Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/19/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTONDEVELOPMENT 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: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 02/16/2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_ sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 15, 2016 Plans received: January 13, 2016 1302, 1340, and 1350 Spear Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-14-37 Meeting date: January 19, 2016 Owner Spear Meadows, Inc Gary N. and Jane G. Farrell 1350 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Chris Snyder Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road, Suite 6 Shelburne, VT 05482 Engineer Plans not stamped by an Engineer Property Information Tax Parcel 1640-01302; Tax Parcel 1640-01340 Tax Parcel 1640-01350 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 25.91 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 18 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three (3) 3- unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten (10) 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. The above description has been revised from the original request to reflect the current proposal. Proposed development on this parcel has been discussed in depth at multiple prior DRB meetings in connection with applications #SD-11-51 and #MP-11-03. The development has a new applicant under this Sketch Plan, however. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues, and to highlight the areas that show compliance with the LDRs, and showcase good planning practices. For the purposes of a focused sketch plan discussion, staff has tried to narrow the discussions to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for landscaping, traffic and other issues certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the original submitted plans and the revised plans submitted on January 13, 2016 and offer the following comments. Issues for discussion  Development on dead-end roads 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc (2) Interconnection of Streets (a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. (b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. (c) Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section 15.12(D)(4). (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly encouraged. (4) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. Development off Spear Meadow Road The proposed “private drive” serving the eight (8) units numbered #34 - #41 is 320 ft. in length stopping just short of the property line shared with the Gilbert property to the south. The proposed private street includes a 50 ft. ROW for potential future street extension as well as a sidewalk along the south side. Staff notes that this rear portion of the Gilbert property could reasonably be developed in the future. Although the street exceeds 200 ft, staff considers this be an allowable as a temporary cu-de-sac street until such time as it is continued into or through to the adjacent property to the south. 1. The Board should confirm that this “private drive” is acceptable as proposed such that it could be extended into the adjacent property to serve future development.  Proposed Public Park Section 9 of the SBLDR states that “a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation.” Furthermore, “parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program” and “a neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned recreation area.” The area set aside for the proposed “public park” which would be transferred to the City is approximately 7 acres and encompasses the 4.3 acres on the west side of the wetland and also a portion of the wetland and the area between the wetland and Vale Drive. This more than meets the minimum standard of approximately one (1) acre. Applicant should meet with the Recreation & Leisure Committee during the preliminary plat stage review the park proposal. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc 2. The Board should confirm that this park proposal is acceptable.  Block Lengths Staff notes that the proposed 820 ft. block length along single-family footprint lots, 1-12, is consistent with standards for the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict, stated as follows. 9.08 SEQ-NRT and SEQ-NR Sub-Districts; Specific Standards The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub-districts have additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, block and lot pattern. (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. As recommend by staff, the applicant has added a mid-block, necked down crosswalk connection in the portion of Vale Drive between units #8 & #9 and a sidewalk connection from that crosswalk to the recreation path along the eastern edge of the property as well as a mid-block, necked down crosswalk connection near units #22 & #16. 3. The Board should confirm that the proposed development mid-block connections are acceptable.  Driveways and sidewalks Staff commends the applicant for combining driveway curb cuts for all the duplexes, for the majority of the triplexes and indeed even for the single family units on the west side of Vale Drive. Staff also notes the extensive use of sidewalks and walkways throughout the project. 4. The Board should confirm whether or not they find the proposed driveways and sidewalks acceptable.  Orientation of units and garages Staff commends the applicant for being able to orient the entries of the various units and unit types towards the streets throughout the development. Staff notes that the garage locations and loading are acceptable either via use of side-loading or the required 8 ft. setback from the front of the building. 5. The Board should confirm whether or not they find the proposed orientations acceptable.  Density The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 26.15 acres, is 31 units. The maximum units allowed, in accordance with Chapter 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and determined by the Neighborhood Residential sub-district under the Transferred Development Right program, are 103 units. The applicant is proposing to construct 47 new units, with one existing dwelling to be razed and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_37_1302_1340_1350SpearStreet_SpearMeadows_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc one to remain, for a total of 48 units within the PUD. Lot 1 1 unit one, existing SF home to remain Units 1-12, 24-25, 30-31, 38 & 41 18 units SF Homes on footprint lots Units 13 – 21 9 units 3 triplex townhouses Units 22-23, 26-29, 32-37, 39-40 & 42-47 20 units townhouses & flats This is a proposed density of approximately 1.84 units per acre. A total of 17 transferred development rights (TDRs) would be required. The applicant has stated that they have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. In previous cases, the Board has previously required that the applicant submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City Attorney as part of the preliminary plat submittal. Staff has also recommended that the TDRs be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 31 allowed by the property’s inherent density. 6. The Board did not previously raise issues with these recommendations regarding timing of transferred development rights. However, they should determine at this stage whether they shall be submitted prior to preliminary plat approval or prior to final plat approval. a. Staff recommends that the applicant submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights (TDRs) to the City Attorney for approval, at a time determined by the Board. b. Staff recommends that the applicant submit all legal documents showing clear ownership and transfer of the development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 32nd unit. RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that the applicant has made significant improvements to the design and recommends that the application proceed to Preliminary Plat. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Christopher Snyder, applicant SPEAR MEADOWSSKETCH PLANJANUARY 12, 20161inch=60ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE60 0 30 60 120 240 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units _sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 14, 2016 Plans received: December 3, 2015 Holmberg Properties - Park Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-45 Meeting date: January 19, 2016 Owner Highlands Development Company, LLC c/o Jim McDonald P.O. Box 132 Lyndon Center, VT 05850 Applicant Holmberg Properties c/o Peter Holmberg 1233 Shelburne Rd., C-1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Wilson Consulting Engineers, PLC 2849 Cabot Road Cabot, VT 05647 Property Information Tax Parcels 0570-01170 R & 0570-01180 R SEQ Zoning District 3.65 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan review application #SD-15-45 of Holmberg Properties for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six (6) two-family dwellings, and 2) one (1) 3-unit multi-family dwelling, 1170 & 1180 Park Road. COMMENTS The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics and are, at this stage, intended to review the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on December 3, 2015 and offer the following comments. As the project is part of older approved Master Plan, the development is subject to review under the LDRs then in effect, in this case the LDRs approved on May 12, 2003. The project is part of the larger Vermont National Country Club (VNCC) Master Plan development first approved on September 20, 2003 (#MP-03-01, see attached) and later finalized in 2015 following a settlement agreement approved by the Environmental Court. Two lots, 173 and 174, are part of the VNCC development while a 3rd adjacent lot, currently owned by the City, is planned to be transferred to the Highlands Development Company. As part of the transfer, this 3rd lot has been reclassified from its current Park and Recreation Zoning District to SEQ Neighborhood Residential. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements The property is located in the SEQ Zoning District. Table 1. Dimensional Requirements SEQ - NR Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF ~158,961 SF ~158,961 SF  Max. Building Coverage 15% 0 15.0 %  Max. Overall Coverage 50% 0 27.0 %  Min. Front Setback 20 ft. 0 20  Min. Side Setback 20 ft. 0 32  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 0 64 - zoning compliance Staff considers these criteria to be met. Number of Residential Units The project seeks approval for 15 (fifteen) dwelling units via the construction of six (6) duplex CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc townhome buildings and one (1) triplex townhome building. This figure is consistent with the Master Plan which granted approval for up to 15 units in buildings of 1 to 4 units each. Public Works Comments The Department of Public Works provided extensive comments which are quoted below. On December 10, 2015 the Department’s Deputy Director of Public Works provided comments via digital “sticky note” on a PDF of the submitted plan (see packet for details). His comments are quoted below in italics with the non-italicized text indicating the location of the “sticky note.” Lot Coverage: 1-“Over our new half acre threshold for stormwater requirements.” [Note: The above comment is not applicable as this application is to be reviewed under the Regulations adopted May 12, 2003.] Proposed SW management pond: 2-“Can we infiltrate instead of creating a stormwater detention pond? Per the soil maps there may be some hydrogroup C soils near units 1-9.” Grading, units 10-15: 3-“Proposed grading isn't shown. There would have to be substantial changes in this area to support the proposed road and units.” Wetland buffer, units 10-15: 4-“How will we prevent homeowners from turning the wetland buffer into lawn?” On westernmost drive: 5-“Are roads curbed with storm drains? Pump station behind unit 13: 6-“No access to this pump station for maintenance.” Behind unit 4: 7-“Area appears to be too steep for stormwater disconnection. Will rooftops be collected and sent to treatment/detention/infiltration?” Force main near southern edge of property: 8-“Does this force main get eliminated or moved?” On December 10, 2015 the Director of Public Works commented as follows: In addition to Tom’s comments, please see mine below. 1. These two small stretches of road are not to be publicly-owned or maintained. 2. They shall be required to build a sidewalk/path along their frontage east to Dorset Street and connect to the rec path. 3. We will have to review PS details as the plans develop. 4. No stormwater infrastructure shown. Curbed roads? DIs? 5. I can’t imagine the Fire Dept approving of the dead ends the way they’re shown. 6. The driveway radii seem excessive, tighten them up; creates unnecessary impervious surface. 7. What’s the plan for snow storage? 8. Streetlights? CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc 9. Sidewalks along their roads? 10. The driveways barely seem deep enough to fit a car without it overhanging into the road. Justin On December 21, 2015, the Deputy Stormwater Superintendent commented as follows: Our initial comments were as follows: The City Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Proposed Planned Unit Development - Lots 173 & 174 Park Rd” sketch plan prepared by Wilson Consulting Engineers, PLC. dated 8/31/15, last updated on 11/6/15. We have the following comments: 1. These roads are not to be publicly-owned or maintained. 2. Provide pump station details as the plans develop. Pump stations must be provided with vehicle access for maintenance purposes. 3. Include a sidewalk/path along the frontage east to Dorset Street and connect to the rec path. 4. Provide Street and Sidewalk lighting as necessary. 5. Include stormwater infrastructure. 6. Indicate proposed site grading. 7. Portions of the site appear to be too steep for stormwater disconnection. Runoff from rooftops may need to be collected and conveyed to a stormwater treatment practice. 8. The roads must include approved turnarounds. 9. The driveway radii seem excessive and should be tightened up. It creates unnecessary impervious surface. 10. Include snow storage locations. 11. The driveways should be deep enough to fit a car without it overhanging into the road. Regards, Dave Wheeler 1. Given the extensive and detailed comments provided by the Public Works Department, staff recommends that the Board ask the to applicant meet with the Department to address their comments and submit a revised and more detailed plan to be submitted with this sketch plan. Neighborhood Design Staff has the following initial comments focused on ways to strengthen the identity of this development as a residential neighborhood. 1. The radii of the two private drives connecting to Park Road should be reduced to force entering and departing traffic to slow down and/or stop. 2. The applicant should also consult with the future developers of the parcel on the north side of Park Road so that these drives are aligned with any anticipated roads that may be constructed on those parcels. 3. To the extent practicable, the northerly elevations of units 1, 3 and 10 should try to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc address Park Road rather than looking like the side of a building. A wrap around porch or other feature could be used. 4. A sidewalk or path should be included on the south side of Park Road so that residents may safely access the recreation path located on Dorset Street and the north side of Park Road. 5. The lack of connectivity between the two private drives should be addressed via the construction of a footpath perhaps located above the area of the sewer line and force main running east-west between the two drives. 6. Given that these private drives essentially serve as driveways and not roads for circulation, to the extent practicable the amount and width of road surface should be reduced to slow traffic. 7. To the extent practicable, the applicant should try to design the townhomes to reduce the dominance of the two car-garages as their defining visual feature. 8. On-street parking area should only be allowed on one side of the street. 9. Staff would like the applicant to describe the purpose and design of the berms. 10. Last but not least, while staff recognizes the challenges proposed by the topography, staff encourages the applicant to explore the option to design one public street which could service all 15 units pursuant to Section 15.12 J of the 2003 LDRs which reads: J. Culs-de-Sac. Cul-de-sac streets are recommended only in residential districts. The length of a cul-de-sac street shall be subject to the review and approval of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. The number of dwelling units served by a cul-de-sac or by a system of streets sharing a common single access to an arterial or collector street shall not exceed fifty (50) unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Development Review Board after consultation with the City Engineer and Director of Planning & Zoning. 2. Staff recommends that the Board explore these issues with the applicant as well as provide any additional guidance with regard to the design, layout, features, etc. of the proposal. OTHER The plan should be revised to show the SEQ zoning boundaries as a portion of this property is located in a “Restricted Area” and a portion is located in a “Development Area” as shown on the SEQ Zoning map in effect on May 12, 2003. If development is proposed in a “Restricted Area”, then the development will have to be reviewed under Section 9.08 (B) of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. There are several items which must still be addressed as part of a more detailed, engineered preliminary plat application. Staff notes that as the project evolves, additional questions not raised herein may be posed. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_Jan_19_2016_mtg.doc Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Peter Holmberg, applicant 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 2016 TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SD-15-46 Leon Brown 57 Hinesburg Road January 19, 2016 DRB Meeting. This final plat application has incorporated the recommendations and conditions established by the Board at preliminary plat review, therefore staff has prepared a draft Findings of Fact & Decision for the application for your consideration. However, as always, this draft decision is just that and the Board should feel free to make any changes to the draft decision. Staff notes that the Board should direct particular attention to reviewing the proposed size and length of the brick patterned concrete “dividers” between the parking areas to see if it meets the Board’s intent (see page 4). The Fire Chief has not submitted any additional comments at this time. If additional comments are received, they will be provided at the meeting. #SD-15-46 - 1 – CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LEON BROWN – 57 HINESBURG ROAD FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-15-46 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Leon Brown, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting final plat review 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 four (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 19, 2016. Doug Henson represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board preliminarily finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. This application consists of a request 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 four (4) unit multi-family dwelling, 57 Hinesburg Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Brown Estates, LLC. 3. The application was submitted on December 14, 2015. 4. The subject property is located in the C1 – R12 Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of nine (9) pages, page one (1) entitled “ Lands of Brown Estates, LLC Brown Estates 57 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Planned 4-Unit Development Site & Utilities Plan” prepared by Lamoreux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated 6-23-15 and last revised on 12-04-15. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: C1 – R12 – Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size (residential) 3,500 sq. ft./unit 16,025 sq. ft. ~4,006 s.f./unit  Max. Building Coverage 40% 8% 35%  Max. Overall Coverage  70% 23% 67% *Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. + 7 ft. for planned ROW unknown 7 ft. from existing & 0 ft. from planned ROW *Min. Side Setback 10 ft. unknown 8 ft. #SD-15-46 - 2 – *Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. unknown 23 ft.  Max. Building Height 40ft. (pitched roof) unknown 30 ft.  Zoning compliance * Waiver required. The Planning & Zoning Department encouraged the applicant to consider and advance the intent of the Form-Based Code elements of the newly-adopted Land Development Regulations which this proposal approaches with regards to setbacks and design.  The Board notes that Plan Sheet Number 1 incorrectly states a 75% total maximum coverage requirement which is actually 70% and directs the applicant to revise the plans accordingly. Applicability of use of Planned Unit Development approach. The applicant is proposing this project be reviewed under PUD standards so as to allow the various setback waivers noted above. 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 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. The building incorporates an innovative design on the eastern end of the building with a wraparound entry and sidewalk to both provide a private entrance while also addressing the public street. -Efficient use of land. The proposed building will increase the number of units on the property from one to four while still meeting overall building and lot coverage limits. The Board finds that this criterion to be met. - The viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Core Area is defined in the Comprehensive Plan as follows: 1. Core Area #SD-15-46 - 3 – 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. The proposed building represents in-fill development within the Core Area. The Board finds that this criterion to be met. Given compliance with the criteria noted above, the Board finds that the property can be considered as a PUD. WAIVERS The Board notes that the front setback waiver request results in the building being four (4) feet from the planned right-of-way (ROW). The setback waivers requested are as follows: -a 39 ft. waiver from the 50 ft. front setback requirement or four (4) ft. from the planned ROW. -a two (2) ft. waiver from the side setback requirement of 10 ft. so as to allow the proposed building to be setback 8 ft. from the side property line; and -a seven (7) ft. waiver from the rear setback requirement of 30 ft. so as to allow the proposed building to be setback 23 ft. from the rear property line. The Board finds and approves the proposed waivers as consistent with Section 14.06 C (2) as they promote a better building design and efficient lot usage and also facilitate a desired orientation of the eastern edge of the building towards a public street. 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. According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units. According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off-lot wastewater is proposed. The applicant has submitted a copy of a preliminary wastewater allocation approval. The Board finds this criterion to be met. #SD-15-46 - 4 – (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. The proposed project shall 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 shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant’s plan details the use of silt fencing. 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 relocation of an existing curb cut will not result in congestion on Hinesburg Road. The Board finds this Criterion to be met. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The Board finds that the parcel contains neither resources identified in the Open Space strategy nor any unique natural features. (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 proposed project will increase the overall density on the parcel from one residential unit to four residential units. The scale and design of the building is visually compatible with the planned development pattern in the area and the purposes of the C-1 R-12 zoning district. The Board 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 property contains no large open space areas. Given the scale and location of the proposed project, The Board finds that no additional open spaces are required. (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. In a letter to staff dated September 30, 2015 the Fire Department commented as follows: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of a 4 unit multi-family dwelling at 57 Hinesburg Road. We have the following recommendations: 1. Compliance with all requirements of the Vermont Fire Building and Safety Code for any applicable structures. #SD-15-46 - 5 – 2. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment. 3. The dead-end driveway is an issue for us, but in addressing this the builders representative at the staff review meeting indicated that the units would have residential sprinklers installed. At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer and the South Burlington Fire Marshal. Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Douglas S. Brent Douglas S. Brent Fire Chief The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the Fire Chief’s recommendations. (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. There is an existing sidewalk along the property’s frontage. The applicant will be constructing a sidewalk connecting the new building to the existing sidewalk. The plans submitted include details and locations of all exterior lighting fixtures which meet the City’s standards. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground. The Board finds these two criteria are met. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Board finds the project, as currently proposed, to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.06 General Review Standards The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which #SD-15-46 - 6 – the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds the applicant’s proposal to be generally consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use policies in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. (2) Parking: (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. All parking is located to the side of the building. The Board finds this criterion to be met. The plans submitted detail the use of brick pattern concrete to delineate the two (2) ft. wide areas between the parking areas in front of the abutting garages. The Board finds this ………………………. (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 Board finds the proposed 30 ft. high 4-unit building to be compatible with this criterion as it is well within the 40 ft. limit for this district and not unduly higher than existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. The Board 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. #SD-15-46 - 7 – (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed structure is consistent with the style of existing buildings in the neighborhood. The front setback of the easternmost unit of the proposed building is slightly more than the building to the north and slightly less than the building to the south. The layout of unit #4 (which will have a wrap around porch and an entrance walkway to the sidewalk along Hinesburg Road) will serve to tie in the building with Hinesburg Road. The rear walls of the garages will have windows to provide some architectural variety. The side setback of the proposed building to its southerly side line is approximately the same distance as the building to the south of this development is to its northerly side line but further from its side line than the building to the north is to its southerly side line, thereby maintaining a similar setback to the side as other buildings in the vicinity. The Board finds these two criteria to be met. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. As the proposal is for a single driveway serving four (4) units, the Board finds that the reservation of land is not required. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plans submitted indicate that wire-served utility lines would be underground. The Board finds this criterion to be met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. Residents of the four (4) units will keep their trash, recycling and compost containers in their garages and then put them out for pickup on collection days. The Board finds this criterion to be met. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. #SD-15-46 - 8 – 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. The total construction cost for the building is $500,760. The minimum landscaping requirement is calculated as follows: 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% of $760 $7.60 Minimum Landscaping $ >> $12,508 Proposed Landscaping $12,790 The applicant is proposing plantings with a total value of $12,790. The Board finds this standard to be met. 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. The applicant’s engineer has communicated to the Board that the applicant will truck plowed snow off site. In an email dated December 23, 2015, the City Arborist provided the following comments: Ray, The landscape plans for Brown Estates on Hinesburg Rd are ok. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist The Board finds this criterion to be met. E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit. As noted above, the Board grants waivers to the front, side and rear setbacks. 5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the #SD-15-46 - 9 – residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout, encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed-use development and shared parking opportunities, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed roadway improvements. While not a mixed use development the proposed project uses most all of the lot and provides needed housing within the City’s core. The Board finds the development to be consistent with this standard. B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district. Only one structure and one type of use (multi-family residential) is proposed. The Board finds that this criterion is not applicable. C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation (1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as no further than one-quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to the City Attorney. (2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. (3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing curb cut to the northeast corner. The proposal includes an entry sidewalk from Hinesburg Road to the entry porch of the easternmost unit. The Board finds criterion C above to be met. 10.02 Traffic Overlay District The property is located in Traffic Overlay Zone 3. Based on a parcel size of 16,025 square feet, which is 40.10% of 40,000 SF, the maximum number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends allowed is 18.05. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers TRIP GENERATION manual (9th edition), and based upon the information submitted with this application and information discussed and presented at the October 6, 2015 hearing, the Board finds that the four (4) residential units would generate an estimated 3.12 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends and therefore the project is consistent with the requirements of the Traffic Overlay District. #SD-15-46 - 10 – STORMWATER In an email to staff dated December 22, 2015 the Department of Public Works commented as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Planned 4-Unit Development Site & Utilities Plan” site plan prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineer, Inc., dated 6/23/15 and most recently updated on 12/14/15. We do not have any additional comments. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment practice. Thanks, Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent The Board finds that the applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment practice. DECISION Motion by ________________, seconded by _______________, to approve Final Plat application #SD- 15-46 of Leon Brown, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, will remain in effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below prior to the submittal of the final plat plans: a. Plan Sheet 1 must be corrected to indicate a 70% total maximum coverage requirement not the 75% written. b. The plans must be revised to comply with the Fire Chief’s recommendations. 4. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to use or occupancy of the building. 5. The applicant must receive final water & wastewater allocations prior to issuance of any zoning permits. 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. #SD-15-46 - 11 – 8. The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 9. 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. 10. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant must post a landscape bond of $12,508. This bond must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 11. All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be illuminated. 12. Any changes to the final plat plan will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 13. The mylars must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 14. The final plat plans (survey plat & sheet 1) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Tim Barritt Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Tim Barritt, Chair Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). SSSSWWWWWWWWSSSSSPROJECTSITEMARKET STREETMAGNETIC RICKMARCOTTECENTRALSCHOOLWILLISTON ROADWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLOCATION PLANNTSCHANG MING & XIANGYONG JIANGN/FVOL. 1005, PG 342ANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FVOL. 687, PG. 331SONRISEPARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FVOL. 767, PG. 327JAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLEGILBERT-FULLERN/FVOL. 391, PG. 125JOHN L. WOLFF, IIIN/FVOL. 804, PG. 733HUEN YUN POONN/FVOL. 783, PG. 140 N/F LEGENDTO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS PLAT IS BASEDON INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM PERTINENTDEEDS AND/OR OTHER OFFICIAL RECORDS, ANDMARKERS EVIDENT ON THE PROPERTY, ANDCONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 27 VSA§1403. DATED THIS ___ DAY OF _____, 2015__________________________PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEIRON PIPE FOUNDIRON PIPE SETNOW OR FORMERLYUNDERGROUND ELECTRIC,TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICEWATER SERVICESEWER SERVICEWOOD STOCKADE FENCEVINYL STOCKADE FENCEABOVE GRADEBELOW GRADEWSA,E&TLANDOWNERBROWN ESTATES, LLC.57 HINESBURG ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403DEED REFERENCE: VOL. 1202, PAGE 311AREA: 0.37 ACRE1" IPF0.1' AG.5" IPF0.3' AG.5" IPF0.1' AG1.5" IPF0.1' AG1.5" IPF0.4' BGIPFIPSIPS .1 BG66'HINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON RD.TO KENNEDY DR.166.82S 83°10'05" W70.0039.84S 84°23'04" W84.06N 06°18'22" W105.37N 86°49'42" E100.35N 87°50'34" ES 07°24'26" ENOTES:1. THIS PLAT WAS COMPILED FROM FIELD SURVEYS AND RECORD RESEARCHINCLUDING THE USE OF THE FOLLOWING PLATS:A."PLAT OF SURVEY OF LANDS OF POMERLEAU REAL ESTATE COMPANY.SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT." BY FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INC., DATEDJAN., 1987, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 198 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONLAND RECORDS.B. "PLAN OF PROPERTY OF ERNEST LEBLANC, HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTHBURLINGTON, VERMONT." BY ARTHUR W. HOAG, LAND SURVEYOR.BURLINGTON, VERMONT. DATED MAY 27 1947, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 4 OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.C. "PLAN OF PROPERTY OF WM. & GRETA G. WARD. SO. BURLINGTON,VERMONT." BY ARTHUR W. HOAG & ASSOCIATES. DATED MAY, 1949, ASRECORDED IN SLIDE 73 OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LANDRECORDS.D. "PLAN OF PROPERTY OF LAWRENCE G. & GERALDINE L. MENARD.HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT." BY HOAG, STONE &ASSOCIATES. DATED DECEMBER 1946, AS RECORDED IN SLIDE 3 OF THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.E. "VTRANS PROJECT RS-140" DATED 1933 ON FILE AT THE DISTRICT 5 OFFICE2. BEARINGS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE BASED ON GPS OBSERVATIONSRECORDED IN FEBRUARY, 2014,3. THIS PROPERTY MAY BE SUBJECT TO OTHER EASEMENTS AND/ORRIGHTS-OF-WAY.4. A CLOSED TRAVERSE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED IN FEBRUARY, 2014. THEMETHODS AND THE RESULTING ERROR OF CLOSURE MEET OR EXCEED THEMINIMUM PRECISION REQUIREMENTS FOR URBAN SURVEYS.5. MONUMENTATION FOUND IS AS NOTED ON PLAN. IRON PIPES SET ARE 1"DIAMETER WITH A PLASTIC CAP.6. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH FOR HINESBURG ROAD OF 66' IS BASED ON THEABOVE REFERENCED PLANS.CITY CLERK'S OFFICECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT. _____________________ , 2015RECEIVED FOR RECORD AT______ O'CLOCK __ M., ANDRECORDED IN SLIDE# _____ ATTEST: ___________________________CITY CLERKAGBGConsulting Engineers, Inc.LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON14 Morse DriveEssex Junction, VT 05452Tel: 802-878-4450REVISIONSBROWNESTATES, LLC.LANDS OF57 HINESBURG ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT14015KMR---DLH DLH/DJG9-8-2015SHT. NO.SCALEDATECHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNSURVEYPROJECT NO.descriptiondatebyAS NOTEDPLBOUNDARYSURVEY 34'28'4'10'17'14'27.33 '24'13.33'17'28'4'10'34'6'12'6'12'14'27.33'6'12'7'13.33'17'28'10'13.33 '24'14'14'33.33 '6'16'6'12'17'8'4'12'6'13.33'14'27.33 ' 3 1 4 315316315315314315314 SB-1SB-2SB-3SB-4IT-1GW AT 311.7GW AT 310.5GW AT309.9GW AT 309.3SS SSSSSSSSS S SWWWWW WWW W W W 3144'5'3'SSSWWWWWWWSSSSSX 316.0X 3 1 6 . 0X 316.0X 315.5X 315.5NEW PAVEDACCESS DRIVEHINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON ROADTO KENNEDY DRIVEEXISTING STOCKADE FENCEEXISTING VINYL STOCKADE FENCECHANG MING & XIANGYONG JIANGN/FRESIDENTIALANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FSHOPPING CENTERSONRISEPARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FRESIDENTIALJAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLE GILBERT-FULLERN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTINGSHEDJOHN L. WOLFF, IIIN/FRESIDENTIALHUEN YUN POONN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING PAVED SIDEWALKINFILTRATIONAREAENTRYWAYENTRYWAYENTRYWAYENTRYWAYGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE1234NEW 4" PVCINV. = 311.19NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYEINV. = 309.28NEW 6" CLEANOUTINV. = 309.33NEW 4" PVCINV. = 310.00NEW 4" PVCINV. = 310.00NEW 4" PVCINV. = 310.00NEW SEWER MANHOLERIM ELEV = 316.415" INV IN = 306.2615" INV OUT = 306.266" PVC INV. IN = 306.26THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE ACTUALSIZE AND LOCATION OF THE EXISTING SEWERMAIN PRIOR TO ORDERING STRUCTURE205 LF NEW 6" SDR 35PVC, S = 0.015 FT /FTS = 1/4" / FT(MIN.)NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYEINV. = 308.53NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYEINV. = 308.08NEW 6" X 6" X 4" WYE INV . = 307.21180 LF NEW 2" PEWATER SERVICENEW GRASS-L INED SWALE5' x 32' INFILTRATION AREASEE DETAIL ON SHEET 43/4" CURB STOP, (TYP.)EXISTING 6" ACWATER MAINEXISTING 15" SEWER MAINPAVEMENTREPLACEMENTAREA. SEE DETAILON SHEET #3.66'CONCRETECURB2" CURB STOPTAPER CURB ENDDECK (TYP.)F.F.E. = 317.0F.F.E. = 317.0F.F.E. = 317.0F.F.E. = 317.0APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXISTING WATER& SEWER SERVICES. WHEN ENCOUNTEREDDURING EXISTING BUILDING DEMOLITION, CUTAND CAP BOTH SERVICES.EXISTING CURB STOP LOCATION ISUNKNOWN. CONTRACTOR SHALLATTEMPT TO LOCATE CURB STOP,(CONTACT CITY IF NEEDED) , ANDCLOSE CURB STOP AND REMOVE ROD.REMOVE EXISTING PAVEDAPRON AND DRIVEWAYSIDEWALK PAVEMENTREPLACEMENT TO MATCHPAVEMENT CROSS-SECTION3/4" PE SERVICE PIPE2" x 3/4" REDUCER FITTINGSTONE LINED EMERGENCYOVERFLOWBERMNEW DOUBLE STRAPSERVICE SADDLEREMOVEEXISTINGLIGHT NEW VINYLSTOCKADE FENCE2' BRICK PATTERNTEXTURED CONCRETE(TYPICAL)X 3 1 6 . 0 X 315.8 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 31 6 . 5 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 316 . 9 X 316.6X 316.4X 3 1 5 . 5WATERSHED DRAINING TOINFILTRATION AREA22'R = 20'R = 2 0 'REMOVE AND RESETUTILITY POLE 7' SOUTHOF IT'S CURRENTLOCATION NEW 8" THICKCONCRETESIDEWALK.20' "BU ILD TO ZONE"SIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODE T-3 DISTRICTSIDE YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 D ISTR ICT FRONT YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODET-3 DISTRICTFRONT YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RES IDENT IAL 12 D ISTR ICTSIDE YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODET-3 DISTR ICT REAR YARD SETBACK UNDER CURRENTCOMMERCIAL 1 / RESIDENTIAL 12 DISTRICTREAR YARD SETBACKUNDER PROPOSEDFORM-BASED CODET-3 DISTR ICT 20'8'10'8'8'6'SITE LAYOUT IS BASED ON POSSIBLE NEW ZONINGFORM BASED CODE T-3 ZONING DISTRICT23'23.4'57 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON , VT 05403DateSheet numberScale CheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineer ing.comDate Rev is ion ByThese plans shal l only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch /ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing06-23-15DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLCAS NOTEDBROWN ESTATES9-22-15REVISED PER DRB COMMENTSDLH12-04-15 REVISED PER DRB AND VTRANS COMMENTS DLHPROJECTSITEMARKET STREETRICKMARCOTTECENTRALSCHOOLWILLISTON ROADTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONWHITE STREETHINESBURG ROADLEGENDEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING GROUND CONTOUREXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING UTILITY POLE AND OVERHEAD WIREPROVIDEDREQUIREDEXISTING USE - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPOSED USE - MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:MINIMUM LOT AREAMINIMUM FRONT SETBACKMINIMUM SIDE SETBACKMINIMUM REAR SETBACKMAXIMUM COVERAGE BUILDINGS ONLY TOTALMAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTPROJECT STATISTICSUTILITIES:WATER/WASTEWATER - MUNICIPAL SERVICES.ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE TELEVISIONS SERVICES TO BEUNDERGROUND.EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT - COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 12POSSIBLE NEW ZONING DISTRICT - FORM BASE CODE T-33,500 SF/ UNIT6-20 FT8 FT20 FT40%75%4016,025 SF (0.37 ACRES) EXISTING8 FT8 FT23FT35% (5,559 sf, 0.13 ACRES)67% (10,616 sf, 0.24 ACRES)30PLANNED 4-UNIT DEVELOPMENTSITE & UTILITIES PLAN1LOCATION PLANNTSZONING SETBACK PLANSCALE: 1" = 20'EXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING WATER LINEPROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED SEWER LINESOIL BORING - G.W. MEASURED ON 6-__-15315PROPOSED CONTOURWATERSHED:POTASH BROOKP:\2014\14015\dwg\14015-1.dwg, 12/9/2015 12:53:51 PM, 1:1 314 315 316315315314315314SSSSSSS SSSS S SWWWWW WWW W W W 314SSWWWWWWWSSSSSX 316.0X 3 1 6 . 0X 316.0X 315.5X 316.6X 316.4X 3 1 6 . 0 X 315.8 X 315.5X 3 1 6 . 0 X 31 6 . 5 X 3 1 5 . 5 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 3 1 6 . 0 X 316. 9 NEW PAVEDACCESS DRIVEHINESBURG ROAD(VERMONT ROUTE 116)TO WILLISTON ROADTO KENNEDY DRIVECHANG MING & XIANGYONG JIANGN/FRESIDENTIALANTONIO B. POMERLEAU, LLCN/FSHOPPING CENTERSONRISEPARTNERSHIP, LLPN/FRESIDENTIALJAMES R. FULLERAND JANELLE GILBERT-FULLERN/FRESIDENTIALEXISTING DWELLINGEXISTING SHRUBS(TO BE RETAINED)EXISTING DWELLINGEXISTINGSHEDGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGE1234REMOVE EXISTINGTREES AND SHRUBSREMOVE EXISTINGTREES AND SHRUBSREMOVE EXISTING TREETEMPORARY SILT FENCE3 CE3 CM3 CE3 CL3 CE3 LB3 IVf + 1 IVm3 CLARQBCCBNQBARHVCOHVOVCOHVOVOVHVCCAFBNALAL4 AM3 CL3 PO1 IV f 1 IVm 2 AM2 IV f 1 AM5 PO57 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON , VT 05403DateSheet numberScale CheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineer ing.comDate Rev is ion ByThese plans shal l only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch /ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing06-23-15DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLCAS NOTEDBROWN ESTATES9-22-15REVISED PER DRB COMMENTSDLH12-04-15 REVISED PER DRB AND VTRANS COMMENTS DLHTHE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY'DIGSAFE' PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATIONLEGENDEXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARYABUTTING PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKEXISTING GROUND CONTOUREXISTING TREE LINEEXISTING UT ILITY POLE AND OVERHEAD WIREPLANNED 4-UNIT DEVELOPMENTLANDSCAPE PLAN2EXISTING SEWER LINEEXISTING WATER LINEPROPOSED WATER LINEPROPOSED SEWER LINE315PROPOSED CONTOURNEW TREE LINEPLANTING SCHEDULEKey Botanical Name Common Name RemarksTreesShrubsCommon HackberryCeltis occidentalis 'Prairie Pride'CC2 1/2" caliper, B&B2 1/2" caliper, 6' branching heigh t, s ingle stem, B&BRiver BirchBetula nigra 'Heritage'BNBlack ChokeberryAMAronia melanocarpa 'Autumn Magic'Winterberry (female)IVfIlex verticillata 'Afterglow'Winterberry (male)IVmIlex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'Sweet PepperbushCLClethra alnifolia 'Ruby Spice'18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerNorthern SpicebushLBLindera benzoinButtonbushCECephalanthus occidentalis18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon container18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerSOIL SPECIFICATIONS FOR PLANTING AREAS1. LANDSCAPE BACKFILL SHALL BE PREM IXED, CONS ISTING OF APPROX IMATELY 50% TOPSO IL , 25% COMPOST , AND 25%NATIVE SOIL. IN CASES WHERE THE NATIVE SOIL MEETS THE TOPSO IL SPECIFICAT ION, THE PROPORT IONS OFNATIVE SOIL MAY BE ADJUSTED UP TO 75% .2. TOPSO IL SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM NATURALLY WELL DRA INED S ITES WHERE TOPSOIL OCCURS AT LEAST 4 INCHESDEEP. TOPSOIL SHALL NOT BE OBTA INED FROM WETLANDS. TOPSOIL SHALL BE LOOSE, FR IABLE , FREE OF ROOTS ,NOXIOUS WEEDS, STONES LARGER THAN 1 INCH , AND OTHER DEBRIS .3. ALL IMPORTED SOIL SHALL BE REASONABLY FREE FROM ROOTS , HARD CLAY , COARSE GRAVEL, STONES LARGERTHAN TWO INCHES IN ANY DIMENS ION, NOX IOUS WEEDS, TALL GRASS, BRUSH, ST ICKS, STUBBLE , AND ANYMATERIALS THAT WOULD BE DETR IMENTAL TO HEALTHY VEGETATIVE GROWTH.4. BOTH TOPSOIL AND SUBSO IL SHALL HAVE A TEXTURE OF FINE SANDY LOAM PER THE USDA TEXTURAL TRIANGLEAND CONFORMING TO THE FOLLOWING SPEC IFICATIONS:SIEVE NO.