Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 08/23/2016
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 23 AUGUST 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 23 August 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman, M. Behr (by phone for item #5) ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; E. Von Turkovich, N. Dagesse, N. Lesser-Goldsmith, T. Barritt, D. Seff, Sr. L. della Santo, T. Barden, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, M. Scollins, G. Davis, S. Ploof, S. Young, E. Steele, M. Ostbey, G. Farrell, A. Rowe, C. Snyder, L. Kleh, J. Milbank, B. & K. Dutra, J. Painter, G. Irish, K. Barlow, J. Nichols, D. Burton, J. Floyd, P. Gailblott, S. Cooley, K. O’Brien, B. Marroquin 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. Establish regular meeting dates & times Members agreed to delay reorganization until this is a full Board present. 5. 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. Kochman and Ms. Smith recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Behr participated in the hearing via telephone. Mr. Dagesse said there would be 6 separate buildings for a total of 12 units. He stressed that this is a very preliminary plan and they are looking for feedback on how best to lay out and orient the buildings. There is an existing building on the site which will be removed. Everything to the north is a ravine for the Potash Brook watershed. There has been a wetland review, and nothing in the proposed project would affect the wetland buffer. Mr. Miller then reviewed the staff comments as follows: The project should be redesigned to be more efficient and to provide a greater sense of neighborhood. There should be more innovation to make use of clustering of homes. Staff suggests trying to cooperate with neighbors in regard to layout. Mr. Von Turkovich said they have spoken with both the Erdmans and UVM people, and they are not interested. Regarding the second curb cut Mr. Belair noted there can be 19 units if there is a private street and if there are 2 curb cuts. Mr. Von Turkovich said they have the duplex units because that is the maximum number of units the can have without having to have parking in the rear. They would entertain some triplexes and four-plexes with some flexibility in parking. Mr. Wilking felt there are too many units for such a difficult site. Mr. Miller asked about landscaping. Mr. Dagesse said they plan to connect to the walking trail system. Landscaping would fit with the surrounding forest and fields. Mr. Miller felt the buildings should be oriented for more of a neighborhood feel. He suggested the possibility of a PUD process which would allow more flexibility with setbacks, etc. He felt it now looks like the buildings are “shoe‐horned” in. He suggested the possibility of a “courtyard” effect. A member of the audience felt the street was very narrow and would be dangerous for walkers and bikers. Mr. Behr suggested mixing in some different housing types (e.g., cottage). He said he would support a setback waiver to move the houses up closer to the street. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 20 September. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Kochman and Ms. Smith rejoined the Board. Mr. Behr no longer participated in the meeting. 6. Master Signage Permit/Sign Design Review Permit application #DR-16-04 of Healthy Living Market & Café to amend a previously approved Master Signage Permit. The amendment consists of 1) allowing three primary colors, and 2) allowing internal illumination of signs, 222 Dorset Street: Ms. Lesser-Goldsmith said they have updated their logo and will replace signs using the new logo. Signs will be in the same location and will be the same size. All signs are back-lit. She showed the colors that will be used. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #DR-16-04. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-04 and Site Plan Application #SP-16-35 or Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) replacing the first base dugout with a 32’x8’ dugout, 2) replacing the third base dugout with a 22’x32’ dugout, 3) replacing the backstop, and 4) placing 6,449 cubic yards of fill on the front lawn, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Barden said the baseball facility has been changed. A structure on the first baseline was falling apart and has been replaced. It was moved back into the woods by 4-6 feet. The one on the 3rd baseline is larger by a few feet. It has an 8-foot wide door leading to storage space. They also leveled off a section of the lawn area and seeded and mulched it. Mr. Miller stressed the need to establish a relationship with the volunteers so that work is not done “after the fact” in the future. Sr. della Santo said the Diocese would like that as well, and they are developing a facilities committee to address that issue. Mr. Belair said the applicant will have to provide the height of the backstop. Mr. Wilking said he was disappointed with the drawings and would like to see pictures. He felt the building is significant and should have been seen by the DRB. The applicant agreed to provide pictures. Sr. della Santo said they are committed to following due process in the future. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #CU-16-04 and #SP-16-35 to 6 September 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-23 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to add 117 additional residential units to a previously reviewed sketch plan (#SD-16-11) for 360 units on 50 acres which includes an unspecified amount of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langfeldt reviewed the history of the project. He indicated new city road labeled “A” “C,” “D” and “E”. The area is zoned R-12. Because of the steep site, there would be a lower density to the south and west of the site and higher density to the north. Mr. Gill noted there is a Master Plan for the 37 acres. Mr. Langfeldt should a plan indicating the residential “zones,” park areas and the trail network which will connect to the city recreation paths. The central park area would be conveyed to the city at some point. Mr. Gill pointed out the proposed bus stops and crosswalks. He also indicated a proposed new rec path. He distinguished between the more “formal” park and the more “natural” park areas. Mr. Wilking said he was fine with the plan but was concerned about traffic. Mr. Miller noted that staff recommends the applicant meet with the Recreation Committee regarding parks and trails. Mr. Kochman asked if there are guidelines regarding the relationship of parkland to residents. Mr. Langfeldt said consultant Sharon Murray recommends 15-20% open space. He added that they are providing about 25%. Mr. Kochman asked how much of that 25% is usable open space. Mr. Gill said the site is 37 acres, and they have 38% coverage which is less than 50%. 20-25% is continuous open space, mainly the large park area. Mr. Wilking said he was fine with the park space. He was concerned that 117 units represents only R-3, and this is an R-12 zone. He asked if there is a way to increase density. Mr. Langfeldt said there is an existing development pattern on Eldridge Street and they don’t want to “dwarf” those people. There will be a much denser feel to the north. Mr. Miller noted that the DRB supports the Fire Marshall’s and Stormwater Superintendent’s comments. Mr. Langfeldt said the Public Works Director seems to be OK with the plan, depending of “future plans.” Mr. Miller then asked about waivers. Mr. Gill said the plan reflects the waivers they have requested on the Master Plan including setback waivers (he indicated these on the plan), and some street waivers to connect the streets (he said Mr. Rabidoux supports this). Mr. Miller indicated a specific setback he has an issue with. Mr. Gill said there are actually over 100 feet between the buildings at that point, though it is hard to see on the plan. Mr. Belair explained the provision for setback modification in the LDRs. Ms. Davis of 101 Eldridge Street said their porches and windows would be only 5 feet from the proposed project instead of the required 30 feet (the applicant said this is actually 10 feet). She asked the Board to consider this as it will ruin their views to have the townhouses right on top of them. Mr. Miller said this is definitely on the Board’s “radar” and they will keep a close eye on it. Mr. Ploof, also of 101 Eldridge Street, said the real issue is with the setback waiver. In the fall through spring, all the leaves are gone, and they will have no privacy and all they will see are these units. He felt those units could be moved and that a 30-foot setback is very reasonable. He asked the Board not to grant that waiver. Mr. Dutra expressed concern with traffic and with cars cutting through Eldridge Street to go east on Kennedy Drive. He was also concerned with runoff going down into their area. Mr. Miller said there are stormwater regulations and runoff will be addressed. Mr. Langfeldt said there was a very detailed traffic study, and they are specifically designing “neighborhood” streets which are narrower. He felt the setback comments are legitimate, and they are trying to achieve an entire package. They want to figure out what is best, and they can make adjustments. He added they were happy to work with neighbors. Mr. Young agreed with the comments of the previous Eldridge Street residents. Mr. Steele, also of that address, said a lot of the trees would be cut down and the buildings would be right in their face. He felt those 2 proposed buildings should be moved to the other end of the park. Ms. Ostbey said the School Board should be advised as to how many children are anticipated. Mr. Miller stressed that there will be two more levels of much more rigorous review and neighbors will be advised of these reviews. Mr. Kochman suggested foresting an area between the developments with large trees. Mr. Langfeldt said they would like to move on to preliminary plat. No other issues were raised. 9. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Belair noted that this application could not be heard as a Master Plan and Sketch Plan cannot be heard on the same night. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #MP-16-01 to 6 September. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-16-13 of O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, to subdivide a 49.9 acre parcel into eight lots ranging in size from 1.94 acres to 13.51 acres, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langfeldt said this is just an internal shuffling. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-16-13. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-16-18 of the Snyder Group, Inc., for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 18 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten 2- family dwellings, 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder said they have integrated comments from the DRB and from neighbors and have met with staff and made modifications accordingly. There will be a total of 47 homes which would be accessed from Spear Meadow Road. Mr. Snyder noted this is a receiving zone for TDRs which would allow the additional density. He showed the location of carriage homes, duplex units and town homes. He also indicated the stormwater facility and the extension of Vale Drive on the east boundary line. There is a large future park area (lot 52) which will be deeded to the city. Mr. Snyder showed the existing home that will remain and will be accessed from Spear Meadow Road. A second house on the property will not remain. Mr. Miller noted that the Fire Chief has asked that the homes on the private street be sprinklered. Mr. Snyder said they are asking for a waiver on that. He said there will be hydrants throughout the neighborhood. Ms. Britt said the DRB can waive that upon the recommendation of the Fire Chief. Mr. Snyder said they are also asking to phase the hydrants as the housing is phased. Mr. Belair said they should check with the Fire Chief on that as well. Mr. Miller asked about landscaping between the dwelling units. Mr. Snyder said they can provide a typical for each home type. Mr. Miller also noted a request from staff regarding to home design guidelines. Staff suggests varying 3 of the variables instead of 2. Mr. Snyder said that would be a challenge. The can change the elevation and the color but not the orientation (that would require changing the road). Mr. Wilking suggested saying “where possible.” Mr. Snyder said they could agree to that. There is a staff recommendation that duplexes with frontage on Spear Street be harmonious with other Spear Street buildings. Mr. Snyder said architecturally there would be an indication that the buildings are facing Spear St. Buildings 46 and 47 can have a walkway to Spear Meadow Road. They will make sure the elevation looks like a front elevation (e.g. gables, etc.). Mr. Kochman suggested a possible hedge as well. Mr. Wilking said he would like to see the elevations; he didn’t necessarily recommend a hedge. Mr. Belair noted the plan meets the minimum landscaping requirement. Mr. Snyder said there are also street trees for a total of $240,000. Mr. Miller asked about snow storage. Mr. Snyder said this will be noted on the final plan. Snow will be stored off the edge of driveways. Mr. Miller asked about the location of footprint lot lines and whether the area will allow homeowners to pursue types of activities suggested by the applicant. Mr. Snyder said this can get very subjective. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t grasp the lot line not being recognized as a “legal subdivision.” Mr. Belair explained this concept. Mr. Snyder noted the Stormwater Superintendent has asked that the ponds be fenced. He didn’t feel that is necessary. Mr. Belair said they should talk to Public Works about this. Mr. Snyder also noted a challenge with garage setbacks for the duplexes on Spear Meadow. He asked that the words “when the garage faces the street” be added to the recommended language. There were no objections raised to this. Mr. Miller then reviewed the waivers being requested including the following: 1- Reduction of minimum lot size 2- 10 foot front yard setback provided garages are set back 25 feet 3- 20-foot rear yard setback 4- Calculation of building and lot coverage to allow clustering The Board voiced no objections to the requested waivers. Mr. Kochman asked if the units could be sold as condominiums. Mr. Snyder said not in today’s regulatory financing. Mr. Rowe said that would also be cumbersome from an engineering point of view. The public was then asked to comment. Mr. Seff, representing several neighbors, said the base density is 31 units, and he believed the city’s TDR bylaw is invalid, and the additional units should not be allowed. He felt that all the problems with the development relate to density. He also noted a dead end street that is 320 feet long when the regulations said it should not be longer than 200 feet. He also felt the park should be where it was originally proposed. Mr. Farrell, the landowner, said they had originally proposed 31 homes. Because all land in Vermont is prime ag at some level (this land is rated at 7, which is at the low end of the prime ag spectrum), the Ag. Department didn’t want 31 buildings impacting that much soil. They liked the idea of clustering. Mr. Scollins spoke against the location of the park and rec path. He felt the original park location provided good views and was more accessible. Mr. Rowe said they have spoken with Maggie Leugers and staff and they support park space on Vale Drive. Mr. Snyder added there is a path from the park space to the more upland areas. Mr. Snyder said they have done a thorough review of the regulations with lawyers to allow the TDRs to be used in the city. Mr. Barritt asked if there would be turn lanes on Spear Meadow Drive. Mr. Rowe said there would be no dedicated turn lane. A member of the audience asked if the single family homes at the edge of Vale Drive would be “locked in” at single story homes or whether they could be made into 2-story homes. Mr. Miller said his sense was the DRB would say they would be selected from a set of guidelines which could be only single story. Mr. Snyder said they could limit the roof line so they would look like single family homes. Ms. Ostbey asked if there was a traffic study for Spear Street. Mr. Rowe said they have met with Public Works which recommends a turn lane from Spear Street, which they will do. Mr. Barritt cautioned against too tight a turn (such as at Trader Joe’s light). Mr. Belair noted the applicant has done a traffic study which is being reviewed by Public Works. Mr. Barritt asked about a flashing LED pedestrian crossing light. Mr. Rowe said not at the Spear St. intersection because there is nothing on the other side to “receive” people. Mr. Farrell said there are more bikers than walkers on Spear St., and it would be nice if the Spear St. rec path were wider. Members agreed to continue the application until they see the traffic report. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-18 until 20 September. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Continued 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 Drive: Mr. Miller asked what will happen to the off-street lot. Mr. Milbank said it will be absorbed into the rest of the Airport property. Mr. Miller reminded the applicant that whatever lot it goes into must have frontage. Mr. Belair added that it must also be surveyed. Mr. Milbank said he would have to talk with the Airport people to see what their plans are. No other issues were raised. 