Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/20/2016 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 DECEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 December 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; G. Rabideau, J. Larkin, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, J. Carroll, J. Leinwohl, D. Grover, K. Lickling, T. Barritt, B. Nedde, M. McCormick, C. Houston 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. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-16-33 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) extending taxiways B and G, and 2) constructing a perimeter road from the existing quarry to the taxiway B extension, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl said there have been no changes since sketch plan review. The changes are safety related and concern an intersection of 2 runways. This project will alleviate the problems. They will be taking out some pavement; however, there will be a net increase in impervious. Ms. Smith asked if the applicant had addressed the question of coverage. Mr. Leinwohl said coverage is at 31.3%, and with this project it will be at 31.5%. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-33. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-16-29 of John P. Larkin and Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), and 2) constructing an 83,972 sq. ft. building which will include 60 residential units and 20,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Rabideau showed a concept of the Shelburne Road corner. He said it is meant to be a place where people are. He noted planting beds and other details. He also showed a view looking southwest including frontage on Fayette Road. They have re-oriented the tower feature. Mr. Rabideau said the architecture is continuing to evolve. He indicated the addition of some outdoor terraces. He then showed a view looking up Shelburne Road which includes some outdoor seating for a potential restaurant. An “interior view” was then shown indicating parking and an outdoor covered space for dumpsters, etc. Mr. Rabideau indicated the pedestrian circulation. Residential units now include 15 2-bedroom units as recommended by staff. Mr. Parsons asked if there is currently a bus shelter and whether the bus stop will remain. Mr. Rabideau indicated the bus stop on the plan and showed the sidewalks leading to it. The form of the bus stop will be up to CCTA. Mr. Belair commented that the narrow sidewalk close to Shelburne Road appears to be dangerous. Mr. McCormick said it is intended as a buffer. Mr. Rabideau added that they don’t want to plant material so close to the road as it would not survive. The sidewalk that is intended for people to use is 10 feet wide. It can also accommodate bicycles safely. Ms. Smith said she would rather see the outside strip for bicycle use. Mr. Rabideau noted they are looking at different colorings for bricks so it doesn’t appear to be just one big building. There would be retail on the ground floor. The tower would have a fitness center and community room. Traffic: Mr. Rabideau said they have no issue with the Board imposing technical review of traffic. Mr. Grover said they estimate 72 peak hour trip ends including “internal capture” and a 6% reduction for TDM. With the removal of the existing building, there is a net increase of 50 peak hour trip ends. Mr. Grover also said there is a minimal impact on driveways/intersections. The Fayette Road intersection remains at level of service A and the driveways remain at level of service B. Mr. Wilking felt they should also analyze Shelburne Road. There is now a problem on that road at peak hours. This will be adding to that problem. Mr. Rabideau noted that at this time, the property is part of a traffic overlay district. Mr. Grover said that limits the number of turns on and off the road. They got credit for a signalized intersection. There is a budget for allowable trip ends. Right now they are at 45 and have a budget of 83. He noted that staff would like them to look at traffic for the whole development, but for this project they are within the limit. There is also a trip budget allowed for a PUD. They will include an analysis of the whole development. Mr. Grover said it looks like they are well within the allowable numbers. Mr. Kochman asked if the Board has discretion to require something more such as completing the north/south road to Holmes Road. He would like the applicant to come back with input from Mr. Farrell and from the intervening property owner. Mr. Wilking noted that owner was in recently and appeared amenable to a discussion. Shared Parking: Mr. Rabideau said that part of the overlay district is a shared parking agreement among a number of users. They will be fitting into that plan with space to spare. Mr. Wilking felt the Board should hear from the neighbors to be sure the project doesn’t make their uses inoperable. Stormwater/Civil Engineering: Mr. Nedde said they are very excited about the stormwater plan which will be a net community benefit. The current facility behind the movie theatre is not up to standard. The new system will be up to today’s standard and will result in downstream improvements. The pond will be sized for the full Master Plan. Mr. Rabideau said the typical roof will be 10 feet above the maximum allowable height, and the tower will be 60’‐ 6”. They will be asking for a height waiver. Mr. Kochman asked why there is the attachment to the tower. Mr. Rabideau said it is similar to a steeple in a village…”here it is…this is an important place.” It also helps to promote the urban concept. Mr. Wilking had no issue with the concept, but he didn’t feel it was “there yet.” Other members liked the tower. Some wanted to see it open to the public. Affordability: Mr. Miller noted there has been no request for a density bonus, so there is no requirement for affordable housing. Mr. Kochman noted the applicant is taking down 61 units of inexpensive housing where people have been living for a long time. The units going up will more likely be more expensive, so there will be a net decrease in affordable housing. This is contrary to a whole chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked if the applicant will/will not be seeking a density bonus for the whole 40 acres. Mr. Larkin said there is no decision on that yet. Mr. Kochman said that until that representation is made he was unwilling to consider this first phase in isolation. He asked to know what the rental costs will be. Mr. Miller said he didn’t want the Board to ask for something that is not within its purview. Mr. Larkin said he wants to go back and do the math and make sure they don’t need the density bonus. Mr. Larkin indicated that affordable housing would be part of their objective for the master plan whether they need bonus density of not and that he wouldn’t want to preclude their ability to pursue a bonus density. Mr. Carroll, representing the neighbor to the north, said that energy is an important factor in affordability today. He felt that to meet affordability standards today you need non-profit money. To be “sustainable” you need walkability, etc. He felt that height is “the way to go.” Mr. Kochman said that is a Planning Commission discussion. He added that he liked the general concept and the project, but he was “stuck” on what he was “stuck on.” Ms. Easton, an abutting neighbor, was excited to see the project evolve. She felt it has an urban transitional look. She didn’t mind the tower but would like people to be able to go up in it. She was concerned with traffic. She asked about the connecting road that could go through the Eagles/clothing stores, etc. She was also concerned with how stormwater will be handled in the future as there are developable properties nearby that will be affected. Mr. Rabideau said the net stormwater outcome will make the whole PUD better. Mr. Nedde said it will handle a 100-year storm event. Mr. Rabideau asked the board to grant preliminary approval and let them deal with the issues. Mr. Wilking moved to invoke technical review for traffic. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-29. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-1 with Mr. Kochman opposing. 6. Master Plan Application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller noted this is a new Master Plan. Everything from the previous plan is included by reference. Mr. Belair noted staff has not yet received the Channel 17 recordings. Members felt these should be part of the package. Mr. Miller said that staff recommends keeping the application open to give the Board time to go through it. There could be a special meeting for this purpose. Mr. Langfeldt said they have streamlined the number of waivers. They have included the ones they felt the Board was in favor of. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #MP-16-03 to 3 January 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. 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 said this application should be continued as long as the -03 application is continued, even longer. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-16-01 to 3 January 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Minutes of 6 December 2016: Mr. Kochman asked that on p. 2 it be noted that he felt innovation didn’t apply because it isn’t an issue of dimensional standards, it is density. On p. 3, it should be noted that Mr. Kochman said he agreed with Mr. Rushford. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 6 December 2016 with the above additions. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Other Business: There was no other business discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. , Clerk _________1/17/2017___________________________ Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SD-16-33 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF BURLINGTON/BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT—1200 AIRPORT DRIVE PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-33 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-33 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) extending taxiways B and G, and 2) constructing a perimeter road from the existing quarry to the taxiway B extension, 1200 Airport Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on December 20, 2016. The applicant was represented by John Leinwohl. 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, City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport, seeks to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) extending taxiways B and G, and 2) constructing a perimeter road from the existing quarry to the taxiway B extension, 1200 Airport Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport. 3. The application was received on October 28, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Airport Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of two (2) pages titled “Location Plan” and “Site Plan” prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and dated 10/28/16. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. The Board finds there is no change to this criterion. (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. #SD-16-33 2 The Board finds this criterion to be met. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Board finds this project is contained on the subject parcel within the security fence. (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. (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. (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 site is already developed as an airport and the proposed project supports the development already present and does not impact open space on the site or any wetlands. The Board finds this criterion 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. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, 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. The Board finds that the unique nature of the site—an airport—makes these criteria inapplicable to the site. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the proposed project supports the airport development already present, which is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as an existing and growing use within the Northeast Quadrant of the City. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: #SD-16-33 3 A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. The Board finds these criteria to not be applicable. 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: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board does not consider that the reservation of land is necessary. B. 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 shall be underground. 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). D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) The Board finds these criteria to not be applicable. Stormwater The Board received the following comments from the Stormwater Section in an email dated December 15, 2016: 1. This project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. 2. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. #SD-16-33 4 The Board supports the comments of the Stormwater Section. DECISION Motion by _________, seconded by __________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD- 16-33 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport, 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. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 4. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 5. The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 6. The mylars must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 7. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 8. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 9. The final plat plan (Site Plan) 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. 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 _____________________________________ #SD-16-33 5 Bill Miller, 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. Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington VT 05403 Tel: (802) 864-0223 Fax: (802) 864-0165 Transmittal To: Ray Belair From: Jon Leinwohl, P.E. Company: Address: City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington VT 05403 … … ; For Your Information For Filing with City Clerk For Your Review Phone: (802) 846-4106 …As Requested Date: October 28, 2016 File: 195311069 Delivery: Hand Delivery Reference: Burlington International Airport Taxiway B Extension Project Preliminary/Final Plat Application Attachment: Copies Doc Date Pages Description 1 10/28/16 5 Signed Preliminary/Final Application 1 10/28/16 1 Application Fee Check in amount of $1,026 1 8/31/2016 1 ANR Project Location Map 3 10/28/16 2 Full size Taxiway B Extension Location Plan and Site Plan 1 10/28/16 2 11” x 17” Taxiway B Extension Location Plan and Site Plan 1 No date 17 Stormwater Construction 3028-INDC.5 DRAFT 1 10/24/16 4 Stormwater General Permit 3028-9015.3 1 10/2016 2 11” x 17” abutter list Oct. 28, 2016 Ray Belair Page 2 of 2 Reference: Burlington International Airport Taxiway B Extension Project Preliminary/Final Plat Application Ray - Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Jon Leinwohl, P.E. Associate, Transportation Phone: (802) 497-6410 Fax: (802) 864-0165 jon.leinwohl@stantec.com c. Gene Richards, Amanda Clayton, Nic Longo (BTV) via email V:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\So. Burlington\Prelim_Final Plat\Transmittal 20161028.docx Permit Number SD- - (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT REVIEW ¥Preliminary ¥ Final PUD Being Requested? ¥ Yes Ƒ No All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax #) City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1, South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 863-2874 Fax: (802) 863-7947 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page #) Book 13, Page 271 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax#) City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1, South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 863-2874 Fax: (802) 863-7947 4. CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) Gene Richards Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1, South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 863-2874 Fax: (802) 863-7947 Jon Leinwohl Stantec Consulting 55 Green Mountain Drive, South Burlington, VT 05403 Phone: (802) 497-6410 Fax: (802) 864-0165 a. Contact email address: Gene Richards: btv@btv.aero Jon Leinwohl: jon.leinwohl@stantec.com 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Burlington International Airport, 1200 Airport Drive, South Burlington, VT 6. TAX PARCEL ID #(can be obtained at Assessor’s Office)2000 0000C 575 D o r s e t S t r e e t S o u t h B u r l i ngt o n , V T 05403 t e l 802 . 846 . 4106 fa x 80 2.846 . 4101 w w w . s b u r l . c o m 2 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General Project Description (describe what you are proposing): The project involves construction of a new taxiway located within the airfield of the Burlington International Airport (BTV). The purpose of the project is to improve the taxiway system resulting in safer and more efficient aircraft ground movement. The Taxiway B Extension Project involves constructing a new +/- 1,850-ft long Taxiway on the east side of Runway 15-33. The typical width is 35 feet. This project is needed to address FAA safety concerns related to expansive pavement areas currently existing at the intersection of Runway 1-19, Runway 15-33, and Taxiway A. A future project will remove 62,000 sf (1.44 ac) of pavement at this intersection. Work required for this construction project includes excavation, crushed aggregate base course, bituminous concrete pavement, taxiway edge lighting, signage, pavement markings, drainage improvements, erosion prevention and sediment control, site restoration, and ancillary appurtenances. The vehicle access route to the project site will be from the quarry haul road via US Route 2 (Williston Road). There is a security fence gate in the northwest corner of the quarry that allows access to the airfield side of the airport property. A perimeter vehicle access route will be constructed from the quarry to the project site. If this access route remains after construction, the applicant will seek a site plan amendment, if needed. Snow storage will be provided on both sides of the Taxiway as noted on the Site Plan. b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): The project site is the airfield complex at the Burlington International Airport. The topography includes a plateau with paved runways, taxiways, and parking aprons. The areas not paved are open and vegetation is limited to grass. No buildings are present within the Taxiway project area. Existing used on the property include hangars, terminals, fueling facilities, and navigational facilities associated with the airport. c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): The proposed uses will be unchanged. There will be minor alterations of the existing conditions with the addition of Taxiway B Extension. d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain): There are no buildings within the Taxiway B Extension project area. e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): NA f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain): NA g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non-office employees): NA h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, 3 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): NA i. List any changes to the subdivision, such as property lines, number of units, lot mergers, etc. 1) There is no subdivision associated with this project. 2) The proposed facility will occupy land of the Owner/Applicant and the new facility will remain under the ownership and operation of the Airport. 8. LOT COVERAGE (ALL information MUST be provided here, even if no change is proposed) a. Size of Parcel: 942 acres / 41,033,520 sf (acres /sq. ft.) b. Building Coverage: Existing Unknown Proposed None square feet Unknown % square feet No change % c. Overall Coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc): Existing 295 ac / 12,850,200 sf Proposed 2.02 ac / 88,000 sf (additional) square feet 31.3 % square feet 31.5 total % d. Front Yard Coverage(s) (commercial projects only): Existing Unknown Proposed Unknown square feet Unknown % square feet No Change % 9. WETLAND INFORMATION a. Are there any wetlands (Class I, II, or III) on the subject property? Ƒ Yes ¥ No, there are no wetlands or associated buffers affecting by the project. b. If yes, is the proposed development encroaching into any of these wetlands associated 50’ buffers (describe) c. If yes, please submit the following with this application: 1. A site specific wetland delineation of the entire property or a written statement that the applicant is relying on the City’s wetland map. 2. Response to the criteria outlined in Section 12.02(E) of the Land Development Regulations (applicant is strongly encouraged to have a wetland expert respond to these criteria) 10. AREA DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION: 9.1 ± Acres. * *Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre of land must follow the City’s specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one (1) acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. A Draft Stormwater Individual Construction Discharge (INDC) permit (3028-INDC.5) has been issued for this project (see attached). It is on public notice through November 10, 2016. Copies of the complete stormwater permit applications may be provided upon request. 4 Subdivision Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 11. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ 0 b. Landscaping: $ 0 (Please submit itemized list of landscaping proposed) c. Other site improvements (please list with cost) $2,800,000 (taxiway) 12. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): NA 13. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: NA 14. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: NA 15. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: December 31, 2018 16. PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City’s Land Development Regulations. Five (5) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the plans must be submitted. A subdivision application fee shall be paid to the City at the time of submitting the application. See the City fee schedule for details. NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. 34,286 1,741.7 Natural Resources Atlas Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 24,000 © Vermont Agency of Natural Resources 1,219.0 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Meters1,219.00 NOTES Map created using ANR's Natural Resources Atlas LEGEND 610.00 vermont.gov DISCLAIMER: This map is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. ANR andthe State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but notlimited to, the warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular use, norare any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data on this map. August 31, 2016 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1" = 2000 1cm = 240Ft. Meters Waterbody Stream Town Boundary PortionofTaxiway'A' Removal Construction of Taxiway 'B' Project Location Map ISSUED FOR PERMIT OCTOBER 28, 2016 MIXED INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIALZONING DISTRICT AIRPORTZONING DISTRICT AIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICT MIXED INDUSTRIAL ANDCOMMERCIAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL 4DISTRICT V:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\So. Burlington\Prelim_Final Plat\Locationplan.dwg, Bravo Extension, 10/27/2016 12:39:14 PM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 ISSUED FOR PERMIT OCTOBER 28, 2016 V:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\So. Burlington\Prelim_Final Plat\195311069_c020_grading_profile.dwg, C.020, 10/27/2016 1:31:46 PM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1 NATIONAL LIFE DRIVE, MAIN 2 MONTPELIER, VT 05620-3522 DRAFT DISCHARGE PERMIT NPDES Number: VTS0000208 Permit Number: 3028-INDC.5 For stormwater runoff from the construction of the Taxiway ‘B’ extension located at 1200 Airport Drive in South Burlington, Vermont. In compliance with provisions of the following state and federal laws and rules: the Vermont Water Pollution Control statute, 10 V.S.A. Chapter 47, including §§1258, 1259 and 1263; the Vermont Water Pollution Control Rules, Chapter 13, the federal Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., including 33 USC 1342(p); and the regulations of the federal Environmental Protection Agency including 40 CFR 122.26 and in accordance with terms and conditions hereinafter specified, Permittee: City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Co-Permittees: (All principal operators shall obtain coverage as co-permittees prior to the commencement of construction activities.) are hereby authorized by the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), to discharge stormwater runoff from the construction site of the Taxiway ‘B’ extension located on Airport Drive discharging to groundwater of the Muddy Brook watershed. This authorization incorporates by reference the following Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Plan (EPSC Plan) provided by the applicant to the Secretary: Sheets 1-2, "Pre-Construction Plan", dated 09/27/2016 Sheets 3-4, "Construction Plan", dated 09/27/2016 Sheets 5-6, "Stabilization Plan", dated 09/27/2016 Sheet 7, "EPSC Narrative", dated 09/27/2016 Sheet 8, "EPSC Notes", dated 09/27/2016 Sheets 9, "EPSC Details", dated 09/27/2016 Prepared by Stantec Received 9/29/2016 BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 2 Part I. Coverage Under this Permit A. Discharges Covered by this Permit Subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit, this permit authorizes the discharge of pollutants in stormwater associated with the construction of the Taxiway ‘B’ extension project located at 1200 Airport Drive discharging to groundwater of the Muddy Brook watershed. This permit only applies to construction activities performed in accordance with the approved EPSC Plan. This permit also authorizes discharges from excavation dewatering activities in accordance with Part II.H of this permit. B. Limitations on Coverage 1. The Secretary has determined that an individual permit is required for this project. 2. This permit does not authorize: a. Discharges of post-construction regulated stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces regulated pursuant to Vermont’s stormwater statute (10 V.S.A. Section §1264) and Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s (DEC) stormwater rules (i.e. Chapters 18 and 22 of DEC’s Environmental Protection Rules); b. Stormwater discharges not associated with construction activities; c. Stormwater discharges from construction related activities when the discharge or activity is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any State or federally listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. C. Off-Site Support Activities The permittee shall obtain permit coverage from DEC prior to the use of any support activities occurring outside of the approved project boundaries (e.g. equipment staging areas, material storage areas, excavated material disposal areas and borrow areas). Support activities outside of the approved project boundaries shown in the EPSC Plan shall obtain coverage by amending this permit, or by obtaining coverage under a different individual discharge permit or under DEC’s General Permit for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites. D. Co-Permittees 1. In addition to the permittee, all parties associated with the construction activity who meet either of the following two criteria must obtain coverage under this permit as co-permittee prior to the commencement of construction activities: a. The party has operational control over construction plans and specifications, including but not limited to the ability to make modifications to those plans and specifications; or b. The party has continuous day-to-day operational control of those activities at the project that are necessary to ensure compliance with an EPSC Plan for the site or other permit conditions (e.g. they are authorized to direct workers at a site to carry out activities required by the EPSC Plan or comply with other permit conditions). Part II. Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Requirements A. Implementation of EPSC Plan 1. Each permittee is responsible for implementing the approved EPSC Plan and shall at all times comply with the approved EPSC Plan or amended versions of the EPSC Plan updated in accordance with this permit. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 3 2. The EPSC Plan is incorporated by reference and included in the terms of this permit, and each permittee shall implement the provisions of the EPSC Plan, and all amendments thereto, as a condition of this permit. Failure to comply with the EPSC Plan, and all amendments thereto, shall be deemed a violation of this permit and subject to potential enforcement. 3. Each permittee is responsible for ensuring that each co-permittee involved in construction activities is familiar with the terms and conditions of the EPSC Plan and that each co-permittee’s activities are carried out in accordance with the EPSC Plan. 4. The permittee shall assure that construction of all small and large sediment control practices, where proposed on the site, are completed in accordance with the 2006 Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control prior to upslope earth disturbance of areas for which these features are designed to provide sediment control. 5. The permittee shall assure that, prior to earth disturbance within any area of the site located within 100 feet upslope of a stream or wetland, silt fence or approved perimeter control shall be installed in accordance with the 2006 Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control and the EPSC Plan at an appropriate distance down slope from disturbed areas and upslope from such waters. 6. The permittee shall install all required elements with the EPSC Plan within a given work area prior to earth disturbance within that work area. Earth disturbance includes, but is not limited to, stumping and grubbing of cleared areas. B. On-Site Plan Coordinator (OSPC) 1. The permittee shall designate a person as the OSPC who shall be directly responsible for on-site implementation of the EPSC Plan. Such person shall be knowledgeable in the principles and practice of erosion prevention and sediment controls and possess the skills to assess conditions at the construction site that could impact stormwater quality and to assess the effectiveness of all sediment and erosion control measures selected to control the quality of stormwater discharges from the construction activity. 2. The OSPC shall have the authority to stop and/or modify construction activities as necessary to comply with the EPSC Plan and the terms and conditions of this permit and shall be responsible for inspections and record keeping. The OSPC or his/her designee shall be on site on a daily basis during construction activity. The OSPC does not have to be the permit applicant. 3. The name and daytime telephone number of the OSPC shall be filed in writing with DEC’s Stormwater Management Program before the start of construction. C. Maintenance of Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Measures 1. All erosion prevention and sediment control measures identified in the EPSC Plan shall be maintained in effective operating condition. If site inspections required by Part III.A identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are not operating effectively, maintenance shall be performed as soon as possible and before the next storm or snowmelt event to maintain the continued effectiveness of the measures. If implementing BMPs is impracticable before the next storm or snowmelt event, then the affected area shall be stabilized temporarily until such time that the BMPs can be installed. 2. If existing BMPs need to be modified or if additional BMPs are necessary for any reason, implementation shall be completed before the next storm event. If implementing BMPs is impracticable BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 4 before the next storm event, then the affected area shall be stabilized temporarily until such time that the BMPs can be installed. D. Modifications to the EPSC Plan Identified as Necessary by Inspections from DEC Representatives 1. If, based upon inspections or investigations by DEC representatives, it is determined that the EPSC Plan will not be sufficient to prevent runoff of visibly discolored stormwater from the construction site, the permittee shall modify the EPSC Plan as necessary to include additional or modified BMPs designed to correct problems identified. Revisions to the EPSC Plan shall be completed within seven (7) calendar days following the inspection or investigation. 2. At any time after issuing this permit, the Secretary may, in his or her sole discretion, determine that a stormwater discharge may cause, has reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to a violation of Vermont’s Water Quality Standards. If such a determination is made, the Secretary will require the permittee to: a. Amend the EPSC Plan to address adequately the identified water quality concerns; b. Submit valid and verifiable data and information that are representative of ambient conditions and indicate that the receiving water is attaining water quality standards; or c. Cease discharges of pollutants to surface waters from the construction activity. 3. The Secretary has the sole discretion to order a permittee to immediately stop all ongoing construction and construction-related activities upon a finding that a discharge or potential discharge from such activities presents a current or potential threat of harm to the environment. The Secretary’s stop work order may also require the permittee to take all actions to prevent or correct the discharge or potential discharge. Any action taken by the Secretary pursuant to this subpart shall not limit the Secretary’s authority to pursue other enforcement actions pursuant to 10 V.S.A Chapters 47 and 201. 4. Each revised EPSC Plan prepared pursuant to this Part shall be maintained on-site. E. EPSC Plan Availability The permittee shall provide a copy of the EPSC Plan and all amendments to the OSPC and all contractors responsible for construction activities. A copy of the EPSC Plan shall be kept on site at all times and shall be made available to the Secretary, or his or her designated representative, upon request. F. Amending the EPSC Plan 1. The permittee shall amend the EPSC Plan prior to implementing any change in the design, construction, operation or other procedure which would alter the grading plan, construction sequence, or the location or implementation of any BMPs. 2. An amendment to the EPSC Plan is required, if after taking corrective action, as required in Part III.B, it is determined that the EPSC Plan requires an amendment to be effective in future efforts in preventing erosion and controlling the discharge of sediment. 3. An amendment to the EPSC Plan is required if the Secretary makes this determination pursuant to Part II.D.2 of this permit. 4. The OSPC is authorized to implement minor changes that involve substituting accepted interchangeable erosion prevention and sediment control practices, as detailed in the Vermont Erosion Prevention and BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 5 Sediment Control Field Guide. The substitution of interchangeable practices shall be noted on the on- site EPSC Plan, on a form provided by the Secretary. 5. For changes to the EPSC Plan other than substitution of interchangeable practices from the Vermont Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control Field Guide, the permittee shall have the EPSC Plan modified to reflect the change by either the original designer, a professional engineer licensed in the State of Vermont or a Certified Professional in EPSC. Such modification shall include a certification that the modified EPSC Plan meets the requirements of this permit and The Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control on a form provided by the Secretary. 