%PASSING2" 10010 90 -10040 80 -9060 50 -70100 20 -40200 10-40CLAY LESS THAN 10%pH 5 .5 TO 7 .0ORGANIC MATTER TOPSO IL : 10 - 15%, SUBSO IL : LESS THAN 10%5. COMPOST SHALL BE FREE OF WEED SEEDS AND COMPLY WITH EPA REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPOST. THE COMPOSTSHALL HAVE A LOOSE AND GRANULAR TEXTURE, AND SHALL POSSESS NO OBJECT IONABLE ODORS , AND SHALL NOTRESEMBLE THE RAW MATERIAL FROM WHICH IT WAS DERIVED. COMPOST SHALL COMPLY W ITH TABLE 755 .05A(PHYSICAL PROPERTIES / EPA COMPOST MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS) OF THE VTRANS STANDARD SPECIFICAT IONSFOR CONSTRUCTION.6. TO ASSURE THE GROWTH OF TREES, SHRUBS , AND OTHER PLANTS, THE SO IL MUST NOT BE COMPACTED. ANYAREAS OF INADVERTENTLY COMPACTED SOIL WILL NEED TO BE DECOMPACTED US ING A SUBSOILER , CH ISEL PLOW ,OR BY EXCAVAT ION AND REPLACEMENT WITH UNCOMPACTED SOIL. DO NOT DRIVE EQUIPMENT ON THE SOIL AFTERIT HAS BEEN PLACED OR DECOMPACTED. FINE GRAD ING AND PLANTING OF SPECIFIED LANDSCAP ING MAY BE DONEUSING LOW GROUND PRESSURE EQUIPMENT, IF TH IS CAN BE ACHIEVED W ITHOUT COMPACTION .7. DO NOT STOCKPILE SOIL OR COMPOST IN WET OR MUDDY CONDITIONS. PROVIDE EROS ION CONTROL TO PREVENTTRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT OR DUST AWAY FROM THE STORAGE AREA .8. SO ILS WITHIN THE FULL SPECIFIED DEPTH SHALL HAVE A BULK DENSITY NOT EXCEEDING 1 .5 g /cm ². SOILS SHALLEXHIBIT THE FOLLOWING CONE PENETROMETER READINGS:- SURFACE RES ISTANCE - LESS THAN 110 PSI (7 .7 kg/cm² )- SUBSURFACE RES ISTANCE - LESS THAN 260 PSI (18.3 kg/cm²)9. SO IL QUALITY AND DEPTH SHALL BE ESTABLISHED TOWARD THE END OF CONSTRUCTION AND , ONCE ESTABLISHED,SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM COMPACT ION, EROSION , AND OTHER DETRIMENTAL INFLUENCES THROUGH THE ENDOF CONSTRUCTION.2 1/2" caliper, B&BRed MapleAcer rubrum 'Autumn Flame'AR2" caliper, B&BAllegheny ServiceberryAmelanchier laevis 'Snowcloud' or 'Majestic'ALPagoda DogwoodCornis alternifoliaCO2" caliper, B&BAmerican Witch-hazelHVHamamelis virginiana2" caliper, B&BEastern Hop-hornbeamOVOstrya virginiana2 1/2" caliper, B&B2 1/2" caliper, B&BFreeman MapleAcer x freemanii "Autumn Fantasy'AFSilky DogwoodCMCornus ammomum18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerSwamp White OakQBQuercus bicolor2 1/2" caliper, B&BCommon NinebarkPOPhysocarpus opulifolius 'Center Glow'18" to 24" height, 2-gallon containerP:\2014\14015\dwg\14015-2.dwg, 12/4/2015 2:38:05 PM, 1:1 HINESBURG RDDXF file created by LitePro 2.037 on 10/16/2015 7:05:06 AMCALCULATION SUMMARYAREA NAME DIMENSIONS GRID / TYPE # PTS SPAC GROUP AVE MAX MIN MAX/MINAVE/MINNew Area 278.60x166.20Ft New Grid / H-H 604 5.00 <+> 0.59 13.97 0.00 N/AN/ABrown Estates (14015) LUMINAIRE SCHEDULETYP SYMBOL DESCRIPTION LAMP LUMENS MOUNTING HEIGHT LLF QTYBRAB LIGHTING, I 2(2) "2" BULLET12N (60) 841 0.85CRAB LIGHTING, I 4(1) "3" SLIM12 (1) 1535 0.85DRAB LIGHTING - 4(1) "4" WPLED5 (1) 202 0.85ERAB LIGHTING, I 5(1) "5" DLED6R12YY (30) 676 0.85AREA SUMMARY SCHEDULEAREA NAME I/O DIMENSIONS LUMS / <ASMS> WATTS / SQ FTQTYNew Area OUT 278.60x166.20Ft 0.00 1<B > (2)<C > (4)<D > (4)<E > (5)10'9'8'7'LIGHTING PLAN61 inch = 10 ft.(in feet )GRAPHIC SCALE10 0 5 10 20 4057 HINESBURG ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON , VT 05403DateSheet numberScale CheckedDrawnDesignSurveyProject No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineer ing.comDate Rev is ion ByThese plans shal l only be used for the purpose shown below:Sketch /ConceptPrelim inaryFinal Local ReviewAct 250 ReviewConstructionRecord Drawing06-23-15DJGDLHDLHKMR14015LANDS OF BROWN ESTATES, LLCAS NOTEDBROWN ESTATES9-22-15REVISED PER DRB COMMENTSDLH12-04-15 REVISED PER DRB AND VTRANS COMMENTS DLH P:\2014\14015\dwg\14015-lighting.dwg, 12/4/2015 3:17:31 PM, 1:1 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 15 DECEMBER 2015 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 December 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room, South Burlington Police Station. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; M. Behr, B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Leinwohl, C. Snyder, B. Gilbert, D. Seff, M. Scollins, G. Beaudoin, S. Vock, D. Fisette, S. & N. Baker, P. Galivan, B. Bertsch, kA. Senecal, M. Thibeault, J. Dougherty, B. Gardner, M. Courcelle, B. Leahy, P. Netreba, B. Cimonetti, G. Farrell, P. Walcott, D. St. Jean, D. Lovering, G. Gayette, T. Tavares, J. Foster, J. Polubinski, R. Rushford, A. Rowe 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. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-38 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of relocating taxiways A and G, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl explained that there is a need to make the runways safer. In this plan, they will be removing one taxiway (taxiway G), which is at the end of its “lifetime”. He indicated where the new taxiway G will be relocated and rebuilt. It will be 100 feet closer to the runway and 100 feet further from the roadway. Mr. Barritt directed the applicant’s attention to comments from Public Works regarding stormwater. 2 Mr. Wilking asked how this plan will coordinate with Air Guard plans. Mr. Leinwohl said this has been a collaborative effort to get the geometry correct. He showed a piece of pavement that will be left out at the request of the Air Guard. He also showed the taxiways the Air Guard will rebuild in 2017. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Leinwohl estimated they would have a plan at the end of January at the earliest. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-39 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of installing a 10,000 gallon above-ground aviation fuel tank, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl showed the Heritage Aviation building and parking lot that will be rebuilt and indicated the location of this project. This is the same site as the previously proposed Aviation Tech Center, which was built elsewhere. Some fill will be placed in a ditch near the road. There will then be a concrete pad placed for the 10,000 gallon above-ground fuel tank. This will be similar to the facility located nearby. Mr. Leinwohl showed an area for treating stormwater. They will try to minimize the cutting of trees in that area. Mr. Belair noted the Board can ask for additional trees to replace those that are removed. Mr. Leinwohl explained that the proposed facility is for another entity that would like to maintain its own fuel supply. He indicated that there may be further information on this at a later date. Mr. Barritt directed attention to the Fire Chief’s comments and recommendations. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Leinwohl said they may be ready to present the plan in mid-January. 6. Continued sketch plan review application #SD-14-37 of Snyder Homes 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 14 single family dwellings, and 3) constructing 12 3-unit multi- family dwellings totaling 50 new units, 1302, 1340 & 1350 Spear Street: 3 Mr. Snyder noted that at the last hearing there was discussion regarding relocating the park, product type, spaces between units, and Vale Drive concerns. He said they have looked at all previous iterations and then tried to come up with a new overall layout for the site. The biggest change is the relocation of the park to the southeast corner. Along Vale Drive, the configuration of unit types has changed to tighter clusters with more open space. Vale Drive now has some “swiggle” to it and has been narrowed to 18 feet. They have also added a sidewalk from Vale Drive to the rec path. There is a new configuration of homes on Spear Meadow Drive. 