Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 07/19/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 JULY 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 July 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; S. McClellan, J. Crabbe, S. Kredell, F. Cresta 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller advised that both he and Ms. Smith had been reappointed to the DRB. 4. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Mr. Parsons noted that he has a conflict of interest with this application, but he would vote on the process as there would otherwise not be a quorum. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-16-14 until 2 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-05 of Stephen Kredell to remove a detached garage and replace it with a 1,130 sq. ft. addition to a 2,155 sq. ft. single family dwelling resulting in: 1) a 142 sq. ft. mudroom, 2) a 493 sq. ft. garage, and 3) a 395 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 34 Wright Court: Mr. Kredell said the owners want a place for their parents to live. There is an existing garage with an attached shed. This will be replaced with a 2-bay garage with an accessory unit in back. It will be connected to the house via a mudroom. The house will remain owner-occupied. Mr. Miller asked the applicant to confirm whether there will be a door from the accessory unit to the main house. He said the preference is for no connection because of the potential of fumes from the garage. Mr. Kredell said as no door is shown that this be considered the final plan. Mr. Cota then moved to close #CU-16-05. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-16 of Burlington International Airport to subdivide a 0.38 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 0.22 acres (lot #1) and 0.16 acres (lot #2), 12 Ledoux Terrace: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-16 to 23 August 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Sit Plan Application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers), of 342 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive: Mr. McClellan said the building had a previous addition. This is a new addition which will be used for the business. Trucks will back up to 2 overhead doors. The storage containers on the site are for equipment. Mr. McClellan indicated their location on the plan. Regarding landscaping, Mr. McClellan indicated the area where staff suggests screening. He felt as there was already some screening there, more is not needed. Staff also suggests screening behind storage boxes, but the adjacent property owner is filling in near that area, and it may not make sense to put trees there. Mr. Crabbe, owner of the Moveable Peaks parcel, added that the adjacent property owner says there will be 5-10 years of filling. Part of a land swap deal is that the adjacent owner will also fill in a portion of the Crabbe property. Mr. McClellan said they will provide screening for the dumpster. They are also aware of the Act 148 requirements. He indicated the area being filled in and noted the property was bought as a place to put fill from other sites. Mr. McClellan indicated three trees being credited. Ms. Britt said staff wasn’t sure those trees are being “saved” because they are not part of the project. Mr. McClellan said they screen the project from one side. Regarding the storage containers, Mr. McClellan showed their location on the site and said they are permanent storage areas. There is also a lot of movement of equipment on the site. Mr. McClellan also showed the location of a small propane storage rack which will remain. Mr. Crabbe said the propane goes with some of the equipment they rent. Members felt they wanted to hear from the owner of the property to the west as to whether screening would be a hindrance. They felt a quick e-mail would be OK, and they would be able to vote on a draft motion at the next meeting. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SP-16-38 to 2 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-17 of Cresta, Nedde 2, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 49,159 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of obtaining approval for a planned unit development to divide the building into two buildings of 5,010 sq. ft. and 44,149 sq. ft., 1891 Williston Road: Mr. Cresta said they are asking to remove a connector between the buildings which has no use. He indicated this on the plan and noted that the connector is actually accessible from only one of the buildings. They will probably just put grass in the area. No issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-17. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Minutes of 21 June and Joint Planning Commission/DRB Meeting of 12 April 2016: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 21 July and the joint meeting of 12 April 2016 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:45 p.m. , Clerk 9/5//2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sket ch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 17, 2016 Application received: May 20, 2016 150 Swift Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 Meeting Date: June 21, 2016 Owner Martin Thieret 210 Maquam Shore Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 Contact Nathan Dagesse EIV Technical Services 55 Leroy Rd., Suite 15 Williston, VT 05495 Applicant Eastern Development Corp. 300 Swift St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1700-00150 Residential 1 with Planned Residential Development District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six (6) two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements R1-PRD1 Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 217,800 SF 914,760 (21 acres) Max. Building Height 25 ft. (flat), 28 ft. (pitched) Unknown Max. Building Coverage 15% 1.3% Max. Overall Coverage 25% 2% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. >50 ft. Min. Side Setback 25 ft. >25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. 