide a measure of protection to motorists from the steep embankment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_21_1410HinesburgRoad_Hergenrother_subdivision _homes_sketch_Aug_2_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 29, 2016 Plans received: July 11, 2016 1410 Hinesburg Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-21 Meeting date: August 2, 2016 Owner/Applicant Hergenrother Construction, LLC 97 Blakely Rd. Colchester, VT 05446 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860-01410 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 1.55 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-21 of Hergenrother Construction, LLC to subdivide a 1.55 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three (3) lots consisting of: 1) a 37,832 sq. ft. lot with the existing house (lot #1), 2) a 14,602 sq. ft. lot (lot #2), and 3) a 14,369 sq. ft. lot (lot #3), 1410 Hinesburg Road. 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. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements: SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Required Existing Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Proposed Lot 3 Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft/single family 67,518 sq. ft. 37,832 sq. ft. 14,602 sq. ft. 14,369 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage 15% 2.6% No change <15% <15% Max. Overall Coverage 30% 6.3% No change <30% <30% *Max. Front Setback 25 ft. >130 ft. No change >70 ft. >70 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. No change >10 ft. >10 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. Unknown No change Unknown Unknown **Density 4 units/acre 0.65 units/acre 1.86 units/acre *See conversation below in Building Orientation section. **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 existing parcel allows for a maximum density of 6 units (1.55 x 4=6.2 rounded down to the nearest whole unit) with TDRs. The applicant has proposed three (3) units (one existing single family and two (2) new single family), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the use of two (2) TDRs. A. Density The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The applicant has proposed three (3) units (one existing single family and two (2) new single family), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the use of two (2) TDRs. The applicant has indicated two (2) TDRs from 70 Highland Terrace will be used. B. Access Access to Lot 1 from Hinesburg Road is provided by an existing driveway. Access to Lot 2 and Lot 3 will be provided from Highland Terrace and each proposed house on those lots will have its own driveway. C. 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 inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the proposed housing units will have entrances facing a public road—a requirement of the regulations—and 3 porches with garages set back from the front of the house approximately eight (8) feet, which is also a requirement of the regulations. It is not clear from the submitted materials whether the proposed new houses will incorporate a mix of housing styles, as is encouraged by the regulations, or whether a minimum of 35% of translucent windows and surfaces will be oriented to the south. 1) Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that 35% of the translucent windows and other surfaces should be oriented to the south. The proposed houses are set back from Highland Terrace more than 70 feet and from the front lot line 45 feet. The regulations state that buildings “should be set back a maximum of” 25 feet from the sidewalk and that a “close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.” Staff considers the proposed houses to be set back too far from the street and that each house should be placed closer to the front lot line. Nearby houses further south on Highland Terrace are set back approximately 25 feet from their front lot line. 2) Staff recommends the Board request the applicant place each proposed house a maximum of 25 feet from their respective front lot lines. D. Lot Ratios Section 9.08.A.4 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.” The existing lot has a ratio of approximately 1:2.8 and therefore meets the minimum lot width to depth ratio. Lot 1 is proposed to have a ratio of 1:1.6, Lot 2 of approximately 1:2.5, and Lot 3 of approximately 1:2.5. In order to receive a waiver on the lot ratio for Lot 1 the applicant would need to submit the application as a PUD at the next stage of the review process and therefore consider all the requirements of being a PUD. Staff considers it is unlikely, given the dimensions of the existing parcel, that three (3) lots can be created which all meet the lot ratio requirement. 3) Staff recommends the applicant review the proposal for three (3) lots to see if all of the lots can be brought into compliance with the lot ratio requirement. 4) Staff recommends the applicant consider whether a PUD could be pursued on this property and how the applicant could meet the PUD standard for being innovative with their project. 5) Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that a waiver for the lot ratio can only be considered if the project is a PUD. E. Stormwater Comments Staff requested that the Stormwater Section provide comments on the proposed project and also consider the possibility of the site being developed more intensely or differently from what is proposed given the comments above regarding the likelihood of the project needing to be a PUD. Staff notes that an innovative and exceptional approach to stormwater could be a component of a project that could help it qualify as a PUD. The Stormwater Section stated the following in an email to staff on July 26, 2016: For a project that does not trigger our LDR requirements, we would like to see properly sized driveway culverts, disconnected downspouts, as well as disconnection of driveways. If the site were to be developed “more intensely”, we certainly would not be opposed to a small infiltration basin or bioretention facility. 6) Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Stormwater Section. 