6. All proposed changes to the EPSC Plan that do not conform to The Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control must be submitted to DEC for formal approval prior to implementation of the changes in the field. The submission shall include: a. Narrative description of the plan changes; b. Justification for the alternative EPSC practice(s); c. Updated EPSC Plan sheets showing the proposed changes; d. Any additional information required by the Secretary. 7. Any change that involves earth disturbance substantially outside of the originally authorized limits of disturbance requires coverage under a separate authorization or amendment to this permit. Any such change shall require permittee to submit to DEC for formal approval prior to implementation of the change. In consideration for approval, DEC may consider several factors in determining whether the change is substantial and requires an amendment to the permit, including but not limited to size of additional area(s) to be disturbed, existing condition of area(s) to be disturbed, proximity to water resources and their buffers, and may consider whether the change will negatively impact water resources. The submission shall include: a. Narrative description of the change(s); b. Justification for the change; c. Updated EPSC Plan sheets showing the proposed change(s); d. Any additional information requested by the Secretary deemed necessary for consideration. G. Late Fall/Winter/Early Spring Construction Activities 1. If construction activities involving earth disturbance continue past October 15 or begin before April 15 (Winter Construction), the permittee shall implement Winter Construction EPSC practices as outlined in the EPSC Plan. 2. If a permittee plans to undertake construction activities during Winter Construction and the EPSC Plan does not identify EPSC measures during this time period, the permittee shall submit a stand-alone EPSC Plan for this late fall/winter/early spring work to DEC for formal approval prior to undertaking such activities. The submission shall include a narrative description of the proposed work and the stand-alone EPSC Plan shall include only this work. The stand-alone EPSC Plan shall be designed according to The Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control. 3. All possible measures will be taken to limit the exposure of soils during all late fall/winter/early spring construction activities. The Secretary reserves the right to require suspension of construction activities until after April 15 if late fall/winter/early spring construction is determined to present a significant risk to water quality. Also, the Secretary reserves the right to prohibit construction activities between October 15 and April 15 if late fall/winter/early spring construction is determined to present a significant risk to water quality. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 6 H. Dewatering Activities 1. A site-specific dewatering plan shall be employed for any dewatering activities. The dewatering plan shall detail the following: a. Nature of activity requiring dewatering; b. Location of the dewatering pumpage show on plan; c. EPSC practice(s) to be used during dewatering activities; and d. Anticipated duration of dewatering activities. The use of EPSC practice(s) for dewatering activities not included in the original EPSC Plan are subject to the requirements of Part II.F. Pumpage from areas excavated for the construction of the project shall be treated or disposed of in such manner that any dewatering discharge to waters of the state is visibly clear. Prior to any dewatering activities which may result in the pumpage reaching State waters by surface flow, the permittee shall measure and document the turbidity value to ensure that it is sufficient to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. The inspection reports shall contain information on when dewatering is being done, measures being utilized for treatment, and effectiveness of those measures. I. Disturbance Limitations/Stabilization 1. The total earth disturbance associated with construction of this project is approximately 9.1 acres. The maximum area of concurrent earth disturbance at any one time allowed under this permit is 5 acres. 2. All areas of earth disturbance must be stabilized within 7 days of initial disturbance. After this initial 7- day period, all disturbances in these areas must be stabilized on a daily basis, with the following exceptions: a. Stabilization is not required if work is to continue in the disturbed area within the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast for the next 24 hours. b. Stabilization is not required if the work is occurring in a self-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet for stormwater) with a depth of 2 feet or greater (e.g. underground utility installation). c. During Winter Construction, to ensure cover of disturbed soil in advance of a melt event, areas of disturbed soil must be stabilized at the end of each work day, in accordance with the previous exceptions. J. Pre-construction Conferences The permittee shall notify DEC of the planned start date and schedule a pre-construction conference at least two weeks prior to commencing construction. The pre-construction conference shall occur prior to initiating construction activities and shall be attended by the OSPC, EPSC Specialist, and a representative of DEC. K. Presumption of Compliance with Vermont’s Anti-Degradation Policy and Water Quality Standards The Secretary has determined that the permitted discharges satisfy Vermont’s Anti-Degradation Policy described in the DEC’s Interim Anti-Degradation Implementation Procedure (Procedure), because the procedure allows a presumption of compliance for discharges that meet the requirements of a BMP or treatment and control manual as described in Section IX.D.1.a of the Procedure. The Secretary has also determined that for such discharges that qualify for the presumption under IX.D.1.a, all existing uses of surface waters, and the level of water quality necessary to protect those existing uses will be maintained and protected. The Secretary has determined that if the permittee is in full compliance with all permit BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 7 conditions, including approved plans, sampling, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping conditions, and is fully implementing stormwater BMPs required by this permit, the permitted discharges will meet the requirements of the Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control and qualify for the presumption described in Section IX.D.1.a of the Procedure and will be presumed to comply with the Vermont Water Quality Standards, including but not limited to §1-03 (Vermont’s Anti-degradation Policy). Part III. Inspections, Discharge Sampling, Corrective Action, and Recordkeeping A. General Inspection Requirements 1. The permittee is responsible for inspecting and maintaining erosion prevention and sediment controls that minimize or eliminate pollutants in the discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. 2. Inspections shall be conducted at least once every seven (7) calendar days and as required in Part III.B of this permit. 3. During the late fall/winter/spring construction season (October 15th through April 15th), daily inspections shall be conducted of areas that have been disturbed and are not yet finally stabilized. 4. Inspection frequency may be reduced to not less than one (1) per month if the entire site is temporarily stabilized. 5. Inspections may be postponed indefinitely if the entire site is permanently stabilized. 6. Inspections shall be conducted by, or under the direction of, the OSPC. 7. Inspections shall include all areas of the site disturbed by construction activity and all discharge locations, including areas with temporary stabilization. 8. An inspection report shall be completed for each inspection and signed by the OSPC or the person acting under the direction of the OSPC. At a minimum, each inspection report shall include: a. The inspection date; b. Names, titles, and qualifications of personnel making the inspection; c. A general description of weather information for the period since the last inspection (or since commencement of construction activity if the first inspection) including a description of any precipitation, any runoff of visibly discolored stormwater from the construction site and any discharges of visibly discolored stormwater from the construction site to waters of the state; d. A description of current weather information and a description of any runoff or discharges of visibly discolored stormwater to waters of the state occurring at the time of the inspection; e. Location(s) of runoff or discharges of visibly discolored stormwater to waters of the state from the construction site; f. Location(s) of BMPs that need to be maintained; g. Location(s) of BMPs that failed to operate as designed or proved inadequate for a particular location; h. Location(s) where additional BMPs are needed that did not exist at the time of inspection; i. Any corrective action required including any necessary changes to the EPSC Plan and implementation dates; j. Description of areas that are currently disturbed and areas that have been temporarily or finally stabilized since last inspection; k. A description of the soil conditions (e.g. dry, wet, saturated); and BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 8 l. A certification that the construction activities are now in compliance with the EPSC Plan and this permit. 9. A record of each inspection report and of any actions taken in accordance with this Subpart shall be maintained on-site with the EPSC Plan and shall be made available upon request by DEC representatives. 10. When site conditions between April 15th – May 15th are similar to winter conditions (e.g. snow cover, frozen ground and/or saturated soils) within the areas of planned earth disturbance, the appropriate winter restrictions on page 3.19 of the 2006 Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control selected by the OSPC shall be applied to the portions of the site that are experiencing those conditions. B. Inspection, Sampling and Corrective Action Requirements 1. As soon as reasonably possible, during, or after, every rainfall event or snowmelt event which produces runoff from the construction site, the OSPC shall inspect for the runoff of visibly discolored stormwater from the construction site. If there is runoff of visibly discolored water from the construction site, the OSPC shall as soon as practicable inspect and maintain BMPs for compliance with the approved EPSC plan. For purposes of this permit, “construction site” shall mean the land or water area where any facility or activity is physically located or conducted, including adjacent land used in connection with the facility or activity or the area of earth disturbance directly associated with the permitted construction activity. 2. If after inspecting and maintaining existing BMPs in accordance with Part III.B.1, the runoff of visibly discolored stormwater continues, the OSPC shall sample the runoff as follows: a. A turbidity sample shall be taken at each point where visibly discolored stormwater runs off the construction site. Samples shall be representative of the flow and characteristics of the runoff. b. If due to unexpected circumstances an OSPC is unable to sample during periods of runoff, the monitoring report shall include a brief explanation of such circumstances. c. Sampling is required at all points where visibly discolored stormwater runoff from disturbed areas that have not been finally stabilized leaves the construction site. d. All sampling points shall be identified on the EPSC Plan site map and be clearly marked in the field with a flag, tape, stake or other visible marker. e. After approval by DEC, sampling may be discontinued at those points of stormwater runoff that are deemed to pose no risk of discharge to waters of the state. 3. If the turbidity sample taken is 25 NTU or lower, no further sampling or action is required during this particular event. 4. If the turbidity sample taken is greater than 25 NTU: a. The OSPC shall as soon as practicable evaluate the need for supplemental BMPs and install such BMPs as necessary to correct the runoff. b. The OSPC shall, within 72 hours of first discovering the runoff, submit a written report about the runoff and resulting corrective action to the Secretary. The report shall: i. Be on a form provided by the Secretary ii. Describe the cause, time and date, and location of the runoff; iii. Describe the status of construction and conformance with the EPSC Plan at the time of the runoff; BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 9 iv. Detail the corrective action taken to stop the runoff, including a description of the actions taken, their location, and the time and date of the corrective action; and v. Be copied and a copy retained on-site with the EPSC Plan. c. The EPSC Plan shall be updated within 72 hours to reflect the actions taken. 5. After taking the actions required in Part III.B.4.a above, and if the runoff of visibly discolored stormwater continues, the OSPC shall again follow the inspection and sampling requirements in Part III.B.2 above. If the turbidity sample is less than 25 NTU then no further action is needed. If the turbidity sample is greater than 25 NTU, the OSPC shall immediately notify DEC’s Stormwater Program. DEC may require the OSPC to reevaluate existing BMPs and install supplemental BMPs as necessary to correct the runoff. At the Secretary’s discretion, DEC may also require the OSPC to continue sampling runoff daily when runoff is occurring until: a. Turbidity is 25 NTU or lower; or b. The runoff stops or is eliminated. C. Recordkeeping 1. The following records shall be maintained on-site with the EPSC Plan: a. Inspection reports prepared pursuant to Part III.A of this permit; b. Discharge Reports, Corrective Action reports and Summaries of Releases prepared pursuant to Parts III.B and VIII.C of this permit; c. Notices of Addition or Termination of Co-Permittees submitted to the Secretary in accordance with Part V of this permit; d. Any Notices of Termination for Portions of the On-going Construction Site in accordance with Part V of this permit; and e. Any amendments to the EPSC Plan required by this permit. 2. A copy of the authorized EPSC Plan shall be on-site during normal working hours from the date of commencement of construction activities to the date of final stabilization. EPSC Plans shall be made available upon request by DEC representatives. 3. The OSPC shall have a copy of the EPSC Plan and all amendments available at a central location on-site for the use of all those identified as having responsibilities under the EPSC Plan whenever they are on the construction site. 4. The permittee shall post a Notice of Authorization, provided by the Secretary, demonstrating authorization under this permit. The notice shall be placed near the construction entrance at a location visible to the public. Part IV. EPSC Specialist Oversight EPSC Specialist 1. In addition to the regular inspections required under Part III.A., the permittee shall designate an EPSC Specialist who will be responsible for performing environmental inspections during the project; confirming water resources protection throughout the project, and for related record keeping. The name, address, telephone number, and basic qualifications of the person shall be provided to DEC for approval before the commencement of construction. This person shall not be the OSPC. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 10 2. The EPSC Specialist shall determine, confirm, and report whether the EPSC Plan is being followed and that appropriate revisions are being made to the EPSC Plan when the EPSC Plan proves inadequate. In addition, the EPSC Specialist shall, in conjunction with the OSPC bear the responsibility of reviewing the site to ensure compliance with the approved EPSC Plan and to direct corrective action in accordance with Part III.B of this permit. 3. The EPSC Specialist shall notify the contractor when changes in practice are necessary to comply with the EPSC Plan and the terms and conditions of this permit. The EPSC Specialist shall be responsible for inspections, photo documentation, and record keeping and shall, biweekly during earth disturbance activities, file with DEC a report outlining: a. Construction status; b. EPSC practices installed and removed since last report; c. New measures undertaken subsequent to the prior report; d. Erosion problems encountered and how and when resolved; e. Status of the project in terms of consistency with the planned construction sequence; f. Description, including location and total area (acres), of disturbed land at the time of the inspection; g. Description of areas temporarily or permanently stabilized since the last inspection record; h. Changes in the EPSC Plan that are required (including submission for authorization from DEC, when necessary); i. When dewatering is underway, discussion and photographs of measures being utilized for treatment, and turbidity monitoring results in conformance with Part III.H of this permit; j. Photographs of areas stabilized since the prior report; k. Photographs of all disturbed areas; l. Photographs of receiving water(s) at turbidity monitoring location(s); and m. All turbidity monitoring results collected since prior report in accordance with Subpart III.B of this permit. 4. In advance of the start of construction, the EPSC Specialist shall present to DEC for approval the proposed reporting format. Construction may not commence prior to DEC’s written approval of the reporting format and schedule. Bi-weekly reports shall be submitted by the Wednesday, or as soon as responsibly possible, following the end of the bi-weekly period. EPSC Specialist reports shall be filed via mail with: Department of Environmental Conservation Watershed Management Division Stormwater Management Program Main Building, Second Floor One National Life Drive Montpelier, VT 05620-3522 Or, via email to the appropriate Stormwater Management Program representative. 5. Each inspection report shall be prepared in consultation with the OSPC, shall include a review of the OSPC’s inspection reports since the last inspection period, and shall be signed by the EPSC Specialist. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 11 Part V. Transfers of Permit, Co-Permittees, and Termination A. Transfer of Permit Coverage 1. A transfer of this permit may occur only in connection with the transfer of the entire construction site to a new owner. 2. A Notice of Transfer must be submitted to the Secretary not later than thirty (30) days prior to the transfer and shall include the following: a. The name and address of the present permittee; b. The name and address of the prospective permittee; c. The proposed date of transfer; and d. A statement signed by the prospective permittee, stating that: i. The conditions of the facility operation that contribute to, or affect, any discharge will not be materially different under the new ownership; ii. The prospective permittee has read and is familiar with the terms of the permit and agrees to comply with all the terms and conditions of the permit; and iii. The prospective permittee has adequate funding or other means to effect compliance with all the terms of the permit. B. Adding or Terminating Co-Permittees 1. An owner or principal operator may be added as a co-permittee by filing a Notice of Addition of Co- Permittee form with the Secretary. The Co-Permittee shall be subject to all the terms and conditions of this permit and the EPSC Plan. 2. If the owner of the construction site obtains coverage under this permit and the owner is not the principal operator or the sole principal operator, then all principal operators shall obtain coverage as co-permittees in accordance with this Subpart prior to the commencement of construction activities. 3. A co-permittee may be terminated as a Co-Permittee by filing a Notice of Termination of Co-Permittee form on a form provided by the Secretary. The Co-Permittee shall only be terminated from the permit upon approval by the Secretary. C. Notice of Termination for Portions of an On-going Construction Site 1. A permittee may submit a Notice of Termination (NOT) for a portion of the on-going construction project in the following instances: a. When final stabilization has been achieved on the portion of the site for which termination is sought; b. When title to a portion of the construction site has been transferred to a new owner and the new owner has obtained separate coverage under an individual construction permit or DEC’s General Permit 3-9020 for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites (Amended 2008) or its replacement; c. When another operator has assumed control over the portion of the site for which termination is sought and the new operator has obtained coverage under an individual construction permit or DEC’s General Permit 3-9020 for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites (Amended 2008) or its replacement; d. For residential construction only, temporary stabilization has been completed and the residence has been transferred to the homeowner. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 12 2. To obtain a notice of termination for a portion of an on-going construction site, the permittee shall follow the requirements of Part V.E of this permit. D. Notice of Termination for the Entire Construction Site 1. The permittee may submit a NOT for the entire construction site in the following instances: a. Final stabilization has been achieved on the entire construction site for which the permittee is responsible; b. Another operator has assumed control over all areas of the site that have not been finally stabilized and has obtained permit coverage; or c. Coverage under an individual or DEC’s General Permit 3-9020 for Stormwater Runoff from Construction Sites (Amended 2008) or its replacement has been obtained. 2. To obtain a notice of termination for the entire construction site, the permittee shall follow the requirements of Part V.E of this permit. E. Submitting a Notice of Termination 1. A permittee shall submit a complete and accurate NOT, on a form provided by the Secretary. 2. A NOT shall include, at a minimum, the following information: a. The permit number for which termination is sought; b. The basis for submission of the NOT; c. The owner’s and operator’s name, address and telephone number; d. The name of the project and address (or a description of location if no street address is available) of the construction site for which the notification is submitted; e. A certification statement, signed and dated by the OSPC and by an authorized representative as defined in the signature requirements in Part VIII.I, and the name and title of that authorized representative; and f. If the NOT is for only a portion of an ongoing construction project, a description of the portion of the site to which the NOT will apply and a plan showing the boundaries of this portion. Part VI. Violation of Permit Requirements; Enforcement The permittee shall comply with all terms and conditions of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 47 and the federal Clean Water Act, and is grounds for an enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or modification; or denial of a permit renewal application. Part VII. Appeals 1. Renewable Energy Projects – Right to Appeal to Public Service Board Any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Vermont Public Service Board pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §8506 within 30 days of the date of this decision. The appellant must file with the Clerk an original and six copies of its appeal. The appellant shall provide notice of the filing of an appeal in accordance with 10 V.S.A. §8504(c)(2), and shall also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Vermont Department of Public Service. For information, see the Rules and General orders of the Public Service Board available on line at www.psb.vermont.gov. The address for the Public Service Board is 112 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2701 (Telephone #802-828-2358). 2. All Other Projects – Right to Appeal to Environmental Court BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 13 Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, if this decision relates to all other projects, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The appellant must attach to the Notice of Appeal the entry fee of $250.00 payable to the State of Vermont. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Court; and must be signed by the appellant or their attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For additional information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available online at www.vermontjudiciary.org or call (802) 951-1740. The address for the Environmental Court is 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor Suite 303, Burlington, Vermont 05401. Part VIII. Standard Permit Conditions A Permit Actions This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition. B. Limitations 1. This permit conveys no vested rights or exclusive privileges. The permit conveys no title to land nor authorizes any injury to public or private property. The permit does not authorize infringement of any applicable federal, state or local laws or regulations nor obviate the necessity of obtaining such additional permits as may be required. 2. Nothing in this permit shall be construed as having relieved, modified, or in any manner affected the permittee’s ongoing obligation to comply with all other federal, state or local statutes, regulations or directives applicable to the permittee in the operation of its business, nor does it relieve the permittee of the obligation to obtain all necessary federal, state and local permits. C. Prohibitions 1. This permit does not relieve any person of the federal reporting requirements of 40 CFR Part 110, 40 CFR Part 117 and 40 CFR Part 302 relating to spills or other releases of oils or hazardous substances. This permit does not authorize the discharge of hazardous substances or oil resulting from an on-site spill. 2. If a release in excess of reportable quantities occurs, the permittee must modify the EPSC Plan required under Part III within 7 calendar days of knowledge of the release to: provide a description of the release, the circumstances leading to the release, and the date of the release. The EPSC Plan must identify measures to prevent the reoccurrence of such releases and to respond to such releases. 3. Discharges of any material other than stormwater, such as vehicle and equipment maintenance spills, fuels, wash water, construction debris, oil, wet concrete (including washout water from concrete batch trucks or equipment used to mix concrete), and other substances are prohibited. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 14 4. Sediments and other pollutants collected and removed in the course of treatment of stormwater runoff shall be disposed in a manner that will not result in the sediments and pollutants entering waters of the State. D. Right of Entry The permittee shall allow the Secretary and his/her authorized representatives, at reasonable times, and upon presentation of credentials, to enter upon and inspect the property on which the construction activities are occurring and to sample any construction-related discharges and to have access to and copy any records required to be kept pursuant to this permit. E. Historic Properties Each permittee must comply with any applicable state and local laws concerning the protection of historic properties and places. F. Retention of Records Copies of the EPSC Plan, all amendments thereto, and all documentation required by this permit, including records of all data used to complete the NOI to be covered by this permit, must be retained for at least three years from the date that permit coverage expires or is terminated. This period may be extended by request of the Secretary at any time. G. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity Not a Defense It shall not be a defense in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit. H. Duty to Mitigate A permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. I. Signatory Requirements 1. All applications must be signed as follows: a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer. For the purposes of this section, a responsible corporate officer means: i. A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation; ii. The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations, and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; the manager can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for permit application requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or c. For a municipality, State, Federal or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or a ranking elected official. For purposes of this section, a principal executive officer of a Federal BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 15 Agency includes: the chief executive officer of the agency or a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency. 2. All reports required by this permit, including but not limited to EPSC Plans, must be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if the authorization is made in writing by a person described above. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position. The signed and dated written authorization must be included in the EPSC Plan. A copy must be submitted to DEC, if requested. 3. Any person signing documents required under the terms of this permit must include the following certification: “I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.” J. Duty to Reapply If a discharge from the construction site is anticipated to continue after the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must reapply for coverage under a new permit sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date of this permit. K. Proper Operation and Maintenance The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control which are installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. L. Notice of Planned Changes The permittee shall give notice to the Secretary as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations to the permitted facility. M. Notice of Anticipated Noncompliance The permittee shall give advance notice to the Secretary of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements. N. Duty to Provide Information The permittee shall furnish to the Secretary, within a reasonable time, any information which the Secretary may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine noncompliance with this permit. The permittee shall also furnish to the Secretary upon request, copies of records to be kept pursuant to this permit. Where the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or in a report to the Secretary, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 16 O. Penalty for Permit Violation 10 V.S.A. Section 1275(a) provides that: Any person who violations any provision of this subchapter or who fails, neglects or refuses to obey or comply with any order or the terms of any permit issued in accordance with this subchapter, shall be fined not more than $25,000.00 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. Each violation may be a separate offense and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day’s continuance may be deemed a separate offense. 10 V.S.A. Section 8010(c) provides that: A penalty of not more than $42,500 may be assessed for each determination of a separate violation. In addition, if the secretary determines that a violation is continuing the secretary may assess a penalty of not more than $17,000.00 for each day the violation continues. The maximum amount of penalty assessed under this subsection shall not exceed $170,000.00. P. Penalty for False Statement 10 V.S.A. Section 1275(b) provides that: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation or certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under this subchapter, or by any permit, rule, regulation or order issued under this subchapter, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this subchapter or by any permit, rule, regulation, or order issued under this subchapter, shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both. Q. Severability The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby. R. Monitoring Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. S. Twenty-four hour reporting Unless provided otherwise by this permit, the permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall also be provided within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. Part X. Effective Date of Permit and Permit Term This permit shall become effective upon signing and shall expire five (5) years from the date of signing. Signed this day of , 2016 BTV Taxiway ‘B’ Extension Project 3028-INDC.5 NPDES Number: VTS0000208 17 Alyssa Schuren, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By: __________________________ Padraic Monks Stormwater Program Manager 1 of 4 Permit Number: 3028-9015.3 PIN: EJ96-0386 VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER GENERAL PERMIT 3-9015 A determination has been made that the applicant(s): City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Impervious Area: 2.77 acres meets the criteria necessary for inclusion under General Permit 3-9015. Hereinafter the named applicant shall be referred to as the permittee. Subject to the conditions of General Permit No. 3-9015, the permittee is authorized to discharge stormwater as described herein: Project Name: Taxiway 'B' Extension Project Location: 1200 Airport Drive in South Burlington, Vermont Receiving Waters: Groundwater in the Muddy Brook watershed Manner of Discharge: S/N 001: Stormwater runoff from Taxiway 'B', a portion of the Taxiway 'E' stubs, a portion of existing runway 15-33, a portion of existing runway 1-19, a portion of existing Taxiway 'E' and a portion of future proposed Taxiway 'E' via ditches, inlets and pipes to hydrodynamic separators pretreatment devices (Storm ceptor) to underground concrete infiltration chambers (Storm Trap) discharging to groundwater in the Muddy Brook watershed. S/N 002: Stormwater runoff from Taxiway 'B', a portion of the Taxiway 'E' stubs a portion of future proposed Taxiway 'E' via disconnection with overflow to an underground infiltration system (StormTrap) discharging to groundwater in the Muddy Brook watershed. Design: This project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the site plans and details designed by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., Sheet 1, "Cover Sheet", dated 09/02/2016; Sheet 2, "Construction Safety and Phasing Plan, Overall Plan", dated 06/10/2016; Sheet 3, "Existing Conditions", dated 09/06/2016; Sheet 4, "Proposed Conditions", dated 9/06/2016; Sheet 5, "Grading Plan and Profile, Sta. 580+09.37 to 590+00", dated 06/10/2016; Sheet 6, "Grading Plan and Profile, Sta. 590+00 to 600+00", dated 06/10/2016; Sheet 7, "Stormwater Details and Typical Sections", dated 09/06/2016; Sheet 8, "Stormtrap, Single Trap Installation Specifications", dated 06/03/2016; Sheet 9, "Stormtrap, Recommended Single Trap Installation Specifications", dated 06/03/2016; Sheet 10, "Stormtrap, 3'-6" Single Trap Unit Types", dated 06/03/2016; Sheet 11, "Taxiway 'A' Relocate, Borings and Test Pits", dated 09/06/2016; and all supporting information. By reference, the above noted plans are made part of this authorization. 