Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/16/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 February 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room, 19 Gregory Drive. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Burke, L. O’Farrell, K. Stevenson, B. Gardner 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 site plan application #SP-15-69 of Greer Family, LLC, for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 15,608 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of converting 775 sq. ft. of retail use to tavern/night club use, 10 Dorset Street: Mr. Barritt reminded the Board that the remaining item concerned trip generation. The applicant has provided a trip generation report which indicated that the number of seats in the bar/tavern would need to be reduced to 17 seats so as not to exceed the traffic budget for the property. The applicant indicated that he was OK with this. Members had no issue with the report. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-69. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54-unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) constructing a 100 room hotel, ) constructing a 51 room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: and 6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-41 of Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 6.7 acre parcel into two lots of 4.1 acres & 2.6 acres, and 2) construction of a 50-unit multi-family dwelling on the 4.1 acre parcel, 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicants for both item #5 and #6 have asked for a continuance until 15 March. Mr. Miller moved to continue# SD-15-40 and #SD-15-41 until 15 March 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch plan application #SD-15-48 of Gardner & Sons Development Corporation for a planned unit development to further develop a 2.16 acre parcel developed with a two-family dwelling. The proposal consists of: 1) constructing a single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 3‐unit multi‐family dwelling, O’Brien Drive: Mr. Burke reviewed the staff comments as follows: The Fire Chief has asked that the triplex have residential sprinklers. These will be installed. The applicant will also be talking with the Chief about other issues. A 6-foot front porch will be added to the house. The garage will be on the opposite side of the storm line. It will have a pitched from north to south and will be parallel to the house. New renderings will be provided at the next level. They will work out the issue of the drainage pipe easement. The existing stockade fence will be extended to the property line. Mr. Barritt suggested the entrance to the house be on the south side to give more separation from the foot path. Ms. Smith asked if the house and garage locations can be flipped. Mr. Burke said there is not enough depth. Mr. Burke showed a rendering of the 3-unit building. Mr. Barritt reminded the applicant that the buildings must be built to Act 250 stretch codes energy standards. The applicant indicated they have always been 5- star plus. Mr. Stevenson, who lives across from the project’s proposed access, indicated his house on the overhead photo. He expressed a number of concerns as follows: a. Headlights from cars exiting this property and shining into his front rooms. b. Increased traffic. c. This has traditionally been a single family area. There are now duplexes that did not have to come to the DRB. He was concerned with rental to college students. d. Asked that unit #3 be eliminated. e. A significant part of the parcel is wetland or wetland buffer. He felt that using the undevelopable land to allow more development was unreasonable. f. The number of cars using the proposed driveway would be 8-14 with several trips a day in and out. He was concerned with danger to children in the neighborhood. g. Felt a significant retaining wall will have to be built to create enough flat land behind unit #3. h. There is a lot of debris in the ravine so you can’t see the drainage pipe. He asked for this to be cleared out. i. Was concerned with damage to his lawn during hook-up to the water service and wanted an agreement that his lawn would be put back to its previous condition. With regard to item #i, Mr. Burke didn’t feel there would be an issue. They will video the pre-existing condition and return the lawn to that condition. Mr. Burke said they have to go by the regulations which allow this proposal. They are still below the allowable density. He noted that the triplex is the same size as the existing duplex. He also felt that no retaining wall will be needed. Mr. Burke also noted that the ravine is much better than it was a year ago and will only get better. Regarding headlights, Mr. Burke suggested they could provide some financing for an evergreen tree on Mr. Stevenson’s property that would block the light. Mr. Wilking said he was concerned with the location of #3. He felt the overall density was OK, but he would look at it more closely at preliminary and final. He was concerned with how the path will work. Mr. Burke said they plan to submit a joint preliminary and final plat. No other issues were raised. 8. Minutes of 19 January and 2 February 2016: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 19 January and 2 February 2016 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. 