2 of the 3 garages face to the side and are “side loaded.” The carriage homes will also have variations. Mr. Barritt said he liked the relocation of the park. He then raised the issue of the long private road. He noted that none of the current Board members was on the Board when that was originally discussed in 2009. The issue was whether to allow a cul-de-sac of 700 feet. Mr. Barritt said that issue still needs discussion. He indicated a private road that could in the future become a public road if the Gilbert property were ever to be further developed. Mr. Snyder said they have thought about that and are open to the idea. It could reduce the length of the private drive, but they didn’t feel it was appropriate to show that connection. Mr. Barritt said it is something to think about. Mr. Gilbert said the problem is the density, not the design. He felt it was important to build the road to city standards with a T intersection instead of having more access onto Spear Street. Mr. Snyder stressed that the Board had wanted the density shifted and the park relocated. Members agreed they liked the park location as shown. Mr. Behr liked the idea of making the road public and allowing for a future connection. He suggested a break between 2 of the carriage homes and possibly removing one to create a real break in the road. Mr. Behr expressed concern that there seem to be 5 different neighborhoods with housing types not intermixed. He questioned whether that met the “diversity of design” criteria. Mr. Barritt asked the difference between the town houses and flats. Mr. Snyder said the town houses are 2 story. Flats can have options, but you can live on the first floor (they will be ADA adaptable). Mr. Barritt noted that some of the parking in front of the town homes is not allowed. Mr. Behr noted the triplex orients to the side, not the front. Mr. Snyder said they can have the front door face the street. 4 Members were OK with submitting the TDRs prior to final plat. Mr. Barritt asked when the road would be built. Mr. Snyder said they would build Spear Meadow Drive to the intersection of Vale Drive in Phase I (with appropriate stormwater and improvements to the intersection). Phase 2 would connect to the park. Phase 3 would go to the southwest corner. Mr. Behr questioned whether one building behind another meets the “facing the street” criteria. He felt that most of what faces the street is the garage door. Mr. Snyder said the plan reduces the number of curb cuts and solves a lot of the issues people brought up. Mr. Wilking felt there is too much density and that a few units have to go to make it work. Mr. Scollins said he spoke with Eric Farrell about not removing the red oaks in the woods that extend onto his property. He wanted to see the park at the southeast corner because it is the highest point. To move the park south loses that height. He suggested moving the road south so you get back the height. It would also create a sharp turn which would slow traffic down and not make it such an appealing cut-through. Mr. Behr said he liked that concept and felt it also breaks up the long road while keeping the same size park. Mr. Belair indicated a piece of land on which the city has an offer of dedication, which could create a challenge. Mr. Barritt asked that the next presentation show where trees are and where the property line is and what trees would be affected. Mr. Seff felt that both private drives are in violation of the regulations which said that dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. He said “shalls” cannot be waived according to the DRB. He didn’t feel a potential connection eliminates the need to comply. Mr. Seff also maintained that the TDR bylaw is invalid, which is allowing the extra density. There was no other public comment. Mr. Belair noted the Board has approved other dead end streets where there is a potential for an adjacent property to be developed. Mr. Snyder noted that the park in the other location solved all the road length problems, but the Board liked this location. Mr. Belair explained that staff wanted the park in this location, to eliminate possible noise issues from 2 single family homes. Mr. Barritt said if the 2 houses weren’t there, it would become an access road to the park and not a “street with homes.” Mr. Conner said it would then be a “park access.” 5 Mr. Barritt stressed that if the density goes down, the plan would be getting closer to what everyone can agree on. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-14-37 to 19 January 2016. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road: Mr. Beaudoin said since the initial application, they have changed traffic flow. The driveway is now an “in” only, and there is no longer a need for a light on Williston Road. Only the top leg of Shunpike is affected now. Mr. Beaudoin showed overhead photos of the site. He said BJ’s would serve the “south part of the county while Costco serves the north part.” He also noted that VTrans has a major project just east of this site. He said that on the south end of the site, where Comcast Way is, Public Works suggests a series of rotaries on Kimball Avenue. He then reviewed the property line changes with Comcast, PJs, and the Imported Car Center. Mr. Beaudoin then showed the concept of the interior of BJ’s (photos from the New Hampshire store) and showed various departments and merchandise, including the tire center and food center. Mr. Barritt said that staff recommends the Board focus on issues such as: uses/purpose, access, stormwater and Fire Department comments. With regard to uses/purpose, Mr. Barritt noted that “supermarkets” and “major shopping centers” are not allowed in this district. He noted receipt of the applicant’s lawyer addressing this issue. It notes that less than 50% of BJ’s business is food sales. The lawyer said that “major commercial use” is not a “use,” just a policy statement. In addition, “super market” is not defined in the regulations. He said this is a “wholesale club” which is not defined anywhere in the regulations. Many elements in this facility are not found in a supermarket (e.g., major appliances). He also noted that a “shopping center” is defined as 2 or more buildings. This is one building, one business. 6 Mr. Barritt said there is disagreement on the definition of “supermarket.” He suggested the Board meet in deliberative session to discuss this issue. Mr. Miller moved the Board meet in deliberative session. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. When the Board returned from the deliberative session, Mr. Barritt said the Board is of the unanimous opinion that this is not a permitted use; it is a “shopping center” inside one building. He said that is a “non-starter” for the Board. This use in this district is not allowed. After a brief discussion of options, Mr. Beaudoin said he would like a continuance. Mr. Miller moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 19 January 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-37 of 900 Dorset Street, LLC, to construct a three unit multi-family dwelling on a 2 acre +/- lot developed with a single family dwelling, 900 Dorset Street: Mr. Vock noted the Board last saw this plan 2 years ago. He showed a rendering that was part of the original plan. The plan adds three additional units and involves realignment of a roadway and some grading. One issue is that the road doesn’t match the roadway on the other side as there are 2 different levels. Wastewater allocation would be 840 gpd for all 4 units (the existing unit is served by onsite). Public Works has said that at no point would the city take it over. They do not propose a second curb cut. The proposed relocated curb cut will serve all units. Mr. Behr liked the relocated curb cut and felt it was safer with better view lines. Mr. Vock indicated an 8’ wide rec path. It does have some contours to address grading. Mr. Barritt asked if Mr. Vock know who cleared out some brush on city-owned property. Mr. Vock said he did not know. Mr. Conner said he would check whether this occurred on city property. 7 Mr. Barritt questioned the use of the barn and noted it can’t be used unless the owner is a resident. Mr. Vock did not know the owner’s plans. Mr. Belair asked the purpose of so much parking in front of the barn. Mr. Vock did not know. Mr. Conner said the Board needs to know the purpose of that. Mr. Vock showed the location of a hydrant. The Chief wanted it more accessible. He suggests bringing the water line across and sprinklering the buildings, which would be cheaper. The Chief would then be OK with the hydrant location. Mr. Vock then showed building concepts. Mr. Barritt asked that garage doors be more “architectural” and not just a white square. He asked for design to be in keeping with the look of the property. Mr. Vock then showed the location for a community garden. Mr. Conner asked that there be some kind of orientation of buildings to the street, even if it is just one unit/porch. It should look like a “front.” Mr. Conner also noted that porches are facing north, and the applicant may want to think about that. Mr. Vock said they will probably have to regrade to slow stormwater down a bit. They are thinking of some kind of nice fencing to clearly delineate the ends of backyards. Mr. Conner suggested the applicant look at the new stormwater regulations. Mr. Conner noted the end unit is right next to the band shell, and the band shell will be used (the Mozart Festival next year). Mr. Vock noted that could be attractive for some people. Mr. Miller then moved to continue #SD-15-37 to 2 February 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 1 December 2015: Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 1 December 2015 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8 10. Other Business: Mr. Conner noted that at the next meeting (5 January 2016) there will be a staff briefing on new regulations. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. _______________________________, Clerk _______________________________, Date SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  MEETING MINUTES  5 JANUARY 2016          The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5  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; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M.  Curran, G. & B. Allen, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, P. & B. Nowak, T Chittenden, E. & C. Steele, S.  Beaudin, P. Kahn, B. Bartlett, D. Bartlett, M. O’Brien, J. Barrows, J. Painter    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 advised that he had posted the plans for BJ’s and the result of the Board’s decision  on his personal Facebook account.  He was later advised that this might be in violation of ex‐  parte communication policy.  The information has been deleted.  Mr. Wilking said he felt the  need for training in this area.  Mr. Conner said he would be happy to bring in experts in this  area.  Ms. Nowak noted that the City Council has discussed having such training for members of  all city boards and committees.      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:    Ms. Curran, the property owner, appeared for the applicant who was ill.  She noted that the  Board had decided to visit the property to see if there was some way to deal with trip ends  which exceed the allowable number.    Mr. Barritt said he liked the division of the space.  He noted that the building is classified as  specialty retail and now is a “drinking establishment.”  He added that he had counted 14 seats.   The question is the number of trip ends for that business.        2    This type of “beer tasting” is a new concept, and a number of them have been popping up in  the area.  They may end up with a different trip end calculation.    Ms. Curran said the ITE calculation is currently 9 peak hour trip ends per hour.  The person who  did their traffic estimate says 6.    Mr. Barritt asked how the Board would deal with a use that has no ITE classification.  Mr. Belair  said there should be counts done at three similar places to get an average.  Mr. Barritt asked  what happens if that average is over the allowable number.  Mr. Belair said they could reduce  their square footage for this use.  Ms. Curran said she was sure her tenant would be  comfortable doing those counts.    Members were OK with this plan.    Mr. Miller moved to continue #SP‐15‐69 until 16 February 2016.  Mr. Wilking seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    5. Final Plat Application #SD‐15‐43 of Willowbrook Homes, LLC, to amend a  previously approved plan for a nine unit planned unit development.  The  amendment consists of approving the location for the utility cabinets and their  associated landscaping, Willowbrook Lane:    Mr. Kahn showed the plan and indicated the location for the cabinets with surrounding  landscaping.    Mr. Allen, Trustee of the adjacent property expressed concern with possible stormwater runoff  onto his property.  He said that there can be a lot of water in the summer, and he was afraid it  would be coming down his driveway.    The applicant indicated that they will not be adding any water to the site; everything is as it was  when they bought the property.    Mr. Barritt suggested that Mr. Allen be put in contact with the applicant’s engineer.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Miller moved to close #SD‐15‐43.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.      3    6. Design Review Application #DR‐15‐07 of Pathways Financial Advisors, LLC, to  replace red awning fabric with blue awning fabric, 2 Market Street:    The applicant said the condition of the awnings was an issue, and they are changing them to  one of the company’s colors.  He showed a sample of the color and a rendering of the building  with the new awning color.    No issues were raised.    Mr. Miller moved to close #DR‐15‐07.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    7. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐15‐44 of O’Brien Family Limited Partnership to  subdivide a 49.9 acre parcel into seven lots ranging in size from 2.0 acres to 13.9  acres, 255 Kennedy Drive:    Mr. Langfeldt showed the subdivision plan.  He said the intent is to transfer a lot so it can be  shifted internally.  There will be a small boundary adjustment to avoid having a lot without an  access.  Mr. Langfeldt stressed that this is not a final plan of what they will be doing with the  property.  It is just an idea to get the transfer done at the start of the project.    Mr. Barritt noted that staff has no issues as long as all of the lots are considered as one lot for  planning purposes.    Mr. Conner said staff would like a single access off Kennedy Drive in the future instead of  individual driveway cuts.  He also stressed that for planning and zoning purposes this is to be  considered as one lot.  Mr. Belair added that if there were multiple owners, they would all have  to sign off on everything.  The property would be recorded in the land records as one lot,  regardless of the number of owners.    No other concerns were raised.    8. Review draft amended Land Development Regulations with the Board:    Mr. Conner noted that as soon as the City Council warned a public hearing on the new  regulations, those regulations were in effect.  Mr. Behr asked what happens if changes are  made.  Mr. Conner said an application would have to be revised without additional cost to the  applicant.      4    Mr. Conner also noted that the City Council held a public hearing on the new regulations on 21  December.  They will be reviewing input from that hearing at a later date.    Mr. Conner then reviewed the highlights of the new LDRs as follows:    a. Some definitions have been cleaned up.    b. There is a new stormwater management standard, consistent with state law with  the “bar” raised a bit.  Any plan of half an acre or more must have a stormwater  plan.  Stormwater must be handled on site (with some exceptions that have specific  standards as to when they are appropriate).    c. There is a new City Center Form Based Code District.  It includes the whole previous  “central district.”  Most of the standards are black and white (e.g., spacing of doors  and windows), but the applicant gets architectural freedom.  There are only a  handful of prohibited uses; anything other than those can be done.  On Market  Street, all first floor development must be commercial.    d. There is also a process change with the majority of building and site features being  handled administratively.  The DRB will deal with subdivisions, what type of street is  appropriate (there are standards for this), impact on wetlands and streams, public  buildings and places of worship, and doorway standards for alternative compliance.    e. The Planning Commission is now working on a “master planning tool” which may  also have an element that goes to the DRB.                 f.   The definition of affordable housing has been updated to match state law.    g. There are a few more allowable uses.    h. The way group homes are looked at has been altered.  There are also exceptions for  such things as a ramp for a disabled person where the setback regulations wouldn’t  allow one.    i. There is a new zoning district, SEQ‐Residential North, which is part of the land  exchange resulting from the J.M. Golf settlement.      5    j. All principal buildings must meet the State’s “stretch energy code.”  (Mr. Conner  noted that any project that goes through Act 250 must already meet that standard).    k. There has been a minor adjustment to the Industrial‐Open Space District boundary.    l. Some items have been cleaned up (e.g., composting facilities have been added; the  requirement for a bus shelter to go through the DRB; a decrease in the minimum  parking standard for one bedroom and studio apartments from 2.25 to 1.25.)    m. The requirement that everything in the Airport terminal area be a PUD is being  removed and there can now be site plan review.    n. In the Southeast Quadrant, there is a minimum width for the non‐garage portion of  a building in relation to the garage.    o. The regulations set the infiltration standard but do not say how to get there.    p. There is a new standard for street ends/cul‐de‐sacs/hammerheads.  These standards  meet all city vehicles (e.g., fire trucks).    Mr. Conner said staff will provide guidance to the DRB and encouraged the Board to ask  questions when there is any confusion.    9. Minutes of 15 December 2015:    Minutes were not available.    10. Other Business:    Mr. Barritt noted the presence of a South Burlington High School student who is learning about  the DRB process.                  6        As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:25 p.m.           _________________________________       Clerk                                                                       _________________________________       Date