13. Minutes of 19 July 2016: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 July 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Wilking abstaining. 14. 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 10:31 p.m. , Clerk 9/20//2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sket ch 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: August 23, 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 #DR-16-04 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING HEALTHY LIVING MARKET & CAFE—222 DORSET STREET MASTER SIGNAGE PLAN #DR-16-04 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Master Signage Permit/Sign Design Review Permit application #DR-16-04 of Healthy Living Market & Café to amend a previously approved Master Signage Permit. The amendment consists of: 1) allowing three (3) primary colors, and 2) allowing internal illumination of signs, 222 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 23, 2016. The applicant was represented by ______________. 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, Healthy Living Market & Cafe, seeks to amend a previously approved Master Signage Permit. The amendment consists of: 1) allowing three (3) primary colors, and 2) allowing internal illumination of signs, 222 Dorset Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Loja Burlington, LLC. 3. The application was received on August 10, 2016. 4. The applicant submitted renderings of the proposed freestanding and wall sign designs totaling six (6) pages. 5. The property lies within the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. 6. The applicant is seeking to define the color scheme, allow LED internal illumination for new signs, the use of cut-out letters for wall signs, the use of polycarbonate panel signage for wall and freestanding signs, and the use of aluminum returns surrounding polycarbonate panels and cut-out letters. Sign Ordinance Section 6: Dorset Street/City Center Sign District of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance reads in part that the Development Review Board must consider the following standards: (1) Consistent Design: the design of a sign shall consider and be compatible and harmonious with the design of buildings on the property and nearby. The design of all signs on a property shall promote consistency in terms of color, graphic style, lighting, location, material and proportions. #DR-16-04 2 (2) Promote City Center Goals: signs shall be designed and located in a manner which reinforces and respects the overall stated goals of the sign district and City Center Plan, including a high aesthetic quality and pedestrian orientation. (3) Color and Texture: the color and texture of a sign shall be compatible and harmonious with buildings on the property and nearby. The use of a maximum of three (3) predominant colors is encouraged to provide consistent foreground, text and background color schemes. The applicant submitted materials showing two (2) configurations for the logo. One configuration (horizontal) shows the logo with the words “Healthy Living Market & Café” to the right. The second configuration (vertical) shows the logo with the words below it. The horizontal version is intended for a wall sign at the northwest corner of the building and a hanging sign above the main entrance. The vertical version is intended for the freestanding sign on Dorset Street. There is consistent design in the two (2) configurations as both use the same fonts, use of upper and lower case letters, the same logo, and the same colors (red, green, and also beige on the freestanding and hanging signs). The Board finds that these criterion are met. (4) Materials Used: signs shall be designed and constructed of high-quality materials complimentary to the materials used in the buildings to which the signs are related. The existing posts and frame (steel), previously approved, for the freestanding sign will remain. Additional materials being used include polycarbonate panels, acrylic faces, and vinyl. The Board finds that all the materials are appropriately suited for outdoor application. Section 8(d) reads in part that the board must consider the following: (1) The initial application for a Master Signage Permit shall establish a consistent set of parameters for the shapes, materials, foreground and background color schemes, typefaces, sizes, installations and sign types to be utilized for a property and shall include color illustrations thereof. (2) Applicants are strongly encouraged to specify parameters that will lead over time to creating a strong consistency of shape, foreground and background color scheme, typeface, size, and installation in order to ensure that all signage on a property is in accordance with the goals of the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. (3) All Master Signage Permit applications shall specify how one or more of these graphic elements will be used to relate all of the signs to each other visually. (4) Applicants may request a review and approval of a range of potential sizes for individual signs, so that an application for an individual sign of approved materials, color and design that is within an approved size range will require only approval of the Code Officer. All the signs are related to each other visually, because each will use the same logo design and color scheme. The variation among the signs (wall, freestanding, and hanging) will result from the use the horizontal or vertical arrangement of the logo. The Board finds these criterion are met. Section 9 addresses standards specifically for freestanding signs. (h) Dorset Street/City Center Sign District. Free-standing signs along Dorset Street are to be #DR-16-04 3 located in a sign corridor that begins adjacent to the road Right of Way and runs sixteen (16) feet from the edge of the Right of Way toward the building face. In those instances where dimensions do not provide for a two (2) foot setback from the Right of Way before a sign support post can be located, it is permitted to erect a centered single pole mounted sign of which the road side edge of the sign is directly outside the R.O.W. line. Free- standing signs in the Dorset Street/City Center District may not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in overall dimensions and may be no higher than twelve (12) feet, measured from the average finished grade at the base of the sign to the highest point of any part of the sign structure. The location of freestanding signs is not under consideration in this application as it will remain the same. Section 10 addresses standards specifically for wall signs. Wall signs shall be permitted only in accordance with the following provisions: (a) Number of wall signs. The allowable number and area of wall signs shall be as set forth in Table 10-1 below. (b) Area of wall signs. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, the total area of all wall signs shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the area of the principal public façade of the building or one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is smaller. South Burlington Sign Ordinance Effective May 3, 2010 (2) In no case shall any individual wall sign exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the area of the façade to which it is attached. The applicant is permitted two (2) wall signs. The signs total 97.44 square feet and are within the allotted percentages for coverage of the façade. The Board finds these criterion are met. (c) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, wall signs may not project above the roof or parapet of a building nor below the top of any first floor doorway unless permitted through the design review approval process. The sign which will hang above the main entrance is replacing a pre-existing sign. (d) It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, alter, maintain or relocate any wall sign that covers, wholly or partially, any wall opening or to erect, alter, maintain or relocate any wall sign that projects beyond the ends or top of the wall to which it is attached. A wall opening is any opening exclusively provided for a window, door or removable panel. (e) Multi-tenant buildings and multi-building properties (1) … (2) … (3) … The Board finds the above criterion to be inapplicable. (f) Areas of walls within which paint, lighting or other treatments are used to highlight or enclose an area of wall on which cutout letters or other signs are installed shall be deemed to be part #DR-16-04 4 of the wall sign for all intents and purposes of this Ordinance, and shall be subject to all applicable provisions of this Ordinance. (g) A wall sign shall not project from the wall in excess of nine (9) inches, except for raceway signs. A raceway sign may project up to fifteen (15) inches from the wall to which it is attached The proposed wall sign will project five (5) inches from the wall. The Board finds this criteria to be met. (h) … Section 21 specifically addresses internally illuminated signs. (e) In the Dorset Street/City Center Sign District, internally illuminated signs shall utilize opaque backgrounds and translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, so as to insure that the lettering, logos and/or graphics are illuminated rather than the background. Translucent backgrounds utilizing dark colors may be used with white, clear or other light translucent letters, logos and/or graphics, provided the Design Review Committee determines that the effect will be consistent with the intent of this provision. The proposed signs will be internally illuminated with LED lights and only the lettering and logo will be lit. The background of the freestanding and hanging sign will be opaque. The Board finds this criteria to be met. DECISION Motion by ____________, seconded by _________, to approve sign design review application #DR-16- 04 of Healthy Living Market & Café, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. The freestanding and hanging signs will use three (3) colors: red, green, and an opaque beige background. The wall sign will use two (2) colors: red and green. 3. The signs will be internally illuminated with LED lights that ensure only the lettering and logo are illuminated and not the background. 4. 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. 5. The applicant must obtain sign permits consistent with the master sign approval and specific standards of the Sign Ordinance in effect at the time of application from the Code Officer prior to any changes to signs on the property. 6. Any change to the approved sign design will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. #DR-16-04 5 7. Pursuant to Section 20 of the Sign Ordinance, all signs must be of substantial and sturdy construction, kept in good repair, and painted or cleaned as necessary to maintain a clean, safe, and orderly appearance. 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. þĒēĝÊċĜĞġęĜĕÊēĝÊĞĒďÊĚĜęĚďĜĞģÊęĐÊìĜęċĎġċģÊøċĞēęĘċĖØÊÿĘċğĞĒęĜēĤďĎÊğĝďÖÊĚğČĖēčċĞēęĘÊęĜÊĎēĝĞĜēČğĞēęĘÊēĝÊĚĜęĒēČēĞďĎØÊ'RUVHW6WUHHW6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97-RE1XPEHU 6LJQ7\SH 'HVFULSWLRQ $(5,$/3/$1 4XDQWLW\ $(5,$/3/$16&$/( 176&RQWDFW 2FHDQ$YHQXH5RQNRQNRPD1< Â3)þĒēĝÊċĜĞġęĜĕÊēĝÊĞĒďÊĚĜęĚďĜĞģÊęĐÊìĜęċĎġċģÊøċĞēęĘċĖØÊÿĘċğĞĒęĜēĤďĎÊğĝďÖÊĚğČĖēčċĞēęĘÊęĜÊĎēĝĞĜēČğĞēęĘÊēĝÊĚĜęĒēČēĞďĎØÊ-5+HDOW\/LYLQJ0DUNHW &DIH'RUVHW6WUHHW6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976HH'UDZLQJ'DWH -RE1XPEHU 3URMHFW0DQDJHU -RE1DPH $GGUHVV 6FDOH 'UDZQ%\ 5HYLVHG $SSURYHG$$SSURYHGZLWK&RUUHFWLRQV5HMHFWHG5HYLVHDQG5HVXEPLW6LJQDWXUH 'DWH ..$$%%&&127(6 6,*1$ (;,67,1* ·;·µ 64)7352326(' 1&6,*1% (;,67,1* ·µ;·µ 64)7352326(' [µ 64)76,*1& (;,67,1* ·µ;·µ 64)7·µ; ·µ 64)7352326(' '))5((67$1',1*6LJQ7\SH 'HVFULSWLRQ /(',//80,1$7(' 4XDQWLW\ &RQWDFW 2FHDQ$YHQXH5RQNRQNRPD1< Â3)'))5((67$1',1*6,*16&$/( µ·$$6T)W66)) 6T )W66666666TT66T6T6T6TT)W)W)W)W)W)W))W)W)W)W6T6T6T6TT6T6T6T6T66TTTTTT)W)W)W)W)W)W)WW(;,67,1*352326('&RORU.H\3065('306*5((1306 %(,*(127(6 32676:,7+µ)$&(:,'7+;µ5(7851'(37+67((/,%($0:,7+:(/'(')/$7723&$3$//3$,17(''$5.%52:1 6:32/,6+('0$+2*21< (;,67,1*725(0$,1723 %27720%($0µ)$&(:,'7+;µ5(7851'(37+67((/&+$11(/3$,17(''$5.%52:1 6:32/,6+('0$+2*$1< (;,67,1*725(0$,1,)3266,%/(%%&&''$$µ$OXPLQXP5HWXUQV3DLQWHG306*UHHQµ5HWDLQHUV370306*UHHQ&&%%3RO\FDUERQDWH:LWK2SDTXH%DFNJURXQG$QG,OOXPLQDWHG/RJR$QG/HWWHULQJ:KLWH/('/LJKWLQJ''6FUHZV3705HWXUQV(('LVFRQQHFW6ZLWFK))/('3RZHU6XSSO\**:HHS+ROH:LWK/LJKW%DIIOH++++**([LVWLQJ93ULPDU\3RZHU7R%H5HXVHG,,'LVFRQQHFW6ZLWFK,,þĒēĝÊċĜĞġęĜĕÊēĝÊĞĒďÊĚĜęĚďĜĞģÊęĐÊìĜęċĎġċģÊøċĞēęĘċĖØÊÿĘċğĞĒęĜēĤďĎÊğĝďÖÊĚğČĖēčċĞēęĘÊęĜÊĎēĝĞĜēČğĞēęĘÊēĝÊĚĜęĒēČēĞďĎØÊ-5+HDOW\/LYLQJ0DUNHW &DIH'RUVHW6WUHHW6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976HH'UDZLQJ'DWH -RE1XPEHU 3URMHFW0DQDJHU -RE1DPH $GGUHVV 6FDOH 'UDZQ%\ 5HYLVHG $SSURYHG$$SSURYHGZLWK&RUUHFWLRQV5HMHFWHG5HYLVHDQG5HVXEPLW6LJQDWXUH 'DWH ..)) (($$(1/$5*(''(7$,/ &+$11(//(77(566LJQ7\SH 'HVFULSWLRQ /(',//80,1$7(' 4XDQWLW\ /(',//80,1$7('&+$11(//(77(566&$/( µ·%%&RQWDFW 2FHDQ$YHQXH5RQNRQNRPD1< Â3)6(&7,21'(7$,/176127(6 $//(/(&75,&$/3$576 $66(0%/,(68//,67('$33529('8//$%(/6$77$&+('$77232)6,*1,)5(48,5('$OXPLQXP5HWXUQV370306*UHHQ 3065HG5HWXUQV:LOO0DWFK)DFH&RORU)RU(DFK&KDUDFWHU$$µ&RQWLQXRXV-HZHOLWH7ULP&DS)XVVHG7R$FU\OLF)DFH3705HWXUQV%%$OXPLQXP%DFNVZLWK:KLWH,QVLGH&&&OHDU$FU\OLF)DFHVZLWK'LJLWDOO\SULQWHGYLQ\ODSSOLHGILUVWVXUIDFHWRPDWFKUHWXUQV''((5HG*UHHQ/('/LJKWLQJ7R0DWFK)DFHV1RQ&RUURVLYHµ7KUX%ROWV:LWK)HQGHU:DVKHUV 1XWV0RXQWLQJ+DUGZDUH0D\9DU\7R6XLW:DOO&RQGLWLRQV))µ'LDPHWHU'UDLQ+ROH 0LQ3HU/HWWHU :LWK/LJKW%DIIOH**/('3RZHU6XSSO\++Y3ULPDU\3RZHU-XQFWLRQ%R[,,'LVFRQQHFW6ZLWFK--3RZHU6XSSO\(QFORVXUH%R[..ûğċĘĞēĞģä%%&&''(())$$..,,**++6T)W66)) 6T )W66666666TT66T6T6T)W)W)W)W)W)W))W)W)W6T6T6T6TT6T6T6T6T66TTTTTT)W)W)W)W)W)W)WW&RORU.H\3065('306*5((1(;,67,1*352326('127(6 %52$':$<:,//5(029((;,67,1*/,*+7),;785(65(5287(35,0$5<32:(5726,*1$1'5(3$,5)$&$'(,1/,(82))8//)$&$'(5(6725$7,215(3$,5('$5($0$<127%($3(5)(&70$7&+,1&2/257(;785(250$7(5,$/ 'LVFRQQHFW6ZLWFK-- 9,) 9,) þĒēĝÊċĜĞġęĜĕÊēĝÊĞĒďÊĚĜęĚďĜĞģÊęĐÊìĜęċĎġċģÊøċĞēęĘċĖØÊÿĘċğĞĒęĜēĤďĎÊğĝďÖÊĚğČĖēčċĞēęĘÊęĜÊĎēĝĞĜēČğĞēęĘÊēĝÊĚĜęĒēČēĞďĎØÊ-5+HDOW\/LYLQJ0DUNHW &DIH'RUVHW6WUHHW6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976HH'UDZLQJ'DWH -RE1XPEHU 3URMHFW0DQDJHU -RE1DPH $GGUHVV 6FDOH 'UDZQ%\ 5HYLVHG $SSURYHG$$SSURYHGZLWK&RUUHFWLRQV5HMHFWHG5HYLVHDQG5HVXEPLW6LJQDWXUH 'DWH .. 3$5.,1*:$//6,*16LJQ7\SH 'HVFULSWLRQ /(',//80,1$7(' 4XDQWLW\ &RQWDFW 2FHDQ$YHQXH5RQNRQNRPD1< Â3),//80,1$7(':$//6,*1237,216&$/( µ·&&&RORU.H\3065('306*5((1306 %(,*($$µ$OXPLQXP5HWXUQV3DLQWHG306*UHHQµ5HWDLQHUV370306*UHHQ&&0RXQWLQJ+DUGZDUH7R%H)LHOG9HULILHG''%%3RO\FDUERQDWH:LWK2SDTXH%DFNJURXQG$QG,OOXPLQDWHG/RJR$QG/HWWHULQJ:KLWH/('/LJKWLQJ((µ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þĒēĝÊċĜĞġęĜĕÊēĝÊĞĒďÊĚĜęĚďĜĞģÊęĐÊìĜęċĎġċģÊøċĞēęĘċĖØÊÿĘċğĞĒęĜēĤďĎÊğĝďÖÊĚğČĖēčċĞēęĘÊęĜÊĎēĝĞĜēČğĞēęĘÊēĝÊĚĜęĒēČēĞďĎØÊ-5+HDOW\/LYLQJ0DUNHW &DIH'RUVHW6WUHHW6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976HH'UDZLQJ'DWH -RE1XPEHU 3URMHFW0DQDJHU -RE1DPH $GGUHVV 6FDOH 'UDZQ%\ 5HYLVHG $SSURYHG$$SSURYHGZLWK&RUUHFWLRQV5HMHFWHG5HYLVHDQG5HVXEPLW6LJQDWXUH 'DWH .. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Development Review Board From: Paul Simon, Project Manager Date: August 2, 2016 Re: Healthy Living Market & Café Master Sign Permit Amendment Application for 222 Dorset Street. The purpose of this Master Sign Permit Amendment Application is to simply to allow for the following signage improvements at Healthy Living Market & Café 222 Dorset Street (Healthy Living). The proposed signage will be compatible and harmonious with the design of the buildings and adjacent property north of Garden Street. One color scheme with three primary colors will be used for consistency for the proposed wall and freestanding signs and as previously approved. In addition, allowing internal illumination for these signs will be consistent with the neighboring property and harmonious in terms of color, graphics, lighting and appearance as per the city’s sign ordinance regulations. The following itemizes a list of signage standards included with this amendment request (see example plans attached): Primary Colors Red, Green and off-white Allow LED internal illumination for new signs Use of cut-out letters for wall signs Use of polycarbonate panel signage (opaque beyond lettering) for wall and freestanding signs. Use of aluminum returns surrounding polycarbonate panels & cut-out letters Page 2 of 2 In summary, we request the Development Review Board to approve this amendment to the master sign permit to allow for the primary colors indicated, sign standards discussed and internal illumination for 222 Dorset Street. An example plan set prepared by Broadway International (latest revision date 7-21- 2016) is included as a reference. These example plans are to help portray the ideas and concept for a future sign permit application only. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_04_and_SP_16_35_99ProctorAve_RiceMemorial_du gouts_lawnfill DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 1, 2016 Plans received: June 8, 2016 99 Proctor Ave. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-04 and Site Plan Application #SP-16-35 Meeting date: August 23, 2016 Owner Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. 