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 8:35 p.m. , Clerk 03/15/2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_15_70_10DorsetSt_Greers_afterfact_tavern_Feb_16_20 16_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 12, 2016 Plans received: October 30, 2015 10 DORSET STREET SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-15-70 Meeting date: February 16, 2016 Owner/Applicant Greer Family LLC 81 Maple Leaf Farm Road Underhill, VT 05489 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570-00010 Commercial 1 Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION Greer Family LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 15,608 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of converting 775 sq. ft. of retail use to tavern/night club use, 10 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on 10/30/15 and have the following comments. The applicant converted the retail space to tavern/night club use a while ago without approval and this application is an attempt to bring the property into compliance. The Board previously discussed the application at its December 1, 2015 meeting. The application was continued to the January 5, 2016 meeting to allow time for Board members to make site visits on their own time. The application was then continued to the February 16, 2016 meeting to allow the applicant time to conduct trip counts. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Commercial 1 Zoning District Requirement/Limitation Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 1.35 acres  Max. Building Coverage 40% 26.5%  Max. Total Coverage 70% 81.8%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 40-50 ft  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft  Pre-existing non-compliance SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) 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 Board has previously addressed parking issues at this property in its Findings of Fact & Decision for Site Plan Application, #SP-13-15. The applicant requested a 25% parking waiver in order to be able to accommodate the parking needs of current tenants as well as potential tenants who would move into currently unoccupied space. In that decision, the Board granted a 25% waiver to increase the parking allowance by 23 spaces for a total of 94 spaces (this 2013 decision incorrectly calculated this number as 88 spaces). Future uses of the building shall be limited by this number. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING The applicant submitted a shared parking analysis dated 6/17/15 which was prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson. This analysis indicates that the existing and proposed uses require a total of 89 parking spaces which does not exceed the 94 spaces which are available for all the tenants, when the previously approved 25% waiver is calculated into the total. This report also pointed out that there are effectively only 70 spaces available on the site and 71 spaces were previously approved. The site should be modified to provide 71 spaces as shown on the previously approved site plan. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. As part of previous Findings of Fact & Decision for this parcel, the Board found this criterion to be met. Staff feels that this application has no impact on this previous finding. (c) 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 adjoining buildings. The height of the building will remain unchanged and below 35 feet. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes to the existing buildings are being proposed as part of this application which should require new utility services. However, if any are proposed, they shall be in compliance with this criterion. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. The proposed project does not fall within a design review district. However, there is no change proposed to the architecture or materials of the building. (f) 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. See staff comments above. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) 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 of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. There are already sufficient shared accesses to this site via surrounding properties. No additional changes are necessary. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING (b) 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) 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). There are no changes proposed to the existing trash facilities. The existing facility is screened. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As there is no building construction proposed for this site, there are no new minimum landscaping requirements. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall depict snow storage areas that will minimize the potential for run-off. Adequate snow storage areas are shown on the plans. Traffic The site is located in Traffic Overlay District 1 and is subject to a traffic budget. The property is grandfathered for the existing traffic generation. Based on ITE 7th Edition trip generation figures for Specialty Retail Center (LUC #826), the existing site is estimated to generate 2.71 trip ends per 1,000 SF for a total of 42.3 p.m. peak vehicle trip ends. This is in excess of the amount which would be allowed for a vacant lot in the same overlay district. Therefore, the site shall not be permitted to generate more than 42.3 PM peak vehicle trip ends. The applicant submitted a report prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson dated 5/4/15 which discussed the estimated traffic generation for the property with the proposed use. The report lists several options on how to handle estimating the traffic to be generated by the conversion of 775 sq. ft. from retail to tavern/night club use. Section 10.02 (F) (2) of the LDRs describes how to estimate the traffic generation of a proposed use. It states as