4 F. Fire No comments from Fire have yet been received. G. 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_20_1233ShelburneRoad_LewisRealEstate_Lakewood_ building_sketch_Aug_2_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 29, 2016 Plans received: July 7, 2016 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-20 LEWIS REAL ESTATE – 1233 SHELBURNE ROAD Meeting Date: August 2, 2016 Applicant /Owner Lakewood Common Owners Association, Inc. 1233 Shelburne Road, Unit #E3 South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-01233 Commercial 1-Automobile Zoning District Engineer Trudell Consulting Engineers 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_20_1233ShelburneRoad_LewisRealEstate_Lakewood_building_sketch_Aug_2_2016 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-20 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six (6) commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road. 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. Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: access, parking, and building orientation. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans and offer the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 202,774 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 13.5% 14.4% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 58.5% 61.6% Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 7.5% 20.5% *Min. Front Setback (Section 3.06(B)(1) requires 50 ft. instead of the standard 30 ft. in the C1-Auto) 50 ft. >50 ft. 21 ft. *Min. Side Setback 15 ft. >15 ft. 10 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change Max. Building Height (pitched) 40 ft. Unknown 20 ft.  Zoning compliance *Presently complying, but seeking waiver for proposed new building A) PARKING The project proposes a small parking lot with seven (7) spaces, including one handicap accessible space, located to the north of the proposed building with access from the property’s driveway which leads from Shelburne Road. Section 14.06(B)(2)(c) of the Land Development Regulations states that where “more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of the building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line.” It appears to staff that the proposed parking exceeds that which is allowed by Section 14.06(B)(2)(c). 1) Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide calculations showing whether the parking will comply with Section 14.06(B)(2)(c). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_20_1233ShelburneRoad_LewisRealEstate_Lakewood_building_sketch_Aug_2_2016 3 Staff considers that this PUD may be able to make use of a shared parking situation on the lot and would encourage shared parking especially if it eliminates the need for additional parking spaces. Shared parking on a single lot is addressed in Section 13.01(E) of the LDRs. 2) Staff recommends the Board request the applicant examine whether shared parking would be a possibility in this project and strongly encourage the applicant to pursue that avenue of development. If shared parking were to prove to be impossible, staff considers that parking to the rear of the building would be better than parking to the side and that re-orienting the building, as discussed below, so that it runs lengthwise along Shelburne Road would provide a buffer between the street and the parking. B) BUILDING ORIENTATION As proposed the new building would be situated in the southeast corner of the lot 21 feet from Shelburne Road and would be oriented lengthwise away from the street with parking to the north of the building. Staff considers that orienting the building lengthwise along Shelburne Road would be preferable and could potentially allow new parking, or the shared parking, to be situated behind the new building away from the street while also providing additional frontage on the street for the new business. In present configuration, the staff does not support the building, but would support the building if the orientation is changed to face the street with pedestrian connections to the sidewalk. Staff considers it important to note that for the past several years new projects in South Burlington have been, whenever possible, oriented to the street. For example, 462 Shelburne Road (Pizzigali office building), 1000 Shelburne Road (New England Federal Credit Union), and the CVS on the corner of Williston Road and Dorset Street as well as the proposed project at 1185 Shelburne Road, which is adjacent to this project. It is critical to continue this pattern if the urban form the City is looking to cultivate along these roadways is to be a reality. 3) Staff strongly recommends the Board discuss with the applicant changing the orientation of the proposed building to be lengthwise along Shelburne Road and including one or more entryways directly onto the adjacent sidewalk on Shelburne Road. C) ACCESS The City’s Comprehensive Plan shows a proposed roadway running south from Fayette Road along the rear (west) side of the applicant’s property. The City is presently in the process of reviewing and receiving an irrevocable offer of dedication for a future street across 1195 Shelburne Road, which is the property to the immediate north of the applicant’s property. Staff considers that a similar connection for the future street is necessary as part of the applicant’s project. 4) Staff strongly recommends the Board discuss and consider the short and longer term implementation of the street connection. 5) Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the dedication of a connection for a future street will be part of the next stage in the review and development process. 6) Staff recommends the applicant discuss with staff, prior to the next stage of the review process, the location of a connection for a future street. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_20_1233ShelburneRoad_LewisRealEstate_Lakewood_building_sketch_Aug_2_2016 4 D) OTHER ISSUES The location of the proposed building and parking appears to staff to be in conflict with existing trees on the east side of the property near Shelburne Road. It is not clear from the plan whether these trees will be removed and, if so, what might replace them. The applicant does not show existing or proposed landscaping on the plan. 7) Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the existing mature trees will be removed as part of this project and strongly encourage the applicant to review whether the trees can remain on the site, if they are in fact slated for removal. 8) Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant what type of landscaping the applicant envisions on the site, particularly what the replacement would be if the trees are to be removed. The proposed new building, as presently oriented, would require a waiver from the Board of the side and front setbacks. The front setback is requested to be 21 feet and the side setback to be 10 ft. Staff considers the front setback waiver to be acceptable if the mature trees are to remain and the building is re-oriented to face Shelburne Road as discussed earlier. Staff has no issue with the side setback waiver. If the placement of the building results in the removal of the trees then staff considers the front setback waiver to be less desirable and would encourage the applicant to find ways of preserving the trees. 9) Staff recommends the Board discuss the front setback waiver request in regards to its relation to the preservation or removal of the trees on the east side of the property and the re-orientation of the proposed building to face Shelburne Road. In future stages of the development process for this application the architecture and scale of the proposed building as compared to those already existing on the site will be important information for the Board to consider. Current architecture on the site has some unique and positive characteristics and staff would consider it beneficial if the proposed building incorporated or complemented those characteristics. 10) Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether there is a concept yet for the proposed building’s architecture and recommend that its design be complementary to what currently exists in the PUD. E) ENERGY STANDARDS Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch 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, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_20_1233ShelburneRoad_LewisRealEstate_Lakewood_building_sketch_Aug_2_2016 5 ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers July 6, 2016 Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: 1233 Shelburne Road Lakewood Commons Dear Ray: On behalf of Lewis Real Estate, we have prepared a Sketch Plan submission for DRB review and consideration. The applicant is still seeking approval for a new building with 1,800 square feet of retail space on the southeast corner of the Lakewood Commons parcel on Shelburne Road. Access to the property will be via an existing one-way driveway on Shelburne Road, and egress will be via Lewis Road and the Holmes Road traffic signal at Shelburne Road. The project is in the Commercial 1 – Auto zoning district and within the Traffic Overlay district. A new 7-space parking area will be constructed, for a net increase of 5 spaces overall on the lot. A sidewalk will connect the new building to the existing sidewalk on the west side of Shelburne Road. Minimum building setbacks are identified on the plan. A 5 ft waiver is requested for the side setback. A 29 ft front setback waiver is requested in order to have the proposed building in line with the existing building immediately adjacent to the south. Enclosed are the following items. x C2-01 Sketch Plan x Sketch Plan application x List of Abutters Based on our understanding of the requirements for Sketch Plan review, we believe the submittal of material for this proposed project to be complete. If you have any questions or comments regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at abby.dery@tcevt.com. Regards, Abigail Dery Project Engineer cc: David A Lewis Enclosed: Sketch Plan Submittal SSSSSSSUPTTTTGGSSSSS6" PVCSSS8" PVC6" PVC6" D.I.W6" D.I.6" D.I.6" D.I.6" D.I.6" D.I. WATER6" PVC6" D.I. 6" D.I. W A T E R SSSSSSS8" PVC SEWER6" D.I.3" D.I.S6" PVCHYDRANT6" D.I.S8" PVCSS6" D.I.8" PVC6" D.I.WWW WWWWWWWW W W W W W WWWWWWWWWWWWWSSSSW WDD8" PVCDEX. CBEX. CB6" PVC8" PVC8" PVCDDEXISTING CATCH BASIN8" PVCDDDDDDDDDDDD D DEXISTING CATCHBASIN RIM = 229.10INV. = 225.40EXISTING STORMM.H. RIM=234.90INV./8"=224.80INV./15"=224.405GGGGGGEX. CBRIM =238.2INV. = 234.5EX.CBBUILDING BBUILDING ABUILDING EBUILDING CBUILDING DBUILDING FUP&TUP&TUPUP UP UP UP UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPEXISTINGSTORM MHr=239.8EX. CBRIM = 238.5INV. = 234.1STORM MH #2RIM = 236.7INV. = 229.9GGT T T DD D D D D DDD MH #1RIM = 246.8INV. = 238.96"PVCG G G G G G G G G GG EXISTING SEWER MHr=239.7i=231.4EX. CBRIM = 244.9INV. = 241.0EXISTING CBEXISTINGCATCH BASINr=239.6i=234.3UPUPUPMH #3RIM = 250.9INV. = 240.5UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP UP EXISTING CBRIM = 241.0INV. = 236.2EXISTING CATCH BASINUPUPMH #1ARIM = 251.3INV. = 240.0MH #2RIM = 250.6INV. = 240.2UPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP UPUPUP & T UP&T UP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TMETER CABINETON CONC. SLAB7PROPOSED SIGNUPUPUPUPUPUPUP 50' SETBACK10'SHELBURNE ROAD21'EXISTINGACURABUILDING15' SETBACKS S S SFARRELL DISTRIBUTING CORP.D. FARRELL TRUSTLEWIS FAMILYPARTNERSHIPSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS8" PVC SEWERSSSSSSSSSSSSSDDDDDDD8" PVCDDDUP UP UP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPEXISTINGSTORM MHr=239.8EXISTING SEWER MHr=239.7i=231.4EXISTINGCATCH BASINr=239.6i=234.3UP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TUP&TMETER CABINETON CONC. SLABPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKPROPOSED SIGNPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKPROPOSED 1800 SFBUILDINGSHELBURNE ROADS S S S S S S S S S S 20080230FeetGraphic Scale10 10 20 30 40Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsDRAFTDRAFTProject Reference:DRAFTDRAFTScale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSDRAFTField Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessarypermits, and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy contains themost current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.Sketch PlanC2-0106/30/16SHOWN16-099NPCLewis Real Estate1233 Shelburn RoadSouth Burlington, VermontPROJECT LOCATIONDRADRADRDRADRADRADRDRADRADRADDRDDRADRADRADRADRARDRADRDRADRDRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRDRADRDRDRDRDRADRADRDRADRDRADRADRADRADRADRADRADDRADRADRADRADRDRRDRADRADRADRADRADRADRADRADDRADRADRADRADRADRADRDRDRADRDRADRADRDDRADRDRADRADRADRDRADRADDDRAADRADRDRDRADRADRDRADRADRDRADRARADRADRDDRARDRDRDRRDRADRDRADRADDDRDRRRRDRADRDDDRDDRRDRRRRRDRADRRARDRDDRRRRADDRRDRRRDRRDRDDDDDRDDDRDRRDDRADRADDRDDDDDDDDDRADDDDDDDDDRDDDDDDDDDDDDRDDDAAAAAAAFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTTFTFTFTFTTFTFTTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTTFTFTFTFTTTTFTTFTFFTTFTFTFTFTTFTFTFTFTFFFTFTFTFTFTFTFFTFTFTTFTFTFTFTFFFTFTTTTFTFTFTFTFTFFFTFFTTFTFTFTTTTTTTFFTFTFTFTFTTTTTTFTFTFFTFTTTFTTFTFTFFFTFTFTFTTFTFTTFFTFTFTTTTFTTTFTFTFFTFFFTFFTTTFTFTTFTFTFTFTFTFTFTFFTTFTTTFTFTTTTFTTTFTFFTFFTFFFTTTTTFTFTFTTTTTTFTFTFTFTTFTFTFTTTTFTFTTFTTFTFTFTTTTTFTTTTFTFTFTTTTTTFTFTTTFTFTTFTFTTTTTTTTTFTTTTTTTTTTFTFTTTTTTTFTTTTFTTTTTFFTFFFFFTTTTTTTFTTTTFTFFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFTFFFFFTTTTTTTFTFFTFFFFFFTTTTTTTTTFFFTTTFTTTTTTTTTFTTTTTTTTTTTTFTTFFFTTTTFFTTTFFTTFFFTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 1201. OWNER OF RECORD: LAKEWOOD COMMONSOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.1233 SHELBURNE RD, SUITE E3SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 054032. DEED REFERENCE: v. 214 p. 202v. 217 p. 1153. APPLICANT: LEWIS REAL ESTATEC/O DAVID A. LEWISP.O. BOX 4511BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05406ZONING DISTRICT: C1-AUTO, TRAFFIC OVERLAY ZONE 2C4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: FRONT - 50 FT*SIDE - 15 FTREAR - 30 FT*CAN BE WAIVED5. LOT AREA: 202,774 SQ. FT. = 4.66 ACRES6. PARKING SPACES: EXISTING - 205PROPOSED- 210COVERAGE CALCULATIONS:BUILDINGSOVERALLFRONT YARDEXISTING: 27,323 SF (13.5%) 118,707 SF (58.5%) 1,572 SF (7.8%)PROPOSED: 29,123 SF (14.4%) 1 124,915 SF (61.6%) 20,054 SF (20.5%EXISTINGPAVEMENT TOBE REMOVED CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_40_1185_1195_ShelburneRd_Larkin_PUD_hotels_r esidential_commercial_sketch_Aug_2_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 29, 2016 Plans received: October 30, 2015, updated materials received June 24 and July 22, 2016 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-15-40 JOHN P. LARKIN – 1185 & 1195 SHELBURNE ROAD Meeting date: August 2, 2016 Owner/Applicant John P. Larkin 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Commercial 1 – Automobile Zoning District- Contact Person Joe Larkin 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) 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, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS The project was previously presented in 2015 and has changed since then in both its composition (ex: more commercial space) and layout. As currently envisioned the project would contain a hotel with 100 guest rooms, 20,000 square feet of leasable commercial/retail space, 200 apartments, and 5,000 square feet of leasable recreation/fitness space. Administrative Office Ray Belair, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the updated plans submitted on June 24, 2016. Based upon the information submitted at this time, the staff is generally comfortable with the elements of this Sketch Plan. Full compliance with the City’s LDRs will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat Review. The applicant has expressed a desire to “create a more urban streetscape where buildings are in the foreground and parking is hidden in the plan interior. The space between the buildings and the city streets is intended to be an active environment supporting both pedestrian circulation and activities like outdoor dining.” Understanding the applicant’s vision, the waiver requests the applicant foresees needing to make that vision a reality, and the goals of the City of South Burlington in the Southwest Quadrant from the Comprehensive Plan, the staff make the following comments. A. Comprehensive Plan A key aspect of PUDs is that they be, according to Section 15.18(10), “consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” According to the Comprehensive Plan this project is located in the Southwest Quadrant where mixed use development along the Shelburne Road corridor is encouraged to promote pedestrian movement, use of public transportation, and shared parking opportunities. Furthermore, mixed use development and redevelopment is specifically encouraged on the west side of Shelburne Road south of I-189, which is where this project is located. One strategy promoted in the Southwest Quadrant by the Plan is to explore opportunities to create “nodes” of concentrated development and public activity along the Shelburne Road corridor. Staff considers that the plan presented by the applicant is in alignment with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, because it is located in an area targeted for mixed use and redevelopment and it could constitute a node of public activity due to its proposed combination of commercial and residential uses with shared parking. B. Circulation & Access The applicant has proposed a 12 foot wide pedestrian way along Shelburne Road (and, perhaps, along other roads surrounding the project, but that remains unclear in the presented plans) rather than a typical-sized five (5) foot sidewalk. This wider paved way would occur in the front yard where coverage is limited to 30% CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 3 and so the applicant anticipates requesting a waiver from the coverage limitation at a future stage of the development review process. Staff considers that a well-designed sidewalk with a screening buffer of shade trees and evergreen bushes between the walk and the street would be a positive addition to the streetscape and encourage the use of the walkway by those living in and visiting the development. Staff also considers that additional measures by the applicant to make the walkway a learning opportunity, such as water infiltration-friendly pervious pavers and native plant species providing habitat for pollinators, could make it a destination and point of interest for pedestrians. These types of measures, or other unique site attributes, could help the applicant meet the standards for a PUD, which include innovation in design and layout and efficient use of land. 1. Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s proposal for a wider walkway resulting in a front yard coverage greater than 30% contingent on the walkway meeting design standards that will encourage pedestrian use. 2. Staff recommends the applicant consider ways the wider walkway could be supportive of an innovative PUD application. The site is proposed to be accessed primarily via Fayette Road from Shelburne Road with a new street bisecting the center of the development. Staff considers that the continuation of the street between the proposed hotel and apartment building (in the southeast and southwest corners of the development respectively) may be unnecessary and could hinder the ability to provide a connected space between the four quadrants of development. Circulation might be improved for pedestrians by eliminating that portion of the street or converting it to a space akin to the Pocket/Mini Park described in Appendix F of the LDRs; however, having building façades that engage with the street as proposed could also be appropriate in this context and create an active pedestrian environment. C. Building Design and Layout In drawings submitted by the applicant, proposed buildings are shown with variation in materials and style, step backs, balconies, and large expanses of windows. Staff considers these designs to be positive in that the variation creates the appearance of a traditional city block, which would be developed by an assortment of people over the course of time and therefore have a variety of designs. While this project is not located in the Form Based Code district, staff considers that some of the building envelope standards laid out for the T-4 zone may closely align with the applicant’s vision for the project. These standards could also assist the Board in understanding how to limit the impact of buildings on their surroundings and encourage pedestrian movement. 3. Staff recommends the applicant consider the building envelope standards set forth in Section 8.13 of the LDRs for the T-4 transect zone as this may most closely align with the applicant’s vision for the project and could therefore be helpful in designing buildings conducive to a multi-use built environment that emphasizes pedestrian movement. The applicant has proposed placing the buildings and their entrances closer to the street than the current 30 foot setbacks would allow. Staff considers that buildings closer to the street would encourage pedestrian movement between businesses, which would support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and allow for more green space in the interior of the development for the use of residential tenants. In combination with the reduced setbacks the applicant is proposing four (4) story buildings whose façades would step back above the second or third floor. This is intended to limit the impact of the buildings on the pedestrian experience by reducing the mass of building immediately visible from the sidewalk. Staff strongly supports CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 4 the concept of the building in the northeast portion of the parcel of presenting an active and architecturally vibrant face to the corner of Shelburne and Fayette Roads, including doorways and commercial space. 4. Staff recommends the Board support the concept of reducing setbacks in order to place buildings closer to the street if that occurs in conjunction with a) the provision of green space for residential tenants and b) building design that is sensitive to the impact of building mass on the pedestrian experience. D. Open Space The applicant has suggested that rooftop open spaces could be part of the open space plan for the development. Staff considers that rooftop open spaces, similar perhaps in concept to a sun terrace as described in Appendix F of the LDRs, could make up a proportion of the onsite open space. Staff would be particularly interested in such spaces if they could be seen in some way from the street level and therefore provide some presence. An upper story green space is unlikely to provide the same level of presence as a ground level green space; however, it could still offer some relief from the solidness of a building and provide some interest to pedestrians below. 5. Staff recommends the Board consider that some portion of the open space and landscaping provided onsite be allowed to occur on rooftops and discuss with the applicant what types of spaces would be acceptable to the Board. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board make suggestions to the applicant on measures/changes to be included in any Preliminary/Final Plat application. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 2 1McDONALDSPANERABREADNORTHFIELDSAVINGS BANKHO HUM MOTELRESIDENCESECTION: FAYETTE DRIVESECTION: SHELBURNE ROADROUTE 7 - SHELBURNE ROADROAD AROAD BADVANCE AUTO PARTSSPORT STYLECINEMA 9SCALE” 1” = 30’06/14/2016FAYETTE DRIVE LARKIN TERRACE | LANDSCAPE INSPIRATION BOARDROOF TOP SOCIAL SPACEOUTDOOR SPACE FOR DINING ON SOUTH OR WEST SIDE APPROPRIATELY SCALED PEDESTRIAN ZONES AND BUFFER FROM STREET SENSE OF CANOPY BY TREES OR LIGHTINGVARIETY OF ARCHITECTURE AND EXTERIOR LINKAGES LARKIN TERRACE INSPIRATION BOARDRABIDEAU ARCHITECTS|550 HINESBURG ROAD S. BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN TERRACE | Streetscape sections07/05/2016 June 27, 2016 Paul Conner AICP, Director of Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Continued Sketch Plan for Larkin Terrace 1185 Shelburne Road C-‐1 Automotive Zone Dear Paul, Thank you to the South Burlington Development Review Board and your staff for your continued engagement on this application. Our goal as a project team is to create a great environment and with your encouragement we are exploring ways we