1Section 4.01(F)(1) states that for lots within the Residential 1 District that are five (5) acres in size or more and designated as R1-PRD a PUD may be permitted at a maximum of four (4) units per acre. The applicant is applying under this provision. Eighty-four (84) units are possible given the size of the property and the number of units allowed per acre. Twelve (12) units are proposed. If the applicant were not applying as a PUD under R1-PRD and instead under R1 then one (1) unit per acre would be allowed for a total of 21 units. In both scenarios, the applicant is presenting a project which is less than the maximum density allowed.  Zoning compliance Comments The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major land use regulations impacting this development and are, at this stage, intended to provide feedback on the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: lot configuration, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, open space planning, and building orientation and design. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, etc., certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, all hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these issues: Planned Unit Development Standards Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are intended “to encourage innovation in design and layout” and “efficient use of land.” Staff considers that the proposed project of six (6) condominium buildings each with two (2) units does not meet the intention of having innovative designs and layouts. Staff also thinks it may be possible to have more efficient land use with a different layout/orientation on the site. Since the plan is quite limited in details it is difficult to know whether there are any components that CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 would bring a degree of innovation to the project. As the project is presented now it appears to have a standard layout of houses lined up along a street with front facing garages and driveway parking. Staff believes there is an opportunity to redesign this project in a manner that is attractive, saleable, and innovative. The setting is well-suited to a form of pocket neighborhood, making use of a clustering of homes which is already a part of this plan in a manner that support a strong, vibrant, attractive neighborhood. 1. Staff recommends that the Board encourage the applicant to re-design the project in a manner this is more efficient, creates a greater sense of neighborhood, and makes use of its setting. 2. The Board may elect, at this or a future meeting or stage of review, to invoke an independent technical review of the project’s design at the applicant’s expense if they do not think the project meets the intent of the PUD regulations. A. Lot Configuration Lots are to be laid out in such a way as makes it possible for the lot to be developed in full compliance with the land development regulations and “giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions” (Section 15.10). There are no new lots proposed at this time. On the existing lot housing is clustered near Swift Street and away from wetlands and the Potash Brook. The lot presents difficulties in that it has both wetlands, Potash Brook running through it, and steep topography. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking The plans indicate six (6) on-street parking spaces will be provided to visitors of the proposed duplex units and that there will be two (2) parking spaces per unit (single car garage and parking in the driveway). The development is connected by a single street/private roadway which is shown as forming a loop with Swift Street, which results in two curb cuts. It is not known whether sidewalks will be provided along the proposed street. A private roadway is allowed on a road that has at least two (2) points of access and serves 19 or fewer units (Section 15.12(D)(3)(E), which this project represents. Connections to adjacent parcels may be required by the Board if they believe an adjacent property could be developed in the future. Staff notes that the property to the east of the proposed development could currently support additional housing under the R1-PRD regulations. 3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant if they have discussed the likelihood of the neighboring properties being developed in the future with those property owners. 4. Staff recommends the Board consider the likelihood of adjacent parcels being developed in the future and whether the applicant should be required to provide sufficient right-of-way. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss the need for the second curb cut as Swift Street is a collector street. C. Wetlands Impact Section 12.02(E) of the Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedure reads CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows the location on the property of Class II wetlands. The applicant stated in the submitted Project Narrative dated May 19, 2016 that the project would have no wetland impacts and no permanent impacts on the wetland buffers. D. Parks and Open Space Planning The submitted plan does not indicate any designated open space or related amenities onsite. The Project Narrative does say the applicant will “utilize landscaping and paths to the nearby woodland park;” however, it is not clear from the plans how that will be achieved, because paths are not shown and only very minimal and unidentified landscaping is shown. The site will remain largely undeveloped because of wetlands and streams and, with planning, these natural features and the woods may be of benefit to residents. 6. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant explain what they envision for landscaping and open space on the site, particularly what opportunity there will be for residents to connect to the rest of the property as an amenity. E. Building Orientation and Design CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 Details about orientation and design have not been provided other than the general outline of buildings on the lot, so it is difficult for staff to provide substantial comments on the plan at this point; however, several complicating factors do seem present. Three buildings are proposed to front on both the proposed street as well as Swift Street. The proposed building designs as presented are boxes, so it is not possible to tell whether the building orientation and design could lend some innovation or efficiency in use of land to the project. 