55 Joy Drive South Burlington, VT Applicant Rice Memorial High School 99 Proctor Ave. South Burlington, VT Property Information Parcel #1390-00099 Residential 4 Zoning District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_04_and_SP_16_35_99ProctorAve_RiceMemorial_dugouts_lawnfill_July_5_2016_mtg 2 Project Description Conditional use application #CU-16-04 & site plan review application #SP-16-35 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of: 1) replacing the first base dugout with a 32’ X 8’ dugout, 2) replacing the third base dugout with a 22’ X 32’ dugout, 3) replacing the backstop, and 4) placing 6,449 cubic yards of fill on the front lawn, 99 Proctor Avenue. Comments Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following comments to offer. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 1,553,370 SF No change Max. Building Coverage 30% 4.6% (71,470 SF) 4.6% (71,790 SF) Max. Overall Coverage 60% 12.7% (197,196 SF) 12.7% (197,516 SF) *Min. Front Setback Not allowed N/A N/A *Min. Side Setback 5 ft. Unknown Approx. 10 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 5 ft. Unknown >5 ft. *Max. Building Height 15 ft. N/A Unknown~ In compliance *Standards for accessory structures ~The dugouts are not more than 11 ft. 2 in. in height; however, the height of the backstop has not been given by the applicant. 1) Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant for the height of the backstop as it likely is greater than 15 ft. (the maximum for accessory structures) and therefore needs a waiver. 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 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 site is greater than one (1) acre in size and all applicable limitations on coverage are currently being met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_04_and_SP_16_35_99ProctorAve_RiceMemorial_dugouts_lawnfill_July_5_2016_mtg 3 (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. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. Staff considers that the above criterion have been met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. Staff considers that the above criterion has been 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 two (2) dugouts have a combined square footage of approximately 960. The principal building on the site is approximately 85,000 square feet; the applicant has not stated what portion is on the first floor. Presuming, conservatively, that at least 50% of the 85,000 square is on the first floor that would limit the applicant to accessory structures that, in total, do not have a square footage greater than 21,250. The dugouts in combination with the other accessory structures, such as the two (2) temporary storage boxes, are less than 1,400 square feet. Staff considers 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. Staff considers this criteria met. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The detached accessory structures include two dugouts next to a playing field and a backstop associated CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_04_and_SP_16_35_99ProctorAve_RiceMemorial_dugouts_lawnfill_July_5_2016_mtg 4 with the playing field. One dugout is approximately 8 ft. by 32 ft. and the same size as the one which it is replacing. The second dugout is approximately 22 ft. by 32 ft. and 9-10 ft. wider than the one which it is replacing. Within the footprint just described, the second dugout contains a traditional area for players as well as a storage area of approximately 320 sq. ft. Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. Staff considers that the accessory structures and fill in the front lawn do not impact the capacity of the school or any community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. A school and associated playing fields have been part of the area for many years and staff considers that they are part of the character of the neighborhood. The expansion in size of one of the dugouts could change the character of the area, since it has a more pronounced visual impact than the previous structure; however, staff considers that its location more than 70 ft. from the closest property line, screened by trees, and with its nearest abutters being non-residential results in the change in size not having an impact on the character of the neighborhood. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers that the accessory buildings do not have an impact on traffic. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The proposed detached accessory buildings represent an increase in overall building coverage and lot coverage, but this change is within the permitted limits. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed detached accessory structures will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14 of the Land Development Regulations establish the following general review standards for 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_04_and_SP_16_35_99ProctorAve_RiceMemorial_dugouts_lawnfill_July_5_2016_mtg 5 B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2) Parking 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 existence of a playing field and its associated structures—dugouts and backstops—is typical of a property that is used by a school, so staff considers transitioning from a school building to a dugout, for example, to be a natural transition. The school building adjacent to the backstop is of similar height to the backstop and therefore staff considers them to be compatible. Parking is not impacted by this project. C. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or 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. Staff considers the area of the playing field with the dugouts and backstop to be well-screened by existing trees from the closest neighboring properties, which are to the south. Additionally, neighbors to the north of the school property are approximately 800 ft. or more from the accessory buildings. 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. No new utilities are proposed. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_04_and_SP_16_35_99ProctorAve_RiceMemorial_dugouts_lawnfill_July_5_2016_mtg 6 C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No new dumpsters, recycling, or composting areas are proposed. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The property is heavily screened along the west side by wooded land. There are also stands of trees along the south (which is where the accessory buildings are located), east, and most of the north side of the property. Staff considers the existing landscaping to be sufficient. ALTERATION OF EXISTING GRADE A permit is needed to remove land when the amount is equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. When the grade is being altered site plans must show the area to be filled or removed and the existing grade and the proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The plans do show the area to be filled and the grade. Public Works submitted the following comment to staff in an email dated June 20, 2016: With all the work completed and the fact that three of the four items are specific to the baseball field, we have no comments on the fill that occurred. Staff considers this criteria met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTREVISIONSLOT COVERAGE (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)SURVEY NOTESTOPOGRAPHIC AND SURVEY INFORMATION HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM THE FOLLOWINGRESOURCES:1) "EXISTING SITE PLAN-RICE HIGH SCHOOL" PREPARED BY THERMO CONSULTINGENGINEERS, APRIL, 1993.2) "PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS-RICE HIGH SCHOOL" PREPARED BY FORCIERALDRICH & ASSOCIATES, LAST REVISED 3/31/96.3) "BURLINGTON CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL-PLOT PLAN" PREPARED BY FREEMANFRENCH FREEMAN ARCHITECTS, DATE UNCLEAR.4) GOOGLE EARTH IMAGERY DATED 5/19/20125) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON LOCALIZED BENCHMARK.6) IRRIGATION LINES AND SECONDARY UNDERGROUND POWER LINES ARE NOT SHOWN.7) UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIESLOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO PROJECT PROPERTY. EXISTING UTILITIY INFORMATIONARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS(IF ANY). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (1-800-225-4977) A MINIMUMOF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL NOTES15 MARINER HEIGHTSCOLCHESTER VT 05546(802) 777-9601FCEVT.COM3 AD #3 - 3/14/142014-04-29FOR ZONINGTemporary Storage Box #1Temporary Storage Box #2Updated 5/24/16 toshow the dugouts &backstopUpdated5/31/16 toshow thelawn in-fill35'-0" 59'-0"47'-6"32'-3"22'-3"32'-3"8'-3"8486889091848688909186889091486889090409191908684828288Red dashed line = Previous gradeBlue solid line = New gradeGrading LegendRed dashed line = Previous gradeBlue solid line = New gradeGrading LegendLawn in-fill area38,692 SF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_23_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_sketch_A ugust_23_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 19, 2016 Application received: August 3, 2016 255 KENNEDY DRIVE SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-23 Meeting date: August 23, 2016 Owners/Applicants O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator (802) 658-5000 Project Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Property Information Tax Parcels 1260-0200 and 0970-00255 R-12 and C1-LR Zoning Districts ~50 acres total Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_23_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_sketch_August_23_2016_mtg.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-23 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC to add 117 additional residential units to a previously reviewed sketch plan (#SD-16-11) for 360 units on 50 acres which includes an unspecified amount of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive. COMMENTS A similar sketch plan was reviewed by the Board in June. Since then the applicant has amended the plan to include the addition of a new street that could become a city street, land that was not previously part of the application, and additional proposed housing. The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics for review and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Staff notes are relatively limited in this situation, because staff—and the Board—are aware that the applicant is also pursuing a Master Plan application and therefore will be discussing many of the requested waivers in more detail during that process. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, herein after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these issues: OVERVIEW A) PUD The LDRs concerning PUDs state in part as follows: 15.01 Purpose 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 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. 15.02 Authority and Required Review A. Authority (1) Pursuant to Section 4413 through Section 4421 of 24 VSA Chapter 117, as amended, the Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for subdivision of land pursuant to the standards in these Regulations. (2) In accordance with the provisions of Subsections (3) and (12) of Section 4407 of Title 24 VSA CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_23_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_sketch_August_23_2016_mtg.doc 3 Chapter 117, the Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve, approve with modifications, or deny Planned Unit Developments and Planned Residential Developments (PUDs). (3) In conjunction with PUD review, the modification of these Land Development Regulations is permitted subject to the conditions and standards in this Article and other applicable provisions of these Regulations. (4) Notwithstanding section 15.02(A)(3), however, the following standards shall apply to all PUDs: (a) with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary, and, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a structure not in compliance with Section 15.03(D). (b) In no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. (c) In no case shall the DRB permit the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (B) (2). (5) Pursuant to this Article, the South Burlington Development Review Board shall have the further authority to review and approve, approve with modifications, or deny a Master Plan reviewed in conjunction with a PUD. A Master Plan shall be a binding sub-part of a PUD approval and shall not be construed as a separate land development review procedure from the PUD procedures set forth in this Article. (6) The modification of the maximum residential density for a zoning district shall be permitted only as provided in the applicable district regulations and/or for the provision of affordable housing pursuant to Section 13.14 of these Regulations. B) Density The total area under consideration is approximately 50 acres primarily in the R12 Zoning District. It is unclear from the applicant’s currently submitted materials how many residential units are being proposed, but in previous submittals the applicant has indicated 360 residential units would be built. Since the last sketch plan review of this project the applicant has added two (2) streets, including a private roadway. It appears to staff that approximately 70 additional units are being proposed, which would bring the total to approximately 430 residential units. This would lead to a density of approximately 8.6 units per acre, which is below the maximum in the R12. C) Access and Circulation Access to the project area is proposed via three (3) routes as follows: from the south via a new city street “A” intersecting with Eldredge Street from the south via a new city street “E” intersecting with Eldredge Street from the north-west via the creation of a new city street “B” intersecting with Kennedy Drive. The Circulation within the development would be via these three new city streets, a dead end private CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_23_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_sketch_August_23_2016_mtg.doc 4 roadway off of new city street E, and two (2) new city streets “C” and “D,” which would both be dead ends. Staff generally feels that new city streets A, B, and E are in keeping with the intent of the regulations; however, new city streets C and D appear to conflict with the City’s policy of discouraging dead end streets that will become maintained by the City. The applicant has stated in submitted materials that topography prevents the connection of these streets. The length and design of the dead end streets will need to be reviewed by the Fire Department and City Engineer as the project moves through the development review process. Staff would encourage the applicant to consider the possibility of the private roadway connecting to future development on adjacent parcels and therefore building the road to city standards and to the property line. The applicant is also currently working with Public Works on managing steep street slopes. As to pedestrian access and circulation, sidewalks are shown throughout the development except along streets C and D and the private roadway. The applicant has suggested these streets be narrower to slow traffic and with a sidewalk integrated into the street. Staff had previously suggested this configuration as a way to provide the requisite road width for Fire Department vehicles while understanding the desire of the applicant to not over-build the street-related infrastructure. 1. Staff recommends the Board learn more from the applicant about pedestrian connections in the proposed development. D) Parks & Recreation The applicant proposes two areas of common open space. Three (3) acres in the center of the development between Eldredge Street, street A, and street E, which will include a park and more general open space with a system of trails Two (2) acres of stormwater area adjacent to wetland “E” in Zone 5 which will include walking paths The proposed park area has shrunk by an acre from the previously proposed sketch plan and, because of its awkward shape—coming to a point in the north—it may not be entirely useable in some portions. Staff also notes this change is size is particularly significant because of the increase in the number of dwelling units being proposed by the applicant in the vicinity of the park. Staff would prefer to see a greater area dedicated to open space and parkland, especially space that could be further connected to future open space in the area. For example, areas to the east of the proposed development along street E could be developed in the future and have associated open space, which could not connect to the proposed open space in the current development. Staff is interested in the applicant considering: How to increase availability of Open Spaces to residents and employees overall, including creative and interactive design of the stormwater areas and enhancements to open spaces located on individual lots Opportunities for the installation of walking paths to connect various parts of this phase of development to future phases and off-site paths Overall sufficiency and character of open space CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_23_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_sketch_August_23_2016_mtg.doc 5 2. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the City’s Recreation & Leisure Arts Committee to discuss the proposed parks in greater detail. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the proposed open space and park area is sufficient for the number of potential residents. E) Wetland Encroachment & Stormwater The project proposes encroachment into four, Class III wetland areas (labeled F & G on the sketch plan). The applicant asks to be allowed to develop wetland area “F” to convert it to a more effective stormwater management area. Three small wetland areas are also proposed to be encroached in the vicinity of street D by the building of a streets and houses. The applicant argues that “(T)he wetlands have no functions and values that are of particular importance or which require protection.” Staff recommends that the Board consider this request, and supports an encroachment in wetland area “F” that would result in an enhancement to the water conveyance and ecological functions of the area, especially where such encroachment could be designed as an attractive, natural-feeling, interactive space. F) Fire Department In an email to staff dated August 12, 2016 the Fire Marshal, Terry Francis, stated that the plans should comply with NFPA 1. In an email to staff dated June 9, 2016 the Fire Marshall stated that he had “some questions on the North section of the new road off O’Brien Farm Rd for apparatus movement and not crossing into oncoming traffic or rubbing curbs. Will likely need some fine tuning.” 4. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Fire Marshall and request the applicant work with the Fire Marshal to resolve any issues prior to the next stage of the development review process. G) Stormwater The Stormwater Section provided the following comments to staff in an email dated August 15, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “O’Brien Home Farm Master Plan Community” prepared by Krebs & Lansing, dated 7/29/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. As the site plan proposes more than 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations. These requirements include infiltration of the WQv on site using Low Impact Development (LID) practices in lieu of a stormwater detention pond. Stormwater ponds will only be approved if the applicant can demonstrate that it is unfeasible to infiltrate the volume of stormwater runoff specified in 12.03 (C)(1). Additional requirements listed in the LDRs included, but are not limited to, controlling the post construction peak runoff rate for the 1-yr, 24-hr rain event as to not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the same storm event. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_23_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_sketch_August_23_2016_mtg.doc 6 2. The project proposes to impact wetlands and wetland buffer areas. 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 conditional use determination (CUD) by the Vermont DEC. Regards, Dave 5. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Stormwater Section and request the applicant work with the Stormwater Section to resolve any issues prior to the next stage of the development review process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: MP-16-01 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: August 23, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Continued master plan application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive. Staff is requesting the application be continued to a future meeting date, because the Master Plan application and a related Sketch Plan application cannot be heard by the Board at the same meeting. The applicant will be presenting an updated sketch plan for the same site at tonight’s meeting and therefore the Master Plan application review needs to be delayed. 1. Staff recommends the Board continue the application to September 6, 2016. #SD-16-13 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING O’BRIEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP & O’BRIEN HOME FARM, LLC – 255 KENNEDY DRIVE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-13 of O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC to subdivide a 49.9 acre parcel into eight (8) lots ranging in size from 1.94 acres to 13.51 acres, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 21, 2016 and August 23, 2016. The applicant was represented by Andrew Gill and Evan Langfeldt. 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, O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, seeks to subdivide two (2) existing lots totaling 49.6 acres into eight (8) lots ranging in size from 1.94 acres to 13.51 acres, 255 Kennedy Drive. 2. The owners of record of the subject properties are O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC. 3. The application was received on May 12, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Residential 12, Commercial 1 – Limited Retail, & Residential 1 – PRD Zoning Districts. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page titled “Final Plat O’Brien Family, LLC & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC” prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., and dated 5/9/2016. 6. The subdivision creates eight (8) new lots as follows: Lot 4, O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, 7.71 acres Lot 5, O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, 8.75 acres Lot 6, O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, 1.99 acres Lot 7, O’Brien Family LLC, 1.94 acres Lot 8, O’Brien Family LLC, 7.4 acres Lot 9, O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, 2.23 acres Lot 10, O’Brien Family LLC, 6.03 acres Lot 11, O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, 13.51 acres Zoning District Density Allowances and Dimensional Standards #SD-16-13 2 Minimum lot size requirements (which vary depending upon the proposed use) are met for all eight (8) proposed lots. The applicant will be seeking an approval such that all the lots would be treated as one (1) lot under the Land Development Regulations, which will necessitate a Notice of Condition to that effect. Subdivision Standards 15.10 Lot Layout A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions. B. Except within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply: Corner lots shall have extra width to conform to setbacks on each street. No subdivision showing any reserved strips shall be approved. A width to length ratio of one to five (1:5) shall be used as a guideline by the Development Review Board in evaluating lot proportions. Developments consisting predominantly of square or roughly square lots or lot with an excessive length to width ratio (i.e. spaghetti lots) shall not be approved. The lots would be treated as one (1) lot under the Land Development Regulations, therefore the lot layout standards do not apply. Access In accordance with Section 3.05(B): (2) The Development Review Board may approve subdivision or development of lots with no frontage on a public street, as long as access to such a street by a permanent easement or right- of-way at least twenty (20) feet in width is provided, according to the following procedures: (a) … (b) … The proposed lots could be accessed via frontage on Eldredge Street, Kennedy Drive, Old Farm Road, a proposed 60 ft. wide mutual access easement to Lots 6 & 7, and a proposed 60 ft. wide access easement to Lot 9. DECISION Motion by _________, seconded by ________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-16- 13 of O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. #SD-16-13 3 a. The survey plat must be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. 4. For purposes of the LDRs, all lots included in this subdivision shall be considered one (1) lot. The applicant shall record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. 5. The mylar must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 6. The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 7. The final plat plans (Survey Plat) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_18_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_Snyder_SpearM eadows_PUD_ prelim_Aug_23_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 19, 2016 Application received: June 17, 2016 THE SNYDER GROUP, INC.—1302, 1340, AND 1350 SPEAR STREET PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-18 Meeting date: August 23, 2016 Owner Spear Meadows, Inc. 1350 Spear St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant The Snyder Group, Inc. 4076 Shelburne Rd., Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Lamoureux & Dickinson 14 Morse Dr. Essex, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.93 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-16-18 of The Snyder Group, Inc. for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 18 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three (3) 3-unit multi- family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten (10) 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. COMMENTS This project has been reviewed by the Board several times and most recently a sketch plan application was concluded in January 2016. 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. A) DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size** 12,000 SF/single family, 24,000 SF/two family 25.93 acres (1,129,511 SF) Max. Building Coverage** 15% 0.7% 13.5% Max. Overall Coverage** 30% 1.3% 28.6% Min. Front Setback** 20 ft. >20 ft. 10 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. 10 ft. Min. Rear Setback** 30 ft. >30 ft. 20 ft. Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. Unknown <28 ft. Density* 4 units/acre 0.07 units/acre 1.85 units/acre *The SEQ-NR district allows a base density of 1.2 units per acre and a density of four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights. The combined parcels allow for a maximum density of 103 units (25.93 acres x 4=103.7 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). The property has thirty-one inherent TDRs (25.93 acres x 1.2 units/acre=31.12). The applicant has proposed 48 units (one existing single family and 47 new units), which is within the density calculation for this parcel with the use of 17 TDRs (48 units - 31 existing TDRs=17). **See section of comments addressing waivers. The project involves three (3) existing parcels that will be merged and subdivided into seven (7) lots. Footprint lots are proposed for 47 dwelling units (single family houses, duplexes, and triplexes) and the metes and bounds are noted in the plans. 1. Staff recommends the Board include a condition in the decision stating that the footprint lots are not recognized by the City for the purposes of the Land Development Regulations. B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The Public Works Department shared the following comments from John Tymecki of the Champlain Water District/South Burlington Water Department: 1. The 24” x 8” tap site and materials will need to be approved by CWD. Water allocation for this project needs to be approved by CWD and SBWD. 2. The balance of infrastructure will need to be approved by the City of South Burlington Water Department with my comments as follows: a. Sheet 12, Item 1.2 Ductile Iron pipe. Recommending zinc coated ductile iron pipe as well as bio wrap. b. Standard polyethylene sleeve for D.I. pipe applies if zinc coated pipe is not required. c. Item 1.7 Fire Hydrants. Fire hydrant assemblies are now required to be fitted with a 4” Storz connection. d. Item 1.8 C. All curb stop boxes shall be equipped with pentagon nut caps. Two hole curb box caps are no longer permitted. 3. Depending on the City’s future water requirements for the Public Park (7.0 Acres Total) a water main future should be installed at +/- Sta. 31+75 running West along the proposed 10’ wide gravel path. 4. The proposed potable water interconnection at Sta. 38+80 connects two disparate pressure zones which if activated would raise operating pressures on Spear Street (including areas of Shelburne), Olivia Dr., Pinnacle Dr., Nowland Farm Rd., Vale Drive and all other hydraulically connected side streets. At the very least, the water main connections between Spear Street and Olivia Dr. / Nowland Farm Rd. would need to be closed. That being said I have experienced firsthand that an RWGV may leak after several years of closure. This type of failure could result in a catastrophic pressurization in the Spear Street Reduced Pressure Zone. I am recommending that the two aforementioned connections at Spear Street and Olivia Dr. / Nowland Farm Rd. be cut and capped the cost of which would need to be determined. 5. The above cut and cap recommendation would result in a large residential area being fed from one 8” connection to CWD’s High Service 1 Transmission Main. A hydraulic analysis of the area should be undertaken to determine what can be expected for domestic and fire flow capability to such a service area. 6. The Spear Meadows project interconnection with the existing Vale Drive water main appears to partially address an identified area of concern mentioned in the Aldrich & Elliott Engineering Services Agreement, dated June 22, 2015, Page 4 of 12 which reads: “The following other areas of concern were identified for inclusion into the updated master planning and alternatives will be evaluated for potential improvements. •Low water pressures at on the east side of Spear Street.” 2. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Champlain Water District and request the applicant work with staff and the Champlain Water District to address the items above prior to the final plat application. (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. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The application materials state the project will generate 52 P.M. Peak Hour trip ends on the property. The proposed dwelling units will be accessed via a new proposed public street, Spear Meadow Road, and an extension of an existing street, Vale Drive, which is also proposed to be public except for the portion north of Spear Meadow Road. That portion, which will serve two (2) units will be privately maintained until Vale Drive is extended further north at some point in the future. Staff considers the extension of Vale Drive to be positive, because the road is shown in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Official Map as one which is planned for extension. Street ‘A’ will be privately maintained until it is extended further south at some point in the future and it will serve eight (8) dwelling units. Another private roadway is proposed to serve the nine (9) dwelling units in the three (3) triplexes. 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. 3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether the houses on private roadways will have sprinkler systems. Additional circulation is provided on the site by the ten (10) foot wide paved footpath along the eastern boundary line. The path will be behind the houses along the proposed extension of Vale Drive and will connect at two (2) points to sidewalks running along both Vale Drive and Spear Meadow Road. A ten (10) foot wide paved path is proposed on the northern side of Spear Meadow Road. This path coincides with the location of a proposed path on the City’s Official Map. Five (5) foot wide sidewalks are proposed on both sides of Vale Drive (except at the most northerly and most southerly portions of the street on the western side) and on the western side of Street ‘A’. Staff considers it positive that sidewalks and paths will be prevalent on the site, especially as those pedestrian paths may encourage residents to further connect with the existing nearby recreation path that runs along Nowland Farm Road. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The project’s layout avoids development in the Class II wetlands and a significant portion of the onsite wetlands will be preserved in the project’s designated open space area, which is proposed to be conveyed to the City and may possibly be developed as a park in the future. Plans for the project show the wetland buffer line being marked by boulders, split rail fence, shrubs, and/or trees, which staff considers sufficient separation and protection for those areas after residents move in to the development. Staff considers that the wetlands and stream running through the property provide the applicant with an opportunity—in the spirit of being innovative, as is required by the PUD standards—to educate residents about the onsite habitat and sensitive areas. For example, informational signage explaining the role of the wetlands in the health of the community and property. 