follows: (2) Estimating the traffic generation of the proposed use: Traffic generation estimates for the use under consideration shall be based on the latest TRIP GENERATION manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (the 7th Edition of 2003 and subsequent editions). The Development Review Board may approve or may require traffic generation estimates from other sources, including local traffic counts, if the ITE Trip Generation manual does not contain any data for a specified use, or sufficient data for a specified use, or if a use contains unique characteristics that cause it to differ from national traffic estimates. See Appendix B for guidance. At the Board’s request, the applicant conducted trip generation counts at three locations similar to the Growler Garage (letter of February 10, 2016 in packet). The results of the counts are as follows: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING  The weighted average of the counts for the three locations was 0.52 PM Peak Trips (vte/hr/seat).  Assuming this 0.52 vte/hr/seat rate for the Growler Garage’s 25 seats results in a PM Peak Hour Trip total of 13 vte/hour.  Based upon the prior May 4, 2015 analysis only 8.9 vte/hours is available for the Growler Garage from the overall allocation of 42.3 vte/hour for the 10 Dorset Street Retail complex.  The report concludes that the existing 42.3 vte/hours could support up to 17 seats at the Growler Garage. The applicant’s consultant is using the number of seats as the variable in this instance when typically square footage is the variable used. As the consultant was not able to obtain the square footage of the retail vs. bar uses and therefore used the only information available. Staff believes this is an appropriate method under these circumstances. The Board should discuss the results of the count and whether they believe the location of the counts represent the proposed use. Also, the Board should determine if using the number of seats to measure trip generation is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION The Board should close the hearing and proceed to a decision. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_ SFhome_sketch_ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 12, 2016 Plans received: December 22, 2015 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW #SD-15-48 GARDNER & SONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – O’BRIEN DRIVE Meeting Date: February 16, 2016 Applicant /Owner Gardner & Sons Development Corporation 269 Lakeshore Drive Colchester, VT 054446 Property Information Tax Parcel 0230-00039 Residential 4 Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-15-48 of Gardner & Sons Development Corporation for a planned unit development to further develop a 2.16 acre parcel developed with a two (2) family dwelling. The proposal consists of: 1) constructing a single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 3-unit multi-family dwelling, O’Brien Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Dan Albrecht, Planner Temporary Assignment referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 22, 2015 and offer the following comments: Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: The property is located in the Residential 4 District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements R-4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 0.83 acres 2.16 acres No Change  Max. Building Coverage 30% 3.2 % 8.4 %  Max. Overall Coverage 40% 6.5 % 20.0 %  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. n/a 75 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft. n/a 10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. n/a 47 ft.  Building Height (pitched) 28 ft. 25’-9.5” <28 ft.  Density Max. 4 units/acre .92 units/acre 2.83 units/acre - zoning compliance Applicability of use of Planned Unit Development approach. Due to the relatively narrow frontage along O’Brien Drive coupled with the presence of a wetland, the applicant is proposing this project be reviewed under PUD standards so as to allow there to be more than one principal building on the lot and to avoid having to create multiple lots each subject to coverage and setback requirements. The applicant is, however proposing footprint lots for each of the new units. Staff notes that as the project includes an easement across the northern portion of the Gardner/Zhang lot (to the west) which will be used as the sole access to the PUD and therefore, should the application proceed to Preliminary/Final Plat, the PUD will likely need to include that lot as well. The applicant has indicated that they will be seeking legal advice on this matter and proceed accordingly. Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: 15.01 Purpose It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc 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. - The viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The plans detail the proposed locations of the buildings and the driveway. Renderings of the buildings are also provided. Staff notes that there is an informal, unimproved footpath along the northern edge of the property from Birch Street to which the applicant proposes constructing a 4 ft. wide addition to extend it to O’Brien Drive. The proposed buildings are served by one driveway and are located on the few developable portions of the lot outside of the wetland and its buffer. The applicant has indicated that the reasons that this project qualifies as a PUD are:  The informal walking path which connects the Birch Street side of the lot with the O’Brien Drive side of the lot.  