7. Staff recommends, in a re-design of the project, that consideration be given to how the housing units could be oriented and designed to provide for an integrated neighborhood. F. Stormwater Comments Staff received an email June 13, 2016 from the Stormwater Section: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Overall Property Plan with Proposed Development – 150 Swift Street” prepared by EIB Technical Services, dated 5/12/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The overall lot coverage proposed is currently below 0.5 acres of impervious surface. Should future site plan submissions evolve to include 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. The applicant is encouraged to confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State. 8. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State. G. Fire In an email dated June 9, 2016 Fire Marshall Terry Francis shared the following comment with staff: Not see any concerns on sketch plan as presented H. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_June21_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 6 ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_05_34WrightCourt_Truchon_accessory_July_19_20 16_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 15, 2016 Plans received: June 10, 2016 34 Wright Court Conditional Use Application #CU-16-05 Meeting date: July 19, 2016 Owner Brent Truchon 34 Wright Ct. South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Stephen Kredell McLeod Kredell Architects 3 Frog Hollow Alley Middlebury, VT 05753 Property Information Parcel #1870-00034 Residential 4 Zoning District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_05_34WrightCourt_Truchon_accessory_July_19_2016_mtg 2 Project Description Conditional use application #CU-16-05 of Stephen Kredell to remove a detached garage and replace it with an 1,130 sq. ft. addition to a 2,155 sq. ft. single family dwelling resulting in: 1) a 142 sq. ft. mudroom, 2) a 493 sq. ft. garage, and 3) a 495 sq. ft. accessory residential unit, 34 Wright Court. Comments Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following comments to offer. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 9,500 SF 13,057 SF No change  Max. Building Coverage 20% 15% 18%  Max. Overall Coverage 40% 26% 28% ~Min. Front Setback 30 ft. <25 ft. No change Min. Side Setback 10 ft. Approx. 30 ft. Approx. 22 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. Approx. 13 ft. Approx. 15 ft. Max. Building Height 28 ft. Approx. 22 ft. Approx. 17 ft. for the proposed addition ~Pre-existing, non-conforming  In compliance A. ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS According to Section 3.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations: One (1) accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary single-family dwelling or within an existing, permitted accessory structure shall be a permitted single-family use, in accordance with the following criteria: (1) Floor space of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed thiry percent (30%) of the total habitable area of the single-family dwelling unit. The accessory residential unit is proposed to be 495 gross square feet, which is less than 18% of the habitable area of the house. Staff considers this criteria met. (2) The principal dwelling shall be owner-occupied. Materials submitted by the applicant do not include information on who will be occupying the single- family house. 1) Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that the principal dwelling must be owner- occupied. (3) The accessory dwelling unit shall be an efficiency or one-bedroom unit. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_05_34WrightCourt_Truchon_accessory_July_19_2016_mtg 3 The plans show that the unit will be a one-bedroom unit, so staff considers this criteria met. (4) Adequate wastewater capacity is available to service the accessory unit… Prior to being issued a zoning permit, the applicant will have to show that either a Wastewater Allocation or on-site wastewater permit has been issued. This will be a condition of the Board’s decision. (5) Two (2) additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot, either in a garage or in a driveway, and not in any areas required to meet coverage limitations, or any front yard area other than a driveway, required by these Regulations. The proposed plan shows two (2) parking spaces in the garage and two (2) parking spaces in the driveway. Staff considers this criteria met. (6) If occupancy of the unit is to be restricted in the deed of the single-family home to a disabled person, no additional off-street parking is required. The applicant has not indicated that the unit will be restricted to a disabled person, therefore staff considers this criteria to not be applicable. (7) A zoning permit shall be required for each accessory residential unit. Conditional Use Review by the Development Review Board pursuant to Article 14, Section 14.10 shall be required if the establishment of the accessory residential unit involves the construction of a new accessory structure, an increase in the height or floor area of the existing single-family dwelling or existing accessory structure, or an increase in the dimensions of the off-street parking areas (i.e. garages and driveway areas) presently existing on the site. B. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. Staff considers that the proposed addition will not negatively impact existing or planned community facilities, because the apartment is unlikely to have more than two (2) occupants. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The R4 Zoning District encourages residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. Staff considers that this accessory unit fits in a moderately dense neighborhood which has two (2) nearby recreational areas with trails, because the unit will likely house only one (1) to two (2) people. Additionally, the unit will have CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU_16_05_34WrightCourt_Truchon_accessory_July_19_2016_mtg 4 limited visual impact on the neighborhood, because it will be tucked behind a traditional two (2) car garage. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers that there is potential for the proposed unit to add another car or two (2) to the neighborhood; however, this project is also located near bike routes and public transit, which help to decrease auto traffic on roads. Staff considers that any impact will be inconsequential. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The proposed addition with an accessory residential unit represents an increase in overall building coverage and lot coverage, but this change is within the permitted limits. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed addition and accessory residential unit will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane Phone: 802-864-2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 Fax: 802-864-2271 E-Mail: bgilson@cea-vt.com July 14, 2016 Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION Dear Raymond, Please accept this request on behalf of the Burlington International Airport for the Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-16 (12 Ledoux Terrace) currently on the agenda for the July 19, 2016 Design Review Board Meeting to be continued to the next scheduled meeting. Sincerely, Rebecca Gilson, PLS Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 A C E A C E 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_access ory_July_19_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 15, 2016 Plans received: June 13, 2016 14 Berard Drive Site Plan Application #SP-16-38 Meeting date: July 19, 2016 Owner/Applicant Moveable Peaks, Inc. 14 Berard Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Property Information Parcel #0200-00014 Mixed Industrial-Commercial District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 2 Project Description Site plan application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers) of 342 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive. Comments Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following comments to offer. A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Mixed Industrial-Commercial Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 142,400 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 20% 23.5% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 43.4% 47%  Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 26.4% 29.8%  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft >10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. Max. Building Height (pitched) 40 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.  Zoning Compliance B. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. The lot on which the accessory structures are located is greater than one (1) acre in size and therefore may have more than two (2) accessory structures. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 3 The twelve (12) accessory structures are located behind the building. Staff considers this criteria met. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The accessory structures are more than five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. Staff considers this criteria met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. The accessory structures comply with the front setback requirements for the principal structure. Staff considers this criteria met. (8) … (9) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. The applicant states that the accessory structures are each 342 square feet in size and therefore the total area for all the accessory structures is 4,104 square feet. The existing building is 28,514 square feet, which results in the accessory structures being 14.4% of the total square footage. If the proposed addition is built the accessory structures will be 12.3% of the total square footage. Staff considers this criteria met. (10) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. The applicant confirmed to staff in an email dated July 14, 2016 that the accessory structures were included in the lot coverage calculations. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14 of the Land Development Regulations establish the following general review standards for site plan applications: 1) Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 4 the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is located in the Northeast Quadrant where the pattern of land use has “focused on businesses which require larger properties, can be compatible with the operations of an airport, and/or which may not be easily compatible with residential areas. Future use of land in developed areas should continue to focus on employers an ancillary services. It should also continue to emphasize uses that are less critical within the core of the City.” Staff considers that the services provided by Moveable Peaks are those which are not critical to the core of the City and that this type of businesses would not be easily compatible with a residential area. Staff considers this criteria met. 2) Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1. The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The accessory structures on the site do not appear to staff to have a planned relationship to the principal existing building or to each other. The accessory structures are predominantly located around the perimeter of the rear parking area. Staff presumes there may be some plan to where each structure is located, but cannot identify a pattern. Staff considers that a landscaped buffer between the accessory structures and the adjacent property would be appropriate in this circumstance to soften the structures and provide some buffer between the building and any future adjacent development. 