3028-9015.3 2 of 4 Compliance with General Permit 3-9015 and this Authorization The permittee shall comply with this authorization and all the terms and conditions of General Permit 3- 9015, including the payment of annual operating fees to the Department. A billing statement for such fees will be sent to the permittee each year. The first year’s statement is enclosed. Any permit non-compliance, including a failure to pay the annual operating fee, constitutes a violation of 10 V.S.A. Chapter 47 and may be grounds for an enforcement action or revocation of this authorization to discharge. Transferability This authorization to discharge is not transferable to any person except in compliance with Part VI.D. of General Permit 3-9015. A copy of General Permit 3-9015 is available from the Department via the internet at http://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/wsm/stormwater/docs/GeneralPermit9015/sw_3- 9015_final_signed.pdf. Changes to Permitted Development In accordance with Part V.G. of General Permit 3-9015, the permittee shall notify the Department of any planned development or facility expansions or changes that may result in new or increased stormwater discharges. The Department shall determine the appropriateness of continued inclusion under General Permit 3-9015 by the modified development or facility. Annual Inspection and Report The stormwater collection, treatment and control system shall be properly operated. The permittee shall submit an annual inspection report on the operation, maintenance and condition of the stormwater collection, treatment and control system. The inspection report shall be submitted regardless of whether the project has been constructed. The inspection shall be conducted between the conclusion of spring snow melt and June 15th of each year and the inspection report shall be submitted to the Secretary by July 15th of each year, or by July 30th if performed by a utility or municipality pursuant to a duly adopted stormwater management ordinance. The inspection report shall note all problem areas and all measures taken to correct any problems and to prevent future problems. Initial Statement of Compliance An initial statement of compliance, signed by a designer, must be submitted to the Stormwater Management Program no later than 6 months following completion of construction of the stormwater management system. Failure to submit an initial statement of compliance shall constitute a violation of General Permit 3-9015 and may result in the revocation of this authorization to discharge. Forms for completing this requirement are available on the Stormwater Management Program’s website. Recording in Land Records The permittee shall record a one-page notice of issuance of this discharge permit in the local land records within fourteen (14) days of issuance of this authorization to discharge on the form provided by the Secretary, per §18-312 of Stormwater Management Rule. The permittee shall provide a copy of the recording to the Stormwater Management Program within fourteen (14) days of the permittee's receipt of the copy of the recording from the local land records. Renewable Energy Projects – Right to Appeal to Public Service Board Any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Vermont Public Service Board pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §8506 within 30 days of the date of this decision. The appellant must file with the Clerk an original and six copies of its appeal. The appellant shall provide notice of the filing of an appeal in accordance with 10 V.S.A. §8504(c)(2), and shall also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal on the Vermont Department of Public Service. For information, see the Rules and General orders of the Public Service Board available on line at www.psb.vermont.gov. The address for the Public Service Board is 112 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05620-2701 (Tel. #802-828-2358). 3028-9015.3 3 of 4 All Other Projects – Right to Appeal to the Environmental Court Pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Chapter 220, any appeal of this decision must be filed with the clerk of the Environmental Court within 30 days of the date of the decision. The appellant must attach to the Notice of Appeal the entry fee of $250.00, payable to the state of Vermont. The Notice of Appeal must specify the parties taking the appeal and the statutory provision under which each party claims party status; must designate the act or decision appealed from; must name the Environmental Court; and must be signed by the appellant or their attorney. In addition, the appeal must give the address or location and description of the property, project or facility with which the appeal is concerned and the name of the applicant or any permit involved in the appeal. The appellant must also serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal in accordance with Rule 5(b)(4)(B) of the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings. For further information, see the Vermont Rules for Environmental Court Proceedings, available on line at www.vermontjudiciary.org. The address for the Environmental Court is 32 Cherry Street, 2nd Floor Suite 303 Burlington, Vermont 05401 (Tel. # 802-951-1740). Effective Date and Expiration Date of this Authorization This authorization to discharge shall become effective on October 24, 2016 and shall continue until October 24, 2021. The permittee shall reapply for coverage at least sixty (60) days prior to October 24, 2021. Dated Monday, October 24, 2016. Alyssa Schuren, Commissioner Department of Environmental Conservation By: Padraic Monks, Stormwater Program Manager Stormwater Management Program 3028-9015.3 4 of 4 NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT BY THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Notice is hereby given that an individual stormwater discharge permit or an authorization to discharge pursuant to a general stormwater discharge permit has been issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation to Permittee(s) named herein for the discharge of stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces (e.g. roadways, rooftops, parking lots, walkways) pursuant to 10 V.S.A. Section 1264 for the property identified below. The permit/authorization requires treatment and control of stormwater runoff, long-term maintenance of the treatment and control structures and payment of yearly operational fees. Permittee(s): City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport Permit/Authorization Number: 3028-9015.3 911 Address of Property: 1200 Airport Drive, South Burlington Signature of Permittee or Authorized Representative: __________________________________________ Printed Name of Permittee or Authorized Representative: _______________________________________ Date of Signature: ________________________________ Recording information: Municipal clerks - please index this document listing the State of Vermont, Department of Environmental Conservation as “Grantee”. Please index this document listing the above- named Permittee(s) as “Grantor(s)”. Additionally, if this notice lists the name of a condominium, subdivision or planned community association, please list the named association as an additional “Grantor”. Please mail this stamped/recorded/completed form to: DEC – Watershed Management Division Stormwater Management Program 1 National Life Drive, Main 2 Montpelier, VT 05620-3522 Or email to: anr.wsmdstormwatergeneral@vermont.gov Burlington International Airport ATTACHMENT #3Landowners Adjoining Airport Property South Burlington Grand List for 2016 - 17, opened 04 Octpber 2016, Adjoining Landowner list updated PARCEL ID # OWNER Mailing Address: From City of South Burlington website and other sources Property AddressAddress City State Zip 911 ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIPCODE 1280-00015 15 PALMER HEIGHTS, LLC 5576 DORSET STREET SHELBURNE VT 05482 15 PALMER HGTS SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1810-03000 3000 WILLISTON RD LLC C/O FREDERIC LOWEA 1852 TEXAS HILL ROAD HINESBURG VT 05461 3000 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1810-03065 3065 WILLISTON RD LLC 3069 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 3065 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-03069 3069 WILLISTON ROAD LLC 3069 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 3069 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00008 A & C REALTY LLC C/O OMEGA ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION CO. 31 COMMERCE AVENUE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 8 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-00221 ADAMS PAUL G TRUST 1215 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 221 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-00223 ADAMS PAUL G TRUST 1215 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 223 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0020-01215 ADAMS PAUL G TRUST 1215 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1215 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1060-46-48 ADAMS PAUL G TRUST 1215 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 46-48 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-01205 AIRPORT PARKWAY HOLDINGS, LLC 1205 AIRPORT PARKWAY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1205 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-00000 AIRPORT REALTY FBO AVCENTER 1130 AIRPORT DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1 AIRPORT BURLINGTON I SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030490-00137 ARRANTS STEPHEN P JR 137 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 137 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030010-01195 ASHTON THERESA & MICHAEL 1195 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1195 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 2000-HA-41 ATLANTIC TELEMETRY INC PO BOX 1660 WILLISTON VT 05495 41 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01900 AUDETTE ROBERT J TRUSTEE AUDETTE ANNE W TRUSTEE 41 PETERSON TERRACE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1900 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HC-52 AUTOMASTERS MOTOR CO INC 3328 SHELBURNE ROAD SHELBURNE VT 05482 52 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HC-52 AVIATRON INC (US)25 CUSTOMS DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 52 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00004 AYER PATRICK BRIAN MASLACK AYER TERESE PO BOX 9451 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05407 4 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0200-00004 AYER PATRICK BRIAN MASLACK AYER TERESE 485 BRAELOCK ROAD COLCHESTER VT 05446 4 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0200-00025 BARNIER SCOTT & BARBARA 20 JACKSON STREET ESSEX JUNCTION VT 5452 25 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01907 BARRY BRUCE 1907 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1907 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030640-00102 BELTER JOHN H JR & JOYCE N 2 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 102 ETHAN ALLEN DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-00615 BERGER RUSSELL G III 615 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 615 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030990-00196 BINGO SUPPLY OF VERMONT, INC.PO BOX 699 BONDVILLE VT 05340 196 KIRBY RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1060-00042 BOARDMAN WILLIAM M & CYNTHIA D 42 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 42 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0590-00065 BOUFFARD MARGARET M, PATRICK C, JOSEPH N 65 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 65 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031520-00009 BRADY GEORGE J C/O MERCHANTS TRUST CO PO BOX 8490 BURLINGTON VT 05402 9 SHAMROCK RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030435-00011 BRUSOE ALAN L SOUTIERE ANN M. 11 MAYFAIR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 11 COMMERCE AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-00000 BURLINGTON CITY OF HERTZ CORP 225 BRAE BOULEVARD PARK RIDGE NJ 07656 5 AIRPORT CAR RENTAL SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030490-00141 BURT RUSSELL & KAREN L 141 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 141 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0300-00003 CALKINS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1835 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 3 CALKINS CT SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030300-00005 CALKINS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1835 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 5 CALKINS CT SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-00165 CARTER RICHARD G 165 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 165 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-03017-2 CHOINIERE PROPERTIES LLC 17 HARBOR WATCH ROAD BURLINGTON VT 05401 3017 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00021 CLIFTON DAVID L & MARY W PO BOX 9476 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05407 21 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 2000-HC-52 DEEDS EDWARD A CONVERSE BAY ROAD CHARLOTTE VT 05445 52 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0590-00032 DEFORGE GARY J 32 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 32 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030990-00199 DEGRECHIE PAUL R & MICHELLE M 199 KIRBY RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 199 KIRBY RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HA-41 DEMERS DENNIS R 958 WEBSTER ROAD SHELBURNE VT 05482 41 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01944 DESARNO DAVID C TRUST 4 LADD POINT ROAD GRAND ISLE VT 05458 1944 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031060-00030 DUHAMEL YVETTE I 30 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 30 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1060-00024 DUNN, DAWN CHAMPION PAUL R 24 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05407 24 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1810-01890 FARGNOLI ASSOCIATES LLC 485 KIMBERLY DRIVE MELBOURNE FL 32940 1890 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-00000 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT 3630 HACKS CROSS ROAD, BUILDING C 3RD FLOOR MEMPHIS TN 38125-8800 1 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031060-00022 FELBER MICHAEL 22 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 22 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030490-00133 FONTAINE PAUL A & KIMBERLY A 133 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 133 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031060-00034 GARNEAU RYAN & KATHRYN 34 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 34 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0590-00044 GARVEY EDWARD W & PATRICIA G 44 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 44 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HA-41 GIRARD DANIEL E GIRARD, DENISE D 11 HEATH STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 41 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-03097 HENNIGAR HOLDINGS LLC PO BOX 8564 DEERFIELD BEACH FL 33443 3097 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-03097 HENNIGAR HOLDINGS LLC 3516 NE 31 AVENUE LIGHTHOUSE POINT FL 33064 3097 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-01225 HENRY MAUREEN C C/O THE MEDICAL STORE LTD 1225 AIRPORT PARKWAY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1225 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1060-00016 HOBBS JAMES E & SHERRIE L 16 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 16 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1810-03017 IMPORTED CAR CENTER, INC PO BOX 1077 WILLISTON VT 05495 3017 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01795 INVESTORS CORP OF VT 30 MAIN STREET, SUITE 401 BURLINGTON VT 05407 1795 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030010-01025 JOST INVESTEMNTS LLC 69 COLLEGE STREET BURLINGTON VT 05401 1025 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-30735 JTG HOLDINGS LLC II 272 WINDMILL BAY SHELBURNE VT 05482 3073 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01961 L N P INC 31 COMMERCE AVENUE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1961 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1810-02000 LACEYS INC.2000 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 2000 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 2000-HC-52 LANDVATER DARRYL V OLIVER WIGHT CO 85 ALLEN MARTIN DRIVE ESSEX JUNCTION VT 05452 52 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-01245 LEISURE WORLD INC 1245 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1245 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030435-00027 LNP INC 31 COMMERCE AVENUE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 27 COMMERCE AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030435-00031 LNP INC 31 COMMERCE AVENUE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 31 COMMERCE AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1130-00053 LUONG NGUYET T 53 MARYLAND ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 53 MARYLAND ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1060-00038 MAILLE GEORGE A JR & CHARLENE 38 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 38 LOGWOOD ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030990-00184 MARCOTULLIO JOSEPH 184 KIRBY RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 184 KIRBY RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00014 MOVABLE PEAKS 14 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 14 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01801 O'BRIEN BROTHERS LLC C/O R. L. VALLEE INC. 280 SOUTH MAIN STREET ST. ALBANS VT 05478 1801 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01855 O'BRIEN BROTHERS LLC C/O O'BRIEN BROTHERS AGENCY 1855 WILLISTON ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05407 1855 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0490-00129 OSBORNE, TYLER & HEATHER D.129 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 129 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1280-00025 PALMER ALAN D & CHRISTINE L 5576 DORSET STREET SHELBURNE VT 05482 25 PALMER HGTS SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-01235 PMP REALTY LLC PO BOX 600 GARDINER ME 04345 1235 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030010-01155 PROULX GERARD E & SUSAN F 1155 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1155 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00029 QUARRY POINT PROPERTIES LLP 29 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 29 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HA-41 RDT AVIATION, INC C/O TOM WEAVER 390 TERRACE DRIVE WILLISTON VT 05495 41 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1130-00047 ROCHFORD CHRISTOPHER & REBECCA S 47 MARYLAND ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 47 MARYLAND ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 V:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\Act 250\Supporting Materials\Abutters list_Master_10-2016.xls| abutters 10/13/2016 Burlington International Airport ATTACHMENT #3Landowners Adjoining Airport Property South Burlington Grand List for 2016 - 17, opened 04 Octpber 2016, Adjoining Landowner list updated PARCEL ID # OWNER Mailing Address: From City of South Burlington website and other sources Property AddressAddress City State Zip 911 ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIPCODE 1200-00005 ROONEY WALDEN J & DARLA A 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW BLVD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW BLVD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-04016 S M S REALTY PARTNERSHIP 4016 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 4016 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-02040 SBRC PROPERTIES, LLC 85 SHUNPIKE ROAD WILLISTON VT 05495 2040 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030300-00008 SEAFOX INC 443 GOVERNORS LANE SHELBURNE VT 05482 8 CALKINS CT SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0640-00009 SHAND ROBERT M 5 ETHAN ALLEN DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 9 ETHAN ALLEN DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030640-00005 SHAND ROBERT M & LYNDA A 5 ETHAN ALLEN DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 5 ETHAN ALLEN DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031380-00000 SHELBURNE SHIPYARD PO BOX 610 SHELBURNE VT 05482 0 POOR FARM RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031460-00000 SHELBURNE SHIPYARD PO BOX 610 SHELBURNE VT 05482 0 RIVER RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031300-00001 SHEPARD GARY F & BETTY JOAN LIFE ESTATE 1 PATRICK ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1 PATRICK ST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0435-00007 SHIP SEVIN LLC C/O KEVIN SPILLANE 334 TAMARACK SHORES SHELBURNE VT 05482 7 COMMERCE AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1810-01860 SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY LLC C/O SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CO 85 SHUNPIKE ROAD WILLISTON VT 05495 1860 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00017 ST JOHN VIANNEY HOME ASSN C/O KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS PO BOX 9214 SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05407 17 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00012 SUBURBAN VT PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS LLC 240 ROUTE 10 WEST WHIPPANY NJ 07981 12 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030490-00148 SWEET LEIGH M & ELLEN F 148 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 148 COUNTRY CLUB DR EAST SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030020-00225 SZWAJA MARIAN & SOPHIE TRUST 1 BUTLER DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 225 AIRPORT PKWY SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 0590-00038 TATRO SAM E SR & ALBERTA M 38 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 38 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030590-50524 THIBAULT DOROTHY F.1184 REYNOLDS ROAD ST. ALBANS VT 05478 50 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030010-01141 TILLEY FRANCES R TRUST 1141 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1141 AIRPORT DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031810-01800 TIMBERLAKE ASSOCIATES WALTER E SIMENDINGER 32 SAN REMO DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 1800 WILLISTON RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030200-00027 TRI-D III LLC PO BOX 1 WINOOSKI VT 05404 27 BERARD DR SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 2000-HC-52 WETHERBEE WILLIAM F & MICHAEL W 467 DEPOT ROAD COLCHESTER VT 05446 52 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 2000-HA-41 WILLARD MALCOLM 699 NOB HILL ROAD WILLISTON VT 05495 41 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HC-52 WILLARD MALCOLM 699 NOB HILL ROAD WILLISTON VT 05495 52 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054031460-00000-2 WINOOSKI VALLEY PARK DISTRICT ETHAN ALLEN HOMESTEAD BURLINGTON VT 05401 0 POOR FARM RD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054032000-HA-41 WOOD WARREN W & EVELYN R 1183 SUNSET VIEW ROAD COLCHESTER VT 05446 41 AIRPORT BURLINGTON SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 054030590-00011 WRIGHT WILLIAM G & LORETTA M 11 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 11 DUMONT AVE SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 05403 V:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\Act 250\Supporting Materials\Abutters list_Master_10-2016.xls| abutters 10/13/2016 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 Officer SUBJECT: SD-16-29 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road—John P. Larkin, Inc. and Eric Farrell DATE: December 20, 2016 Preliminary plat application #SD-16-29 of John P. Larkin, Inc. & Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), and 2) constructing an 83,972 sq. ft. building which will include 60 residential units and 20,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road. Staff has prepared a draft decision for this project, which includes the recommendation that the Board invoke technical review of the Traffic Impact Study. By calling for this review now the process of the technical review can begin sooner than if the Board were to wait until a final plat application is submitted. 1. Staff recommends the Board invoke technical review of the Traffic Impact Study. #SD-16-29 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING JOHN P. LARKIN, INC. & ERIC FARRELL—1185 & 1195 SHELBURNE ROAD PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-29 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary plat application #SD-16-29 of John P. Larkin, Inc. & Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), and 2) constructing an 83,972 sq. ft. building which will include 60 residential units and 20,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 15 and December 20, 2016. The applicant was represented by Greg Rabideau. 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 applicants, John P. Larkin, Inc. and Eric Farrell, seek preliminary plat approval for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), and 2) constructing an 83,972 sq. ft. building which will include 60 residential units and 20,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road. 2. The owners of record of the subject properties are John P. Larkin, Inc. and the David M. Farrell Trust. 3. The subject properties are located in the Commercial 1-Automobile and Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning Districts. 4. The application was received on September 30, 3016. 5. The plan submitted consists of forty-one (41) pages with the second page titled “Overall Existing Site Plan and P.U.D. Plan,” dated 9/29/16, and prepared by Rabideau Architects. A) DIMENSIONAL AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS Lot coverages were calculated using the combined acreage of the L&M PUD parcels and Farrell Trust parcel. The combined acreage is 40.8 acres. Proposed building coverage is 7.7% and proposed overall coverage is 23.3%, which are below the 40% and 70% maximums, respectively, of the Commercial 1- Automobile and Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning Districts. The C1-Auto district has a maximum density of 12 units per acre, which results in an allowable density of 489 dwelling units (40.8 acres x 12 units=489.6 rounded down to the nearest whole unit). According to 2 the applicant 210 of those available residential density units have already been used, which leaves 279 units available for future development including this project. B) APPLICABILITY OF USE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROACH The applicant is proposing to re-develop a portion of the L&M Park PUD and include additional land outside that PUD at 1195 Shelburne Road. An aspect of PUDs is that they be, according to Section 15.18(10), “consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s).” According to the Comprehensive Plan this project is located in the Southwest Quadrant where mixed use development along the Shelburne Road corridor is encouraged to promote pedestrian movement, use of public transportation, and shared parking opportunities. Furthermore, mixed use development and redevelopment is specifically encouraged on the west side of Shelburne Road south of I-189, which is where this project is located. One strategy promoted in the Southwest Quadrant by the Plan is to explore opportunities to create “nodes” of concentrated development and public activity along the Shelburne Road corridor. The Board preliminarily finds that the plan presented by the applicant is in alignment with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, because it is located in an area targeted for mixed use and redevelopment and it could constitute a node of public activity due to its proposed combination of commercial and residential uses with shared parking. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The standards for determining whether a project warrants the flexibility provided by PUD review include the following:  to encourage innovation in design and layout,  efficient use of land, and  viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board preliminarily finds the proposed project meets the standards of being a PUD, because it combines residential and commercial uses on the property, reduces its parking needs through a shared parking plan, creatively incorporates green space for residents, and introduces an active streetscape along Shelburne Road. C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3 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. A condition of final plat approval will be that the applicant receive any necessary permits related to water and wastewater supply from the appropriate permitting agencies. (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. Conformance with the criterion will be evaluated at the final plat stage of the review process. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project is ultimately envisioned by the applicant as being part of a larger, project of four (4) phases that would incorporate three (3) access points; however, in the current proposal, Phase 1, there would be one (1) access point from Fayette Road onto a private street. Staff reviewed the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) dated 11/3/16 and prepared by RSG for this project and had the following comments:  The description of the project in the TIS does not match the description in the application to the DRB. Both descriptions must match.  The TIS must evaluate the impact of the proposed project with respect to the maximum number of vehicle trip ends (vtes) approved for the PUD. The PUD is approved for a maximum of 623 vtes and the study should provide information as to what the trip generation is for the entire PUD including the current proposal so the Board knows whether the maximum number of vtes is being exceeded or not.  Information should be provided with respect to the Traffic Overlay District for the entire project site which includes the property at 1195 Shelburne Road.  The TIS must provide the amount of additional traffic created by the removal of the Larkin Terrace complex and the amount of traffic estimated to be generated by the commercial portion of the building so that the traffic impact fee for the new commercial space can be calculated.  The TIS should be revised to use the correct name of the street which is Fayette Road not Fayette Drive.  Staff recommends the Board invoke technical review of the TIS which would be reviewed at the final plat review. The Board finds that the above list of additional information should be submitted with the final plat submittal and invokes an independent technical review of the TIS pursuant to Section 17.08(E)(7) of the Land Development Regulations. 4 (A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The proposed project is almost entirely on an already developed piece of land on which there are no wetlands or streams. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion met. (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. According to the Comprehensive Plan this project is located in the Southwest Quadrant where mixed use development along the Shelburne Road corridor is encouraged to promote pedestrian movement, use of public transportation, and shared parking opportunities. One strategy promoted in the Southwest Quadrant by the Plan is to explore opportunities to create “nodes” of concentrated development and public activity along the Shelburne Road corridor. The proposed project promotes pedestrian movement by incorporating an active sidewalk design along a street which can be accessed via public transportation. Furthermore, the project will create a node of activity by incorporating several uses in the project area (residential, retail, and restaurant). The applicant has proposed placing the building and its entrances closer to the street than the current 30 foot setbacks would allow. The Board considers that buildings closer to the street would encourage pedestrian movement between businesses, which would support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. In combination with the reduced setbacks the applicant is proposing a four (4) story building whose façades would step back above the second or third floor. This is intended to limit the impact of the buildings on the pedestrian experience by reducing the mass of building immediately visible from the sidewalk. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion to be met. (A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The proposed project incorporates a considerable amount of density into the site and as such there is not a great amount of ground level open space which could be connected between parcels; however, the project does create open space for the residents of the building through the use of rooftop leisure areas. The plans indicate that the open space area on the parcel of land where the proposed building would be built is 32,806 sq. ft. which covers 29.6% of the site. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion 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 Board received the following comments from the Fire Marshal in an email dated December 15, 2016: The only comment we have is on the hydrant placement, relative to the building fire suppression – FD connection. Current location would shut down the parking lot. Can/will be adjusted on the final submittal for building permit as the fire protection system plan will be better developed. This comment and the criterion will be addressed at the final plat stage of review. 5 (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. This criterion will be addressed at the final plat stage of review. See discussion below regarding stormwater, landscaping, and lighting. (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. This criterion will be addressed at the final plat stage of review. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). As discussed above, The Board preliminarily finds that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Commercial 1-Automobile Zoning District. D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, the Board preliminarily finds that this criterion 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. The proposed building is located in an existing PUD in which there are an array of buildings of various styles, including a movie theater, office space, and fast food restaurant. The Board preliminarily finds that the proposed building is an improvement for the larger PUD and could be a leader on Shelburne Road for other developments. The site incorporates a variety of plantings and walkways for pedestrians. While the proposed building will initially appear different from other buildings in the PUD, the applicant’s plan is to fully redevelop the site around the proposed building in phases and those buildings will be expected to relate well to one another and create desirable transitions. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing 6 a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. Parking is proposed in the interior of the lot and along the proposed private street. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion to be met. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if The Board preliminarily finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. The Board finds this criterion to not be applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed building would be 60 feet six (6) inches in height at its highest point, which an architectural feature in the northeast corner designed to provide visual interest, and otherwise would be no more than 45 feet four (4) inches in height along the flat roof. Anticipated neighboring buildings would be of similar height when the remaining phases of the project are constructed. The hotel currently existing on the site and proposed for demolition is between two (2) and three (3) stories in height. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion to be met and supports the height request discussed below in the waiver section. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The Board preliminarily finds 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. (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. Currently existing buildings in the immediate vicinity are of various heights, but primarily one (1) to three (3) stories. The Board considers the proposed building will be taller than other buildings in the immediate vicinity, but not drastically so and its height will allow the type of development onsite that is encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan goals discussed above. The Board preliminarily finds that the transition between the proposed building and neighboring existing buildings will be accomplished through the use of plantings, which will soften the appearance of a building which has a larger mass than some nearby buildings. The impact of the building on adjacent structures will be limited through the use of architectural design, including balconies and stepping the building back away from the street on upper stories. The Board finds these criteria to be preliminarily met. 7 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. The proposed project includes land at 1195 Shelburne Road and that parcel is proposed to be accessed via three (3) access points from the 1185 Shelburne Road property where the majority of the redevelopment is currently proposed. Those access points include the proposed public street to the south and two (2) parking lot drives, all three of which will extend onto the 1195 Shelburne Road parcel. Since access to the abutting property is already included as part of the proposal, the Board preliminarily finds the reservation of land to be unnecessary. 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 plans show areas for food waste, recycling, and trash on the interior of the first floor. The Board finds this criterion to be preliminarily met. The applicant should confer with the Fire Marshal prior to submittal of the final plat application to ensure that this arrangement is acceptable. 4. 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 $8,000,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $87,500 and the applicant is proposing $87,505. 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% $75,000 Minimum Landscaping $ $87,500 Proposed Landscaping $87,505 In addition to the landscaping which will count towards the minimum landscaping budget, the landscape 8 plan also shows new street trees and plants with a value of $23,625. The City Arborist submitted comments in an email to staff dated October 18, 2016: • Plantings along Shelburne Rd are in the State of Vermont Right of Way and are not maintained by the City of South Burlington. Should check with the Agency of Transportation regarding plantings in their Right of Way. • Would not recommend under planting shrubs and perennials along Shelburne Rd. This is where the snow and salt from 3 lanes of traffic and the sidewalk will end up • Any areas where trees are to be planted that are currently under pavement require soil replacement or soil restoration to a minimum depth of 2 feet to support tree growth • Elms in the western island should be relocated to take advantage of the larger soil volumes on the western side of the island • Due to their inherent tight branch structure, ‘Princeton’ Elms may pose structural problems as they mature, requiring pruning on a regular basis to reduce the potential for branch failure. For this reason a substitute species may want to be considered The Board finds that the comments submitted by the City Arborist must be addressed prior to the submittal of a final plat application and this is reflected in the conditions of this decision. Section 13.06(B)(2) requires that in all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least 10% of the interior of the parking lot must be landscaped islands. The landscaping plan indicates the project meets this requirement by having 11.4% of the interior parking area landscaped. The Board finds this criterion to be preliminarily met. Section 13.06(B)(4)(b) states that at least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area for every five (5) parking spaces and that the trees should be spaced evenly throughout to provide shade and reduce glare. The Board finds this criterion to be preliminarily met. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans depict snow storage areas. E) STORMWATER The Board received the following comments from the Stormwater Section in an email dated December 16, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed “Larkin Terrace, Preliminary Plat Permit Drawings” prepared by Krebs & Lansing, dated 9/29/16, last revised on 12/15/16. 1. The project proposes to develop/redevelop over 137,486 square feet of impervious surface on the parcel. This will require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 2. The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 9 3. The City has been working with the applicant to ensure that the project meets Section 12.03(B)(3)(b) of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which states “if the area of the lot or parcel that is being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed exceeds 50% of the lot or parcel’s existing impervious surface area, then all of the lot or parcel’s impervious surfaces must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C).” Revised plans dated 12/15/16 meet this requirement. 4. The applicant has been requested to submit HydroCAD modeling following final plan submission. 5. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A “Permit to Open Streets or Right-Of-Way” can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. The Board supports the comments of the Stormwater Section. F) LIGHTING Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations discusses exterior lighting and states that: A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. Cuts sheets for the proposed light fixtures meet the requirements of Appendix D for minimizing glare and light trespass. The lighting plan submitted shows fixtures throughout the property. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion to be met. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. It is not clear to the Board at what height the light fixtures will be located and therefore it cannot determine whether the fixtures would be considered evenly distributed according to the criterion. A condition of final plat approval will be that the applicant submit information required to determine whether this criterion is met. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 10 The lighting plan indicates that light trespass will be minimal and will be contained within the overall existing PUD and within the public streets. The Board preliminarily finds this criterion to be met. 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. It is not clear to the Board from the materials submitted what material from which the poles will be constructed. A condition of final plat approval will be that the applicant submit information required to determine whether this criterion is met. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. A condition of final plat approval will be that the applicant submit information required to determine whether these criteria are met. G) WAIVERS The applicant has requested the following waivers (see discussion below): (a) Front yard setback to be reduced from 30 feet minimum along Fayette Road and 50 feet along Shelburne Road to 12 feet minimum (b) Front yard coverage limit of 30% maximum to be increased to 100% (c) Building height maximum of 35 feet (flat roof) to be increased to 45 feet four (4) inches for the flat roof of the building and 60 feet six (6) inches for a decorative feature on the northeast corner of the proposed building (d) Reduction in the minimum parking requirement from 183 spaces to 119 spaces for a total of 34% fewer spaces than the required minimum (a) & (b): The Board finds that lessening the setback and front yard coverage will be positive for encouraging a pedestrian environment along Shelburne Road and Fayette Road. The Board finds that a well-designed sidewalk with a screening buffer of shade trees between the walk and the street will be a positive addition to the streetscape and encourage the use of the sidewalk by those living in and visiting the development. (c): The Board preliminarily finds that allowing additional height enables the project to better meet the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan by allowing for residential density on upper floors with commercial uses on the ground level. The addition of an architectural element which rises above the flat roof will provide interest and variation to the building, which is encouraged. To evaluate a height waiver, Section 3.07(D) of the Land Development Regulations requires a number of elements, some of which have not yet been provided to the Board by the applicant. In order to receive this waiver, which the Board preliminarily supports, the applicant must submit the information required by Section 3.07(D) at the final plat stage of review. (d): All the commercial uses in the existing PUD are benefitted by a shared parking analysis, which reduces the required parking requirement, and an additional parking waiver. The Board gives 11 preliminary support to this concept, but, because there are several questions related to the shared parking analysis, cannot grant a waiver at this time. H) OTHER ISSUES On some of the plan sheets the applicant shows a sculpture on the northeast corner of the lot and partially outside the property bounds. A condition of this decision will be to show the sculpture within the bounds of the property on all plan sheets. DECISION Motion by __________, seconded by __________, to approve preliminary plat application #SD-16-29 of John P. Larkin, Inc. 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 preliminary plat plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant must receive preliminary wastewater allocations prior to final plat approval. 4. The applicant must receive final wastewater allocations prior to issuance of any zoning permits. 5. The Board preliminarily approves the following waivers: a. Front yard setback of twelve (12) feet (a waiver of 18 feet from the standard of 30 feet) b. Front yard coverage of up to 100% (a waiver of 70% from the standard of 30%) 6. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 7. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 8. The applicant will be responsible for regularly maintaining all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 9. The plans and the TIS must be revised to show the changes below prior to final plat submission: a. The description of the project in the Traffic Impact Study must match the description in the application to the Board. b. The Traffic Impact Study must evaluate the impact of the proposed project with respect to the maximum number of vehicle trip ends (vtes) approved for the PUD, which is 623 vtes, and the study must provide information as to what the trip generation is for the entire PUD including the current proposal so that the Board can determine whether the maximum number of vtes is being exceeded or not. c. Information must be provided with respect to the Traffic Overlay District for the entire project site, which includes the property at 1195 Shelburne Road. 12 d. The Traffic Impact Study must provide the amount of additional traffic created by the removal of the Larkin Terrace complex and the amount of traffic estimated to be generated by the commercial portion of the proposed building in order for the traffic impact fee for the new commercial space to be calculated. e. The Traffic Impact Study must be revised to use Fayette Road as the street name and not Fayette Drive. f. The Landscaping Plan must be revised to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. g. The lighting plan must include the information necessary to meet the requirements of Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations. h. An eastern elevation which includes landscaping must be submitted. 10. The final plat submittal must include E911 addresses for the new structure in the proposed project, in conformance with local ordinances and Vermont E911 addressing standards. 11. Final plans must 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, 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. 12. The final plat application must be submitted within 12 months of this decision. 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, 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. 13 KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:Project PhaseDP-110/28/16SLMLARKINTERRACERoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=153001" = 200'DENSITYCALCULATIONSITE PLANPRELIMINARY PLAT PERMIT DRAWINGS1DENSITYExisting 2.54 acres (shaded Larkin ParcelD) @ 12 residential units/acre = 30 unitsDENSITY:Shading indicates a portion of the Farrell property,2.0 acres @ 12 residential units/acre = 24 unitsParcel L&MN/F Olde Orchard Realty Partnership, LPParcel BParcel DN/F Larkin2.54 acresParcel EN/F L&M Partnership1195 Shelburne Rd.David M. Farrell TrustN/F FarrellN/F CRE JVMixed Fifteen NEBranch HoldingsParcel CN/F McDonaldsN/F7 Fayette, LLCShelburne RoadFayette Road S H E L B U R N E R O A D4’CONCRETE APRON8’PLANT BEDSIDEWALK, TYP.(WIDTH VARIES)10’SIDEWALKPROPERTY LINE3’WALL 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 Officer SUBJECT: MP-16-03 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: December 20, 2016 Master plan application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive. Originally the applicant submitted and pursued application #MP-16-01; however, the project evolved to include a greater number of dwelling units (458 instead of 360) on a larger area of the parcel (39.16 acres instead of 30 acres). These changes are substantial enough for staff to recommend the applicant submit a new application, #MP-16-03. Prior to formally submitting #MP-16-03, the applicant already had presented materials to the Development Review Board which reflected this increase in the number of dwelling units on a greater area of land. Therefore staff considers that the comments and memos prepared for #MP-16-01 are relevant to this project. They are included as part of the packet of materials for #MP-16-03 and are listed below:  September 6, 2016 memo and staff comments  October 18, 2016 memo  November 1, 2016 memo  November 15, 2016 memo 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant, focusing on any differences between #MP-16-01 and #MP-16-03. Department of Fish and Wildlife 5 Perry Street, Suite 40 Barre, VT. 05641 27 February 2015 Errol Briggs Gilman & Briggs Environmental Barre, VT. Re. O’Brien Home Farm Dear Errol: I am in receipt of your follow up letter dated, 24 February 2015. Thank you for submitting some of the additional information that I had requested. Although we generally prefer to have a species list by natural community and/or habitat type, the limited information about dominant species will suffice. Based on the results that you submitted as well as the absence of any known elements from the site, it appears that there will be no impact to R,T,E plants from this project. Let me know if you need any further information from us or if the plans change significantly. VIA HAND-DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC MAIL November 23, 2016 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Master Plan Application Parcel ID #1260-0200F and 0970-00255 Dear Development Review Board, Attached as Exhibit A, please find a completed City of South Burlington, Re-Application for Master Plan Review (the “Re-Application”), for a Master Plan of 39.16 acres on two existing parcels of land totaling approximately 50 acres, located on the west side of Old Farm Road, and on the east side of Eldredge Street and Kennedy Drive, bounded on the northeast by Kimball Avenue, portions of City Parcel ID # 1260-0200F and 0970-00255 (the “Parcel”). This Re-Application seeks the approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board (the “Board”), on a proposed Master Plan for portions of the Parcel, to become a multi-phase, multi-use planned unit development consisting of: commercial uses, (office, retail, hotel and restaurant uses, as well as other suitable commercial uses), high density residential uses (apartment buildings, senior living facilities); medium density residential uses (townhome buildings created as condominiums), and lower density single family homes and carriage homes, including the construction of new public infrastructure and green space with a total density of up to 458 residential dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space. The portion of the Parcel proposed for Master Plan consideration is shown on the attached Master Plan document prepared by Krebs and Lansing, and attached as Exhibit B (hereinafter this overall Master Plan is referred to as the “Project” or the “Master Plan”). On April 20, 2016, O’Brien Farm Road, LLC (the “Applicant”) filed an earlier application for Master Plan approval (the “Original Application”). The Original Application contemplated the development of 30 acres of the Parcel and an upward limit of 360 dwelling units. During the course of an in-depth project review including months of hearings with the Board, and discussions with City Planning and Zoning Staff (the “Staff”) the project evolved. Over time, and based on feedback from the Board and Staff, the Project area was extended to encompass 39.16 acres of land, as currently shown at Exhibit B. The road network and collector streets were expanded, existing open space land was encumbered by the Project, and the upward limit of units proposed was increased to 458 units to account for the increase in involved land. While the Board was privy to all of the correspondence and review associated with these evolving changes, the Applicant has been advised by Staff that the notice for the public hearings of the Original Application was technically defective in the sense that it only referenced the original 360-unit South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 2 count. According to Staff the subsequent increase to 458 units requires that a new application be submitted and noticed appropriately to all abutters. The Applicant is pleased to resolve the defective notice issue that Staff has identified, and is therefore supplying this additional Re-Application, which is technically a new Application with an upward limit of 458 units proposed. This is the process that Staff has recommended to the Applicant as the best and most efficient means of correcting the technical notice defect. The Applicant is also taking this opportunity to summarize the waivers and findings of fact it is seeking and the accompanying exhibits (if any) that each waiver and finding references. Additionally, the Applicant is taking the opportunity to pull together text from various correspondences over the past year of discussions with Staff and from Board hearings to facilitate an easier final review by the Board and Staff. In the following pages, in addition to consolidating information, Applicant will also summarize preliminary positions indicated by the Board in regard to waivers discussed, during the course of the Original Application review, which has extended from April 20th, until November 15th, and is still ongoing with the hearing continued to December 20, 2016. Applicant will also use this opportunity to further state the big picture goals of the permits requested, such that the Board can remain focused on the larger context of the proposed development. Prior to the discussion of this new Application, the Applicant wishes to make a few clarifying points: (i) The discussions with the Board from April 20 th until today have included all of the impacts associated with the increase in total unit counts. While the notice was technically defective, the materials supplied by the Applicant have been accurate for the review of all units proposed during the course of the review by the Board. Testimony and submissions by the Applicant have made clear the changes to the plan as they have progressed over time. The Board should feel confident that all discussions thus far include the impacts associated with development of 458 units and up to 45,000 square feet of commercial and/or office space. (ii) The Applicant is including by reference in this current Re-Application all of the submissions pertaining to the ongoing Master Plan Application MP-16-01. To be clear, the Applicant is seeking to incorporate by reference in this new Re-Application all materials, submissions, testimony, hearing discussions, oral and written representations, Staff comments (written and oral), Board Comments (written and oral), public comments, and any other information included in the entirety of the record for MP-16-01, including the relevant Sketch Plan information and applications submitted. Further, Applicant wishes to include the videos of testimony provided, as well as the minutes of discussions between the Applicant and the Board. The purpose of this inclusion is to ensure that the record for this new Re-Application is complete, South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 3 and accurately reflects nearly 8 months of conversations that have taken place in regards to the project proposed herein. If the City requires, Applicant is prepared to resubmit each and every document provided as well as copies of minutes, comments, videos, etc. However, Applicant believes that simply referring to such is sufficient to incorporate them by reference. Applicant will look to the City as to whether or not such copies should be provided. Please let us know if this is required and if not we will assume that the City agrees that incorporation by reference is sufficient. If nothing else it will save a small forest of trees from the paper required to resubmit all of those documents which the City and Board already have in their possession. Below, please find an analysis of the new Re-Application, informed where necessary by prior discussions with the Board during the course of the Original Application, included herein by reference. The below is broken into the following sections: I. Summary of Applicant Intent and Overall Project Intent; II. Master Plan Application Facts and Plan Impacts; III. Compliance with Section 15.18; IV. Statement of Waivers and Preliminary Board Findings Requested; V. Conclusions I. Summary of Applicant Intent and Overall Project Intent: Because of the scale of the parcels in question and because of the Applicant’s desire to be thoughtful in our approach to this development the Applicant is not seeking to permit a number of structures or particular details in this Master Plan application. By limiting the Re-Application to the “big picture” or “macro” perspective that Staff has advised the Applicant (and the Board) ensures a more sustainable and thoughtful development pattern designed to best meet the objectives of the community and Applicant both for this site. It is to no one’s benefit to fully permit an entire project of this scale at this one moment in time that will be phased in its development over a period of years during which time the community’s needs may change and the buying market may also change. It is our belief – and we believe the intent of the Master Plan process – to create a framework that protects the City’s interests in terms of creating a contiguous and thoughtful development area that identifies and provides the necessary greenspace, amenities, infrastructure and otherwise, while at the same time giving the Applicant the ability to remain reasonably flexible to the market’s whims. For this reason, the Applicant is seeking to move forward with a Master Plan approval, in accordance with Section 15.07 of the Regulations. As the Board knows, this approval is much more general than the provisions related to Plat approval, and rather than focusing on the granular details of a project resulting in an actual building permit, focuses more on broad development goals appropriate for a review of a Master Plan. Specifically, if we look to Section 15.07 of the Regulations, these broad areas of focus are: South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 4 x Overall project location; x Location of deeded open space; x Location and nature of proposed public amenities; x Maximum impervious coverage proposed; x Maximum FAR and/or dwelling units proposed; x Traffic impacts and maximum trip ends proposed; x Location of infrastructure proposed; x Location and details on streets proposed; and x Waivers from the Regulations requested. At this time the Applicant has spent significant time and resources analyzing the Parcel, the local market and applicable regulations, and has determined the viability of the key aspects of the Master Plan. These details are outlined most clearly at Exhibit B, which is the Master Plan the Applicant intends to file and record. While the particulars (i.e. building type, unit mix, building footprints, etc.) of the development within each zone are not yet known, the Applicant is confident that development within each zone can sustain the infrastructure and public amenities illustrated at Exhibit B, with the few waivers that are requested herein, and which as now represented in this Re-Application have been reduced and/or altered from the Original Application per the past 8 months of Board and Staff commentary and direction. As discussed at several hearings already, Exhibit B outlines an attractive, thoughtful, innovative and extensive network of public amenities and infrastructure that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. These amenities include: x Public Park space of approximately three acres. The three acres of public land is contiguous with an additional one acre of private land which will be owned by the residential lot owners but which is deeded open space. The result will be a four-acre park feeling, but which restricts public access to three acres out of respect for the privacy of residents bordering the park. x Open Space of 5-acres in addition to the 4-acres associated with the park land. x Public sidewalks on both sides of new City Streets. x Continuation of recreation paths toward Old Farm Road. x New pedestrian connections to the Kennedy Drive recreation path including signalized crosswalks on Kennedy Drive and flashing beacons/a pedestrian crossing on Hinesburg Road. x New vehicular connections to Eldredge Street and Kennedy Drive. x Parallel parking on higher density portions of new City streets. x Increased pedestrian connectivity on less traveled roads. x Improvements to Kennedy Drive including the installation of a new traffic light and turn lane. In certifying at this early stage that these amenities will be built and provided by the Applicant over the course of the Project, the master plan process in the Regulations allows certain securities for the South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 5 Applicant. This security comes by way of binding findings of fact, issued by the Board with regard to the Master Plan proposal.1 In general, most of the findings required are clearly outlined in subsequent sections and are due to a particular need or waiver within the current regulations. For instance, the proposed plan is relying on findings allowing increased height in Zone 2. Other findings of fact required are less evident, but are nevertheless critical to the Applicant’s Master Plan proposal. All are outlined in subsequent pages for review by the Board. The Applicant has argued extensively for certain findings and waivers over the course of this Original Application, and we hope that the Board understands that these findings and waivers are integral to the process, as they provide security as investment is made in the Project. II.Master Plan Application Facts and Plan Impacts: A. Attached as Exhibit B is a Master Plan for recording with this Re-Application. The Master Plan includes a title. The O’Brien Home Farm Master Plan Community. The name and address of the land surveyor are included on the plan. The names of all the adjacent subdivisions and owners of record are included on the plan. B. The Parcel involved is currently inclusive of approximately 50 acres of land. This Master Plan application is not proposing any subdivision, but only a master plan review on a 39.16 acre portion of that land. The limits of the Master Plan will be as shown at Exhibit B. Future applications for approval under the Master Plan will seek to subdivide land as needed. Exhibit B clearly indicates the areas proposed for dwelling unit construction in the future under this Master Plan. These areas are separated into several zones. Specifically: Description Acreage Lot # , # of Lots Included Proposed for Subdivision Now Proposed for Dwelling Units in Future Master Plan Zone 1 7.1 N.A. No Yes Zone 2A 7.3 N.A. No Yes Zone 2B 3.4 N.A. No Yes Zone 3 4.4 N.A. No Yes Zone 4 3.0 N.A. No Park Land Zone 4A 1.1 N.A. No Open Space Easement Zone 5 2.0 N.A. No Open Space Easement 1 Section 15.07 (C)(2) of the Regulations states: “The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent…applications made pursuant to the master plan approval.” South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 6 Zone 5A 1.0 N.A. No Recreation/Open Space Easement Zone 5B 2.0 N.A. No Open Space Easement Zone 6 8.0 N.A. No Yes Zone 7 12.4 N.A No Yes, future development subsequent to this Master Plan As you will note, Zone 7 is not included in the Project. It is labeled here to be excluded from all the review and requirements of this Master Plan. Zone 7 represents the remaining land of the owners, and is intended for future development. The Applicant does not propose any development in Zone 7 as part of this Re-Application, nor does the Applicant propose any encumbrances on the land in Zone 7. As shown at Exhibit B the entirety of Zone 4 is proposed as perpetual open space, and it is anticipated that Zone 4 itself (not Zone 4A) will be donated to the City and become a public park. Zone 5 is also proposed as permanent open space. Zone 5 will serve a stormwater treatment function within the Project, but it will also include walking paths, as well as mature trees for shade. In terms of the nature of public amenities or facilities proposed, the plan attached at Exhibit B clearly shows the pedestrian and vehicular infrastructure improvements proposed. As part of this initial Re-Application, none of these facilities are being proposed for construction. Rather, each public amenity will be constructed during the development of the zones in which those amenities are located. As part of future applications a phasing schedule will be provided indicating the precise timing for the construction of public amenities as they correlate to construction of physical structures. A. Regarding the maximum unit counts and site coverage proposed for the Project, the Applicant is not entirely sure of the particulars at this time. Again, these specifics will vary depending on the goals of future projects within the Master Plan. For this Master Plan approval, the Applicant affirms that the overall site coverage will be less than the maximum coverage allowed for the land involved in the Re-Application. The Applicant would request that the current coverage standards be included, such that any downward changes to the current standards will not impact the Project. The Applicant has also agreed to set maximum coverage levels on a per zone basis. These are: South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 7 Description Approximate Acreage Maximum Total Coverage Zone 1 7.1 50% Zone 2A 7.3 85% Zone 2B 3.4 90% Zone 3 4.4 65% Zone 4 4.1 25% Zone 5 5 25% Zone 6 8.0 60% Similarly regarding unit counts the Applicant is unsure at this point exactly how many units will be ultimately constructed. Given this, and also the City’s desire as stated in the Comprehensive Plan that development in this site be compact and dense in nature, the Applicant is seeking approval for the maximum number of residential units allowed: 458 units. The majority of which will be concentrated in high density structures in Zones 2a and 2b. Applicant is also seeking approval for up to 45,000 square feet of commercial/office space. Overall density is as follows: Zoning District Residential Density Acreage Total Units Allowed C1-LR 12 .27 3.24 R-12 12 37.82 453.8 R1 1.0 1.07 1 Total 39.16 458.04 B. Regarding traffic generation, in preparing for this submission, the Applicant has completed a traffic analysis. The analysis is attached as Exhibit C. Because at this time the exact traffic generation is unknown, the analysis has focused on proving capacity for the largest anticipated number of PM Peak vehicle trip ends (VTEs) reasonably expected. The analysis when conducted assumed 417 residential units total and 55,000 square feet of office space. This provided a total of 428 PM Peak Hour trip ends. As updated by the letter dated November 17, 2016, attached as Exhibit D, the 428 PM peak hour trip number analyzed by the traffic analysis is maintained in a scenario with 458 units and 45,000 square feet of commercial. Given this, the traffic analysis attached supports that the project as planned for 458 units and 45,000 square feet of office/commercial space will South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 8 not have an undue adverse effect on area traffic. Further conclusions are outlined in the report at Exhibit C. C. The location and sizes of public improvements planned are shown at Exhibit B. Sidewalks, recreation paths, road widths, etc., are all shown. The plan at Exhibit B is to scale. III. Compliance with Section 15.18: A. Section 15.18(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity:The Project is located in the core development area of the City of South Burlington, and as such the property is served by both municipal water and sewer. It is anticipated that ample capacity for both water and sewer exist, but individual allocations will not be applied for at the Master Plan level as the particulars of each use are not yet known, and so the specific demand cannot be determined. Allocations will be sought during subsequent preliminary and final plat hearings. Infrastructure will be installed to carry water and sewer into each zone as the roads are constructed. B. Section 15.18(A)(2) Sufficient Grading and Erosion Controls:Complete grading and erosion control plans will be submitted as part of future applications. Compliance with this criterion will be demonstrated at that time. C. Section 15.18(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads: As outlined above, a complete traffic analysis has been performed for this project and a supplementary letter provided confirming the impacts for 458 units and 45,000 square feet of commercial/office space. It is the conclusion of that analysis that: “There is no evidence of unsafe traffic conditions existing presently or that would be exacerbated or created by this Project.” Additionally, the traffic study finds: “Intersection capacity analyses at key intersections in the vicinity of this Project indicate that acceptable levels of service will be maintained through the year 2025.” Further to these conclusions, we believe that this criterion has been met. D. Section 15.18(A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams and wildlife habitat:The Project area is sloped, and given this, there are very few areas of wetland impacted. Those areas of delineated wetlands (as defined by applicable State regulations and as confirmed by expert analysis of both an Environmental Engineer and the State Wetlands Ecologist), are outlined at Exhibit B. These wetlands consist of three primary locations: 1. Wetland E: Consisting of the area outlined on the Site Plan, Wetland E is the only Class II wetland in the Project boundaries. As shown on the Site Plan, this area is not planned for development, and a 50’ buffer, as required by applicable State and Federal rules has been applied. Given this, we believe that suitable protection for this wetland is included in the Project. South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 9 2. Wetland F: Wetland F consists of the area identified on the Project site plan. This wetland is Class III according to State standards, and this has been confirmed with the State wetland ecologist. 