The project is an infill re-development providing housing choices other that the predominant single family lots in the immediate area.  The project provides common land. Staff would recommend that the applicant provide a formal easement to the City for a path and that the single family home be better separated from the path to encourage use of the path. As with other developments in the City, staff recommends that the applicant delineate the edge of the wetland buffer with plantings and/or split rail fencing and signage to prevent incursion into the buffer. The applicant has indicated that they will propose a split rail fence along the wetland buffer. The applicant has indicated that they are amenable to providing an easement to the City for this path as an existing footpath. This easement will be on the subject parcel and included with the preliminary plat submittal. The Core Area is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1. Core Area The core area of the City shall be defined as those areas lying north of I-89 and I-189, and lying west of Spear Street. It is recommended that the majority of development density and new development over the next 20 years be directed to the core area of the City. It should be noted that within the core area, there will be sub-areas of varying uses and densities, natural resource preservation areas, parks and open spaces, and transportation facilities. Many of these sub-areas, such as the City Center, commercial centers and residential areas are discussed below. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc The proposed buildings represent in-fill development of unusually shaped lot with minimal road frontage within the Core Area. 1. The Board should discuss whether the criteria above are met and if the project qualifies for review under PUD. The Board should also provide guidance with regards to staff’s recommendations on the path and delineation of the buffer. The Board should also direct the applicant that should they proceed to Preliminary/Final Plat, it would need to be revised to include the concurrence and signature of the lot owners of the Gardner/Zhang parcel. 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 project appears to have minimal impacts on existing water and wastewater use. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (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. An erosion control plan has not yet been submitted. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The project will have minimal impact on vehicular traffic. Staff considers that this criterion is being met. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The project’s layout avoids the centrally located wetland and its buffers. As indicated above, the applicant will be providing a split rail fence along the wetland buffer to delineate its location. See note above landscaping. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The applicant has provided renderings of the buildings. 2. Staff recommends that the Board review the renderings and provide feedback on whether they are comfortable with the proposed designs being submitted at Preliminary/Final Plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The project’s layout includes open space around the wetland and abutting the South Burlington School District parcel to the south. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The South Burlington Fire Department provided the following comments to staff via email on February 8 2016. Had a chance to look at the triplex and SFH. The triplex is 220 off the public way and does not have an adequate turnaround for our apparatus, as is required in NFPA 1-2.3.2.1. FD turnaround (hammerhead) is not complaint with NFPA 18-2.3.4.3. If the tri-plex has a NFPA 13-R sprinkler system installed, the previous requirements are relaxed (NFPA 1- 18.2.3.2.2.1) and SBFD would only require no parking signs be posted on the driveway and hammerhead. The HOA would be required to maintain the drive in passable condition at all times. DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal South Burlington Fire Department 3. The Board should direct the applicant to work with the Fire Department to revise its plans to the Department’s satisfaction prior to submission of a Preliminary/Final Plat application. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The proposed project appears at this juncture to be compatible with the extension of such services. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. See comments on Stormwater below. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). Staff considers that the proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the R-4 Zoning District. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. 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: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that this criterion is being met. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed buildings are located on a proposed new driveway while the two (2) existing units on the east side of the parcel are accessed via Birch Street. The proposed and existing units are separated by a wetland. Adequate parking appears to be provided for each of the new units. No internal sidewalks are proposed to serve the 3 unit building, however given the lack of traffic generated by the units pedestrian safety should be adequate. A four (4) foot wide path is proposed to connect the single family dwelling to the sidewalk on O’Brien Drive. Staff appreciates the placement of a relatively small house on the same lot as the proposed triplex. The applicant has indicted that a six (6) foot front porch will be added to the house including a 2-car detached garage. Staff recommends that the house be designed such that it has an acceptable street presence and creates a desirable transition. 