4. Staff recommends the applicant consider for the final plat review stage whether an educational component could be incorporated into the project to highlight the unique site features of a stream and wetlands. (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The project is located in the City’s Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). The Comprehensive Plan states that “there has been a strong interest in building neighborhoods at higher densities in order to conserve more of the SEQ’s priority open space lands.” This project conforms with that desire, because it uses Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) to increase the density of the project and further conserves space by proposing duplex and triplex buildings. Currently the duplex and triplex development proposed by the applicant visually varies from the existing single-family development pattern of the area; however, the project does also incorporate single-family homes. Additionally, staff considers that undeveloped land to the north of the proposed project and single-family house lots to the south and southwest of the project are most likely to be developed and redeveloped, respectively, in a pattern more closely aligned with proposed project than with past projects. Staff considers that while the proposed project may presently appear somewhat visually different from other development in the area that the pattern of development it proposes is in alignment with the goals and objectives of the City’s 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 in the south and southwest area of the site and a buffer around a stream bed which traverses the project site as well as adjacent properties. The open space abuts open space in the neighboring developments on Pinnacle Drive and Vale Drive. This results in approximately 20 acres of connected, undeveloped space. Staff considers this criteria met. (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The Fire Department submitted the following comments in an email dated August 9, 2016: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING All in all looks pretty good. Would need to run the apparatus template over the final plans to be sure. As always the fire hydrants need to be in place and tested prior to construction of combustible structures and the overall PDU must be compliant with NFPA 1 Chapter 18 en toto. 5. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Fire Department. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The ten (10) foot paved path along the eastern border of the property and the sidewalk on the eastern side of the proposed Vale Drive extension will both connect to the existing sidewalk system on Vale Drive. Street ‘A’ goes to the property line thus making extension to the south possible if the abutting lot is redeveloped. The proposed Vale Drive extension goes to the property line thus making extension to the north possible if that property is developed. The extension of Vale Drive is being brought to the northern property line and similarly Street ‘A’ is being built to the property line. Staff considers it possible the property abutting Street ‘A’ and the northern portion of Vale Drive could both be developed in the future and that these two (2) streets could be part of an interconnected roadway system eventually conveyed to and maintained by the City. Therefore the streets should be built to standards which are acceptable to the City. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. (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. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). In addition to the discussion above regarding the visual development patterns of the SEQ Zoning District, staff considers the project to be further aligned with the goals and objectives of the district since it will have a greater density of housing through the use of TDRs. This greater density combined with a variety of housing styles (single-family, duplex, and triplex) may create affordable housing options for some residents, which is one of the struggles in the SEQ. Staff considers this criteria to be met. C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD will 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: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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 criteria is being met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff appreciates the sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, and signage (stop signs and pedestrian zone signs) throughout the proposed development, because those amenities will promote safe pedestrian movement. Staff considers that adequate parking is provided for residents and their guests in garages and driveways. Additionally there are four (4) proposed parking spaces on Vale Drive by the gravel path leading to the open space area. Staff considers that the cedar hedges planned between houses and sidewalks connecting the ten (10) foot paved path along the easterly border of the property with the sidewalk on the eastern side of Vale Drive will provide some privacy for residents and a transition from the public area (paths and sidewalks) to the private area (dwelling units). The landscaping plan describes, but does not visually show, “foundation plantings.” Foundation plantings requirements established by the applicant include that a “minimum of 18 deciduous shrubs and 12 evergreen shrubs shall be planted for each dwelling unit. The cumulative number of plantings for a building containing multiple dwelling units may be apportioned around the perimeter of the building based upon the location of the windows, porches, decks, retaining walls, and other site conditions.” Foundation plantings are to be selected from a list developed by the applicant and stated on the landscaping plan. Staff considers that these planting may be adequate for each building; however, it is difficult to visualize how the plantings would be laid out in the various building configurations. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they envision the spaces between dwelling units being landscaped and determine whether some sample renderings could help the Board better envision those plantings. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) … (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) – (vi)… CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Each dwelling unit will have a garage and parking is planned in the driveways and garages as well as along portion of Spear Meadow Road and the extension of Vale Drive. The triplexes will be accessed from a private roadway at the rear of the buildings and therefore the garages and parking will also be in the rear. Some of the duplexes are shown on the plans as having garages whose entrances would be perpendicular to the street and staff considers this to be positive. The single-family houses lining the easterly side of Vale Drive could be good candidates for having garage entrances in the rear except that the proximity to the paved path along that property line makes the idea unappealing to staff. Rear alleyways with garages are also not ideal for other houses on the property, because many of the houses are close to either wetland buffers or stormwater ponds. 7. Staff recommends the Board permit the current parking configuration as allowed by the LDRs. (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 housing would be two (2) stories and no waivers are being sought for height. Staff considers this criteria met. (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. The transition between structures is primarily being dictated by the Home Design Guidelines prepared by the applicant. Among other items, the Guidelines indicate that buildings “should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony.” The Guidelines state that front porches, stoops, and balconies which are oriented to the street are encouraged, but are not required. The Guidelines further state that identical home models cannot be placed next to or across the street from one another. To be considered sufficiently different a model “must change any two of the five variables,” which include “mirroring the plan, changing the color scheme, revising the placement or orientation of the garage, changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines.” Staff considers that these changes will create some variability and some sameness within the development; however, staff is unsure whether the proposed variability is significant enough. For example, if buildings were side-by-side and the only differences were the color schemes and placement of the garage the units would still look very similar. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the possibility and implications of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING adjusting the Guidelines to state that to be considered sufficiently different three (3), rather than two (2) of the five variables must be changed. 9. Staff recommends the Board request clarification from the applicant that duplexes and triplexes are considered single buildings in the context of the Home Design Guidelines. Therefore the individual dwelling units within these buildings do not have to pass the threshold for being sufficiently different from one another, but rather a duplex building as a whole, for example, would have to pass the threshold with other adjacent buildings. (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 houses will have facades oriented towards the street and sidewalks, which is in keeping with the nearby neighborhoods on Vale Drive and Pinnacle Drive. Staff considers that the duplexes closest to Spear Street (units #46 & #47) will represent a change in style and form from the existing houses on Spear Street, which are single family and many of which are set back further from the road. The Home Design Guidelines prepared by the applicant require any units facing two (2) streets to include architectural and site elements that address both front façades. Making these units appear as much as possible to be a single-family house may provide a better transition between existing structures on Spear Street and the proposed structures on Spear Meadow Road. 10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the duplex units with frontage on Spear Street could be harmoniously blended with the existing structures on the street. 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 household waste will be stored within the units and the attached garages. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 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 $9,950,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $107,000 and the applicant has proposed a budget of $107,450. 11. Staff recommends the Board discuss the landscaping with the applicant to determine whether it is adequate. 12. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they envision the spaces between dwelling units being landscaped and determine whether some sample renderings could help the Board better envision those plantings. 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% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $94,500 Minimum Landscaping $ $107,000 Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans should either depict snow storage areas or the applicant should explain that snow will be taken offsite. 13. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant clarify where the snow storage areas will be or if the snow will be taken offsite. D. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts. The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ: A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub- district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub-district shall not exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. The proposed buildings will not be more than 28 feet tall. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels This topic has been covered already in these comments. Staff considers this criteria met. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. This topic has been covered already in these comments. Staff considers this criteria met. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. The applicant has stated that the parcel denoted as Lot #52 on the site plan, which is 6.8 acres, is planned to be conveyed to the City to be used as public open space that may be developed into a park to meet the active and passive recreational needs of South Burlington’s residents. If the City accepts that parcel for use as public open space then the City would be responsible for its management. The land around each home, beyond the footprint lot lines, will be owned and maintained by the development’s homeowner association, which will be responsible for maintenance of the lawns and landscaping. The applicant’s materials state that each “homeowner will have the limited right to use the space immediately adjacent to their home for flower beds, raised garden beds, or patio space.” The footprint lot lines appear to staff to be very close and/or nearly identical to the building envelopes of the proposed dwelling units. Past experience has shown staff that it can be beneficial for footprint lot lines to encompass an area slightly greater than the building envelope to allow for the type of activity and use the applicant has mentioned (patios, etc.). Keeping footprint lot lines very close to the building envelope can result in the cumbersome involvement of the homeowner’s association when the intention of the developer was to allow the homeowner to pursue some site changes with just the involvement of the City’s Department of Planning & Zoning in its permitting capacity. 14. Staff recommends the applicant consider the location of the footprint lot lines and whether the area will be adequate for homeowner’s to pursue the types of activities and uses suggested by the applicant. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING natural materials is encouraged. Plans for the project show the wetland buffer line being marked by boulders, split rail fence, shrubs, and/or trees, which staff considers sufficient separation and protection for those areas after residents move in to the development. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community-supported agriculture. The easterly portion of the project, according to the applicant, has been in agricultural use with a rotation of crops over the past several years. The applicant has not provided information regarding the agricultural production values of the land as it currently being used. By developing the property with housing the agricultural use will cease. Staff considers that the loss of agricultural land is unfortunately, but the use of TDRs means the property will support additional density onsite and preserve land from development elsewhere in the SEQ, which is a significant goal of the Comprehensive Plan. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. A condition of plat approval will be that prior to receiving a zoning permit the applicant will need to obtain whichever of the permits listed above are necessary for the site. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. This topic has been covered already in these comments. Staff considers this criteria met. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. Comments from the Fire Department will be available at a future meeting. D. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. This topic has been covered already in these comments. Staff considers this criteria met. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. As discussed previously, it is considered likely by staff that Vale Drive and Street ‘A’ may at some point in the future be continued and/or connected to other roadway systems that be maintained by the City. The applicant proposes, in compliance with 15.12(D)(4), to construct the streets to the property line. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future meeting. 9.07 Regulating Plans A. ... B. … C. … D. Parks Design and Development. (1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini-parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car-free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter-mile of every home. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 14 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ- NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC districts: a. Distribution and Amount of Parks: i. A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation. ii. Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development. iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program. iv. A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned developed recreation area. b. Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. c. Design Guidelines i. Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make them sociable, safe and attractive places. ii. Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections. iii. To the extent feasible, single-loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas. The applicant is prepared to convey a 6.8 acre parcel to the city for open space and possible development into a park. The open space contains significant areas of Class II wetlands, which may put some limits on its development into a park. It is located in the southern portion of the project site, would have homes nearby (existing and proposed), and would abut other open space. While the open space would not be at the center of the proposed development, it would be at a point of connection between the proposed development and existing neighborhoods, which could access it via sidewalks or on bicycle. The amount of land, 6.8 acres, as compared to the number of possible residents in the proposed development (2.19 people/avg. household x 48 units=105.12 people) far exceeds the standard mentioned above of 7.5 acres/1,000 residents or 0.0075 acres/person (0.0075 acres/person x 105.12 residents=0.79 acres). Given the size of the proposed open space it could serve many more people than those located in the proposed development. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 15 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING Vale Drive is uninterrupted for a span of greater than 500 feet; however, there are three (3) crosswalks at intervals of approximately 500 feet that connect to sidewalks. Staff considers this criteria met. (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). The northern portion of the extended Vale Drive and Street ‘A’ are presently depicted as dead ends; however, the streets will extend to the property line and may at some point in the future be continued and/or connected to other roadway systems. (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. See discussion above. (4) Lot ratios. 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 presently existing lots are to be merged then subdivided into seven (7) new lots; however, the requirement for a minimum ratio of 1:2 is not applicable in this circumstance, because the project is a PUD and the lots being created will not be used as lots for individual houses, but for housing clusters. The purpose of the minimum lot ratio is to ensure a certain form and pattern in development. In the case of this project the development is taking place as a PUD and incorporating an innovative approach where multiple housing units will be clustered on the created lots. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub-district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. The proposed streets within the project site will conform to the street design criteria for Local Streets as outlined in Table 9-2 of the LDRs. Spear Meadow Road and the extension of Vale Drive will be 26 feet wide except at wetland crossings and some crosswalk areas. These dimensions could allow parking on one side of the street. Street ‘A’ and the private roadway for accessing the triplexes will be 24 feet wide, which is considered a width where on-street parking would not occur. (2) Sidewalks. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 16 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. (b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street. Plans show that the sidewalks will be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, will occur on at least one side of the street, and will have a sufficient planting strip. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) (a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. (b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The City Arborist submitted the following comments regarding the landscaping: Species Selection Red Maple cultivars aren’t well suited to the clay soils in this part of the city. The neutral to alkaline conditions often results in manganese deficiency. Recommend substituting ‘Celebration’ or ‘Sienna Glen’ Freeman Maple I’d recommend limiting the use of Tupelo as a street tree as it can be difficult to establish and also requires slightly acidic soil. It would be worth trying in small numbers, particularly near the stormwater pond or in a wetland buffer I’d recommend substituting ‘Accolade’ or ‘Triumph’ Elm for ‘Princeton’ Elm. Princeton Elms exhibit a very dense branching habit which I believe will result in structural problems as the trees mature 15. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the City Arborist and request the applicant either make proposed changes or discuss changes with the City Arborist. (4) On-street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ-VC and SEQ-VR sub-districts. This requirement may be waived within the SEQ-NRN sub-district provided the DRB finds sufficient off-street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the uses adjacent to the street. As discussed above, on-street parking will be provided on Spear Meadow Road and Vale Drive. It does not appear that Street ‘A’ would have sufficient width for on-street parking; however, under the review of this project as a PUD, the DRB may waive the requirement that the street be built to public roadway standards (Section 15.12(D)). 16. Staff recommends the Board seek the input of the Public Works Department and support their recommendation for the roadway. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 17 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic. At two (2) of the six (6) proposed crosswalks the street narrows to reduce pedestrian crossing distance. All crosswalks are proposed to have signage indicating a pedestrian crossing to both directions of traffic. (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. Staff could not locate within the plans any information regarding lighting plans and fixture design. 17. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the plan for lighting and suggest they discuss with Public Works and Planning & Zoning staff lighting fixtures recommended by the City. C. Residential Design (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas…A minimum of thirty- five percent (35%) of translucent windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south… The applicant’s materials, specifically the Home Design Guidelines, affirms that houses will be oriented to the street, that garages will be on the northerly side of buildings, and that a minimum of 35% of translucent windows and surfaces will face south. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. The applicant’s Home Design Guidelines affirms this criteria and the Design Constraints section contained therein specifies how that variation will be achieved. As discussed above in these comments, staff considers that the constraints will create some variability and some sameness within the development; however, staff is unsure whether the proposed variability is significant enough. For example, if buildings were side-by-side and the only differences were the color schemes and placement of the garage the units would still look very similar. 18. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the possibility and implications of adjusting the Guidelines to state that to be considered sufficiently different three (3), rather than two (2) of the five variables must be changed. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 18 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. The applicant has proposed that buildings should be set back ten (10) feet from the street right of way and that garages must be set back 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk. Staff considers the proposed house setback will create a close relationship between the building and the street. Staff would recommend an adjustment to the wording of the Home Design Guidelines in that section to create a range of acceptable distances. Rather than “Buildings should be set back ten feet (10’) from the street right of way” staff suggests “Buildings must be set back between ten (10) to twenty-five (25) feet from the street right of way.” These distance guidelines will provide clear guidance to developers and ensure that houses stay close to the sidewalks and roadway. 19. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant adjust the phrasing of the house distance to read “Buildings must be set back between ten (10) to twenty-five (25) feet from the street right of way.” Staff considers that setting garages at least 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk is a positive to the pedestrian ambiance of the street; however, staff would suggest a minor adjustment to the wording of the Home Design Guidelines in that section. Rather than “Garages shall be set back twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of the sidewalk” staff suggests adding the words “at least” to the phrase to make it read in part “Garages shall be set back at least twenty-five feet…” This will clarify that garages must be set back 25 feet and can be set back further than 25 feet, too. 20. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant adjust the phrasing of the garage distance to read “Garages shall be set back at least twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of the sidewalk.” (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the façade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. The applicant’s Home Design Guidelines affirm this criteria and its subsections. (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. The applicant’s Home Design Guidelines affirm this criteria, but do not offer specifics on housing styles. The plans presented by the applicant show that Street ‘A’ will have a mix of duplexes and single-family houses, that Spear Meadow Road will be primarily duplexes with an entrance to the existing single- family home, and that Vale Drive will have a mix of single-family, duplex, and triplex units fronting on the street. While the triplexes are essentially clustered together on one side of Vale Drive (with a private roadway to the rear), the units are next to and across from single family and duplex units, so CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 19 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING there is some degree of co-mingling amongst housing types. The single-family homes on Vale Drive are primarily on the eastern side of the street with a couple single-family units with shared driveways on the western side. Staff considers that a greater degree of housing-type intermingling on Vale Drive, so that duplexes occur on both the western and eastern side of the street, would be beneficial to reducing the tendency towards compartmentalization. 21. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the feasibility of having duplex units on the eastern side of Vale Drive and more single-family units on the western side. E. WAIVERS The applicant is requesting the following waivers: 1. Reduction of the minimum lot size, coverage, and setbacks to allow footprint lots. 2. Reduction of the front yard setback to ten (10) feet, provided that garages are setback a minimum of 25 feet. 3. Reduction of the rear yard setback to 20 feet for new interior lot lines. 4. Calculation of the building coverage and lot coverage on a project parcel basis to allow the clustering of homes. Staff considers the waivers being requested as in alignment with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District as already discussed in these comments. Staff is unsure of the meaning of “project parcel basis” and whether request #1 is the same or different from request #4. 22. Staff recommends the Board discuss the waivers with the applicant and determine the meaning of “project parcel basis” in relation to the calculation of building and lot coverage and whether requests #1 and #4 are the same or different from one another. F. TRAFFIC IMPACT The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment which concludes that: Acceptable levels of service will be maintained at the Swift Street, Spear Meadow Drive, and Allen Road intersections with this project. The project can be reasonably expected to have minimal, if any, impact on existing and future traffic safety conditions on the adjacent roadway network. The Assessment is being reviewed by the Public Works Department. 23. Staff recommends the Board review the comments of the Public Works Department when they become available and direct the applicant to work with Public Works staff to address any concerns. G. STORMWATER The Stormwater Section provided the following comments to staff in an email dated August 18, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Spear Meadows” site plan prepared by Lamoureau & Dickinson, dated 6/6/16. We would like to offer the following comments: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 20 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING 1. This project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land and create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. Therefore, this project will need both a construction stormwater permit and an operational stormwater permit from the State. 2. The project crosses wetlands in multiple locations and will need a conditional use determination (CUD) from VT DEC. 3. Some of the units back up to the wetland and associated buffer. Use of this buffer area is regulated under section 12.02 of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). The DRB should include a condition that this buffer area not be turned into lawn. 4. The applicant should provide an analysis of the downstream culverts and their ability to pass the 25-year 24-hr (4”) storm from the associated upstream drainage area, in accordance with §12.03.E(3) of the City’s LDRs. 5. Provide safety fences around each stormwater pond. 6. A maintenance access and right of way shall extend to each pond from the road. Include curb-cut and gate in the pond fence for vehicle access. 7. Indicate on a plan sheet, the sub-watershed boundaries, as well as drainage areas for all STPs in accordance with §12.03.D(a) of the City’s LDRs. 8. In a future submission, please submit the HydoCAD model file. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave 24. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Stormwater Section and request the applicant work with the Stormwater Section to resolve any issues. H. 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, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT1 inch = 100 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE100 0 50 100 200 4001SITELOCATION PLANLEGENDPROJECT BOUNDARYEDGE OF WETLANDOVERALLSITE PLANWATERSHED PROTECTION BUFFEREXISTING CONTOURABUTTING PROPERTY LINENOTES:1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN IS TO PRESENT THE OVERALL SITE LAYOUT OF THEPLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.2. SEE OTHER PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION.ZONING DATA:TAX MAP PARCEL NUMBER - 1640-1340PROJECT PARCEL AREA - 25.93 ACRESZONING DISTRICT - SOUTHEAST QUADRANT - NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL - NROVERLAY DISTRICTS - WATERSHED PROTECTION BUFFERDENSITY:BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY = 31 UNITS25.93 ACRES X 1.2 UNITS/ACRE = 31.1 UNITSAVERAGE ALLOWABLE DENSITY = 103 UNITS25.93 ACRES X 4 UNITS/ACRE = 103.7 UNITSPROPOSED DENSITY = 48 UNITSNLANDOWNER:SPEAR MEADOWS, INC.1340 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403INTERSTATE189SOILS MAPN.T.S.KEYSOIL MAPPING UNITHSGkCv COVINGTON SILTY CLAY D 0.49GeC & GeB GEORGIA STONY LOAM C 0.24Lh LIVINGSTON CLAY D 0.49MnC MASSENA STONY SILT LOAM C 0.20VeB VERGENNES CLAY D 0.49TREELINETHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONSHEET INDEX1 OVERALL SITE PLAN1S SIGNS & PAVEMENT MARKINGS2 SITE & UTILITIES NORTH3 SITE & UTILITIES SOUTH4 SITE & UTILITIES PINNACLE AT SPEAR & X-COUNTRY WATERLINE5 PROFILE - SPEAR MEADOW ROAD6PROFILE-VALEDRIVE7 PROFILE-VALEDRIVE&STREETA8 LANDSCAPE PLAN9 EROSION PROTECTION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN10 DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS - STREETS11 DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS - SEWER & STORM12 DETAILS&SPECIFICATIONS-WATER13 SEWER PUMP STATION14 DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS - EPSC15 DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS - STORM PONDSPL1 PERIMETER BOUNDARY SURVEY PLATPL2 SUBDIVISION & FOOTPRINT LOT PLATPROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY490SWIFTSTREETSPEARSTREETDORSETSTREETSHELBURNEROAD GeCMnCVeBVeBVeBLhCvCvLhCvVeBGeBN.T.S.APPLICANT:THE SNYDER GROUP, INC.4076 SHELBURNE ROAD, SUITE 6SHELBURNE, VT 05482SPEARSTREETNBUILDING SUMMARY18 SINGLE FAMILY CARRIAGE HOMES20 DUPLEX HOME UNITS (10 BUILDINGS)9 TRIPLEX TOWNHOME UNITS (3 BUILDINGS)1 EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO REMAIN48 TOTAL HOMES Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT1inch=100ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE100 0 50 100 200 4001SSIGNS & PAVEMENTMARKINGSCONCRETE CURB30"30"STOP SIGNN.T.S.8' TOGROUNDDOUBLE 4" YELLOWCENTER LINESTOP SIGN, 2'-4' OFF FACEOF CURB12" WHITE STOP BAR TO BELOCATED 15' BACK FROM EDGE OFTRAVELLED WAY OR 4 FT BEHINDCROSS WALKSIDEWALK12 GAUGE 2" SQUARE STEELSIGN POST WITH ANCHOR30" X 30"W11-2GENERAL NOTES:1. NEW PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON TOP COURSE PAVEMENT SHALL BE DURABLE ANDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2011 VT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION.2. TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON BASE PAVEMENT MAY BE PAINT.3. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON 2" SQUARE STEEL POSTS WITH ANCHORS.4. ALL SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH MINIMUM 7 FEET CLEARANCE BETWEEN THEBOTTOM OF THE SIGN AND FINISH GRADE.12" X 24"W16-7PSEE PLAN FOR SIGN LOCATIONSLEGENDSTOP SIGN (SEE INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION DETAIL)PEDESTRIAN SIGN (W11-2 & W16-7P, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)30" X 30"W1-1 (LT & RT)18" X 24"W1-8INSTALL 2 SIGNS TOTAL- 1 SIGN FACING SOUTH- 1 SIGN FACING WESTCHEVRON SIGN (W1-8, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)CORNER WARNING SIGN (W1-1, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)B30" X 30"W11-2SEE PLAN FOR SIGN LOCATIONSPEDESTRIAN ZONE SIGN (W11-2, SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)PATH ENDS SIGN (SEE DETAIL THIS SHEET)18" X 18" 10+0011+0012+0013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0018+00PC=13+33.11PT=15+58.45 PC=16+87.39 PT=17+95.2620+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00PC=21+52.11PRC=22+55.72PT=23+38.7250+00 51+00 52+00 PC=50+35.82PT=50+91.81397.0+395 .0+393.0+392.8+391.0+388 390 392390388 39038 8 392392 SSS394.5+SSS+393.1 +393.1 +392.1 +392.1 +392.1 +392.1 +392.1 +392.6FDFDFD FD FDFDD390 390 390390390 390392 388 388386384382386 384 382 380 380378382388386384382382 384 386 388 388 386 384 388386388386388S FMFMFMFM FM FMFMFMFMFM+393.00++394 .0+393.5+393.2+392.5391.2++390.0+393.3++393.3++390.0 DFDFDFDFD FD FDD382 +390.0+390.0+388.0+388.0391.5+392.3+392.3+392.5++390.0392.0+392.0++389.0+389.0+391.80++391.80++392.5++392.50++391.00++391.00+38839038638438238037838638438638638638 4382384386384382382388386390396 390 392 390392 390 394394392392 53+00 392 392 392 392 392 388 390390 388 388 390 390 392 3 92390390392392390 WWWWWWWW W W W W SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSW W W W S S SSSSSSSSSSS S S SSSSSSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW378381381381 381381378386FDWW D D D FDFDFDFD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD384SS 390 392 394 394 392 394 398 394 390 39239438 21 23456303136373839404143424445474634353233FFE = 394.0BFE = 384.5FFE = 393.0BFE = 384.5FFE = 393.5BFE = 385.0FFE = 394.20BFE = 384.70FFE = 394.80BFE = 386.3FFE = 394.30BFE = 385.8FFE = 393.80BFE = 385.3FFE = 393.80BFE = 385.3FFE = 391.5BFE = 383.0FFE = 392.7BFE = 383.2FFE = 394.7BFE = 385.2FFE = 395.0BFE = 385.5FFE = 395.5BFE = 386.0FFE = 395.0BFE = 385.5FFE = 395.0BFE = 385.5FFE = 392.70BFE = 384.20FFE = 393.80BFE = 385.3MATCHLINESTA.24+008"SDR35PVCCB #7CB #8CB #9CB #10CB #11CB #12CB #13 15"PE15"PE24"PE15"PE24"PE18"PE18"PE 26'R20'R20'R30'R30'R30'R30'26'24'18' R30' R30' R30' R30' 26'R30'R30'26'26'STORMWATER PONDNORMAL WATER=382.0BOTTOM POND = 381.0SPILLWAY = 384.00EMERGENCY STORAGE TANKSEWER PUMP STATIONVALVE PITMATCHLINESTA.21+008"CL52DIWATER8"CL52DIWATER8"CL52DIWATER 8"CL52DIWATER 8"CL52DI SEE SHEET 13 FOR SEWERPUMP STATION DESIGN DETAILSSTONE SPILLWAYELEV = 384.0OUTLET POOLBOTTOM = 378.00FOREBAYBOTTOM = 378.0015" PE WITH E.S.INV = 383.0024" PE WITH E.S.INV = 383.0015" PE WITH E.S.INV = 382.00OUTLET STRUCTUREGRATE = 386.0012" X 24" WEIR = 384.505" OUT = 382.901.9" OUT = 382.0010'24" PE WITH E.S.INV = 381.25STORMWATER PONDNORMAL WATER=382.0BOTTOM POND = 381.0SPILLWAY = 384.00FOREBAYBOTTOM = 378.0015" PE WITH E.S.INV = 383.0018"PE18" PE WITH E.S.INV = 381.50TYPICAL STONESTORM OUTFALLCLASS 2 WETLAND 6"SDR35PVC 6"SDR35PVC STONE SPILLWAYELEV = 384.5OUTLET POOLBOTTOM = 378.00OUTLET STRUCTUREGRATE = 383.901" ORIFICE = 382.002" OUT = 382.8518" OUT = 382.00EXISTING HOUSE ANDGARAGE TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING WATER SERVICETO BE REMOVED.COORDINATE WITHWATER DEPARTMENTREMOVE EXISTING GRAVELDRIVEANDREPLACEWITHTOPSOIL, SEED & MULCH24" PE WITH E.S.INV = 383.1524" PE WITH E.S.INV = 383.50CLASS 2 WETLANDCOORDINATE CONSTRUCTION OF NEWDRIVEWAY TO EXISTING HOUSE WITHHOMEOWNER. PROVIDE MINIMUM OF 18"GRAVEL SUBBASE AND 2.5" TYPE III PAVEMENTEXIST. HOUSEEXIST. SMHRIM = 389.42NEW 4" IN = 384.976" IN = 384.878" IN = 384.828" OUT = 384.67 8"SDR35PVC 8"SDR35PVC8"SDR35PVC 8"SDR35PVC 6"SDR35PVC 8"SDR35PVC 8" SDR 35 PVCINV = 381.2550'WETLANDBUFFER(TYP)8" SDR 35 PVCINV = 381.5015' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT TOHOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION20'EXISTING HOUSE ANDGARAGE TO BE REMOVEDTEMPORARY PAVEDTURN-AROUND20'R.END DEFINEDCHANNELSB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB SB 50'STREAMBUFFER(TYP)50'STREAMBUFFER(TYP)STREAM CHANNEL STREAM CHANNEL NEW STREET LIGHTNEW STREET LIGHTConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT2SITE PLAN &UTILITIES - NORTH1 inch = 30 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 60 120CB # 1STA. 10+87, 12' LT.RIM = 388.30(2) 6" UD IN = 384.8015" IN = 384.7015" OUT = 384.65SMH #1STA. 11+50, CLRIM = 389.916" IN = 383.288" OUT = 383.18SMH #2STA. 14+00, CLRIM = 389.62(2) 8" IN = 381.938" OUT = 381.83SMH #3STA. 53+00, CLRIM = 391.656" IN = 384.188" OUT = 384.08SEWER MANHOLE DATACATCH BASIN DATASMH #4STA. 15+50, CLRIM = 388.878" IN = 381.088" OUT = 380.98SMH #5STA. 20+33.14, CLRIM = 387.848" IN = 378.518" OUT = 378.41SMH #6STA. 22+26.34, CL =STA. 18+24.48 CLRIM = 389.768" IN (S) = 380.268" IN (W) = 379.618" OUT = 379.51CB # 2STA. 10+87, 12' RT.RIM = 388.30(2) 6" UD IN = 384.9515" OUT = 384.90CB # 5STA. 13+80, 12' RT.RIM = 389.356" UD IN = 385.356" UD OUT = 386.3515" IN = 385.1015" OUT = 385.05CB # 3STA. 12+17, 12' LT.RIM = 391.056" UD OUT = 387.0512" IN = 384.0015" IN = 384.0015" OUT = 383.90CB # 4STA. 13+80, 12' LT.RIM = 389.356" UD IN = 385.356" UD OUT = 386.3515" IN = 384.8515" OUT = 384.80CB # 6STA. 50+50, 11' RT.RIM = 389.106" UD IN = 385.606" UD OUT = 386.1015" IN = 385.4015" OUT = 385.35CB # 8STA. 16+64, 12' RT.RIM = 388.00(2)6" UD IN = 384.0015" OUT = 383.75CB # 7STA. 50+50, 11' LT.RIM = 389.106" UD IN = 385.606" UD OUT = 386.1015" OUT = 385.60CB # 10STA. 20+15, 12' RT.RIM = 387.256" UD IN = 383.2515" IN = 383.0515" OUT = 383.00CB # 9STA. 16+64, 12' LT.RIM = 388.00(2)6"UDIN=384.0015" IN = 383.5515" OUT = 383.50CB # 11STA. 20+15, 12' LT.RIM = 387.256" UD IN = 383.2515" OUT = 383.25CB # 12STA. 22+10, 12' LT.RIM = 389.206" UD IN =6" UD OUT =18" IN = 383.6524" OUT = 383.60CB # 13STA. 22+75, 12' RT.RIM = 389.856" UD IN =6" UD OUT =18" IN = 384.0518" OUT = 384.00CB # 3ASTA. 12+49, 41' RT.12" OUT = 384.30THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONSEE SHEET 3 FOR LEGEND AND NOTESFOUNDATION DRAINMANHOLE DATAFDMH #4RIM = 392.58" IN/OUT = 383.25FDMH #5RIM = 389.08" IN/OUT = 381.80FDMH #7RIM = 387.0(2) 6" IN = 382.308" OUT = 382.30FDMH #8RIM = 389.06" IN/OUT = 384.20FDMH #6RIM = 386.06" IN/OUT = 383.20FDMH #9RIM = 388.16" IN/OUT = 382.53 Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT1inch=30ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 60 120SEWER MANHOLE DATACATCH BASIN DATASMH #7STA. 24+50, CLRIM = 392.008" IN = 381.488" OUT = 381.38SMH #8STA. 26+50, CLRIM = 394.008" IN = 382.588" OUT = 382.48SMH #9STA. 29+29, CLRIM = 396.008" IN = 384.088" OUT = 383.98SMH #10STA. 31+50, CLRIM = 393.488" IN = 385.268" OUT = 385.16SMH #11STA. 33+00, CLRIM = 395.866" IN = 386.108" OUT = 386.00CB # 14STA. 25+00, 12' RT.RIM = 392.106" UD IN = 388.106" UD OUT = 389.1015" IN = 387.4018" IN = 385.2518" OUT = 385.20CB # 15STA. 25+00, 12' LT.RIM = 392.106" UD IN = 388.106" UD OUT = 389.1015" OUT = 387.60CB # 16STA. 26+78.75, 12' RT.RIM = 393.906" UD IN = 389.906" UD OUT = 390.9015" IN (E) = 389.2015" IN = (W) = 386.2018" OUT = 386.15CB # 17STA. 26+78.75, 12' LT.RIM = 393.906" UD IN = 389.906" UD OUT = 390.9015" OUT = 389.40CB # 18STA. 28+98, 12' RT.RIM = 395.80(2)6" UD IN = 391.8015" IN = 387.3515" OUT = 387.30CB # 20RIM = 393.7012" OUT = 389.50CB # 19STA. 30+21, 12' LT.RIM = 394.306" UD IN = 390.306" UD OUT = 391.3012" IN = 388.0015" IN = 388.0015" OUT = 387.95CB # 21STA. 31+30, 23.5' RT.RIM = 392.50(2)6" UD IN = 389.0015" IN = 388.6515" IN = 388.6515" OUT = 388.60CB # 22STA. 31+30, 12' LT.RIM = 393.00(2)6" UD IN = 389.0015" OUT = 388.85CB # 23STA. 33+00, 12' RT.RIM = 395.50(2)6" UD OUT = 391.5015" IN = 389.6015" OUT = 388.55CB # 24STA. 34+50, 12' RT.RIM = 394.30(2)6" UD IN = 390.4015" IN = 390.4015" OUT = 390.35CB # 25STA. 34+50, 12' LT.RIM = 394.30(2)6" UD IN = 390.5515" OUT = 390.55MATCHLINESTA.24+00PROJECT PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING CATCH BASIN & CULVERTEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING CONTOURWETLAND BUFFERWETLAND BOUNDARYEXISTING WATER LINEEXIST. SEWER MANHOLE & SEWER LINEUTILITY POLE & OVERHEAD WIREEXISTING FENCE390490DFDFDSWSNEW SEWER LINE & MANHOLENEW FOOTING DRAIN & MANHOLENEW CATCH BASIN, PIPE & UNDERDRAINFINISH GRADE CONTOURNEW WATER MAIN & HYDRANT3SITE PLAN &UTILITIES - SOUTHFOUNDATION DRAINMANHOLE DATAFDMH #1RIM = 397.06" IN/OUT = 386.50FDMH #2RIM = 396.06" IN/OUT = 385.70FDMH #3RIM = 395.56" IN/OUT = 384.50FDMH #8RIM = 389.06" IN/OUT = 384.20NEW FORCEMAINFMTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONPROPOSED STREET LIGHT Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT1 inch = 30 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 60 120CATCH BASIN DATACB # 26STA. 40+47, 13.75' RT.RIM = 394.806" UD IN = 390.8012" OUT = 389.25EXISTING CB #28STA. 40+50, 19' LT.EXIST. RIM = 394.84NEW RIM = 395.454" UD IN = 391.694" FD IN = 391.54NEW 12" IN = 390.0012" OUT = 389.64CB # 27STA. 40+47, 13.75' LT.RIM = 394.806" UD IN = 390.8012" OUT = 390.25EXISTING CB #29STA. 40+50, 19' RT.EXIST. RIM = 394.52NEW RIM = 395.404" UD IN = 390.524" FD IN = 390.82NEW 12" IN = 389.0012" OUT = 388.57SEE SHEET 2PROJECT PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING CATCH BASIN & CULVERTEXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING CONTOURWETLAND BUFFERWETLAND BOUNDARYEXISTING WATER LINEEXIST. SEWER MANHOLE & SEWER LINEUTILITY POLE & OVERHEAD WIREEXISTING FENCE390490DFDFDSWSNEW SEWER LINE & MANHOLENEW FOOTING DRAIN & MANHOLENEW CATCH BASIN, PIPE & UNDERDRAINFINISH GRADE CONTOURNEW WATER MAIN & HYDRANT4SITE PLAN & UTILITIESPINNACLE AT SPEAR &X-COUNTRY WATERLINESEE SHEET 3 FOR NOTES1 inch = 30 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 60 120PLAN OF CROSS COUNTRY WATERMAINTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION 37638038438839210+00 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00 18+00378382386390394376380384388392378382386390394374EOPEOPȭ INTERSECTION ELEV = 389.76STA 22+26.34 = STA 18+24.48ȭ SPEAR STREETSTA 15+6624" CULVERTȭ INTERSECTION ELEV = 389.56STA 14+11+.47 = STA 50+00.0050' VCK=40.15A.D. = 1.25PVI ELEV = 388.30PVI STA = 16+64BVCS: 16+39BVCE: 388.42EVCS: 16+89EVCE: 388.49388.39100' VCK=81.32A.D. = 1.23PVI ELEV = 389.87PVI STA = 13+50BVCS: 13+00BVCE: 390.73EVCS: 14+00EVCE: 389.62390.73390.02389.62100' VCK=21.14A.D. = -4.73PVI ELEV = 392.08PVI STA = 12+22.21BVCS: 11+72.21BVCE: 390.58EVCS: 12+72.21EVCE: 391.22391.23391.48388.56-1.73%390.73-0.50%389.62389.37389.12388.87388.620.75%388.57388.94389.31FINISHGRADEEXISTINGGROUNDFINISHGRADEEXISTINGGROUND80' VCK=16.00A.D. = 5.00PVI ELEV = 388.18PVI STA = 10+92.33BVCS: 10+52.33BVCE: 388.98EVCS: 11+32.33EVCE: 389.38388.743.00%389.91-2.00%389.03CB #1 & #2 STA. 10+87CB #3 STA. 12+17CB #4 & #5 STA. 13+80CB #8 & #9 STA. 16+64S=0.005FT/FT130'x15"PES=0.005FT/FT160'x15"PES=0.0086FT/FT58'x15"PEOUTLET TOSTORMWATER PONDS=0.0056FT/FT45'x15"PEFROM CB #6 TO CB #5FROM CB #5TO CB #4FROM CB #2TO CB #1OUTLET TOSTORMWATER POND250'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FTSMH #1 STA. 11+50SMH #2 STA. 14+00SMH #4 STA. 15+50SMH #6150'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FT275'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FTFROM SMH# 78"CL52DIWATER8"CL52DIWATER6' MIN. COVERTYPICAL STREET FINISHGRADE ELEVATIONConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT5PROFILESPEAR MEADOW ROAD1inch=30ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 601 inch = 3 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE301.536 37638038438839239620+00 21+00 22+00 23+00 24+00 25+00 26+00 27+00 28+00378382386390394398ȭ INTERSECTION ELEV = 389.76STA 22+26.34 = STA 18+24.481.00%387.50388.00388.50389.00389.50390.00390.50391.00391.50392.00392.50393.00393.50394.00394.50395.00395.50CB #13 STA. 22+75CB #12 STA. 22+10CB #14 & #15 STA. 25+00CB #16 & #17 STA. 26+78.75S=0.005FT/FT219'x15"PES=0.005FT/FT179'x18"PES=0.0051FT/FT226'x18"PES=0.0051FT/FT120'x15"PES=0.007FT/FT85'x24"PECENTERLINE ROADFINISH GRADEEXISTINGGROUNDCENTERLINE ROADFINISH GRADEEXISTINGGROUND1.00%CB #10 & #11 STA. 20+15S=0.008FT/FTOUTLET TOSTORMWATER PONDOUTLET TOSTORMWATER PONDFROM CB #11FROM CB #15TO CB #14FROM CB #17TO CB #16SMH #6FROM SMH #468'x18"PESMH #7 STA. 24+50223'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FTSMH #8 STA. 26+50199'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FT278'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FTSMH #5 STA. 20+33193'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.005FT/FTTO SEWER PUMP STATION8"CL52DIWATER6' MIN. COVER8"CL52DIWATERTYPICAL STREET CENTERLINEFINISH GRADE29+00 30+00 31+00 32+00 33+00 34+00 35+00100' VCK=40.00A.D. = 2.50PVI ELEV = 394.39PVI STA = 34+50BVCS: 34+00BVCE: 395.01EVCS: 35+00EVCE: 395.01395.01394.70395.01100' VCK=30.77A.D. = -3.25PVI ELEV=396.26BVCS: 32+50BVCE: 395.26EVCS: 33+50EVCE: 395.64395.26395.86395.64100' VCK=28.62A.D. = 3.49PVI ELEV = 392.98PVI STA = 31+35.69BVCS: 30+85.69BVCE: 393.72EVCS: 31+85.69EVCE: 393.98393.54393.48100' VCK=40.10A.D. = -2.49PVI ELEV = 396.50PVI STA = 29+00BVCS: 28+50BVCE: 396.00EVCS: 29+50EVCE: 395.75396.00396.19395.75395.01-1.25%395.64395.012.00%394.26395.26-1.49%395.75395.00394.26396.00CB #18 STA. 28+98CB #19 STA. 30+21CB #21 & #22 STA. 31+30CB #23 STA. 33+00CB #24 & #25 STA. 34+50S=0.005FT/FT150'x15"PES=0.005FT/FT180'x15"PES=0.005FT/FT118'x15"PES=0.005FT/FT120'x15"PE1.25%FROM CB #20TO CB #19FROM CB #22TO CB #21FROM CB #25TO CB #24SMH #9 STA. 29+29SMH #10 STA. 31+50216'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.0050FT/FTSMH #11 STA. 33+00148'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.0050FT/FT8"CL52DIWATER8"CL52DIWATER6' MIN. COVER FINISHGRADEConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT61 inch = 30 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 601 inch = 3 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE301.536376380384388392396378382386390394398374376380384388392396378382386390394398374376380384388392396378382386390394398374PROFILEVALE DRIVESTA. 20+00 - 35+50 36+00 37+00 38+00 39+00 40+0037638038438839239637838238639039439837441+00SDWKEOPEOPEXIST. SMH STA. 39+42EXIST. CBsSTA. 40+80MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT100 VCK=44.77A.D. = -2.23PVI ELEV = 398.14PVI STA = 37+50BVCS: 37+00BVCE: 397.51EVCS: 38+00EVCE: 397.64397.51397.86397.64-0.98%397.64397.15396.66396.17395.68395.191.25%395.64396.26396.89397.51EXIST.8"SDR35PVCSTUBCENTERLINE ROADFINISH GRADEEXISTING GROUNDEXIST.8"SDR35PVCEXIST.12"PECB #26 & #27 STA. 40+47FROM CB #26 TOEXISTING CB 6' MIN. COVER 8"CL52DIWATEREXIST.8"DIWATERSTUBAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OFEXISTING WATER & SEWERMAIN STUBS24" PE CULVERTTYPICAL STREET CENTERLINEFINISH GRADEȭ INTERSECTION ELEV = 389.56STA 14+11.47 = STA 50+0038038438839250+00 51+00 52+00 53+00382386390380384388392382386390378FINISHGRADEEXISTINGGROUND3940.85%389.52389.94390.37390.80391.22391.65CB #6 & #7 STA. 50+50FROM CB #7 TO CB #6SMH #3 STA. 53+00301'x8"SDR35PVCS=0.0071FT/FTFROMCB#6TOCB#56' MIN. COVER 8"CL52DIWATERConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT7PROFILEVALE DRIVE (35+50 - 41+00)&STREET'A'1inch=30ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 601 inch = 3 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE301.536376380384388392396378382386390394398374VALE DRIVESTA. 35+50 - 41+00STREET 'A' Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION1inch=50ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE50 0 25 50 100 200FOUNDATION PLANTING REQUIREMENTS1. A MINIMUM OF 18 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS AND 12 EVERGREEN SHRUBS SHALL BEPLANTED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF PLANTINGS FOR ABUILDING CONTAINING MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE APPORTIONED AROUND THEPERIMETER OF THE BUILDING BASED UPON THE LOCATION OF WINDOWS, PORCHES,DECKS, RETAINING WALLS, AND OTHER SITE CONDITIONS.2. PLANTS SHALL BE SELECTED FROM THE LISTS BELOW, BASED UPON THEBUILDING'S EXPOSURE. A MINIMUM OF 2 SPECIES SHALL BE SELECTED FROM EACHGROUP (DECIDUOUS SHRUBS AND EVERGREEN SHRUBS)Botanical NameCommon Name SizeCornus alba 'Sibirica'Tartarian dogwood #3FOR SUNNY UNITS FACING SOUTH AND WESTDECIDUOUS SHRUBSIlex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'Jim Dandy winterberry #3#3Ilex verticillata 'Redsprite'Red Sprite winterberry#3Clethra alnifolia'Compacta'Compact summersweet#3Rhus armoatica 'Gro-Low'Gro-Low sumacJuniperus communis 'Green Carpet'Green carpet juniper #3EVERGREEN SHRUBSMicrobiota decussataRussian arborvitae #3#3Juniperus sabina 'Broadmoor'Broadmoor juniperBotanicalName CommonName SizeSymphoricarpus albaCommon snowberry #3FOR SHADY UNITS FACING NORTH AND EASTDECIDUOUS SHRUBSHydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle'Annabelle smooth hydrangea#3#3Ilex glabra 'Shamrock'Inkberry#3Clethra alnifolia 'Rubyspice'Ruby spice summersweet#3Rhus armoatica 'Gro-Low'Gro-Low sumacTaxus x media'Hicksii'Green carpet juniper #3EVERGREEN SHRUBSMicrobiota decussataRussian arborvitae#3#3Juniperus sabina'Monna''Calgary carpet juniperEXISTING CUL-DE-SAC INSETSEE INSET BELOW FORREMAINDER OFLANDSCAPING PLAN8LANDSCAPE PLANWETLAND BUFFER DELINEATIONTHE WETLAND BUFFER SHALL BE MARKED IN THE LOCATIONS SHOWN WITH ONE OR MOREOF THE FOLLOWING METHODS:- BOULDERS HAVING A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 30" AND A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 12 FEET O.C.-SPLITRAILFENCE- RED CHOKEBERRY OR WINTERBERRY SHRUBS AT A SPACING OF 4 FEET O.C.