might do that that require DRB discretion or changes in LDRs. For this reason, we would like to focus our time on July 5 showing the DRB the accommodations we seek to make the best possible plan. The issues we wish to discuss with the board are: Streetscape design Standards: Our vision is to create a more urban streetscape where buildings are in the foreground and parking is hidden in the plan interior. The space between the buildings and the city streets is intended to be an active environment supporting both pedestrian circulation and activities like outdoor dining. We seek staff comments and Board input to answer the following: Set Backs: In order to foster a more active, pedestrian oriented front yard we are seeking to push the buildings and building entrances closer to the street. We believe the current 30-‐foot setback reads as too suburban and discourages pedestrian movement from business to business. Would the DRB support a move the place buildings closer to the street? What do staff and the Board members think is an appropriate relationship between building and sidewalk Front Yard Coverage: The LDR’s envision a wide, passive, landscaped buffer between the building lines and the ROW. We would like to provide for more street level activity such as outdoor dining, and a more robust pedestrian way in lieu of a standard 5-‐foot sidewalk. Such a living environment requires more hardscape that the 30% maximum front yard coverage would allow. Would the DRB support greater front yard coverage in service of a more active and occupied streetscape? Does this require changes in the LDRs? Building Mass: Generally, we are applying for four story buildings. If buildings are allowed to move closer to the street, then we think that having the facades step back above the second or third floor would lend appropriate scale to the pedestrian experience. The team also envisions using roof level terraces to supplement available ground level open space. Does stepping facades back in some locations impact your thinking on easing front yard set backs? Do occupied roof spaces address the need for outdoor space discussed in our previous hearings? Project Density: This application includes a mix of units to include multi-‐family, retail, and hotel uses. All of the proposed uses are allowable a part of a PUD per the Uses table in Appendix C of the South Burlington LDRs. The C-‐1 Automotive District provides for 12 units per acre (15 w bonus) Hotel: 100 guest rooms Commercial Space / Retail 20,000 gross leasable area Apartments 200 apartments (requires zoning amendment) Recreation / Fitness 5,000 square feet gross leasable area Dimensional Standards from South Burlington LDR Dated June 27, 2016 Project Area: 224,019 square feet 5.14 acres Minimum Lot Size: 40,000 square feet Lot Area per Dwelling Unit: 3,500 square feet Allowable Building Coverage 40% 89,607.60 sq.ft. 81,200 sq.ft. Proposed Allowable Total Coverage 70% 156,813.30 sq.ft. To be determined Front Yard Setback 30 feet (discuss-‐requires waiver or variance per article 14.07) Side Yard Setback 15 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet (no rear yard found) Parking Required: Hotel: 100 guest rooms 110 spaces Commercial Space / Retail 20,000 GLA 50 spaces Apartments 200 apartments 400 spaces Recreation / Fitness 5,000 GLA 25 spaces Total parking Required: 585 spaces Total parking Proposed: 385 garage / 83 surface (20 % waiver for shared use) The decisions we make together will impact density and layout. We would like to get a sense of the board on this collection of waivers before moving forward with engineering design. Once again, we value your input and look forward to a good discussion on the 5th. Sincerely, Gregory Rabideau AIA Rabideau Architects LARKIN TERRACE | SHELBURNE ROAD R.O.W. SETBACKS06.30.16 Rabideau Architects |550 Hinesburg Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403LARKIN TERRACE Rabideau Architects |550 Hinesburg Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403LARKIN TERRACE Rabideau Architects |550 Hinesburg Rd, South Burlington, VT 05403LARKIN TERRACE LARKIN TERRACE | SHELBURNE ROAD R.O.W. SETBACKS06.30.16 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SD-16-14 150 Swift Street—Eastern Development Corp. DATE: August 2, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Continued sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six (6) two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street. At the June 21, 2016 DRB meeting this application was continued at the applicant’s request and the Board did not discuss it. The staff comments on the project have not changed since that meeting. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sket ch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 17, 2016 Application received: May 20, 2016 150 Swift Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 Meeting Date: June 21, 2016 Owner Martin Thieret 210 Maquam Shore Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 Contact Nathan Dagesse EIV Technical Services 55 Leroy Rd., Suite 15 Williston, VT 05495 Applicant Eastern Development Corp. 300 Swift St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1700-00150 Residential 1 with Planned Residential Development District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six (6) two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements R1-PRD1 Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 217,800 SF 914,760 (21 acres) Max. Building Height 25 ft. (flat), 28 ft. (pitched) Unknown Max. Building Coverage 15% 1.3% Max. Overall Coverage 25% 2% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. >50 ft. Min. Side Setback 25 ft. >25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. 1Section 4.01(F)(1) states that for lots within the Residential 1 District that are five (5) acres in size or more and designated as R1-PRD a PUD may be permitted at a maximum of four (4) units per acre. The applicant is applying under this provision. Eighty-four (84) units are possible given the size of the property and the number of units allowed per acre. Twelve (12) units are proposed. If the applicant were not applying as a PUD under R1-PRD and instead under R1 then one (1) unit per acre would be allowed for a total of 21 units. In both scenarios, the applicant is presenting a project which is less than the maximum density allowed.  