4. The Board should review the renderings and the plans and the staff comments and provide feedback on whether they are comfortable with the proposed plans being submitted at Preliminary/Final Plat application. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. This standard only applies to the triplex. Parking is located to the side of the multi-family home on the Gardner/Zhang lot which forms the building line of the development facing O’Brien Drive. Staff considers that this criterion is being met. Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed buildings would be less than 28 ft and similar in scale to other two story homes in the zoning district. As noted above, the Board should review the renderings and provide feedback on whether they are comfortable with the proposed designs being submitted at Preliminary/Final Plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Preliminary and Final Plat review. 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. As noted above, the Board should review the renderings and provide feedback on whether they are comfortable with the proposed designs being submitted at Preliminary/Final Plat application. 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. Staff does not consider the reservation of land to be 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). The applicant should provide information with its Preliminary/Final Plat application on how trash, recycling and compost will be handled. D. 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 minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum landscape requirement. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc The total construction cost for the new triplex building and new single family home is unknown at this point. The minimum landscaping requirement would be calculated as follows: Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% t.b.d Next $250,000 2% t.b.d Additional over $500,000 1% t.b.d Minimum Landscaping $ >> t.b.d Proposed Landscaping t.b.d Full compliance with this standard will be addressed in detail at Final Plat review. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the plans shall depict snow storage areas that will minimize the potential for run-off or indicate that snow will be trucked off site. The applicant has not yet provided a landscaping plan. Stormwater In an email to staff dated February 12, 2016, the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The City Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Gardner Parcel A 1 Lot, 6 Unit PRD” sketch plan prepared by O’Leary-Burke dated 12/22/15. We have the following comments: 1. The current sketch plan proposes 0.432 acres of total impervious surface. Should a future site plan propose 0.5, or more, acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of section 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2015. 2. On a future submission indicate proposed site grading. 3. Include snow storage locations. 4. The applicant will be required to provide a 20’ easement centered on the existing 15” PE pipe located on the lot. 5. Consider providing setback from adjoining Rec Path. 6. Include a detail for underground utility crossings. Regards, Dave Wheeler Staff notes that the Department of Public Works does not know for sure whether the PUD would require use of the Zhang/Gardner lot and that therefore the project would require compliance with the City’s new Low Impact Development stormwater standards. 5. The Board should direct the applicant to work with the Department of Public Works to design appropriate stormwater infiltration and treatment practices prior to submission of a Preliminary and/or Final Plat Application. RECOMMENDATION Seek clarification on the questions raised above, and presuming satisfactory answers, allow this to move CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_48_OBrienDrive_GardnerAndSons_triplex_and_SFhome_sketch_.doc forward through final plat review. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JANUARY 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 January 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; C. Snyder, D. Seff, M. Scollins, B. Gilbert, J. Olesky, Mr. Landerman, S & M. Edwards, S. Dopp, L. Brown, B. Cimonetti, P. Walcott, S. Plosher, A. Rowe, B & K. Whitby, D. Adamson, J. Feussner, M. Janswold 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Barritt clarified the posting he made in error on Facebook. He said that if the 3 applicants to which he made reference feel the need, he would recuse himself from hearing that application. Mr. Barritt also announced that he is a candidate for a City Council position. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.1 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 3 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder said they have made many changes since the last presentation to address comments from the Board and from neighbors. These include: 2 a. Orientation of homes to the south b. Modification of driveways c. Road orientation d. A sidewalk crossing near town homes #15 and #16 e. Reduced density to a comfortable level on the site f. Increased the public park to 7 acres and relocated it to the southwest corner of the property, accessed by a walkway g. Added 5 parking spaces on Vale Drive h. Located a 10-foot bike/rec path on the eastern boundary line i. Vale Drive now makes a substantial left turn (it is still an 18-foot road) j. Town homes face onto Vale Drive with a diversity of home styles k. Added a few “jogs” on Vale Drive Mr. Snyder indicated