3. Wetland G: This wetland consists of three smaller wetlands that lie in Zone 1 of the Project. Wetland F and Wetland G meet the criteria specified by the Regulations for impact waivers, and those waivers are requested by the Applicant. The Board has discussed these waivers at length during the review of the Original Application. Applicant believes that the Project meets all requirements of the Regulations pertaining to impacts to these Class III wetlands and is requesting a finding allowing such impacts below. Wetland E is a Class II wetland, which has been designated such by the State. As a Class II wetland, the functions and values associated with the wetland are more significant, and given this, State regulations (as well as City regulations), require a 50’ buffer be placed around them to avoid any impact. Our plans indicate where this buffer is located, and our intent is to respect and preserve Wetland E. The Project site was also reviewed extensively in order to determine if any rare threatened or endangered plant species exist on the site, or if habitat that might support such species exists on the site. It was determined that no such rare, threatened or endangered species exist, and that no such habitat exists. A letter from our consultant indicating such and a confirmatory response from the State Botanist were provided in the Original Application. They are attached hereto as Exhibit E. E. Section 15.18(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:At this time the project does not propose any structures, and so this criterion is not directly applicable. Future applications that propose structures will be evaluated against this criterion as needed, and we are confident that the development proposed will be in keeping with the goals of the comprehensive plan for this core area of the City. F. Section 15.18(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:As illustrated at Exhibit B, we have located a substantial park in a central part of the Project. As shown, this open space will be connected via sidewalks, recreation paths and open space easement corridors. This was discussed rather extensively at hearings and in Staff comments for the Original Application, and we believe that the open space shown at Exhibit B satisfies this criterion. South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 10 G. Section 15.18(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:We have done our best to propose a development that will be approved by the City Fire Chief, and we look forward to his review. H. Section 15.18(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 properties:The Project has been designed in a manner to facilitate the continued growth and connectivity of the neighborhood with future development. This is clearly demonstrated at Exhibit B. The roads, infrastructure, sidewalks, electricity and other utilities are easily scalable for future growth, as is the new intersection on Kennedy Drive. Indeed, planning for future growth is the entire purpose of this Master Plan and so we feel this criterion is met. I. Section 15.18(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:The plan at Exhibit B has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works, who agrees that at a master plan level, the Project is designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. J. Section 15.18(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s):The Project seeks the intentional development of a mixed use neighborhood with desirable amenities and open space located in the core development area of the City, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. On August 17, 2016 the Applicant submitted a detailed outline of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. At the September 6, 2016 hearing with the Board the Board determined preliminarily that the Project is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Such preliminary opinion was reiterated in a Staff report prepared and submitted for the November 15, 2016 hearing. Such staff report states: “Board indicated preliminary support of the Master Plan being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.” Given this, we believe that this criterion is met and that the Board is satisfied that the submissions thus far are satisfactory in proving this consistency. K. Section 15.18(A)(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground: The Project will be constructed in accordance with applicable State stormwater regulations, and constructed in accordance with State guidelines for erosion and sediment control. The Applicant is not seeking any affirmative findings on this criterion at a master plan level. IV. Statement of Waivers and Preliminary Board Findings Requested: South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 11 A. Below is summary of the waivers and findings of fact requested by the Applicant over the course of the past few months of hearings that the Applicant believes the Board has given preliminary support to granting. This support was the product of extensive discussions which are part of the record for this Re-Application. The understanding that the Board had supported these waivers and findings of fact was further confirmed via the summary that Staff had provided to the Applicant and Board for the November 15, 2016 hearing. For the sake of expediency, waivers requested that the Board has not supported are no longer listed as it is assumed they will not be granted. The Applicant is providing specific language for findings below in an effort to expedite work for the Board and to be sure that the specific language applicant has requested is included in this submission. Again, the following list represents waivers and findings for which preliminary support has already been indicated. Reasoning for such waivers has already been presented in the Original Application, and is incorporated herein by reference. 1. Sketch Plan review for future applications under the Master Plan is waived. 2. The requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1) which forces large setbacks and landscape buffers between residential and non-residential uses is waived within the borders of the Project to allow for mixed use development. 3. Section 15.12(M)(5) which states “permanent pedestrian easements twenty feet in width may be required through blocks 600 feet or more in length,” is waived throughout the Master Plan. 4. Front yard setbacks along roads shown at Exhibit B, as well as future roads not shown but located throughout Zone 1 and Zone 6 shall be as follows: i. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road B are reduced to be 6’. ii. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road A are reduced to be 6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11’ from the garage door to the ROW. iii. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road E are reduced to be 6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11.5’ from the garage door to the ROW. iv. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks along planned residential access roads in Zone 1 and Zone 6 be reduced to be 5’ from the structure to the ROW and 10’ from the garage to the ROW. 5. The Board finds that the provided Re-Application for a Master Plan for the construction of up to 458 market-rate housing units presents a plan that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected districts. 6. The Board finds that encroachment into the Class 3 wetlands located within the Project South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 12 boundaries is permitted, as the requirements at Section 12.02(E)(3)(a-c) pertaining to this encroachment have been met. 7. The Board finds that within the borders of the approved Master Plan, any zoning district boundary may be moved 50 feet in any direction, to accommodate the future applications for particular development on lots within the boundaries of the Master Plan. 8. The Board finds that the Master Plan presented and approved is for the construction of up to 458 market-rate housing units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space on an approximately 39.16 acre parcel of land, located in the R12, R1-PRD, and C1-LR zoning districts. 9. The Board finds that within the Master Plan area future applications for development of a single structure on a single lot requires final site plan review and approval only. Including development where parking for that single structure may be shared with or located on more than one lot, provided the structure itself is entirely on a single lot. 10. The Board finds that within the Master Plan, any subsequent approval to Preliminary and Final Plat approval shall require only Final Plat approval. 11. The Board finds that overall site coverage will be less than the coverage allowed for the entirety of the Master Plan under the current zoning regulations. The Board finds that the maximum total site coverage per zone will be limited as follows: Description Approximate Acreage Maximum Total Coverage Zone 1 7.1 50% Zone 2A 7.3 85% Zone 2B 3.4 90% Zone 3 4.4 65% Zone 4 4.1 25% Zone 5 5 25% Zone 6 8.0 60% 12. The Board finds that within the Master Plan, the addition of a deck, porch or sunroom to any single family or duplex home shall require only the issuance of a Zoning Permit. 13. The Board finds the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 13 Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B. 14. The Board finds that Applicant will work with the Board during Preliminary Plat review to confirm project phasing that allows for the completion of pedestrian amenities to be linked with the completion of infrastructure and home construction, and a mutually agreed phasing plan will be developed. 15. The Board finds that the formal parkland will be developed as soon as it is safe and reasonable to do so, as determined by the Board and the Applicant. 16. The Board finds that up to 60% of the required landscaping costs associated with Site Plan review requirements for the lots in Zone 2 of the Master Plan can be allocated to landscaping in common elements of the Master Plan, including the park, with the approval of specific proposals by the Board at future reviews.2 2 In recent comments provided for the November 15, 2016 hearing, Staff provided a new comment regarding this request. Staff stated that they are “unsure” if the LDR’s allow this re-allotment. Applicant has a few comments: 1. If Staff is unsure then the regulations must be ambiguous. Clear VT Supreme Court precedent indicates that ambiguity in regulations must be construed in favor of the land owner. Given this, if Staff is not certain, the Board should err on the side of the Applicant’s request, which is based in the common sense reality that on dense urban sites, meeting the very high landscape dollar requirement is challenging, and the result can be somewhat wasteful. Applicant witnessed this exact problem again at a hearing for a project on Shelburne Road on November 15, 2016, where the Applicant was discussing how they were not sure where to spend the excess landscape budget due to site constraints, and they were seeking approval to spend that budget on public art. This is a common sense problem that should be fixed. If Staff is unsure, why not side with the Applicant and invest landscape dollars where they make the most sense for public benefit? The Board will continue to have this issue as construction dollars are invested vertically. You have a small lot with a tall building. Landscape costs are based on a percentage of overall construction cost. As the building gets taller and construction cost increases, the lot stays the same size. A correlation between cost and size of land which may have existed when the Regulation was written does not now universally apply. The Board can and should be flexible to ensure that the intent of the regulation is being met. Why not invest landscape dollars for community benefit in the community where a structure is built? Especially when a large master plan is presented that knits together different areas of a large parcel with a common theme, architecture and connectivity. 2. Applicant believes that the regulations clearly authorize such a finding by the Board. This authorization is both in the exact requirements (which seem to allow it), but also in provisions for the Board to issue waivers within a PUD. Both are addressed below: a. The exact landscape requirements of the regulations are at Section13.06 (G)(3) of the Regulations. Which state: “Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting costs for all site plans as shown in table 13-9 below.” As stated here, landscape requirements are prescribed for all “site plans.” Site Plans are defined by the regulations as “the development plan for one or more lots on which is shown the existing and proposed conditions of the lots.” Clearly a site plan showing improvements to a lot with a new building, and landscape improvements to another lot within the Master Plan would still meet the definition of site plan. A site plan by definition can include two lots, and an application for site plan including two lots could involve landscape improvements to both lots. Given this, there seems to be no prohibition against including separate areas and landscaping as part of a site plan review for certain structures. South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 14 17. The Board finds that perennials and ornamental grasses can be used to meet landscape requirements in the Master Plan and that the cost of such plantings can be allowed in satisfaction of Landscape Budget Requirements for all portions of this Master Plan. B. Below are a few waivers that it appears the Board has not directly discussed or concluded discussion on. The Applicant is affirming its request for these findings: 1. The Board finds that the Master Plan presented is innovative and creates a desirable and attractive framework for community through new methods, new ideas and creative thinking. Applicant believes that this Re-Application is innovative for a number of reasons. Innovation is defined as “featuring new methods.” Here we see a Re-Application for Master Plan that in and of itself is being permitted differently than any other application prior. Avoiding the particulars and pitfalls of past projects to create an overarching framework for expeditious permitting and market flexibility. The plan is using height, density shifts, topography, new road designs, and process and regulatory waivers to create a neighborhood that will be pleasant, street-friendly, and desirable, achieving numerous goals of the Comprehensive Plan, in a manner that has garnered support (not antagonism) from direct neighbors. The plan presented is preserving a large amount of open space while committing to build densely on smaller lots for large multi-family structures. Underground parking is being proposed for all larger buildings, and is the only way to achieve permitted density in larger multi-family areas. The plan is also presenting a range of living options including: ownership, rental, high, medium and low density, which will result in a wide variety of price points, enabling various market segments to be accommodated. As mentioned when discussed in a past hearing, the Board themselves have called the Project innovative, and so we again request that this be a finding of fact to help facilitate future projects within the Master Plan. 2. The Board finds that the project generation of 428 PM Peak Hour trips will not create an undue adverse effect on traffic. The traffic impact analysis attached as Exhibit C is conclusive in its findings. Absent any issues with this technical review, the Applicant hopes the Board will support this finding. 3. The Board finds that the general pedestrian circulation pattern and means of circulation presented is acceptable and that the open space proposed is both located and sized appropriately. b. Regardless of the above, the Board has the authority in the Regulations at Section 15 “in conjunction with PUD review [to modify] these land development regulations.” Given this, even if the sharing of landscape dollars is not allowed (as it appears to be), the Board can choose to allow it per the flexibility provided in PUD review to modify the Regulations. South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 15 Staff notes that the Board is not required to make this finding in satisfaction of any criteria. Applicant would request that if the board believes it is true, that the finding helps to protect the applicant from changes on the board, or changes to regulations in the future. Applicant notes that both the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee and the Pedestrian and Open Space Committee have reviewed the Master Plan and have both passed resolutions confirming that the plan, at its current level is supportive of their goals and the City’s goals related to pedestrian infrastructure, circulation, etc. If the position of the Board is that the finding is implied, the Applicant would ask why not just state it to confirm? 4. The Board finds the street locations and layouts shown in the Master Plan to be acceptable, subject to the review of the Director of Public Works, the Fire Chief and the City Stormwater Superintendent. Similar to the above, the Applicant would request that if the Board believes something, they find accordingly. The more findings are included in the permit, the more protection the Applicant has for the duration of the Project as the Applicant continues to invest in the Project. V. Conclusions To conclude, we would like to focus not on the particulars included above, but importantly also on the big picture goals of this Re-Application and the review and feedback the Applicant has received thus far. After all this is a Master Plan and it should be looked at as a high-level review of a project, with the nitty gritty details to be parsed out in the Preliminary and Final Plat applications, which are forthcoming. The Applicant has been meeting with City staff and the Board discussing this project in particular detail since the first sketch plan application was filed in August of 2014. In that time the Project has admittedly been altered, but we believe it has consistently changed for the better, adapting to and better addressing community needs, and moving toward a project that can be supported by a broad spectrum of interests and stakeholders within this area and of the broader city. The Project has been thoughtfully designed to be sensitive and respectful to its neighbors, and by proactively addressing the needs of those neighbors our development now enjoys many of those neighbor’s support. To that end the Applicant would also note that per City and State regulations we have mailed nearly 300 notices per meeting to our neighbors to warn them of relevant hearings over the course of the last two years. As the Board has seen, the number of interested or concerned parties that have attended those hearings is likely less than twenty individuals over that time period, most, if not all, of whom have now stopped attending meetings, satisfied their concerns are heard. Additionally, those who have attended, while voicing initial concerns, have been largely supportive of the Project and how it has been structured to transition from lower density-type residential units adjacent to existing properties to the higher density and larger buildings closer to the Kennedy Drive-Kimball Avenue intersection. By doing so the project creates a balance of being respectful of existing residents while also achieving the South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 16 underlying zoning density as desired by the City and providing much needed new housing stock of in a variety of ownership and price point options as directed by the Building Homes Together initiative. Many projects of this scale are controversial and raise the ire of neighbors, but this project has not. We believe the reason is that we have been proactive in addressing concerns, have dedicated significant open space and public land, and are being respectful of an existing development pattern while also innovative in how we achieve the desired density. We are proud of this fact and believe that this development will be a wonderful addition to this area and to the community at large. The Applicant has also received the support of the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee in the form of a unanimous resolution and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee in another unanimous motion. The Applicant has shown the project plans to the Planning Commission, and to a number of other City volunteers and stakeholders, all of whom have voiced support for the plan, including the siting of high density residential uses. Now, the Applicant is before the Board for the last time. We are hopeful that the Board now has enough information at hand that it can support the Applicant’s requested findings of fact and applicable waivers for a Master Plan so that we might move on to the Preliminary Plat submission, where the Board will have further oversight and authority over more granular details. We also recognize that our Master Plan application has deviated from most – if not all – that have previously come before the Board in that it is proposing a high level review prior to moving forward on the detailed review found in the Plat process. However, we also believe that is the purpose of having a Master Plan process in the first place. The Applicant firmly believes our requests are grounded in the text of the Land Development Regulations, which allow for the Board to create binding findings of fact, to waive provisions of the zoning regulations, and to abbreviate the requirements for future review. The Board now has the opportunity to help the Community realize the Project that so many have reviewed and expressed support for. The findings requested herein will: A. Solidify the planned development as shown to the Board. B. Confirm the size and location of large open space tracts to be donated to the City. C. Confirm the roads, pedestrian connectivity and pedestrian improvements allocated to the City. D. Allow the Applicant to proceed with permitting in confidence that the plan reviewed to date will be reflective of the plan the Applicant is permitted to build. E. Allow the Applicant certain waivers from the Regulations to ensure the proposed development can be constructed as shown. F. Allow the Applicant to proceed with expedited review of its future applications, given the level of detailed review already provided. G. Allow the Applicant to seek certain waivers at a future date which might not otherwise be available, in order to realize the full benefits of the Project for both the City and the Applicant. H. Allow for the mixing of small scale commercial uses on the first floor of large residential buildings, further to the goals of the community, the Planning Commission and the Applicant, as allowed by the language of the PUD and Master Plan provisions. While this Master Plan is not the final permit to be issued, it will represent a significant step South Burlington Development Review Board November 23, 2016 17 forward and in the right direction, and a mutual commitment between the Applicant and the City to realize the development as envisioned. We are excited to close these permit proceedings and begin the next phase of our Project in filing a Preliminary Plat application for a detailed review, such that we can begin construction in the summer of 2017. We hope that City Staff and the Board are as excited as we are, and we look forward to continued discussion in the Preliminary Plat process. We appreciate the continued attention to this project and the time and effort it has taken by both Staff and the Board. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator Enclosures O’BRIEN HOME FARM PUD - PHASE 1 South Burlington, VT Traffic Impact Assessment August 8, 2016 1.0 Introduction This traffic impact assessment (TIA) examines Phase 1 of the proposed O’Brien Home Farm planned unit development (the Project). Figure 1 illustrates the proposed project location and its relationship to the adjacent street network. The project itself will include a mix of 417 residential units plus a commercial component consisting of retail, office and/or lodging. Residential units are proposed in all three zones shown in Figure 1. The commercial component, however, would be limited to just Zone 2. Figure 1 - O’Brien Home Farm - Phase 1 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 1 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Access to the Project will be provided via Eldredge St, an existing city street linking Hinesburg Road with Kennedy Drive. Eldredge St links both Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive, and presently serves 47 residential condominium units (“Stonington Circle”) and 70 apartment units (“Lancaster”). Two new streets, presently designated New City Roads “A” and “E”, will extend from Eldredge St easterly to connect with New City Road “B”, which will extend south from a signalized intersection with Kennedy Dr located 1,000 ft west of Kimball Ave. The resulting street network will link the existing and proposed development in this immediate area, and will provide alternate travel routes so as to minimize traffic impacts on both Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr. As outlined in the following sections, this TIA concludes that future traffic congestion and safety conditions will continue to meet City and State standards, and that this Project will not create an adverse impact on those conditions. 2.0 No-Build Traffic Volumes Kennedy Dr is a city street and its functional classification is an urban minor arterial. Kennedy Dr is also part of the National Highway System. Current annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on Kennedy Dr equal 12,500± vehicles per day (vpd) east of Hinesburg Rd. Hinesburg Rd is a state highway (VT Route 116), and its functional classification is an urban principal arterial. Current annual average daily traffic volumes (AADT) on Hinesburg Rd equal 8,600± vehicles per day (vpd) south of Kennedy Dr. For the purpose of this traffic impact assessment (TIA), this Project is anticipated to be constructed during the 2017-2020 time period. The following analyses incorporate the standard five-year projection from completion of construction, for this Project 2025, to examine potential traffic impacts. In South Burlington, the afternoon peak hour period experiences the highest traffic volumes and is the time period during which the design hour volume (DHV) generally occurs. The DHV is the 30th highest hourly traffic volume that occurs in a given year, and is used in the design of highways and intersections to determine existing and future traffic congestion conditions. Peak hour intersection turning movement volumes were obtained from turning movement counts performed by VTrans at Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd on August 4, 2015 and at Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave on June 22 & 23, 2015. This office also performed turning movement counts at the Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St/Hayes Ave and Kennedy Dr/Eldredge St intersections in February 2015. Copies of the latter counts are enclosed as Appendix A. DHV adjustment factors for the foregoing turning movement counts were obtained from continuous count stations (CTC) D040, located on US 7 in Colchester; D091, located on I-89 in South Burlington; and D530, located on VT 289 in Essex. This was necessary as the CTC’s closer to this Project, including D099, located on I-189 in South Burlington and D061, located on US 2 in Williston; were not operational and no data was available for the days on which the turning movement counts were performed. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 2 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Background traffic growth factors to the year 2025 were estimated using VTrans traffic projections1. VTrans’ most recent projections are that background traffic volumes will grow by 3% from 2015 to 2020 and by 6% from 2015 to 2025. Those growth rates have been used in this TIA to include anticipated local growth. Detailed DHV calculations are enclosed as Appendix B. Figures 2 and 3 on the following pages present the projected year 2025 No-Build AM and PM peak hour volumes at the key intersections adjacent to this Project. 3.0 Project-Generated Trips The additional new trip generation of this Project was estimated using trip generation data published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) for the proposed land-use categories. With this Project being constructed in discrete “zones” or construction phases, the trip generation has been estimated for each zone. The proposed construction phasing for this Project will start with Zone 1; followed by Zone 3. Zone 2 would be constructed last. Table 1 shows the resulting estimated average weekday vehicular trip generation. Table 1 - Project-Generated Vehicle Trips Zone Proposed Land-Use ITE Land-Use Avg. Weekday1 AM Peak Hour2 PM Peak Hour2 Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total 1 27 single family residential units 210 257 5 15 20 20 12 32 2 300 apartment units 55,000 sf commercial/office 220 varies 1,942 1,486 3,428 30 112 142 121 22 143 151 134 285 119 32 151 64 100 164 183 132 315 3 44 condominium units 230 315 5 22 27 21 10 31 6 32 single family residential units 14 condominium residential units 210 230 305 116 421 6 2 8 18 9 27 24 11 35 24 8 32 14 4 18 38 12 50 Total 4,421 160 207 367 224 204 428 1 vehicle trip ends per day (vte/day) 2 vehicle trip ends per hour (vte/hr) 1 Continuous Traffic Counter Grouping Study and Regression Analysis Based on 2014 Traffic Data, Vermont Agency of Transportation, March 2015 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 3 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 2 - 2025 No-Build AM Peak Hour Volumes Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 147 272 96 12 11 22 Kennedy Dr 99 36 1 3 Kennedy Dr610481670443 345 258 182 71 0 0324 395 176 293 106 0 0 173 2 167 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 75099 Hayes Ave 27 26 Eldredge St41 21 3 43 522 6 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 4Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 3 - 2025 No-Build PM Peak Hour Volumes (DHV) Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 158 217 74 14315 Kennedy Dr 228 154 20 11 Kennedy Dr568735 697 834 622 831 378 358 117 118 14 00 0224 130 170 365 69 0 11 0 0 459 16 311 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 37 394 21 Hayes Ave 15 9 Eldredge St01 31 1 31 580 7 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 5Consulting Engineers, Inc. The above trips for the commercial/office space in Zone 2 was estimated using a 50/50 split of general office (#710) and medical office (#720) space. This was done to develop a trip generation estimate that could include other complementary commercial uses, e.g. small retail stores and food establishments, and provide a measure of flexibility to the commercial portion of this PUD. Substituting a 135 unit hotel (#310) for the entire 55,000 sf of commercial/office space would reduce the estimated number of daily and peak hour trips from what is shown in Table 1. For the purpose of this TIA, the above trip generation estimates have not been adjusted to reflect alternate travel modes (i.e. transit, walking and biking), internal capture of multiple destination trips or pass-by trips. Those adjustments can be incorporated into this Project’s trip generation estimates in the future as the proposed commercial uses become better defined and/or additional travel mode data becomes available. The directional patterns of the peak hour trips were estimated using South Burlington journey to work data from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau). This data provides a town-by-town breakdown of where South Burlington residents travel to work (used to estimate residential trip patterns), and of where South Burlington and out-of-town residents travel from to work in South Burlington (used to estimate non- residential trip patterns). An analysis of this data indicates that the predominant travel patterns are to the north and west of this Project’s location. Almost all community facilities (schools, shopping, etc.) used by residents in this area of South Burlington are also located to the north and west of the Project. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the resulting directional distributions of new Project-generated peak hour trips. Detailed trip generation calculations are enclosed as Appendix C. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the resulting estimated 2025 Build morning and afternoon peak hour volumes at the key intersections adjacent to this Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 6 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 4 - Project-Generated AM Peak Hour Trips Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 547 Kennedy Dr 54 Kennedy Dr4947 95 95 4 030 21 4 02 94 41 21 18 14 0 4 101 47 20 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 10 Hayes Ave 33 Eldredge St00 20 16 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 7Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 5 - Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trips Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 19 59 Kennedy Dr 59 Kennedy Dr5151 99 116 3 028 33 18 09 100 56 23 11 10 0 3 112 48 23 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 38 Hayes Ave 21 Eldredge St00 20 22 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 8Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 6 - 2025 Build AM Peak Hour Volumes Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 147 277 143 12 11 22 Kennedy Dr 99 90 1 3 Kennedy Dr659528674443 375 279 186 71 94 41 345 395 194 307 106 101 47 193 2 167 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 750919 Hayes Ave 27 59 Eldredge St41 21 23 43 522 22 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 9Consulting Engineers, Inc. Figure 7 - 2025 Build PM Peak Hour Volumes (DHV) Hinesburg Rd Bayberry Ln 158 236 133 14315 Kennedy Dr 228 213 20 11 Kennedy Dr619786 796 950 625 831 406 391 135 118 23 0 100 56 247 130 181 375 69 0 14 112 48 482 16 311 Eldredge St New City Road "B" Kimball Ave 37 394 59 Hayes Ave 15 30 Eldredge St01 31 21 31 580 29 Hinesburg Rd Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 10Consulting Engineers, Inc. 4.0 Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion conditions are identified by “levels of service”, commonly referred to as “LOS”. The ranges are A to F; where A represents essentially free flow (no congestion), C represents average congestion, and F represents severe congestion. At signalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the overall delay experienced by all turning and through movements. At unsignalized intersections, the LOS is determined by the minor-street approach having the lowest LOS. The level of service criteria for intersections is shown in Table 2. Table 2 - Level of Service/Delay Criteria2 LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) LOS Average Delay (sec/veh) Signalized Unsignalized Signalized Unsignalized A B C 10 20 35 10 15 25 D E F 55 80 >80 35 50 >50 In Vermont, LOS C represents the desired design standard for roadways and signalized intersections3. At two- way stop controlled (unsignalized) intersections having greater than 100 vph approach volume on a single-lane side street approach or greater than 150 vph approach volume on a two-lane side street approach, the VTrans level of service policy establishes LOS D as the desired design standard on the minor street approach(s). There is no level of service standard for unsignalized intersections not meeting the above side street volume thresholds. Reduced levels of service are acceptable in densely settled areas where volume/capacity ratios remain below 1.0 and/or the improvements required to achieve LOS C would create adverse environmental and cultural impacts. Transportation demand management (TDM) strategies can also be used to help mitigate levels of service not meeting the foregoing standards. Section 15.12.F of the City of South Burlington’s Land Development Regulations require that signalized intersections in the vicinity of a development have an overall level of service D or better, with the through movements on the major roadways also experiencing level of service D or better at full build-out. Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the year 2025 “No-Build” and “Build” scenarios. This permits the incremental impact of this Project on future traffic congestion conditions to be determined by comparing the results of the two sets of analyses. Table 3 presents the results of those analyses. Detailed capacity analysis results for each intersection are enclosed as Appendices D-G. 2 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2010 3 Vermont Agency of Transportation Highway Design “Level of Service” Policy, May 31, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 11 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Table 3 - Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach 2025 AM Peak Hour 2025 PM Peak Hour (DHV) No-Build Build No-Build Build LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd Kennedy Dr EB LT Kennedy Dr EB TH Kennedy Dr EB RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH Kennedy Dr WB RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd NB TH Hinesburg Rd NB RT Hinesburg Rd SB LT Hinesburg Rd SB TH Hinesburg Rd SB RT OVERALL D C A D C A D C A D D A C 46 27 2 47 28 0 44 34 4 42 44 4 28 0.50 0.51 0.19 0.43 0.46 0.05 0.61 0.59 0.15 0.44 0.72 0.22 117' 248' 39' 102' 201' 0' 177' 260' 36' 109' 275' 45' D C A D C A D D A D D A C 47 28 2 49 30 2 46 39 4 47 45 4 30 0.50 0.56 0.20 0.46 0.52 0.11 0.65 0.69 0.16 0.60 0.73 0.22 117' 272' 39' 102' 222' 25' 200' 274' 36' 165' 282' 45' E C A D C A E E A D D A D 66 27 3 52 35 3 63 58 2 51 43 8 37 0.81 0.47 0.14 0.56 0.69 0.20 0.74 0.84 0.10 0.44 0.59 0.23 314' 236' 34' 145' 338' 45' 244' 436' 19' 101' 225' 74' E C A D D A E E A E D A D 70 29 3 52 37 5 70 60 2 70 43 8 39 0.83 0.53 0.16 0.56 0.76 0.27 0.79 0.86 0.10 0.73 0.61 0.23 314' 260' 37' 145' 396' 74' 264' 452' 19' 208' 246' 74' Kennedy Drive/New Road “B” Kennedy Dr EB TH/RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH New City Road “B” NB LT New City Road “B” NB RT OVERALL A D A D A A 9 46 1 40 7 9 0.35 0.23 0.17 0.43 0.11 196' 56' 5' 109' 26' A C A D A A 10 35 5 40 6 10 0.33 0.29 0.31 0.46 0.11 192' 37' 164' 118' 26' Kennedy Drive/Kimball Ave Kennedy Dr EB LT Kennedy Dr EB TH Kennedy Dr EB RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH/RT Kimball Ave NB LT/TH Kimball Ave NB RT Bayberry Ln SB LT/TH/RT OVERALL C C A D B D A C C 24 26 6 43 13 48 2 23 24 0.00 0.35 0.49 0.81 0.14 0.69 0.20 0.16 2' 146' 106' 392' 117' 199' 26' 48' B C B D B D A C C 19 30 13 44 13 51 2 23 26 0.00 0.39 0.52 0.81 0.16 0.73 0.20 0.16 1' 172' 195' 392' 125' 232' 28' 48' D C A E C D A A C 38 32 7 59 25 44 5 8 28 0.13 0.49 0.44 0.68 0.34 0.88 0.34 0.05 36' 168' 84' 188' 163' 490' 84' 21' C C B E C D A A C 35 26 13 60 26 49 5 8 29 0.13 0.55 0.48 0.69 0.38 0.91 0.34 0.05 34' 182' 161' 188' 178' 524' 90' 21' Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St Hayes Ave EB LT/TH/RT Eldredge St WB LT/TH/RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd SB LT D B A A 26 14 9 9 0.23 0.07 0.04 0.01 23' 5' 3' 0' D C A A 29 21 9 9 0.26 0.27 0.04 0.02 25' 28' 3' 3' C B A A 17 15 9 9 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.02 13' 3' 3' 5' C C A A 20 24 8 9 0.16 0.22 0.03 0.06 15' 20' 3' 5' The following paragraphs discuss future traffic congestion conditions and traffic control at each intersection: »Kennedy Dr & Hinesburg Rd - This intersection was improved and new traffic signals installed in 2007 as part of the Kennedy Dr reconstruction project. During the AM peak hour period, future levels of service will remain at LOS C or better for the Kennedy Dr eastbound and westbound through movements and all right- turn movements. Left-turns and Hinesburg Rd through movements will continue to experience LOS D. Existing and future levels of service drop to LOS D and E for most movements during the pm peak hour period without this Project due to generally higher traffic volumes. This causes the overall rating to drop to LOS D during the pm peak hour period. Additional traffic from this Project will cause the westbound through movement to cross the LOS C/D threshold (+2 sec/veh). The greatest PM peak hour impact will be experienced in the southbound left-turn lane, which will drop to LOS E with 19 sec/veh increased delay. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 12 Consulting Engineers, Inc. The traffic signal at this intersection is timed to favor east-west traffic flow on Kennedy Dr, and that is reflected in the levels of service and delays. Additionally, while the use of protected left-turn and pedestrian signal phasing at the signalized intersections at this and the other signalized intersections along the Kennedy Dr corridor creates longer delays and queues, it more importantly improves traffic safety for both vehicular traffic and pedestrians. This traffic signal also currently operates in the coordinated mode with the one at Timberlane Dr to the west, but not with Kimball Ave to the east. Overall, given the urban built-up environment of the surrounding area, and the multiple through and turning lanes that already exist, this intersection’s existing geometry cannot easily be further improved. Thus, it is our opinion that the LOS D overall rating during the PM peak hour period at this intersection qualifies for reduced LOS criteria as outlined in VTrans’ level of service policy. »Hinesburg Rd & Eldredge Rd/Hayes Ave - This intersection was improved with northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Hinesburg Rd in the early 2000's as part of the construction of Eldredge Rd and the existing O’Brien Home Farm development. It will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service under two-way stop control with the addition of this Project. »Kennedy Dr & Eldredge Rd - This right-turn only intersection will see little additional traffic from this Project; largely due to the new Kennedy Dr/New City Road “B” intersection proposed to the east. We observed several left-turn movements entering and exiting Eldredge Rd at this location during the traffic counts for this TIA. It is anticipated that the New City Road “B” intersection on Kennedy Dr will intercept and provide a better route for westbound left-turns on Kennedy Dr desiring to enter the O’Brien Home Farm development. »Kennedy Dr & New City Road “B” - This new intersection is proposed to be constructed concurrently with construction of Zone 2, and will be signalized as part of its initial construction. For the purpose of the this TIA, it has been anticipated that the new traffic signal will operate in the coordinated mode with the Kimball Ave signal. A new exclusive left-turn lane will be needed in the westbound direction to separate left-turning traffic entering this Project from through traffic. A concept sketch showing the new westbound left-turn lane is enclosed as Appendix G. This intersection’s proposed location exceeds the maximum requirements of Section 15.12.F - Table 15-2 of the City’s Land Development Regulations with regard to separation from other nearby signalized intersections. This Project also satisfies the overall intersection LOS D requirement at this location. Additionally, LOS D is being maintained in all major street through lanes at this and the other major signalized intersections examined in this TIA. »Kennedy Dr & Kimball Ave/Bayberry Ln - This intersection was also improved and new traffic signals installed in 2007 as part of the Kennedy Dr reconstruction project. It will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with minimal impacts from this Project. Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 13 Consulting Engineers, Inc. With Zone 2 being the last phase to be constructed, New City Roads “A”and “E” in Zone 3 will only connect to Eldredge St until such time as New City Road “B” is completed. This necessitated performing additional capacity analyses to determine the temporary impact of the proposed development in Zones 1 and 3 on the Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd and the Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St intersections until such time as the New City Road “B” is completed. The results of those analyses are shown in Table 4. Table 4 - Partial-Build Intersection Capacity Analyses Results Approach 2025 AM Peak Hour 2025 PM Peak Hour LOS Delay V/C Max Q LOS Delay V/C Max Q Kennedy Drive/Hinesburg Rd Kennedy Dr EB LT Kennedy Dr EB TH Kennedy Dr EB RT Kennedy Dr WB LT Kennedy Dr WB TH Kennedy Dr WB RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd NB TH Hinesburg Rd NB RT Hinesburg Rd SB LT Hinesburg Rd SB TH Hinesburg Rd SB RT OVERALL D C A D C A D C A D D A C 46 29 2 51 29 0 46 34 4 42 45 4 30 0.50 0.57 0.21 0.51 0.48 0.05 0.66 0.61 0.15 0.44 0.73 0.22 117' 248' 40' 126' 201' 0' 213' 279' 36' 109' 282' 45' E C A D C A E E A D D A D 66 27 3 54 35 3 68 60 2 51 45 8 38 0.81 0.48 0.16 0.61 0.70 0.20 0.78 0.86 0.10 0.44 0.65 0.23 314' 236' 38' 170' 338' 45' 268' 456' 19' 101' 247' 74' Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St Hayes Ave EB LT/TH/RT Eldredge St WB LT/TH/RT Hinesburg Rd NB LT Hinesburg Rd SB LT D C A A 30 16 9 9 0.27 0.20 0.04 0.02 28' 18' 3' 3' C C A A 21 16 8 9 0.17 0.12 0.03 0.09 15' 10' 3' 8' The results of the above analyses indicate that the new peak hour traffic generated by Zones 1 and 3 will not create adverse traffic congestion conditions prior to New City Road “B” being constructed in Zone 2. 5.0 Multi-Modal Facilities Sidewalks are provided on the west side of Hinesburg Rd south of Kennedy Dr to south of Hayes Ave. Kennedy Dr has a shared-use path on its north side and a sidewalk on its south side. Existing traffic signals at the Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave intersections have pedestrian signals and marked crosswalks. Eldredge St presently has a shared-use path along one side of its entire length between Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr. New sidewalks will also be provided within this Project; generally on one side of the new streets in Zones 1 and 3, and on both sides in the more densely developed Zone 2. New City Road “A” will also have a shared-use path on its north side. Safe conditions for pedestrians crossing Kennedy Drive at the New City Road “B” intersection will be provided by installing pedestrian signals and a marked crosswalk at that intersection. An additional marked crosswalk will also be installed at the Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St intersection crossing Hinesburg Rd on the north side of the Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 14 Consulting Engineers, Inc. intersection. A pedestrian activated rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) will be provided at this crosswalk in order to improve crossing safety. CCTA’s U-Mall/Airport bus route also provides local transit service at ½ hour headways along Kennedy Dr. This route also travels Hinesburg Rd south to Country Park during peak periods. There are existing bus stops located on Kennedy Dr at Windridge Condominiums between Eldredge St and New City Road “B” and on Hinesburg Rd at Country Park. 6.0 Safety The posted speed limit on Kennedy Dr is 40 mph. Kennedy Dr is a four-lane undivided highway with exclusive turn lanes at its intersections. The posted speed limit on Hinesburg Rd between Kennedy Dr and the I-89 overpass is 35 mph. Hinesburg Rd is a two-lane road, and also has exclusive turn lanes at its intersections in the vicinity of this Project. The VTrans 2010-2014 High Crash Location Report identifies a 0.3 mile long section of Kennedy Dr from mile marker (mm) 0.50 - mm 0.80 as being a high crash segment with an actual/critical crash ratio of 1.256. This segment straddles Kennedy Dr/Timber Lane and Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd intersections, which are located at mm 0.58 and mm 0.69, respectively. Neither of those intersections are high crash intersections, however. A total of 53 crashes occurred during the 2010-2014 five-year period on this segment of Kennedy Drive; of which 15 occurred at Timber Lane (mm 0.56 - mm 0.60) and 27 occurred at Hinesburg Rd (mm 0.67 - mm 0.71). Subtracting those intersection crashes would result in this segment not being a high crash location. Over one- half of the 53 crashes (29) were rear-end collisions, and there were only six injuries in five of the 53 crashes. Safe traffic conditions on Eldredge St and New City Roads “A” and “B” within the Project will be provided by designing those roads and their intersections in accordance with accepted standards, and by providing adequate sight distances, street lighting and proper traffic control devices (pavement markings & signs). In examining the proposed new street layout, we recommend that all-way stop control be used at the New City Road “A” and “B” intersection until such time New City Road “A” is extended to Old Farm Rd. Additionally, we recommend that the southbound approach of Eldredge St at its intersection with New City Road “A” be stop-controlled. 7.0 Transportation Impact Fees Based on the estimated 425 pm peak hour trips, this Project will contribute $425,000± to the City of South Burlington in traffic impact fees. Those fees will be used to construct designated highway and intersection improvements throughout the City (as identified in the City Impact Fee Ordinance). One of the improvements listed in that Ordinance is a new connection linking Tilley Drive and Community Drive to the southeast of this Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 15 Consulting Engineers, Inc. Project. The cost of this new connection was estimated to be $500,0004, towards which this project will contribute approximately 80%. The City’s proposed new connection linking Tilley and Community Drives will significantly alter existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of this Project. It will divert existing traffic presently using Old Farm Rd as a short-cut between Hinesburg Rd and Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave, together with other traffic traveling between Hinesburg Rd south and Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave east. The resulting new traffic patterns can be reasonably expected to improve future traffic congestion conditions and levels of service at the intersections examined in this TIA. 8.0 Conclusions From the foregoing analyses, we conclude that this Project will not adversely impact existing or future traffic congestion conditions. We also conclude that adequate traffic safety presently exists on the adjacent streets to this Project, and that this Project will not create unsafe conditions on those streets. Lastly, we conclude that this Project incorporates transportation demand strategies, and will provide safe access and connections to adjacent lands and facilities and to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks and services. 4 City of South Burlington 2007 Impact Fee Analysis Reports - Fire Protection, Roads & Recreation, Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, October 12, 2007 Lamoureux & Dickinson Page 16 Consulting Engineers, Inc. APPENDIX A Lamoureux & Dickinson Turning Movement Counts APPENDIX B DHV Calculations APPENDIX C Peak Hour Trip Generation & Distribution Calculations APPENDIX D Kennedy Dr/Hinesburg Rd Intersection Capacity Analyses APPENDIX E Kennedy Dr/New City Road “B” Intersection Capacity Analyses APPENDIX F Kennedy Dr/Kimball Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses APPENDIX G Hinesburg Rd/Eldredge St/Hayes Ave Intersection Capacity Analyses Appendix H Concept Sketch of Kennedy Drive Improvements at New City Road “B”  75((723&20'20,1,80$662&,$7,21,1&.,0%$//$9(72:,//,6721.(11('<'5,9( 2 %5,(1+20()$50//& (;,67,1*0(',$1,6/$1'%$<%(55</$1((;,67,1*%,.(%$7+ (;,67,1*6,'(:$/.  :,1'5,'*(+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,212 %5,(1+20()$50//& +90&25325$7,21 6287+%85/,1*721 (/'5('*(675((7+20(67($''(6,*1,1& *(25*(72:1$662&,$7,21,1& :,1',1*%522.+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,21,1& (;,67,1*6+$5('86(3$7+ .(11('<'5,9( (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. %86672338//2))  75((723&21'20,1,80$662&,$7,21,1&68*$575((&21'20,1,80 2 %5,(1+20()$50//& (;,67,1*6+$5('86(3$7+ 1(:&,7<675((7% (;,67,1*&85% (;,67,1*(0(5*(1&<$&&(66 (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. .(11('<'5,9(  .(11('<'5,9( (;,67,1*6,'(:$/. (;,67,1*%,.(3$7+ *5$66 (;,67,1*&85%     *5$66 0$7&+/,1(67$0$7&+/,1(67$72:,//,67215' 72+,1(6%85*5'0$7&+/,1(67$0$7&+/,1(67$2 %ULHQ+RPH)DUP .HQQHG\'ULYH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ 'DWH 6KHHWQXPEHU 6FDOH &KHFNHG 'UDZQ 'HVLJQ 6XUYH\ 3URMHFW1R /DPRXUHX[ 'LFNLQVRQ&RQVXOWLQJ(QJLQHHUV,QF0RUVH'ULYH(VVH[97ZZZ/'HQJLQHHULQJFRP  5' 5' / ' 2WKHUV  67$6&$/(  3???GZJ?GZJ30 Exhibit D Exhibit E Department of Fish and Wildlife 5 Perry Street, Suite 40 Barre, VT. 05641 27 February 2015 Errol Briggs Gilman & Briggs Environmental Barre, VT. Re. O’Brien Home Farm Dear Errol: I am in receipt of your follow up letter dated, 24 February 2015. Thank you for submitting some of the additional information that I had requested. Although we generally prefer to have a species list by natural community and/or habitat type, the limited information about dominant species will suffice. Based on the results that you submitted as well as the absence of any known elements from the site, it appears that there will be no impact to R,T,E plants from this project. Let me know if you need any further information from us or if the plans change significantly. 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: September 6, 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. The staff comments linearly layout the issues and concerns of staff; however, staff thinks it may also be useful to consider those concerns more holistically. As such, below is a set of synthesized comments. It is important for the project to meet the PUD standards, which will be discussed in later stages of the review process, but which the applicant may want to start thinking about and planning for now. For example PUD standards require a degree of innovation and the various waivers being requested by the applicant could contribute to meeting that goal. In addition to being considered through the lens of the PUD standards, the height, setback, and story waivers are also best viewed in light of whether and how the applicant is meeting the Master Plan standard of contiguous open space and the objective of the Comprehensive Plan that affordable housing be provided in the Northwest Quadrant where the project would be located. Staff considers that smaller setbacks and taller buildings could be acceptable if they contributed to achieving those goals and meeting the standards of a PUD. The waiver requests should also be considered in light of the physical and visual environment the project intends to create. The applicant has submitted information regarding architectural design parameters for the larger buildings in Zones 2A and 2B; however, similar design parameters have not been provided for other zones. Furthermore, coverage contributes to the environment being created and the project has requested coverage be considered over the entire site. Without knowing more about the coverage in each zone along with the types of buildings being envisioned in each zone it could be difficult to understand the impact of height, setback, and story waivers. For example, tall, narrow single family houses with small footprints (building coverage) set close to the road would have a different impact on passerby than short, wide duplexes with larger footprints set close to the road. 1. Staff recommends the Board focus its discussion on the overlapping issues outlined above and providing guidance to the applicant on the Board’s priorities regarding open space and pedestrian connectivity, Comprehensive Plan goals (like affordable housing), architectural design features, and meeting the standards of a PUD, all of which will contribute to the Board being better able to make decisions regarding the applicant’s various waiver requests. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_J uly_5_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: September 2, 2016 Application received: April 20, 2016 255 KENNEDY DRIVE MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-16-01 Meeting date: September 6, 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 ~38 acres total Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 an unspecified square footage of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive. ZONING DISTRICT TABLES Residential 12 Required Requested (and discussed herein) Min. Lot Size Single Family 6,000 sq. ft. N/A Min. Lot Size Two-Family 8,000 sq. ft. N/A Min. Lot Size Multi-Family 3,500 sq. ft./unit N/A Min. Lot Size Non-Residential Uses 40,000 sq. ft. N/A *Max. Building Coverage Single and Two-Family 30% 40% *Max. Overall Coverage Single and Two-Family 40% 60% *Max. Building Coverage Multi-Family and Non-Residential 40% 40% *Max. Overall Coverage Multi-Family and Non-Residential 60% 60% *Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 5 ft. *Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 5 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 10 ft. *Max. Building Height Single or Two-Family (pitched) 28 ft. 34 ft. *Max. Building Height Multiple Family or Non-Residential (pitched) 40 ft. 80 ft. *Waiver or finding requested by applicant and discussed herein. C1-LR Required Requested (and discussed herein) Min. Lot Size Single Family 6,000 sq. ft. N/A Min. Lot Size Two-Family 8,000 sq. ft. N/A Min. Lot Size Multi-Family 3,500 sq. ft./unit N/A Min. Lot Size Retail and Other Non-Residential Uses 20,000 sq. ft. N/A *Max. Building Coverage Single and Two-Family 30% 40% *Max. Overall Coverage Single and Two-Family 40% 60% *Max. Building Coverage Multi-Family, Retail, and Other Non-Residential Uses 40% 40% *Max. Overall Coverage Multi-Family, Retail, and Other Non-Residential Uses 70% 60% *Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 5 ft. *Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 5 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 10 ft. *Max. Building Height Single or Two-Family (pitched) 28 ft. 34 ft. *Max. Building Height Multiple Family, Retail, and Other Non-Residential (pitched) 40 ft. 80 ft. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 3 COMMENTS 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: Overview The applicant’s letters of April 20 and August 17, 2016 provide the details of their proposal. In summary, the applicant is seeking Master Plan approval for a PUD to construct:  417-450 dwelling units on acreage in the R-12 Zoning District  Unknown commercial uses also in the R-12 Zoning District and C1-LR Zoning District  Parking, including structured parking in the C1-LR Zoning District The applicant is asking for a variety of waivers and considerations, which will be addressed later in these comments. Approval and Amendment of Master Plan Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development regulations, “any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan: (a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to the master plan; The proposed plan is described as consisting of up to 450 residential units and 55,000 square feet of commercial/office space. (b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan; Total site coverage for the proposed plan is 60%. (c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property subject to the master plan; The proposed project contains three collector roadways: new city street “A” running north-south, new city street “E” running primarily north-south, and new city street “B” running east-west. (d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the approved master plan application; and/or The proposed Master Plan shows two (2) open space areas: zone 4 and zone 5. (e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 4 projected for the total buildout of the property subject to the master plan. The project is proposed to result in 428 PM peak hour vehicle trip ends. Criteria for Review of Master Plans Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements Comments from Public Works will be available at a future hearing date. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized 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 DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. This criteria will be addressed at future stages of the development review process. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB 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. 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, and  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 new city streets. As to pedestrian access and circulation, sidewalks and bike routes are shown along new streets A, B, and E. According to the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. for the applicant, the TIA reached the conclusion “this Project will not adversely impact existing or future traffic congestion conditions…[and] incorporates transportation demand strategies, and will provide safe access and connections to adjacent lands and facilities and to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle and transit networks and services.” The TIA took into consideration that the proposed project “will include a mix of 417 residential units plus a commercial component consisting of retail, office and/or lodging.” The project plans include a new signalized intersection with Kennedy Dr. located 1,000 feet west of Kimball Ave. In previous submissions the applicant included information on the phasing of roadways; however, those submissions have not been updated since new city street E was added to the plan. Staff considers that establishing phasing for roadways and other aspects of the proposed development would be appropriate at the Master Plan stage of the review process. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 5 1. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide information regarding the phasing of roadways and any other aspects of the project, such as pedestrian connections, which may be built in phases. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future hearing date. (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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. The applicant has submitted an email from Julie Foley, District Wetlands Ecologist, dated February 24, 2015 stating that the wetland shown on project plans as “Wetland E” is a Class II wetland body and the other two (2) wetland areas, “Wetland F” and “Wetland G,” are Class III wetlands. The applicant proposes a 50 foot buffer around Wetland E in conformance with State law and the LDRs. The applicant also provided a letter from Errol Briggs, Gilman & Briggs Environmental, dated February 27, 2015 stating that there are no rare, threatened, or endangered plants that will be impacted by this project. The applicant is requesting that the proposed project be allowed to encroach on the Class III wetland buffers and the Class III wetlands (Wetlands F & G). According to Section 12.02(E)(3) this encroachment may be permitted by the DRB if the 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. In submitted materials, the applicant has asserted that the onsite stormwater infrastructure that results from the project will ensure that the property does carry and store flood waters adequately and the stormwater system will meet state requirements for handling sedimentation. Finally the applicant asserts that since the District Wetlands Ecologist found Wetlands F & G to be Class III, that those wetlands are of no particular importance to the functioning of the site. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future hearing date. (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 as proposed offers some information about architectural components that may assist the Board in ascertaining whether the project will be visually compatible with the planned development patterns of the area. The applicant has suggested the following architectural components be used for CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 6 the design of the larger residential apartment buildings in Zones 2A and 2B and, if mixed use buildings are permitted onsite, that these design components could be updated to reflect the possibility of commercial uses:  Base level walls to include a minimum of 50% area of masonry or stone accents  First, second, and third floor walls to articulate either with bump-outs or cantilever up to two (2) feet over the podium or base level  Fourth story walls to recess in-line with base level walls or average plane of the building  Wall material changes between base level, mid-levels, and uppermost story  Glazing area percentage to be 20-25% on all walls facing city streets  At least one entrance provided to a city street from each building  At least one entrance provided from parking area to each building  For five (5) story buildings above a podium base, group the first, second, third and fourth floors together with characteristics of the fourth floor being adopted also for the fifth floor. The applicant submitted photo examples to help explain the components and staff considers those to be important references for the Board in understanding the components being suggested. Staff considers the proposed design components to be useful in minimizing the impact of buildings with larger masses and heights on pedestrian traffic. The suggested glazing percentage is currently only suggested for facades facing city streets; however, staff notes that recreation trails would bring pedestrians potentially into visual contact with buildings on all sides and therefore the glazing standards should also be employed on all sides. Staff considers that cornices could be a useful in adding visual interest and reducing the feeling that large buildings can have of being blocky. 2. Staff recommends the Board consider this criterion (visual compatibility) of Master Plan approval and the design components being suggested when discussing the applicant’s requested waivers, particularly in regards to height, building stories, and setbacks. 3. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant apply the glazing standard to all sides of buildings, or explain the reasoning behind limiting the standard to facades facing city streets. 4. Staff recommends the applicant and Board consider whether cornices would be a desired architectural design feature. (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 area includes a park and open space (Zone 4) located between Zone 1 and Zone 3. Existing residences on Eldredge St. would also have access to this amenity. The applicant has proposed that the park would eventually be a city public park. The applicant has not defined the types of amenities that will be developed/built in the park. It will not be possible to create substantial contiguous open space with adjoining parcels, because Zone 4 is proposed to be completely surrounded by housing. Additionally staff notes that, because the highest density development is clustered in a couple areas (Zone 2A and Zone 2B) and then combined with much lower density development in all other areas, the proposed project is unable to preserve as much open space and the possibility of contiguous spaces as might otherwise be possible. 4. Staff recommends the applicant consult with Parks and Recreation staff, Recreation Committee, and any relevant boards or committees about the proposed public park and open space within CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 7 the development, especially the types of amenities planned for the park. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how housing could be arranged in the less dense zones to achieve larger areas of contiguous open space with adjoining parcels. Zone 5 is noted as a stormwater management area and also provides open space. This parcel does appear to connect along one side with an abutting open space area, so there is some continuity; however that abutting space is as yet not permanently set aside as open space. The applicant has suggested the parcel could be added to the Master Plan as additional open space. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the open area abutting Zone 5 will be included in the Master Plan as open space. 7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the inability to have contiguous open space between adjoining parcels not included in the Master Plan, but which may be developed in the future. Materials submitted by the applicant state that the “park space and entirety of Zone 4 are proposed for development at the completion of work in the prior zones” [emphasis added]. Since the original submittal of the project the applicant has proposed development in Zone 6 and suggested that zone may be first to be developed. It is unclear to staff, when Zone 4 will be developed. The applicant has stated that the trails and walking paths intended to traverse the open space are part of what creates interconnectivity within the development and has used that reasoning to request a waiver of the 600 foot permanent pedestrian easement required by Section 15.12(M)(5) (discussed below). Staff considers that constructing the park and open space amenities are crucial to the functioning of the development, especially should it be developed to the full capacity of 450 dwelling units with additional commercial space. 8. Staff strongly recommends the Board discuss with the applicant when in the process of developing this site it would be appropriate to develop some or all of the park and open space amenities, so that interconnectivity, pedestrian access, and recreation are available to residents. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. In 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.” 9. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Fire Marshall and request the applicant work with the Fire Marshal to resolve any significant issues prior to the conclusion of the Master Plan review process. (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 properties. The project as proposed at this stage, Master Plan, provides very little detail that would allow the Board CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 8 to ascertain whether this criterion is being met except in the categories of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. Recreation paths are proposed to run through Zone 4 and provide connectivity to existing pedestrian areas and the same paths present opportunities to adjoining parcels. Similarly sidewalks and roads are proposed to be placed in areas where they form natural extensions of existing sidewalks and roads. (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. The applicant is seeking some waivers from the street design standards, which are addressed further on in these comments. Details regarding street design standards, such as landscaped green strips, street trees, etc., have not been submitted by the applicant and will be reviewed at a later stage of the development process. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future hearing date. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The project lies within the Northwest Quadrant of the city along Kennedy Drive. In the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2016 it states that: Neighborhoods along Kennedy Drive have traditionally kept a heavily landscaped face to the street. This should remain as future neighborhoods are established in the area. Remaining undeveloped areas provide an opportunity for multiple uses, including housing at a density and design that is transit-supportive, recreational lands, and natural areas. Limited neighborhood commercial areas are envisioned. Furthermore, the Plan goes on to list as objectives for the Northwest Quadrant the following: Objective 47. Maintain existing affordable diverse residential neighborhoods and access to neighborhood parks and other amenities. Objective 48. Allow for infill development, including parks and civic spaces that serve and support the character of existing neighborhoods, with a focus on the replacement of small single- family affordable homes that have been bought and demolished under the Burlington International Airport’s “Property Acquisition Plan” in association with its adopted Noise Compatibility Program. This project proposes as many as 450 dwelling units in a relatively dense arrangement, which staff considers to be conducive to supporting efficient transit infrastructure, including busses. Limited commercial development is proposed and non-residential uses allowed in the R12 Zoning District, which represents the vast majority of the parcel, are few. Staff considers that it would be beneficial if the commercial establishments proposed in future stages of the development were helpful to residents of the development, such as personal care services, childcare services, and groceries; however, at this CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 9 stage of the proposal the Board does not have anything specific to consider. 10. Staff recommends the Board consider the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan when reviewing the waivers requested by the applicant, which will be discussed later in these comments. In light of the objectives put forward by the Comprehensive Plan, staff considers that the additional proposed parkland will serve and support the existing neighborhood in and around Eldredge Street as well as the proposed residential units. The applicant is not planning to provide any dwelling units designated as affordable, rather all units will be market rate. According to the Comprehensive Plan, a “median income South Burlington household ($61,000 per year) can afford a home priced at no more than $205,000,” with the median income quoted having been for the period of 2005-20101. The applicant’s homes, according to their application materials, “will begin in the sub-$350,000 range and increase according to plan type, size, etc.” 11. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the proposed development could better support the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in the Northwest Quadrant. 12. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how future stages of the development will comply with the PUD standards, including that a project be innovative, and suggest to the applicant that the incorporation of affordable housing could be one factor contributing to a project’s innovation, especially if setback, height, and story waivers were used creatively to advance that concept. (11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. At this stage of project development the exact location of buildings and the amount of impervious coverage are not known. The applicant has stated that the intention is to address this criteria at a later stage of the development process. Comments from Public Works will be available at a future stage in the review process. Requested Waivers and Findings The applicant has submitted a series of waiver requests and findings for the Board to consider. Several of these requests are related to road standards that pertain primarily to the functioning of the Public Works and Fire Departments and therefore the input of those departments on the requested waivers will be crucial, so that the Board can make an informed decision. The applicant has provided the following information regarding density and dwelling unit types: Zone Acreage Number of Units Type of Units Density Zone 1 7.1 27 Single Family Detached 3.8 units/acre 1 Staff is reaching out to gather updated figures. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 10 Zone 2A 7.8 212-245 Apartment 27.2-31.4 units/acre Zone 2B 3.4 88 Apartment 25.9 units/acre Zone 3 5.8 44 Townhome in duplex form 7.6 units/acre Zone 4 3 0 N/A (open space and park) N/A Zone 5 1.8 0 N/A (open space and stormwater management) N/A Zone 6 8.6 46 Townhome in duplex form and Single Family Detached 5.3 units/acre Totals: 37.5 417-450 11.1-12 units/acre Staff considers it important to note that the density of 11-12 units per acre is proposed to be primarily achieved through the construction of high density apartment buildings in Zones 2A and 2B. Elsewhere in the development housing development will follow a much less dense pattern than is allowable in the R12 Zoning District. This is perhaps particularly relevant since the applicant is requesting height waivers to accommodate taller buildings in Zones 2A and 2B. That waiver could potentially be unnecessary if higher density development was incorporated in other zones, so that the same number of units were realized without having to build as high. Staff considers that information on the number of units or type of buildings in each zone is important information for the Board to have in order to make decisions on a number of the waiver requests. This information can help the Board to better understand what transition elements may be necessary between zones, what level of coverage would be suitable in the various zones, and what setbacks are suitable given building type. For example if zone 2 is to contain tall buildings, as the height and story waivers seem to suggest, then the Board may want to think about how to transition from those buildings to the smaller buildings that may be present in zone 3. This might be accomplished by having upper stories step gradually back and away from smaller buildings, which would result in slightly less square footage on upper stories and a less imposing feel on smaller neighboring buildings. A) Applicability of Current Land Development Regulations The applicant is requesting that the Board find: “For a period of ten (10) years from the date of this approval, the Land Development Regulations adopted on May 12, 2003 with amendments adopted March 21, 2016, now in effect, are the regulations that will be applied to future applications within the Master Plan, unless the Applicant chooses to avail itself of newly created ordinances for the overall betterment of the Project.” “Freezing” the LDRs is not within the authority of the Board under Title 24, Chapter 117 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated. Staff does note, however, that those items granted by the Board in the Master Plan decision stay in place even when changes to the LDRs are made at a later date. For example, a waiver to build to a certain height would not be voided if the LDRs were subsequently amended to introduce new, lower height maximums. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 11 11. Staff recommends the Board not grant the request to freeze the LDRs. B) Future Sketch Plan Reviews The applicant has requested to be allowed to forgo future sketch plan reviews for projects covered by this Master Plan. The sketch plan review process is designed as an opportunity for the applicant to receive feedback from staff and the DRB prior to advancing further into the review process; however, if the applicant has a preference to forgo this step staff considers that to be acceptable. 12. Staff recommends the Board grant this waiver to forgo future sketch plan reviews. C) Zoning District Boundaries According to Section 15.03(C) the boundary of a zoning district may be relocated up to fifty (50) feet in either direction within the area affected by the application at the discretion of the DRB. The applicant has not stated or shown the Board where the new boundary line should be located. Staff considers that the relocation of the district boundaries will not have a significant impact on the project area; however, staff considers that in order for the Board to grant the request there must be clarity on the relocation and the Board would need to be able to make specific findings on the compatibility of the proposed change with the proposed development. At this time it does not seem there enough details about the project in the proposed area of the zoning district boundary change for the Board to make a finding a compatibility. Additionally, by showing the location of the district boundaries the Board will better be able to assess whether any transition elements would be needed between districts, such as buildings stepping back in height or vegetated screening. 13. Staff recommends the Board not act on any change to zoning district boundaries until the Board has the details of the location of such change and the details on the proposed development to determine compatibility. D) Wetland Encroachment Waivers Please see discussion above (Criteria for Master Plan Review, #4). 14. Staff recommends the Board grant the request for wetlands encroachment, because the requirements of Section 12.02(E)(3) are being met by the project. E) Permanent Pedestrian Easement Waiver Section 15.12(M)(5) states that: Permanent pedestrian easements, twenty (20) feet in width, may be required through blocks six hundred (600) feet or more in length, or as a continuation of cul-de-sacs, or in conjunction with utility easements in order to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the subdivision or PUD or access to adjoining neighborhoods and public property or community focal points such as parks, schools, and other public property, shopping centers, centers of employment, and community recreation facilities, etc. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 12 Permanent pedestrian easements contribute to the connectivity of neighborhoods and therefore staff considers that waiving the need for those connections should be permitted only when sufficient pedestrian connectivity is planned. At present the applicant, as discussed above (Criteria for Master Plan Review, #6), has indicated that Zone 4, through which many of the pedestrian paths will cross, will not be developed until after zones 1-3 have been completed. Staff considers that the paths running through Zones 4 and 5 are not sufficiently connected to new city streets A and E to warrant a waiver of the permanent pedestrian easement requirement. Staff considers that the Board could grant a waiver of this requirement if a) pedestrian connectivity can be assured at a reasonable point within the development process (phasing) and b) if the paths within Zones 4 and 5 are sufficiently connected with new city streets A and E. 15. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant when in the process of developing this site it would be appropriate to develop some or all of the pedestrian pathways, so that interconnectivity and pedestrian access are available to residents. 16. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant add connections between the paths in Zones 4 and 5 and new city streets A and E. 17. Staff recommends the applicant discuss pedestrian connectivity with the Bike-Pedestrian Committee. 18. Staff recommends that a condition of Master Plan approval be to the effect that the proposed pedestrian trails/pathways be approximately where they are shown on the plans and that a timeframe for their construction be set. F) Road Standards Waiver Justin Rabidoux, Public Works Director, confirmed in a meeting on August 29, 2016 with staff that the road standards proposed by the applicant (20 foot wide travel lanes, 85 foot minimum radius of curves, and 90 foot minimum tangent between reverse curves) is acceptable. After that meeting staff became aware that the applicant’s updated materials contained new requests regarding road standards waivers. 19. Staff recommends the Board wait to discuss this waiver until the Public Works Director has provided a response to the new road standards waiver request. Terry Francis, Fire Marshall, submitted the following comment in an email to staff on August 30, 2016: SBFD would need to run the apparatus templates through the plans to ensure adequate access to the PDU. That included ensuring that turn radii etc. does not have any part of the trucks crossing center line of the road to negotiate turns et.al. 20. Staff recommends the Board wait to discuss this waiver until the Fire Marshall has run the apparatus templates through the plans. G) Coverage The applicant has requested that buildings (regardless of whether single family, duplex, commercial, etc.) be permitted to cover 40% of the site and impervious surfaces (including buildings) be permitted to cover 60% of the site overall. The applicant notes that in some areas of the project there could be close to 100% coverage, but on balance the coverage for the site area will meet the 40% and 60% referenced above. Staff considers that the Board could best assess coverage on a zone-by-zone basis and that CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 13 limiting the percentage of lot coverage on individual lots, at least in some of the zones, might be necessary. 18. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide information on coverage in the zones, which should be accompanied by information on the building types to be found in each zone. H) Setback Waivers Page 13 of the applicant’s April 20, 2016 letter details the setback waivers requested.  Ten (10) foot rear yard setback instead of the 30 foot standard setback.  Five (5) foot side yard setback instead of the 10 foot standard setback.  Five (5) foot front yard setback instead of the standard 30 foot setback. The applicant (as discussed earlier in these comments) has suggested the following architectural components be used for the design of the residential apartment buildings in Zones 2A and 2B:  Base level walls to include a minimum of 50% area of masonry or stone accents  First, second, and third floor walls to articulate either with bump-outs or cantilever up to two (2) feet over the podium or base level  Fourth story walls to recess in-line with base level walls or average plane of the building  Wall material changes between base level, mid-levels, and uppermost story  Glazing area percentage to be 20-25% on all walls facing city streets  At least one entrance provided to a city street from each building  At least one entrance provided from parking area to each building  For five (5) story buildings above a podium base, group the first, second, third and fourth floors together with characteristics of the fourth floor being adopted also for the fifth floor. Staff considers the proposed design components to be useful in determining whether the setback waivers (and also height and story waivers) are appropriate in Zones 2A and 2B. Masonry/stone accents, cantilevering, wall material changes, etc. can all contribute to lessening the impact of buildings with larger masses on pedestrian and vehicular traffic; however, staff considers that the landscaping and styling of the street, especially pedestrian areas, are also important to how the buildings interact with the residents. Street components, like benches and bushes, can soften hardscapes. For example, in the applicant’s submitted materials, Photo 1 presents a more lush landscape whereas Photo 5 shows a streetscape lacking in landscaping between the buildings and sidewalk, which leaves a more stark impression on pedestrians and motorists. 19. Staff recommends the Board permit front, side, and rear setbacks of ten (10) feet in Zones 2A and 2B to encourage and allow for landscaping between buildings and the sidewalk. The applicant points out in their materials that these setback waiver requests would rarely impact abutting properties not owned by the applicant and therefore not a part of this project. In some instances existing buildings could potentially be 60 feet from proposed buildings, such as in Zone 3; however, staff would note this is the same distance as would exist if the existing buildings had been constructed only the required 30 feet from the property line, so therefore seems not to have an impact. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 14 Generally staff is amenable to the smaller setbacks proposed in Zones 1, 3, and 6 where the buildings will be smaller than those proposed in Zones 2A and 2B, but staff would recommend smaller setbacks be considered in the context of the earlier discussion about contiguous open space and affordable housing in the Northwest Quadrant. For example, if smaller setbacks lead to tighter neighborhoods that allow public open space corridors to be created or affordable housing units to be fit in then that would be positive and in keeping with the Master Plan review standards and Comprehensive Plan objectives. Staff also considers that architectural design features, such as porches and balconies, on buildings in Zones 1, 3, and 6 could make smaller setbacks more appealing by providing a space that is potentially interactive between the street/sidewalk and house. 20. Staff recommends the Board consider permitting the requested setback waivers if those waivers contribute to the project meeting Master Plan standards, Comprehensive Plan goals, such as the creation of contiguous open space with adjacent properties and the building of affordable housing units, and PUD standards, such as innovation, that will be evaluated in later stages of the development review process. 21. Staff recommends the Board carefully consider the change to the front yard setback as this would be a large difference from the standard and also likely a more visible difference to homeowners and passersby than changes to the side and rear setbacks. 22. Staff recommends the Board consider the types of development in each zone given that smaller setbacks may be more or less appropriate depending on the type of development (single family, duplex, multi-unit, commercial, etc.). 23. Staff recommends the Board consider the setback waivers as interconnected with the height and story waivers and then determine whether the waivers are appropriate. I) Height and Story Waivers The applicant is asking for waivers to both the number of stories and the height of buildings in Zone 1 and Zone 3 of the project and to the height of buildings in Zone 2. Since the original application submittal the applicant has added Zone 6 and it is unclear to staff whether the same waivers as requested for Zones 1 and 3 are also requested for Zone 6.  Zone 1 and Zone 3 allow structures to have three (3) stories facing the street with the option of an additional roof story instead of two (2) stories facing the street with a possible roof story, as in the regulations.  Zone 1 and Zone 3 allow single and two family houses that are up to 32 feet tall with a flat roof and 34 feet tall if the roof is pitched rather than 25 feet and 28 feet respectively as called for in the regulations.  Zone 2A allow structures up to 80 feet tall and six (6) stories including a basement story.  Zone 2B allow structures up to 67 feet tall and five (5) stories including a basement story. The applicant asserts that:  Certain areas of the project have steep slopes that make walkout basements and garages facing the proposed city street “A” necessary and desirable.  Grading may change as the development progresses, which may make adhering to the definition of height as the “vertical distance of a building measured from the average preconstruction grade level at the base of the building to the…average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof” difficult to do. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 15  To make use of the zoning density allowed at the site and to preserve open space it makes sense to build upwards and, furthermore, that the site topography supports buildings being built into hillsides thus reducing their visual impact. Pursuant to Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) the Board may grant a waiver to building heights in the R-12 and C1-LR Districts as follows: (b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. Photo simulations submitted by the applicant are helpful in understanding how the height waivers could impact the landscape and views; however, staff does not consider that the full requirements stated above have been met and those plans would need to be provided prior to the Board making a decision about the waiver. At this time the applicant is not providing information on or committing to a particular size, design, or other parameters for the buildings in the Zones 1, 3, and 6 for which height, story, and setback waivers are being requested (or, in the case of Zone 6, might be requested). As discussed above in the Setback Waivers section, staff considers the type and form of development in these zones to be important information necessary to the Board’s ability to fully understand the impact of the proposed waivers. 24. Staff recommends the Board request additional information on the types of development in Zones 1, 3, and 6 in order to consider the height and story waiver requests on a zone-by-zone basis given that taller buildings may be more or less appropriate depending on the type of development (single family, duplex, multi-unit, commercial, etc.). 25. Staff recommends the Board consider the setback waivers as interconnected with the height and story waivers and then determine whether the waivers are appropriate. In regards to the height waiver request for Zones 2A and 2B, staff considers the earlier discussions in these comments relating to contiguous open space and affordability as being relevant. If taller buildings contributed to the applicant’s ability to provide contiguous open space and affordable dwelling units then that would be positive and in keeping with the Master Plan review standards and Comprehensive Plan objectives. 26. Staff recommends the Board consider permitting the requested height waivers if those waivers contribute to the project meeting Master Plan standards and Comprehensive Plan goals, such as the creation of contiguous open space with adjacent properties and the building of affordable housing units. J) Zone 2 Use Waiver The property subject to this application contains two zoning districts, R12 and C1-LR. C1-LR allows many CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 16 more uses than R12, which is primarily residential. The applicant has requested that uses allowed in C1- LR be allowed throughout the property. Use is not an issue area covered during the Master Plan process and therefore staff considers this request to be pre-mature and best dealt with at a later stage of the development review process. 27. Staff recommends the Board not grant a waiver to allow uses in the C1-LR in the R12 portion of the property during the Master Plan phase. K) Zone 2 Cul-de-Sac Waiver The applicant is requesting that new city street B be allowed to exceed the 50 unit maximum for a dead end street so long as the applicant provides a secondary emergency access route to Zone 2 if and when more than 50 units are constructed in two (2) buildings. Since submitting the initial application materials the applicant has added an additional street to the Master Plan and has not updated the street phasing plan originally submitted. It is unclear to staff whether, given the addition of the new street and the potential changes to street phasing, whether this request is still necessary and, if yes, whether the board can evaluate the request without knowing more about the phasing of the proposed project generally and street phasing in particular. 28. Staff recommends the applicant submit updated information regarding the phasing of the proposed streets. L) Zone 2 buffer Strip for Non-Residential Uses The applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 3.06(I)(1), which refers to when a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within 50 feet of the boundary of a residential district and requires the side and rear setbacks to be increased to 65 feet of which a 15 foot strip must be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings. This portion of the LDRs would only apply to the boundary area located in the most northern portion of the property. Staff considers that it would be counterproductive to require this increase in setback in what is supposed to be a unified development. 28. Staff recommends the Board grant the request to waive the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1). M) Front Setback Landscape Waiver From the language of the applicant’s materials it appears to staff that the applicant is requesting an increase to the front yard coverage limitation in Section 3.06(H) along Kennedy Drive. Staff considers that this limitation has been put into place to encourage streetscapes which are friendly to pedestrians and other passersby. South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan specifically states that encouraging development along Kennedy Drive to include significant landscaping and/or forested blocks should be part of the LDRs. If the applicant is granted the front yard setback waiver request discussed above, which would reduce the setback to five (5) feet along Kennedy Drive, then the implication is that within the narrow front setback would be a considerable amount of pavement. This request appears to staff to be best addressed at a later stage in the development review process. 29. Staff recommends the Board not approve this request at this time, because this waiver will best be addressed at a later stage of the development review process. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING MP_16_01_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamilyLtd_master_Sept_6_2016_mtg 17 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: October 18, 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. The Board last discussed this application on September 6, 2016. Staff considers that the following are items the Board expressed interest in and/or requested specific follow up action from the applicant: A) Provide a phasing plan o Staff notes that the applicant has provided some information regarding the likely order of development; however, the applicant has refrained from specific commitments to the geography, order, or scale of phases. o Staff considers that the development of the parkland and trail system are key to the overall project, particularly because the Board has been asked to grant a waiver to the pedestrian access easement requirement and the development of the trail system has been used by the applicant to justify that request. Additionally, and importantly, future residents of this development will want to know when those amenities will exist. o Staff notes that in future stages of the review process, such as preliminary and/or final plat, the Board will have the opportunity to review streets and other infrastructure as they are proposed to ensure a logical progression that also meets the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. o Staff recommends the applicant discuss with the Fire Marshall and Public Works Department how those departments would like the phasing of the development, especially streets, to unfold. Staff suggests this discussion happen prior to future stages of the review process, because it could help the applicant pursue phasing of the development that is aligned with the needs and concerns of those departments. o Staff recommends that a stipulation of the approval of the Master Plan be that the trail system and parkland represented in the Master Plan are constructed and that certain thresholds are set for when the various sections of the trail system and parkland must be constructed. For example, a stipulation could be that after a certain number of housing units are built then a particular section of the trail system must be built. B) Update plan to include dedicated open space buffer around the pedestrian path in Zone 6 that leads towards Old Farm Rd. o There are two (2) dedicated 30 foot wide easements for pedestrian connections at either end of proposed Street E. 2 C) Provide coverage info for each zone o The applicant has suggested the following maximum coverages in each zone: Zone Acreage Type of Units Coverage Zone 1 7.1 Single Family Detached 50% Zone 2A 7.3 Apartment 85% Zone 2B 3.4 Apartment 90% Zone 3 4.4 Townhome in duplex form 65% Zone 4 4.1 N/A (open space, park, and open space easement) 25% Zone 5 5 N/A (open space and stormwater management) 25% Zone 6 8 Townhome in duplex form and Single Family Detached 60% Totals: 39.3 o At present the density in each zone is unknown, because the number of units in each zone has not been provided. In the current application the applicant is requesting 360 units; however, the applicant has expressed to staff and noted in their submittals an intent to increase the number of dwelling units in the project, which would be done through an amendment to the Master Plan. o Staff recommends the Board approve the maximum zone coverages and associated housing types listed in the table above and stipulate that the overall coverage for the entire Master Plan area shall not exceed the coverages allowable in each zoning district within which the project occurs. D) Provide information needed under 3.07(D)(2)(b) for height waiver requests o The applicant has withdrawn their request for a height waiver per se and is instead requesting the Board commit to granting a height waiver in the future when the details required by Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) of the Land Development Regulations are provided. o Staff considers that the Board does not have the necessary information required by Section 3.07 to make a binding commitment to providing a future height waiver and there is no distinction between granting a height waiver now and guaranteeing to grant one in the future. o Staff recommends the Board not grant the request to commit to granting a future height waiver request. E) Receive recommendations from Fire and Public Works regarding the road standards waiver request o The applicant has withdrawn its request for a road standards waiver. o Instead the applicant is requesting the Board find that the circulation patterns, layout of streets, and sizing and location of the open space are acceptable. o Staff has received comments from the Fire Marshal and Public Works indicating they are agreeable to the street layouts, but that fine tuning details remain to be worked out during other stages of the review process, such as preliminary plat. 3 o Staff recommends the Board find the circulation patterns, layout of streets, and sizing and location of open spaces are acceptable. F) Receive input and recommendations from the Bike/Ped and Recreation Committees o The applicant has met with the committees. o Staff recommends the Board await comments and/or meeting minutes from those committees to find out whether they have suggested any changes. Staff suggests the Board also consider the following items relevant to the project and limit their discussion at this meeting to these elements with additional outstanding items to be addressed at a future meeting. 1. Request for zoning district boundary line adjustment  The applicant has requested the zoning district boundary line between the R12 Zoning District and R1-PRD Zoning District be adjusted to the position shown on the applicant’s plan.  According to Section 15.03(C) the boundary of a zoning district may be relocated up to fifty (50) feet in either direction within the area affected by the application at the discretion of the DRB.  Staff recommends the Board grant the request to adjust the position of the zoning district boundary line to the position shown on the applicant’s plan. 2. Request for front yard setback waiver  The applicant originally requested multiple setback waivers; however, now is only requesting the following front setback waivers: i. Six (6) foot front setback on Street B, which will have larger buildings including apartments and commercial spaces ii. Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street A, which will have duplex townhomes, and 11 foot front setback for garages iii. Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street E, which will have duplex townhomes and single family detached houses, and 11.5 foot front setback for garages iv. Five (5) foot front setback for houses and 10 foot front setback for garages on residential streets (not required to be shown on the Master Plan) in Zone 1, which will have single family detached houses, and Zone 6, which will have duplex townhomes and single family detached houses  Staff considers that the setbacks being requested on Street A, Street E, and the residential streets could be reasonable; however, it is premature for the Board to consider such comparatively small setbacks without having the street design details, which would typically be presented to the Board at another stage of the review process.  Staff also considers that one concern with the proposed setbacks is that parking could occur in the Right of Way and, without knowing more details about the housing units and street design, it would be premature to make a decision that parking in the ROW would be acceptable.  Staff recommends the Board reduce the minimum front setback throughout the entire development to 20 feet to provide some initial relief from the setback requirement of 30 feet. In the future when street designs are known then the applicant could request additional relief from the requirement during another stage of the development review process.  Staff recommends the Board grant the request for a six (6) foot front setback on Street B. 3. Request for front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver  The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Section 3.06(H), which limits front yard coverage for non-residential uses to 30% and requires the maintenance of a landscaped strip 15 feet wide which can only be developed with and traversed by driveways and sidewalks. 4  Staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20).  Staff considers that it would be acceptable to create a more urban feel along the proposed Street B and therefore the requested waivers would be appropriate.  Staff recommends the Board permit front yard coverage to exceed 30% on Street B and remove the requirement for a 15 foot landscaped strip on Street B. 4. Request to allow up to 60% of the landscaping costs that will be associated with buildings in Zone 2 to be allocated towards common elements of the landscaping throughout the project, including the park  Staff considers that the landscaping costs required as part of Section 13.06 are meant to be associated with the site where the planned building improvements will take place. Before considering the possibility of spreading those required budgetary dollars to other areas of the PUD the Board would need to know more about why the money could not be spent on site, what landscaping would occur on the site, and what landscaping would occur elsewhere in the PUD with that reallocated money.  Historically in South Burlington the cost for developing parkland has been undertaken separately from the landscaping budget requirement of Section 13.06.  Staff recommends the Board not grant this request at this time and suggest the applicant revisit the concept during later stages of the development process when more details are known and the Parks & Recreation Committee could also be consulted on the specifics of the parkland. 5. Request to allow the cost of perennials and ornamental grasses to be used to meet the landscape budget requirements of the project  Staff considers perennials and grasses to not be of a sufficiently substantial and permanent nature to meet the landscaping budget requirements of Section 13.06. Historically it has been the policy of the Board that the minimum landscaping budget be met with trees and shrubs.  Staff recommends the Board not grant this request. 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: November 1, 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. The Board last discussed this application on October 18, 2016. Staff suggests the Board consider the following items relevant to the project and limit their discussion at this meeting to those elements which can be addressed within one hour with additional outstanding items to be addressed at a future meeting. 1. Request for front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver  The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Section 3.06(H), which limits front yard coverage for non-residential uses to 30% and requires the maintenance of a landscaped strip 15 feet wide which can only be developed with and traversed by driveways and sidewalks.  Staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20). Section 15.18(A)(10) of the LDRs states that one of the standards for a Master Plan is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that granting this waiver request along Kennedy Drive would be inconsistent with and oppositional to the Comprehensive Plan.  Staff considers that it would be acceptable to create a more urban feel along the proposed Street B and therefore the requested waivers would be appropriate.  Staff strongly recommends the Board only permit front yard coverage to exceed 30% on Street B and remove the requirement for a 15 foot landscaped strip on Street B. 2. Request to find that the Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that applications made pursuant to the Master Plan are also consistent  The project proposes 360 dwelling units in a relatively dense arrangement, which staff considers to be conducive to supporting efficient transit infrastructure, including busses, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan in the Northwest Quadrant.  As discussed above, staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20). Section 15.18(A)(10) of the LDRs states that one of the standards for a Master Plan is consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2  Staff recommends the Board find the Master Plan application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan only if the front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver request is not granted along Kennedy Drive, as discussed above.  Staff strongly recommends the Board not issue a determination about future applications being consistent with the Master Plan since the nature of future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan cannot be known at this time. 3. Request to allow up to 60% of the landscaping costs that will be associated with buildings in Zone 2 to be allocated towards common elements of the landscaping throughout the project, including the park  Staff considers that the landscaping costs required as part of Section 13.06 are meant to be associated with the site where the planned building improvements will take place. Before considering the possibility of spreading those required budgetary dollars to other areas of the PUD the Board would need to know more about why the money could not be spent on site, what landscaping would occur on the site, and what landscaping would occur elsewhere in the PUD with that reallocated money.  Historically in South Burlington the cost for developing parkland has been undertaken separately from the landscaping budget requirement of Section 13.06.  Staff recommends the Board not grant this request at this time and suggest the applicant revisit the concept during later stages of the development process when more details are known and the Parks & Recreation Committee could also be consulted on the specifics of the parkland. 4. Request to allow the cost of perennials and ornamental grasses to be used to meet the landscape budget requirements of the project  Staff considers perennials and grasses to not be of a sufficiently substantial and permanent nature to meet the landscaping budget requirements of Section 13.06. Historically it has been the policy of the Board that the minimum landscaping budget be met with trees and shrubs.  Additionally, staff considers that a request of this nature could only be appropriately reviewed if there were an actual landscaping plan with site specific details.  Staff recommends the Board not grant this request. 5. Request to find all applications made pursuant to the Master Plan meet the PUD standard for being innovative  PUD standards have not been fully discussed as part of the Master Plan process and PUD standards are not identical to the criteria under which a Master Plan is reviewed. Since PUD standards have not been discussed, staff considers that waiting until a project is proposed would be the most appropriate time to evaluate a project based on the PUD standards.  Staff strongly recommends the Board not grant this request since PUD standards have not been fully reviewed and the nature of future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan cannot be known at this time. 6. Request for site plan only (rather than PUD) for single structures on single lots and associated parking areas on separate lots  It has been the practice of the Development Review Board and Planning & Zoning to require a single building on a single lot in the R12 Zoning District to be reviewed under Site Plan and not PUD standards. Any associated parking, if located on a separate lot, would also be reviewed under Site Plan in its own application.  Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s request for Site Plan review of single buildings on a single lot and Site Plan review of associated parking areas. 7. Request to forgo preliminary plat approval when requesting an amendment to an already approved final plat that was made pursuant to the Master Plan 3  If the applicant does not want that intermediary step of preliminary plat then staff does not have an issue with that request and the staff notes that should the applicant desire to do a preliminary plat that option would still be open to them.  Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s request to forgo preliminary plat approval for future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan. 8. Request for the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and duplex homes within the Master Plan to be allowed by Zoning Permit  This request allows homeowners to make minor changes to the property without going through a longer review and amendment process. It has been the practice of the Board to allow these modifications with only a Zoning Permit when footprint/building envelopes are shown as part of a PUD or site plan.  Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s request to allow the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and duplex homes with a Zoning Permit. 9. Request to find that uses permitted in the C1-LR Zoning District be allowed in Zone 2 of the Master Plan  The areas noted as Zone 2A and Zone 2B in the proposed project contain two zoning districts, R12 and C1-LR. C1-LR allows many more uses than R12, which is primarily residential. The applicant has requested that uses allowed in C1-LR be allowed throughout the property. Use is not an issue area covered during the Master Plan process and therefore staff considers this request to be pre-mature and best dealt with at a later stage of the development review process.  If the Board chooses to address this issue now then staff recommends it not grant the request.  A reason for not allowing this request is that the LDRs specifically address the issue of PUDs which are on split lots (more than one zoning district), so this was an issue contemplated by and accounted for by the Planning Commission when drafting the LDRs. Section 3.03(C) permits the Board, as a conditional use, to extend the regulations permitted in one zoning district into the abutting zoning district, but not by more than 50 feet. Section 15.03(C) loosens the review standard for PUDs by allowing the DRB, at its discretion, to relocate the boundary of a zoning district up to 50 feet in either direction within the area affected by the application. If the Planning Commission had intended for a use permitted in any district within a PUD to be allowed anywhere in that PUD then these limits would not have been outlined within the LDRs. 10. Request for zoning district boundary line adjustment  The applicant has requested the zoning district boundary line between the R12 Zoning District and R1-PRD Zoning District be adjusted to the position shown on the applicant’s plan.  According to Section 15.03(C) the boundary of a zoning district may be relocated up to fifty (50) feet in either direction within the area affected by a PUD or subdivision application at the discretion of the DRB.  This issue was previously discussed by the Board and applicant at the October 18, 2016 hearing and at the time staff recommended granting the request; however, in reviewing Section 15.03 again in conjunction with the applicant’s request regarding uses in the C1-LR being allowed throughout Zone 2 (discussed above) staff has a new recommendation.  Staff considers that Section 15.03(C) limits zoning district boundary adjustments to when the Board is reviewing a PUD or subdivision application. This section of the LDRs does not indicate that a zoning district boundary adjustment can be reviewed in conjunction with a Master Plan application.  Staff recommends the Board not grant this request as it is not a request allowed outside of a PUD or subdivision application. 4 Prior to closing the hearing on this Master Plan staff recommends the Board hold a deliberative session to review the requested waivers, findings, and evidence. This will allow the Board to review what has been discussed and determine if any additional information is needed prior to closing the hearing. 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: November 15, 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. Prior to discussing the finer details and waiver/findings requests from the applicant, staff would suggest the Board review the materials submitted by the applicant and think about the project more generally, at a more macro level. There are many parts to this application and it is the largest (most number of housing units) master plan being pursued in South Burlington. The applicant has submitted an updated set of materials and staff would also suggest the Board review the project and the requests in light of these materials, some of which are noted as drafts and therefore may be only for illustrative purposes. The Board may wish to ask for clarification on which plans are firm commitments and which are meant to be illustrative and, therefore, perhaps would weigh less in the decision-making process. Below are a list of requests for findings and waivers made to the Board by the applicant. The Board has not made any final decisions yet, so staff has indicated what they believe to be the Board’s preliminary position on the different issues. In light of the macro review of the project and the updated materials the Board may wish to discuss whether these preliminary positions are still accurate, if they have changed, and/or if they have additional questions for the applicant or staff that would help to clarify the issues. In the notes below staff has also provided a copy of the applicable staff notes from the meeting for context. 1. To waive sketch plan review on applications made pursuant to the Master Plan  Board indicated preliminary support 2. To waive the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1) within the project area  Board indicated preliminary support  Section 3.06(I)(1) requires that where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within fifty feet of the boundary of a residential district that the required rear or side setback be increased to 65 feet and include a strip at least 15 feet wide of dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen  At the Sept. 6th meeting staff provided the following comments on the issue: 2 o Staff considers that it would be counterproductive to require this increase in setback in what is supposed to be a unified development. o Staff recommends the Board grant the request to waive the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1). 3. To waive the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5)  Board indicated preliminary support  Section 15.12(M)(5) states “Permanent pedestrian easements, twenty (20) feet in width, may be required through blocks six hundred (600) feet or more in length, or as a continuation of cul- de-sacs, or in conjunction with utility easements in order to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the subdivision or PUD or access to adjoining neighborhoods and public property or community focal points such as parks, schools, and other public property, shopping centers, centers of employment, and community recreation facilities, etc.”  At the Sept. 6th meeting staff provided the following comments on the issue: o Permanent pedestrian easements contribute to the connectivity of neighborhoods and therefore staff considers that waiving the need for those connections should be permitted only when sufficient pedestrian connectivity is planned. o Staff considers that the Board could grant a waiver of this requirement if pedestrian connectivity can be assured at a reasonable point within the development process o Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant when in the process of developing this site it would be appropriate to develop some or all of the pedestrian pathways, so that interconnectivity and pedestrian access are available to residents. 4. Front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver—withdrawn by applicant 5. To waive the front yard setback requirements as specified  Board indicated preliminary support for this request  Waiver specifics o Six (6) foot front setback on Street B, which will have larger buildings including apartments and commercial spaces o Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street A, which will have duplex townhomes, and 11 foot front setback for garages o Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street E, which will have duplex townhomes and single family detached houses, and 11.5 foot front setback for garages o Five (5) foot front setback for houses and 10 foot front setback for garages on residential streets (not required to be shown on the Master Plan) in Zone 1, which will have single family detached houses, and Zone 6, which will have duplex townhomes and single family detached houses  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o Staff considers that the setbacks being requested on Street A, Street E, and the residential streets could be reasonable; however, it is premature for the Board to consider such comparatively small setbacks without having the street design details, which would typically be presented to the Board at another stage of the review process. o Staff also considers that one concern with the proposed setbacks is that parking could occur in the Right of Way and, without knowing more details about the housing units and street design, it would be premature to make a decision that parking in the ROW would be acceptable. o Staff recommends the Board reduce the minimum front setback throughout the entire development to 20 feet to provide some initial relief from the setback requirement of 30 3 feet. In the future when street designs are known then the applicant could request additional relief from the requirement during another stage of the development review process. o Staff recommends the Board grant the request for a six (6) foot front setback on Street B. 6. To find that the Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that applications made pursuant to the Master Plan are also consistent  Board indicated preliminary support of the Master Plan being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the applicant having removed the request for the landscaped  Staff believes the Board indicated they were unwilling to find that all future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan are also consistent with the Comprehensive Plan  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o The project proposes 360 dwelling units in a relatively dense arrangement, which staff considers to be conducive to supporting efficient transit infrastructure, including busses, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan in the Northwest Quadrant. o As discussed above, staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20). Section 15.18(A)(10) of the LDRs states that one of the standards for a Master Plan is consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. o Staff recommends the Board find the Master Plan application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan only if the front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver request is not granted along Kennedy Drive, as discussed above. (As noted elsewhere in these comments, the applicant withdrew the landscaped strip waiver request.) o Staff strongly recommends the Board not issue a determination about future applications being consistent with the Master Plan since the nature of future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan cannot be known at this time. 7. To find that encroachment into the Class 3 wetlands located within the project boundaries as shown on the plans is permitted  Board indicated preliminary support  At the Sept. 6th meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o According to Section 12.02(E)(3) this encroachment may be permitted by the DRB if the project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: 1. The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; 2. The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; 3. 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. o In submitted materials, the applicant has asserted that the onsite stormwater infrastructure that results from the project will ensure that the property does carry and store flood waters adequately and the stormwater system will meet state requirements for handling sedimentation. Finally the applicant asserts that since the District Wetlands Ecologist found Wetlands F & G to be Class III, that those wetlands 4 are of no particular importance to the functioning of the site. Staff considers that the criteria has been met. 8. To find that zoning district boundary lines within the project can be moved up to 50 feet  Board indicated preliminary support of this request  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on the issue: o Staff considers that Section 15.03(C) limits zoning district boundary adjustments to when the Board is reviewing a PUD or subdivision application. This section of the LDRs does not indicate that a zoning district boundary adjustment can be reviewed in conjunction with a Master Plan application. o Staff recommends the Board not grant this request as it is not a request allowed outside of a PUD or subdivision application.  Staff suggests the Board find that future PUD and subdivision applications made pursuant to this master plan can request that zoning district boundary lines be moved up to 50 feet, but that the Board not permit those zoning district boundary lines to be repositioned in conjunction with the master plan application 9. To find all applications made pursuant to the Master Plan meet the PUD standard for being innovative  Staff believes the Board indicated they supported a determination that the current master plan application meets PUD innovation standards, but were unwilling to find that all future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan meet the PUD standard regarding innovation  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o PUD standards have not been fully discussed as part of the Master Plan process and PUD standards are not identical to the criteria under which a Master Plan is reviewed. Since PUD standards have not been discussed, staff considers that waiting until a project is proposed would be the most appropriate time to evaluate a project based on the PUD standards. o Staff strongly recommends the Board not grant this request since PUD standards have not been fully reviewed and the nature of future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan cannot be known at this time. 10. To find that site plan review only (rather than PUD) is necessary for single structures on single lots and associated parking areas on separate lots  Board indicated preliminary support for this request 11. To find that preliminary plat review is not required when requesting an amendment to an already approved final plat that was made pursuant to the Master Plan  Board indicated preliminary support for this request 12. To find the coverages listed in the table below are acceptable and the overall coverage for the entire master plan area will not exceed the maximum coverages allowed in each zoning district within the master plan area Zone Acreage Coverage Zone 1 7.1 50% Zone 2A 7.3 85% Zone 2B 3.4 90% Zone 3 4.4 65% Zone 4 4.1 25% Zone 5 5 25% Zone 6 8 60% Totals: 39.3 5  Board indicated preliminary support  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff recommended the above table also include the proposed housing types within each zone, as below Zone Acreage Type of Units Coverage Zone 1 7.1 Single Family Detached 50% Zone 2A 7.3 Apartment 85% Zone 2B 3.4 Apartment 90% Zone 3 4.4 Townhome in duplex form 65% Zone 4 4.1 N/A (open space, park, and open space easement) 25% Zone 5 5 N/A (open space and stormwater management) 25% Zone 6 8 Townhome in duplex form and Single Family Detached 60% Totals: 39.3 13. To find the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and duplex homes within the Master Plan be allowed by Zoning Permit for houses located on footprint lots  Board indicated preliminary support 14. To find that the project’s generation of 428 PM Peak Hour trips will not create an undue adverse effect on traffic in the area  Staff is unsure where the Board stands on this issue at this point 15. To find that the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. To further find that the architectural conditions committed to by the Applicant provide sufficient detail as to how the future buildings will be massed and articulated. Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), and the architectural specifications provided by Applicant herein, a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B.  Board indicated preliminary support for the statement below, which is identical to the applicant’s request above except for the omission of the 2nd sentence: o The Board finds that the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), and the architectural specifications provided by Applicant herein, a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B.  At the Oct. 18th meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o Staff considers that the Board does not have the necessary information required by Section 3.07 to make a binding commitment to providing a future height waiver and there is no distinction between granting a height waiver now and guaranteeing to grant one in the future. 6 o Staff recommends the Board not grant the request to commit to granting a future height waiver request. 16. To find pedestrian circulation pattern is acceptable and open space is sized and located appropriately  A specific finding in the decision related to this issue is unnecessary, because by approving the master plan, which shows pedestrian paths and open space, the Board will be approving the pedestrian circulation pattern and open space size and location 17. To find the street locations and layouts are acceptable  Similar to the issue above, a specific finding in the decision related to this issue is unnecessary 18. To find that project phasing of pedestrian amenities will be discussed at preliminary plat review  Board indicated preliminary support  At the Oct. 18th meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o Staff considers that the development of the parkland and trail system are key to the overall project, particularly because the Board has been asked to grant a waiver to the pedestrian access easement requirement and the development of the trail system has been used by the applicant to justify that request. Additionally, and importantly, future residents of this development will want to know when those amenities will exist. o Staff recommends that a stipulation of the approval of the Master Plan be that the trail system and parkland represented in the Master Plan are constructed and that certain thresholds are set for when the various sections of the trail system and parkland must be constructed. For example, a stipulation could be that after a certain number of housing units are built then a particular section of the trail system must be built. 19. To find the developed park area will be developed as soon as it is safe and reasonable to do so and will be determined during preliminary plat review  Board indicated preliminary support  Please see the comments above on development of parks and trails for staff’s thoughts 20. Request to find that uses permitted in the C1-LR Zoning District be allowed in Zone 2 of the Master Plan  The Board indicated they preliminarily unwilling to support this request  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o The areas noted as Zone 2A and Zone 2B in the proposed project contain two zoning districts, R12 and C1-LR. C1-LR allows many more uses than R12, which is primarily residential. The applicant has requested that uses allowed in C1-LR be allowed throughout the property. Use is not an issue area covered during the Master Plan process and therefore staff considers this request to be pre-mature and best dealt with at a later stage of the development review process. o If the Board chooses to address this issue now then staff recommends it not grant the request. o A reason for not allowing this request is that the LDRs specifically address the issue of PUDs which are on split lots (more than one zoning district), so this was an issue contemplated by and accounted for by the Planning Commission when drafting the LDRs. Section 3.03(C) permits the Board, as a conditional use, to extend the regulations permitted in one zoning district into the abutting zoning district, but not by more than 50 feet. Section 15.03(C) loosens the review standard for PUDs by allowing the DRB, at its discretion, to relocate the boundary of a zoning district up to 50 feet in either direction within the area affected by the application. If the Planning Commission had intended for a use permitted in any district within a PUD to be allowed anywhere in that PUD then these limits would not have been outlined within the LDRs. 7 21. To find that up to 60% of the landscaping costs that will be associated with buildings in Zone 2 could be allocated towards common elements of the landscaping throughout the project, including the park  Board indicated preliminary support for this request  Staff is unsure whether the LDRs allow this re-allotment  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o Staff considers that the landscaping costs required as part of Section 13.06 are meant to be associated with the site where the planned building improvements will take place. Before considering the possibility of spreading those required budgetary dollars to other areas of the PUD the Board would need to know more about why the money could not be spent on site, what landscaping would occur on the site, and what landscaping would occur elsewhere in the PUD with that reallocated money. o Historically in South Burlington the cost for developing parkland has been undertaken separately from the landscaping budget requirement of Section 13.06. o Staff recommends the Board not grant this request at this time and suggest the applicant revisit the concept during later stages of the development process when more details are known and the Parks & Recreation Committee could also be consulted on the specifics of the parkland. 22. To find that the cost of perennials and ornamental grasses could be used to meet the landscape budget requirements (Section 13.06) of projects made pursuant to the Master Plan  Board indicated preliminary support for this request  At the Nov. 1st meeting staff provided the following comments on this issue: o Staff considers perennials and grasses to not be of a sufficiently substantial and permanent nature to meet the landscaping budget requirements of Section 13.06. Historically it has been the policy of the Board that the minimum landscaping budget be met with trees and shrubs. o Additionally, staff considers that a request of this nature could only be appropriately reviewed if there were an actual landscaping plan with site specific details. o Staff recommends the Board not grant this request. 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: December 20, 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. The applicant has submitted a different and new application (#MP-16-03) for a project on the same parcel. #MP-16-01 is therefore on hold as the applicant is choosing at this time to pursue #MP-16-03 instead. 1. Staff recommends the Board continue #MP-16-01 to a future meeting date. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 December 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 ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; A. Gill, A. Rowe, J. Pidgeon, M. Scollins, C. Snyder, S. Lidovski, D. Lewis, I. Hoefle, B. Wilkins, A. Telemark, D. Muhr, R. Dickerson, R. Rushford, B. Wilkens, J. Mutosky, L. Barford, K. McFarland, J. Goodwin, L. Ravin, L. & C. Kleh 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: No announcements were made. 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. Belair advised that the applicant has requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 3 January 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-31 of Synergy Development, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of three single family dwellings on three lots. The amendment consists of adding one single family dwelling to lot #3, 7 Chaplin Lane: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2016 PAGE 2 Mr. Gill noted the project was approved in early 2015 and allowed 2 homes behind the existing home. The property would allow for 4 homes, but there had been issues that kept them from putting in the 4th house. In the fall, they met with staff on how to make use of the density. The idea of a PUD was raised, and that is how they are proceeding. Photos of the lot were shown. Mr. Miller noted that staff has raised the question of how this plan meets the requirement for “innovative development.” Mr. Gill read from Section 15.01 of the regulations indicating the purpose of a PUD is to provide relief, to get innovative development, and to get infill development in the city’s core. He also noted that a clear goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain affordable housing. Mr. Kochman asked if they would be subdividing the lots. Mr. Gill said they would not. He added that they would preserve mature trees and community property as open space. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a reason the lot can’t be subdivided. Mr. Belair said there is a limit of 3 lots on a private street, and there are already 3. He added that staff feels the new house should be closer to the existing house to create more open space. Mr. Gill said they feel the common space is central to all 4 houses, and this plan saves more trees. He added this location is “super private,” surrounded by pine trees so you can’t see the houses in the rear. He didn’t feel that putting the house in the “backyard” of the other house was a good thing. Mr. Gill said they are amenable to other innovative things. Mr. Wilking said an innovative approach would be to make both houses affordable. He suggested the applicants speak to Champlain Housing to find out ways to do that. Mr. Gill asked if there is a definition of “innovative” in the regulations. Mr. Belair read from the regulations. Mr. Gill said he felt they meet those criteria, absent a definition of “innovative.” Mr. Miller felt the plan was innovative and meets the language. He added that it would be “very innovative” if the house could be restricted to an “affordable” buyer. Mr. Kochman said he would vote against the plan because he did not believe the dimensional standards argument. Ms. Smith said she likes the affordability option. She also suggested flipping the house and driveway. Mr. Cota agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2016 PAGE 3 Mr. Lidovski, a neighbor, stressed the need for adequate drainage. Mr. Gill said there is a substantial stormwater system in place. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 3 January 2017. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-16-32 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road: Mr. Lewis said this would be an additional building on Lakewood Commons and would be a small retail use similar in architecture to the existing buildings. He showed an overhead photo and indicated the location of this proposed building. He noted they had re-oriented the building at staff’s request and added a pitched roof. Regarding trip generation, Mr. Lewis said they lean toward the “observed” standard rather than the ITE standard. He felt they are within the allowable numbers. The major amount of traffic to the Eagles Club is in the evening, and the retail use would closed at about 5 p.m. Mr. Belair noted the applicant proposes 5 additional trip ends, which puts them over the limit. He said it is also mandatory to use the ITE numbers in this case. Mr. Lewis said the observed numbers are much lower. He also said it is the private club that makes the difference. Mr. Belair said there are some land improvements which could be made that would make a difference, but the applicant is not proposing any of these. Mr. Lewis noted they cannot connect to the adjacent property until it is developed. Members suggested the applicant get data from 3 other private clubs to back up their statement that the numbers are less than the ITE manual says. Mr. Lewis said staff has asked that the entryway be on the east side. They are willing to do that. Members supported the shared parking request. The also expressed no objection to the setback waiver. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2016 PAGE 4 Mr. Lewis also noted they would add more trees and shrubs to meet staff’s request. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-32 to 17 December. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-09 of Iain Hoefle to allow a 572 sq. ft. attached garage addition to encroach 21 feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback requirement, 75 Davis Parkway: Mr. Hoefle said this would be a 20 x 28 foot addition to a single story ranch. He has spoken with neighbors who have no objection. Mr. Belair said staff feels this falls within the exception. Mr. Hoefle said they will look into whether a tree has to be removed. Mr. Wilkins, a neighbor said this is the last house on the street to get a garage. He had no issue with the plan. The Board raised no issues. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-16-09. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Master Plan Application #MP-16-02 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, & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Miller noted this application is a formality. The project has already been approved and requires a master plan. Mr. Snyder briefly described the project. Mr. Miller noted receipt of a letter from Daniel Seff, attorney for a neighbors’ group, citing the timeliness of filing the Master Plan. Mr. Belair said the Master Plan was submitted during Preliminary Plat review. The spirit of the regulations was met. Mr. Rushford, attorney for the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2016 PAGE 5 developer, read from the regulations and noted the Master Plan was filed within the allowable time limit. Mr. Kochman said he felt the timing issue was irrelevant. Dr. Scollins said he felt it was reasonable to proceed. Mr. Wilking moved to close #MP-16-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Re-opened 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, 13450 & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Belair said staff recommends closing the application now that the Master Plan has been reviewed. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-18. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Minutes of 15 November 2016: Ms. Smith noted the correct spelling of Mr. Bresee’s name. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 15 November 2016 with the spelling correction. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:32 p.m. ___________________________, Clerk ___________________________, Date