Zoning compliance Comments The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major land use regulations impacting this 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. Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: lot configuration, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, open space planning, and building orientation and design. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, 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: Planned Unit Development Standards Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are intended “to encourage innovation in design and layout” and “efficient use of land.” Staff considers that the proposed project of six (6) condominium buildings each with two (2) units does not meet the intention of having innovative designs and layouts. Staff also thinks it may be possible to have more efficient land use with a different layout/orientation on the site. Since the plan is quite limited in details it is difficult to know whether there are any components that CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 would bring a degree of innovation to the project. As the project is presented now it appears to have a standard layout of houses lined up along a street with front facing garages and driveway parking. Staff believes there is an opportunity to redesign this project in a manner that is attractive, saleable, and innovative. The setting is well-suited to a form of pocket neighborhood, making use of a clustering of homes which is already a part of this plan in a manner that support a strong, vibrant, attractive neighborhood. 1. Staff recommends that the Board encourage the applicant to re-design the project in a manner this is more efficient, creates a greater sense of neighborhood, and makes use of its setting. 2. The Board may elect, at this or a future meeting or stage of review, to invoke an independent technical review of the project’s design at the applicant’s expense if they do not think the project meets the intent of the PUD regulations. A. Lot Configuration Lots are to be laid out in such a way as makes it possible for the lot to be developed in full compliance with the land development regulations and “giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions” (Section 15.10). There are no new lots proposed at this time. On the existing lot housing is clustered near Swift Street and away from wetlands and the Potash Brook. The lot presents difficulties in that it has both wetlands, Potash Brook running through it, and steep topography. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking The plans indicate six (6) on-street parking spaces will be provided to visitors of the proposed duplex units and that there will be two (2) parking spaces per unit (single car garage and parking in the driveway). The development is connected by a single street/private roadway which is shown as forming a loop with Swift Street, which results in two curb cuts. It is not known whether sidewalks will be provided along the proposed street. A private roadway is allowed on a road that has at least two (2) points of access and serves 19 or fewer units (Section 15.12(D) (3) (E), which this project represents. Connections to adjacent parcels may be required by the Board if they believe an adjacent property could be developed in the future. Staff notes that the property to the east of the proposed development could currently support additional housing under the R1-PRD regulations. 3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant if they have discussed the likelihood of the neighboring properties being developed in the future with those property owners. 4. Staff recommends the Board consider the likelihood of adjacent parcels being developed in the future and whether the applicant should be required to provide sufficient right-of-way. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss the need for the second curb cut as Swift Street is a collector street. C. Wetlands Impact Section 12.02(E) of the Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedure reads CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows the location on the property of Class II wetlands. The applicant stated in the submitted Project Narrative dated May 19, 2016 that the project would have no wetland impacts and no permanent impacts on the wetland buffers. D. Parks and Open Space Planning The submitted plan does not indicate any designated open space or related amenities onsite. The Project Narrative does say the applicant will “utilize landscaping and paths to the nearby woodland park;” however, it is not clear from the plans how that will be achieved, because paths are not shown and only very minimal and unidentified landscaping is shown. The site will remain largely undeveloped because of wetlands and streams and, with planning, these natural features and the woods may be of benefit to residents. 6. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant explain what they envision for landscaping and open space on the site, particularly what opportunity there will be for residents to connect to the rest of the property as an amenity. E. Building Orientation and Design CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 Details about orientation and design have not been provided other than the general outline of buildings on the lot, so it is difficult for staff to provide substantial comments on the plan at this point; however, several complicating factors do seem present. Three buildings are proposed to front on both the proposed street as well as Swift Street. The proposed building designs as presented are boxes, so it is not possible to tell whether the building orientation and design could lend some innovation or efficiency in use of land to the project. 