two homes on the plan which address two streets and indicated that they will meet all housing standards. Mr. Barritt noted that the private drive serves 8 units. Members were OK with that. Mr. Barritt said he appreciated the growth in the size of the park and the low impact crossing of the wetland. He also commended the combining of some driveways. Members were OK with the timing of the TDRs. Mr. Belair noted that the TDRs only have to be purchased when they are needed. Members of the public were then invited to comment. Mr. Seff, representing a group of neighbors, felt the plan was “a step in the right direction.” He liked the bend in the road and the location of the rec path. He also liked the reduction in density from 51 to 48 units, but he felt this is still too dense. He said he does not believe the TDR by-law complies with the regulations for TDRs. He objected to the triplex units and felt they are not in keeping with the character of the area. Mr. Seff was also not happy with the relocation of the park from the southeast to the southwest corner. He felt there would be better access from the rec path. 3 Mr. Seff objected to the dead end street. He said dead end streets are not “encouraged,” and are specifically not allowed to be longer than 200 feet. Mr. Wilking felt the applicant has provided a nice piece of land for the park. He understood the density argument, but did not agree with the comments regarding the park. Mr. Barritt noted that the Board has already approved several developments utilizing TDRs and there have been no challenges to that by-law. Mr. Behr added that the Board was advised by legal counsel that the by-law is legal. He also outlined the thinking and the process by which the by-law was created. Mr. Seff said he doesn’t feel it makes sense to shuffle TDRs around the Southeast Quadrant. He also noted there isn’t a bus stop near the development and no services within walking distance. Mr. Barritt noted that the triplexes will not be visible from Spear Street. He felt the additional park area “trumps” the inclusion of triplexes. Mr. Behr was also not bothered by the triplexes. He felt this increased the diversity of housing and income levels. Mr. Behr spoke to a contradiction in the regulations which state that a dead end road should not be longer than 200 feet but also state that there should be a potential connection to a property that may be developed in the future. He said that if the proposed road were to end at 200 feet, there would be no option to connect to the adjacent property if it were to be developed in the future. Mr. Snyder then read from the regulations regarding the required connection of dead end streets to adjacent properties. Dr. Scollins spoke against the location of the park. He felt “people don’t go there” as it is not close to anything. It is a very wet area and will require significant grading. He felt it would not be used if it is not adjacent to a rec path. Ms. Smith said she would like to see comments from Parks and Recreation. Mr. Wilking suggested the applicant try to find a way to connect the rec path to the park. Mr. Parsons suggested a possible “cut through.” Mr. Landerman felt the placement of the entry to the triplexes would encourage traffic on Vale Drive. Mr. Barritt said he did not see that potential. Members were comfortable with the plan going forward. 4 5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of (as proposed by the applicant) 1) 6 boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuation. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 1 March 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-45 of Holmberg Properties for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six 2-family dwellings and 2) one 3-unit multi-family dwelling, 1170 & 1180 Park Road: Mr. Barritt explained that this application is part of a Master Plan and is subject to the land development regulations that were in effect at that time. Mr. Olesky explained the history of the legal settlement and property transfers and the changes in zoning regulations that accompanied the transfers. He showed the properties on the plan, including the properties being transferred. Mr. Olesky said there is a significant grade change on the property, an upper and lower “plateau.” There is also a small piece of Class 2 wetland, which will require a 50-foot buffer. The development will not encroach on the wetland or on the buffer. The settlement agreement allows for 15 units to be developed. This proposal would access those units by two private dead-end driveways. The two drives are necessitated by the elevations change and the existence of ledge. The 15 units will be comprised of 12 duplexes and one triplex. The development will use municipal water and sewer. There are still some technical issues to be worked out. Mr. Olesky showed the location of a pump station which they propose to use. There are also some stormwater and Fire Department issues to work out. They will be exploring infiltration techniques. Some detention will probably be needed. 