- RIVER BIRCH TREES (1" - 1 1/2" CALIPER) AT A SPACING OF 12 FEET O.C.Common Hackberry21/2"-3"Cal.TREE PLANTING DETAIL Consulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450SPEAR STREET & VALE DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTONSPEAR MEADOWSA RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT9EROSION PROTECTION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROL PLANSTABILIZED STAGING / STORAGE1inch=50ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE50 02550100 200THE STORMWATER BASINS SHALL BE USED AS SEDIMENTATION BASINS DURING CONSTRUCTION.1. THE SEDIMENTATION BASINS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE GRADES SHOWN, EXCEPT THAT THE FOREBAYSHALL BE OVER-EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH OF 1 FOOT BELOW THE GRADES SHOWN.2. TYPE I STONE FILL MAY BE PLACED ON THE BASIN SIDESLOPES TO STABILIZE THE SOIL IF VEGETATION DOESNOT BECOME ESTABLISHED DUE TO FLUCTUATING WATER LEVELS WITHIN THE BASIN.3. THE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT IN THE FOREBAYS SHALL BE MONITORED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SHALLBE REMOVED WHEN IT REACHES A DEPTH OF 2 FEET.4. SEDIMENT REMOVED FROM THE BASIN SHALL BE DISPOSED IN AN UPLAND LOCATION ONASLOPELESSTHAN5% AND NO LESS THAN 50 FEET FROM A WETLAND OR STREAM. THE MATERIAL SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHEDIMMEDIATELY TO ESTABLISH VEGETATIVE COVER. Consulting Engineers,Inc.LAMOUREUX &DICKINSON14 MorseDriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450REVISIONSSPEAR MEADOWS, INC.LANDS OF1302, 1340 & 1350 SPEAR ST., SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT14008JKRABRDLH / ABR06-06-16SHT. NO.SCALEDATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNSURVEYPROJECT NO.DescriptionDatebyABR/DJGAS NOTEDLOCATION MAPN.T.SNOTES:1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORDRESEARCH INCLUDING THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING PLANS:A."LANDS OF ROBERT AND MARJORIE SKIFF, SWIFT STREET, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT, 3 LOT SUBDIVISION PLAT." DATED 4-2-01,LAST REVISED 5-23-03, BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON CONSULTINGENGINEERS, INC. AS RECORDED IN SLIDE392 OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.B. "SWIFT ESTATES, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT." DATED 6-30-71,BY WILLIS ENGINEERING, AS RECORDED IN VOL. 80, PAGE 184 ORTHE SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "PLAT OF BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, LANDS OF SPEAR MEADOWS,INC., R & T TARRANT, D & C FRANZONI, 1340 SPEAR STREET, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT", DATED JANUARY 25, 2011, BY CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 550 OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.D. "PLAT OF SURVEY, LANDS OF FARRELL & COLE, 1302, 1340 & 1350SPEAR STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT", DATEDNOVEMBER 29, 2005, BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC., ASRECORDED IN SLIDE 550 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDRECORDS.E. "FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY OF GERALD MILOTAND JOHN LARKIN, PINNACLE @ SPEAR (FORMERLY NOWLAND TWO)SPEAR STREET, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT." DATED 8-21-98,LAST REVISED 1-5-99, BY VAUGHN C. BUTTON, L.S., AS RECORDED INSLIDE335.2OFTHECITYOFSOUTHBURLINGTONLANDRECORDS.2. THE BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY WERE GENERATED FROMSURVEY GRADE GPS OBSERVATIONS RECORDED IN APRIL, 2016,AND ARE BASED ON THE VERMONT STATE PLANE COORDINATESYSTEM, NAD83(CORS 1996).3. THE FIELDWORK FOR THIS SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN APRIL, 2016.5. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/ORRIGHTS-OF-WAY.6. MONUMENTATION FOUND IS AS NOTED ON THIS PLAN7. THE WIDTH OF FOUR RODS (66') SHOWN FOR SPEAR STREET ISBASED ON A DESCRIPTION FOUND ON PAGE 22 OF THE TOWN OFBURLINGTON HIGHWAYS AND ROADS, 1802-1865.8. SEE SHEET PL-2 FOR THE METES AND BOUNDS OF THE PROPOSEDINTERIOR PROPERTY LINES, FOOTPRINT LOTS, AND PROPOSEDEASEMENTS.SWIFTST.SPEARST.SITEPERIMETER BOUNDARYSURVEY PLATPL1LEGENDN/FIPFIPSAGBGPROJECT PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED TO BE DISSOLVEDSIDELINE OF EASEMENTBARBED WIRE FENCESTONE WALLIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON ROD FOUNDT-STAKE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT TO BE SETIRON PIPE SETSURVEY POINT (NO MARKER)NOW OR FORMERLYABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADEIRFTSFAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE____ DAY OF _______________, 2016SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF___________________ 2016 BY(CLERK OR CHAIRMAN) Consulting Engineers,Inc.LAMOUREUX &DICKINSON14 MorseDriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450REVISIONSSPEAR MEADOWS, INC.LANDS OF1302, 1340 & 1350 SPEAR ST., SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT14008JKRABRDLH / ABR06-06-16SHT. NO.SCALEDATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNSURVEYPROJECT NO.DescriptionDatebyABR/DJGAS NOTEDLOCATION MAPN.T.SNOTES:1. SEE SHEET 1 (PERIMETER BOUNDARY SURVEY PLAT)FOR SURVEY NOTES, THE PROJECT BOUNDARY, ANDLOT 52.2. THE AREAS DEPICTED ON THIS PLAT FOR THECOMMON AREA LOTS EXCLUDE THE AREAS WITHINTHE RESPECTIVE FOOTPRINT LOTS.SWIFTST.SPEARST.SITENUMBER PNT NORTHINGEASTINGSUBDIVISION &FOOTPRINT LOT PLATPL2LEGENDN/FIPFIPSAGBGPROJECT PROPERTY LINEABUTTING PROPERTY LINESIDELINE OF EASEMENTBARBED WIRE FENCESTONE WALLIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON ROD FOUNDT-STAKE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT TO BE SETIRON PIPE SETNOW OR FORMERLYABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADECOMMON AREA LOT NUMBERFOOTPRINT LOT NUMBERIRF707248.93707276.67707281.91707335.52707382.73707436.34707431.11707458.85707483.63707527.28707560.36707604.02707628.17707681.40707674.21707701.75707589.60707530.43707530.43707481.13707461.41707412.10707412.10707362.80707427.92707477.22707496.94707546.25707546.25707595.55707615.27707664.58707791.32707798.76707758.46707772.84707830.53707837.97707775.86707790.24707848.31707855.75707815.45707829.83707770.75707970.86706638.731460915.391460911.881460953.361460946.591460880.781460877.281460929.031460922.271460913.891460908.381460904.211460898.701460901.491460892.181460851.001460846.191460588.371460598.341460598.341460606.651460609.981460618.291460618.291460626.611460524.361460516.041460512.721460504.411460504.411460496.091460492.771460484.451460583.881460556.921460545.801460493.711460420.701460393.751460461.671460409.581460356.281460329.331460318.211460266.121460198.271460451.861461021.1220012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202620272027202820292030203020312031203220332034203420352035203620372038203920402041204220432044707949.85707900.24707880.40707830.79707766.89707717.28707695.90707646.30707625.68707576.07707555.87707506.26707486.30707436.70707418.21707368.61707321.50707271.90707252.05707202.45707182.60707133.00707113.16707063.55707034.23707004.84707004.84706977.18706977.18706947.79706890.64706856.65706856.65706824.65706824.65706790.66706704.50706691.34706678.95706678.95706665.79706665.79707007.23707060.84707055.60707083.34707109.55707153.21707188.70707232.351460980.651460986.911460989.411460995.681461000.391461006.651460996.971461003.231460999.621461005.881461005.531461011.791461013.351461019.621461032.891461039.151461047.371461053.631461056.141461062.401461064.901461071.161461073.671461079.931461077.571461060.471461060.471461044.381461044.381461027.231460984.281460984.971460984.971460985.621460985.621460986.301461046.391461077.741461077.741461107.251461107.251461138.591460963.031460956.261460914.791460911.291460959.221460953.711460949.231460943.7213,500 SF23,500 SF33,500 SF43,500 SF53,500 SF63,500 SF73,500 SF83,500 SF93,500 SF103,500 SF113,500 SF123,500 SF132,652 SF142,652 SF152,652 SF162,652 SF172,652 SF182,652 SF192,652 SF202,652 SF212,652 SF222,770 SF233,113 SF243,080 SF253,080 SFNUMBER PNT NORTHINGEASTING20452046204720482051205220492050205320542055205620572058205920602061206220622063206420652065206620672068206920702070207120722073207420752076207720802081207820792082208320842085208620872089263,113 SF272,770 SF283,113 SF292,770 SF303,080 SF313,080 SF322,770 SF333,113 SF343,600 SF353,500 SF363,500 SF373,500 SF383,500 SF393,500 SF403,500 SF413,500 SF423,113 SF432,770 SF443,113 SF452,770 SF463,113 SF472,770 SFCMONIPCMONTSFAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE____ DAY OF _______________, 2016SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF___________________ 2016 BY(CLERK OR CHAIRMAN) 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_16_12LedouxTerrace_BurlingtonInternationalAirport_s ubdivision_ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 15, 2016 Plans received: June 10, 2016 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-16 BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT – 12 LEDOUX TERRACE Meeting Date: August 23, 2016 Applicant Burlington International Airport/City of Burlington 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Owner Clayton and Gail Holmes 12 Ledoux Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Parcel 1020-00012 Residential 4 Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_16_12LedouxTerrace_BurlingtonInternationalAirport_subdivision_July_19_2016.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 (2) lots of 0.22 acres (lot #1) and .016 acres (lot #2), 12 Ledoux Terrace. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans and have the following comments to offer. A. ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Min. Lot Size 9,500 SF 16,596 SF 9,500 SF 7,096 SF Max. Building Coverage 30% 10.6% 18.6% 0% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 14.8% 25.9% 0% *Min. Front Setback 30 ft. <30 ft. <30 ft. N/A *Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. >10 ft. N/A *Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. N/A *Pre-existing, non-conforming with no change occurring B. Subdivision Standards 15.10 Lot Layout A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions. B. Except within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply: Corner lots shall have extra width to conform to setbacks on each street. No subdivision showing any reserved strips shall be approved. A width to length ratio of one to five (1:5) shall be used as a guideline by the Development Review Board in evaluating lot proportions. Developments consisting predominantly of square or roughly square lots or lot with an excessive length to width ratio (i.e. spaghetti lots) shall not be approved. Staff considers that the ratio of Lot 2 is not of consequence, because it will be merged and cease to exist as a separate lot. The ratio of the existing parcel is approximately 1:4. New Lot 1 will have a ratio of approximately 1:2. Staff considers that while a 1:2 ratio is further from the guideline of 1:5 than the 1:4 ratio of the existing lot, the proposed Lot 1 is still an acceptable ratio, because it is not predominantly square and were setbacks to be met the lot could still be developed in compliance with the LDRs. C. Access In accordance with Section 3.05(B): CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_16_12LedouxTerrace_BurlingtonInternationalAirport_subdivision_July_19_2016.doc 3 A. Reduction of Lot Size. No lot shall be so reduced in area that the lot size, coverage, setbacks, or other requirements of these regulations shall be smaller than herein prescribed for each district. Lot 1 will meet the requirements of the regulations. Lot 2 will be merged with an adjacent property, see the discussion below. B. Lots with No Road Frontage. (1) No land development may be permitted on lots which do not have either frontage on a public road or public waters, unless, with the approval of the Development Review Board through a miscellaneous application, such lots have access to a public road or waters by a permanent easement or right-of-way at least twenty (20) feet in width. (2) The Development Review Board may approve subdivision or development of lots with no frontage on a public street, as long as access to such a street by a permanent easement or right-of-way at least twenty (20) feet in width is provided, according to the following procedures: (a) … (b) … Lot 2 is proposed to be merged with adjacent properties also owned by the applicant; however, it is not clear from the plan submitted: a) which adjacent parcel Lot 2 will be merged with, b) what the size of the newly enlarged parcel will be, and c) whether the receiving parcel has access and/or frontage on a public street. 1. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide this information at the next stage of the development review process. 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 Copy to: Gene Richards, applicant 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.comCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ACELOCATION MAPNOT to SCALEP1Clayton & Gail Holmes12 LEDOUX TERRACESOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONTSKETCH PLAN FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONDRAFTfor ReviewRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE _____ DAY OF _____________,20____, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAIDRESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSONTo the best of my knowledge and belief this plat depicts theresults of a survey conducted by me as described in "SurveyNotes" above, based upon our analysis of land records andevidence found in the field. Existing boundaries shown are insubstantial conformance with the records, except as noted.This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403,"Recording of Land Plats". This statement valid only whenaccompanied by my original signature and seal.____________________________________________________Rebecca Gilson VT LS 109314- Survey Notes -1. Purpose of this survey is to retrace, monument, document and subdivide the boundariesof an existing parcel of land deeded to Clayton Holmes and Gail Holmes by quit claimdeed dated October 8, 2009 recorded Vol. 899, Pg. 246 of the City of South BurlingtonLand Records. Other neighboring property lines and buildings shown MAY be approximateonly, and are shown for information purposes only.2. Field survey was conducted during spring of 2016 and consists of a closed-loop traverseutilizing a robotic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations on or adjacent to the site(Reference Frame NAD83 (2011, Epoch 2010)).3. Iron pipes shown as “found” are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods with outsidediameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods and markers found aregood unless otherwise noted. Corners denoted “Proposed” shall typically consist of 5/8”diameter rebar capped with aluminum disks stamped “Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS597”, and typically set flush with existing grade.4. Not being within the scope of this survey, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. has conductedno investigation whatsoever respecting whether or not the property and each componentthereof is in compliance with state or local permits.5. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon oradjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only. Buriedutilities shown are depicted based solely on surface indications. Actual locations mayvary. Contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction.6. Ledoux Terrace is a 50' wide public right-of-way. Vol. 30, Pg. 171.7. Parcel lies in "Residential 4" Zoning District and is also inside the "Transit Overlay District".8. Parcel does not lie within any floodplain as determined by the Federal EmergencyManagment Agency (FEMA) or as mapped by the City of South Burlington.9. Parcel 2 is to be merged with adjacent City of Burlington land. No point of access or utilityconnections are necessary.ORIGINAL INK on MYLARPROJECTLOCATION2n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 921 Pg. 15Holmes, C. & G.12 Ledoux TerraceVol. 899 Pg. 246n/fRessler, D.20 Ledoux TerraceVol. 564 Pg. 10- Referenced Plats or Plans -A. "Proposed Sub-Division; Maryland Street Extension"; prepared by Webster-Martin,Inc.; January 1963; Map Slide 41.9.B. "Plan of Sunrise Park; Owned by Peterson & Barber"; prepared by Hoag & Assoc.Inc.; February 1956; Map Slide 17.2.C. "Study Plan No. 3 of the Land of Mr. & Mrs. Martello"; prepared by Hoag & Assoc.Inc.; July 1959; Map Slide 40.3 & 40.4.Proposed Lot 19500.0 Sq. Ft.0.22 AcresProposed Lot 27096 Sq. Ft.0.16 Acres(to be merged withadjacent City ofBurlington properties)LEGENDEGABUTTER PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.)WIRE FENCEEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING GASEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINESUBJECT PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUND/REBAR FOUNDXXBURLINGTONINTERNATIONALAIRPORT2n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1225 Pg. 210n/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1186 Pg. 304n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1188 Pg. 243FORMER PROPERTY LINES (APPROX.)PICKET/VINYL FENCECHAINLINK FENCESTOCKADE FENCEXXXXCAPPED REBAR PROPOSEDCALCULATED POINTIPF/RBFn/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1207 Pg. 185n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 415 Pg. 168n/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofVol. 917 Pg. 179n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1185 Pg. 20n/fBurlington, City ofVol. 1015 Pg. 314n/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofn/fBurlington, City ofGarage = 245 Sq. FeetDriveway = 692 Sq. FeetDeck = 395 Sq. FeetHouse = 942 Sq. FeetShed = 98 Sq. FeetSide Porch = 40 Sq. FeetFront Porch = 44 Sq. FeetTotal = 2456 Sq. FeetTotal Area Proposed Lot 1 = 9500 Sq. Feet25.9%- Coverage Calculations -CRPRIGHT OF WAY LINESETBACKAPPLICANT:BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT1200 AIRPORT DRIVE #1SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403Garage = 245 Sq. FeetDecks & Porches = 479 Sq. FeetHouse = 942 Sq. FeetShed = 98 Sq. FeetBuilding Coverage Overall CoverageTotal = 1764 Sq. Feet18.6% 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 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JULY 2016 3 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. 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