7. Staff recommends, in a re-design of the project, that consideration be given to how the housing units could be oriented and designed to provide for an integrated neighborhood. F. Stormwater Comments Staff received an email June 13, 2016 from the Stormwater Section: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Overall Property Plan with Proposed Development – 150 Swift Street” prepared by EIB Technical Services, dated 5/12/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The overall lot coverage proposed is currently below 0.5 acres of impervious surface. Should future site plan submissions evolve to include 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. 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. The applicant is encouraged to confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State. 8. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State. G. Fire In an email dated June 9, 2016 Fire Marshall Terry Francis shared the following comment with staff: Not see any concerns on sketch plan as presented 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 The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 6 ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JULY 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 July 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; S. McClellan, J. Crabbe, S. Kredell, F. Cresta 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller advised that both he and Ms. Smith had been reappointed to the DRB. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six two- family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Mr. Parsons noted that he has a conflict of interest with this application, but he would vote on the process as there would otherwise not be a quorum. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-16-14 until 2 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-05 of Stephen Kredell to remove a detached garage and replace it with a 1,130 sq. ft. addition to a 2,155 sq. ft. single family dwelling resulting in: 1) a 142 sq. ft. mudroom, 2) a 493 sq. ft. garage, and 3) a 395 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 34 Wright Court: SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JULY 2016 2 Mr. Kredell said the owners want a place for their parents to live. There is an existing garage with an attached shed. This will be replaced with a 2-bay garage with an accessory unit in back. It will be connected to the house via a mudroom. The house will remain owner-occupied. Mr. Miller asked the applicant to confirm whether there will be a door from the accessory unit to the main house. He said the preference is for no connection because of the potential of fumes from the garage. Mr. Kredell said as no door is shown that this be considered the final plan. Mr. Cota then moved to close #CU-16-05. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-16 of Burlington International Airport to subdivide a 0.38 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 0.22 acres (lot #1) and 0.16 acres (lot #2), 12 Ledoux Terrace: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-16 to 23 August 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Sit Plan Application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers), of 342 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive: Mr. McClellan said the building had a previous addition. This is a new addition which will be used for the business. Trucks will back up to 2 overhead doors. The storage containers on the site are for equipment. Mr. McClellan indicated their location on the plan. Regarding landscaping, Mr. McClellan indicated the area where staff suggests screening. He felt as there was already some screening there, more is not needed. Staff also suggests screening behind storage boxes, but the adjacent property owner is filling in near that area, and it may not make sense to put trees there. Mr. Crabbe, owner of the Moveable Peaks parcel, added that the adjacent property owner says there will be 5-10 years of filling. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JULY 2016 3 Part of a land swap deal is that the adjacent owner will also fill in a portion of the Crabbe property. Mr. McClellan said they will provide screening for the dumpster. They are also aware of the Act 148 requirements. He indicated the area being filled in and noted the property was bought as a place to put fill from other sites. Mr. McClellan indicated three trees being credited. Ms. Britt said staff wasn’t sure those trees are being “saved” because they are not part of the project. Mr. McClellan said they screen the project from one side. Regarding the storage containers, Mr. McClellan showed their location on the site and said they are permanent storage areas. There is also a lot of movement of equipment on the site. Mr. McClellan also showed the location of a small propane storage rack which will remain. Mr. Crabbe said the propane goes with some of the equipment they rent. Members felt they wanted to hear from the owner of the property to the west as to whether screening would be a hindrance. They felt a quick e-mail would be OK, and they would be able to vote on a draft motion at the next meeting. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SP-16-38 to 2 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-17 of Cresta, Nedde 2, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 49,159 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of obtaining approval for a planned unit development to divide the building into two buildings of 5,010 sq. ft. and 44,149 sq. ft., 1891 Williston Road: Mr. Cresta said they are asking to remove a connector between the buildings which has no use. He indicated this on the plan and noted that the connector is actually accessible from only one of the buildings. They will probably just put grass in the area. No issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-17. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JULY 2016 4 9. Minutes of 21 June and Joint Planning Commission/DRB Meeting of 12 April 2016: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 21 July and the joint meeting of 12 April 2016 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:45 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date