5 Mr. Olesky said they have not yet included a sidewalk component. Staff wants some kind of path to Dorset St., and the applicant is amenable to that. Mr. Barritt noted that one requirement in this area is the completion of the sidewalk on Park Road (he indicated the location). Mr. Olesky said they weren’t aware of this, but they will look into it. Mr. Belair said that in the settlement agreement there was a requirement for some additional sidewalk to be built. Mr. Wilking was concerned with the 2 curb cuts in this location. Mr. Olesky said they did discuss traffic calming as part of the settlement. Mr. Wilking said Park Road seems like a ‘raceway,’ and traffic calming is needed. Mr. Olesky said the state will hold them to the current stormwater regulations. Mr. Barritt said the Board will ask for some delineation of the ends of backyards and the wetland buffer. Mr. Barritt read comments from the Public Works Department questioning how dead ends are shown. He did not feel the Fire Department would approve this design. Mr. Olesky said they will make sure the Fire Department is comfortable with the plans. Mr. Barritt asked about parking. Mr. Olesky said they haven’t finalized a parking layout. There will be spaces for guest parking. Mr. Wilking said he felt the project would be improved by changing the triplex to a duplex and moving the triplex unit elsewhere. That would leave more room between the walking path and the first house. Mr. Barritt agreed. Mr. Olesky said they would look at that possibility. He stressed that they are trying to maintain as much natural area as possible. Mr. Barritt noted the proposed berm. Mr. Olesky said it would be to deflect noise from Dorset Street. They will landscape the berm. Mr. Parsons said he would prefer one public street to 2 private streets. Mr. Olesky restated the issues of ledge and slope. Mr. Belair noted there is a provision in the LDRs that allows the Board to allow development in restricted areas under certain circumstances. A member of the public agreed with the issue of the triplex location. She also felt a stop light should be considered at Park/Dorset Streets. She asked whether the dead end street could be continued to connect with the southern development. 6 She felt the area is starting to feel very dense. Mr. Olesky said connection with the southern development is an issue because of the already developed area. Ms. Edwards cited the danger of crossing Dorset Street in that area. She felt more traffic will make it even worse. Members generally agreed with trying to relocate the triplex unit. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-15-45 to 1 March 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Final Plat Application SD-15-46 of Leon Brown for a planned unit development on a 0.37 acre lot developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) razing the existing single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 4-unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road: The applicant indicated they would like to increase the size of the decks on the back. They would remain 6 feet deep but would all be made 18 feet wide. This slightly increases the coverage. They would also be installing privacy walls in two indicated locations. Mr. Brown noted the small concrete driveway dividers which are made of patterned concrete. He described the installation process. Mr. Behr said he would have preferred more delineation. Mr. Barritt asked if the building will be sprinklered. The applicant said it will. Mr. Barritt also noted the project is subject to the new energy stretch codes. Mr. Brown said they will be meeting on that matter on the 26th of the month. No other issues were raised. Mr. Miller moved to close #SD-15-46. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Review Minutes of 15 December 2015 and 5 January 2016: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 15 December 2015 and 5 January 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7 9. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for a 3-month extension of approval #SD-15-18 (25-27 Green Mountain Drive). He said staff has no issues with the extension. Mr. Miller moved to grant a 3-month extension to approval #SD-15-18. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk _________________________________ Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 2 FEBRUARY 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 February 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; P. Nowak, T. Chittenden, D. Young, J. Beatty, J. Leinwohl, R. Perkett, J. Weber, J. Merone, D. Boedy, L. Willey, D. Wheeler, R. Roche 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agree to hear item #6 prior to #4 to accommodate the applicant. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Barritt stated: “As I have said in previous announcements, I would be willing to recuse myself if requested from any of the applications that I posted to the Facebook pages. There has been a request from Mr. Farrell for me to recuse myself from the Allenwood applications and since he copied Joe Larkin but Joe Larkin did not sign the letter, I’m assuming he means that Joe Larkin is on board as well. At this point, I’m going to announce that in the future when these applications come back for whatever level, I will be recusing myself”. 4. Site plan application #SP-16-01 of The Village at Dorset Park Homeowners Association to amend a previously approved plan for a 167 unit residential complex. The amendment consists of upgrading the community stormwater system, Swift Street Extension: The applicant noted a previous approval has expired. The current plan is very similar to what was approved on in March, 2015. There are some minor changes to pond gradings, shapes and sizes, but the function and flow of water is the same. The applicant said the Homeowner’s Association is requesting that the city take over the ponds, which must be brought up to state standards for that to happen. 2 No issues were raised by the Board or members of the public. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-16-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-15-79 of Jon Svitarsky to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,020 sq. ft. building used as a radio and television station. The amendment consists of converting the building to a Group Home (community residence) use to house a maximum of 25 residents, 372 Dorset Street: Mr. Barritt stressed that there are specific items which the Board can discuss. Because of ADA issues, they cannot address or entertain questions regarding who will be using the building, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Wilking disclosed that Mr. Svitarsky had called him regarding some funding for this project. He did not feel he needed to recuse himself. Board members agreed. Mr. Svitarsky said there will be no outside changes to the building, except for the removal of signs. They will, however, be putting in a sprinkler system to satisfy the Fire Chief. This is not a simple tie-in to the water line and will require considerable digging. The details of that are not yet completed, so the application will probably have to be continued until those details are known. Mr. Svitarsky noted they are a private organization and get no tax dollars. They want to be good neighbors. They have previously founded the Burlington Emergency Shelter and other similar projects. They will be willing to answer privately any questions that aren’t relevant here tonight. Mr. Svitarsky stressed that this will be a very quiet place to help people who are homeless solve their issues. Mr. Barritt asked how waste/recycling/composting will be handled. Mr. Svitarsky said there will be an area within the building for that. They will deliver trash to the landfill themselves. In answer to another question, he added that snow will be hauled off site. Mr. Barritt asked if they would put in a door facing Dorset Street. Mr. Svitarsky said they don’t plan to do that as there are already 2 adequate doors. Mr. Barritt asked if the building would be painted. Mr. Svitarsky said they would be happy to, but they are trying to focus on internal needs. 3 Mr. Behr suggested taking up some asphalt and putting in some plantings near the doorway. Mr. Belair said the applicant could ask for advice from a landscape professional to do that. Mr. Cota asked whether the outdoor equipment from the radio/TV station would be taken down. Mr. Svitarsky said they are welcome to come and get it. Mr. Belair said that if the applicant wanted to increase the number of guests, they would have to come back to the Board with that request. Mr. Behr added that if they wanted to convert the back storage area for living, they would have to add windows. Members felt the back building should be painted to match the vinyl siding on the front building. The Board was OK with the proposed traffic pattern and with removing parking space #19. Mr. Barritt suggested repainting the parking space lines. Mr. Belair noted that the landlord has been using the back building for some storage. That is not allowed as that building can only be used in connection with approved uses on the property. No other issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP-15-79 until 1 March. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch plan application #SP-15-47 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car wash facility, 2) constructing a new 11,665 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3) constructing a 5,970 sq. ft. 12-position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl showed the location on the plan. The existing carwash/maintenance facility is used by 2 car rental agencies. The new facility will be essentially the same but will be used by 3 car rental agencies. It will be at the end of the lot (Mr. Leinwohl showed the location) and will consist of 3 wash bays and 3 maintenance bays. There will also be small offices for each of the rental companies. 4 Mr. Leinwohl indicated the queueing lanes. He said this will be better organized than at present. There will also be a new fuel tank. Mr. Leinwohl indicated the location of the fueling islands. The old tank will come out. There will not be any public use of this facility. The new car wash will be more efficient, state of the art. They will recycle much of the wash water for re-use. Rinse water will go into the sewer system. There will be an aesthetically pleasing fence around the facility. The Airport is talking with the city about landscaping, possibly coming up with another location in an area where houses were removed. Mr. Belair noted there is a meeting with the applicant’s landscape architect on this. Mr. Conner added that the Chamberlin Neighborhood Airport Planning Committee is looking at some neighborhood enhancements, which might be a good way to meet both Airport and neighborhood goals. Mr. Barritt asked about coverage numbers. Mr. Belair said the property is so large they don’t know what the coverage is. Mr. Leinwohl said if anything, there would be a decrease in coverage with this plan. Mr. Leinwohl then showed an artist’s rendering of the new buildings, noting some similarity to the parking garage (shape of awnings, etc.). He did not anticipate any outside signage. Mr. Britt asked about stormwater. Mr. Leinwohl said the surface is all impervious now with about 1/3 of the stormwater being treated. In the future, it will all be treated, and the will surpass the requirements that are outlined. No other issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Leinwohl asked about combining preliminary and final plat. Members were OK with that request. 7. Minutes of 15 December 2015 and 5 January 2016: The Minutes were not available for approval. 5 8. Other Business: No issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:20 p.m. __________________________________ Clerk __________________________________ Date