1) Staff recommends the Board require a landscaped buffer between the accessory structures and the property to the west. 2. Parking The number of parking spaces will increase from 32 to 42 to accommodate the increase in square footage that is the result of the proposed addition (two (2) spaces/1,000 sq. ft. for equipment rental use). This increase in parking is being achieved without increasing the overall lot coverage by removing a portion of impervious pavement and replacing with pervious pavement. Staff considers this criteria met. 3. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed addition is the same height as the existing building and will have the same color, type, and style of siding. Staff considers this criteria met. 3) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1. The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 5 2. Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed addition and accessory structures are within an area that is predominantly industrial and commercial without any adjacent housing and it is very near the airport. The buildings in this area tend to reflect that setting by being more industrial looking and this site follows that pattern. The proposed addition will blend with the existing building by having the same color, type, and style of siding. The construction of the addition will result in the building being closer to an existing gravel parking area on an adjacent lot and there is no proposed landscaping or screening between the building and the parking area. Staff considers that a landscaped buffer between the building and the adjacent property would be appropriate in this circumstance to soften the building and provide some buffer between the building and any future adjacent development. 2) Staff recommends the Board require a landscaped buffer between the proposed addition and the property to the west. D. SPECIFIC REVIEW STANDARDS A. Access to abutting properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plans do not show the addition of any utility infrastructure. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non- dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No new dumpsters, recycling, or composting areas are proposed; however, the dumpsters are proposed to be moved to a new location on the site which will be closer to the adjacent property. No information is provided in the plans regarding composting facilities and screening for dumpsters. Staff considers that screening for the dumpsters will be important given their proximity to the property line. 3) Staff recommends the Board request the applicant install opaque screening around the dumpsters to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the area. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 6 4) Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant about Act 148, also known as Vermont’s Universal Recycling and Composting law, and encourage the applicant to think ahead to compliance with the law, which could mean additional space in the dumpster area, so that the applicant does not have to return to the Board with a future request to amend the site plan. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The applicant is requesting that the value of some existing trees on the property be counted towards the total landscaping budget requirement (Section 13.06(G)). The applicant’s landscape architect has estimated the combined value of the trees is $12,366. Proposed new landscaping totals $2,489 for a combined total of $14,855. Staff considers it positive that the applicant will be preserving some of the large, existing trees on the site; however, staff has identified a number of needed landscaping improvements and considers that only once those are addressed should a credit be considered. According to landscaping information submitted by the applicant, building construction cost is estimated at $450,000. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $4,000 Remainder over $500,000 1% N/A Total: $11,500 Landscaping Estimated Value Existing trees to remain $12,366 New plantings $2,489 Total: $14,855 As mentioned in staff comments above, staff considers that a landscaped buffer between the accessory structures and the adjacent property to the west would be appropriate to soften the structures and provide some buffer between the building and any future adjacent development. Also mentioned above, staff considers that a landscaped buffer between the proposed addition and the gravel parking area to the west would be appropriate. 5) Staff recommends the Board require a landscaped buffer between the accessory structures and the adjacent property to the west. 6) Staff recommends the Board require a landscaped buffer between the proposed addition and the gravel parking area. 7) Staff recommends the Board discuss the above two (2) items regarding landscaped buffers prior to considering the applicant’s request for a landscaping credit. E. LIGHTING Pursuant to Section 13.07(A) of the Land Development Regulations, all exterior lighting shall be shielded and downcast to prevent light from spilling onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. In an email CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 7 dated July 14, 2016 the applicant confirmed to staff that the lighting fixtures met the requirements of the LDRs. F. Stormwater Staff received the following comment in an email from the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent on July 12, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Vermont Tent Company” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing, dated 6/7/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. For projects where the combination of New Impervious Area and Redeveloped/Substantially Reconstructed Existing Impervious Surface is equal to or greater than 5,000 sf, the application must meet the requirements of Section 12.03(C) of the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs). 2. If the area of the lot or parcel being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed is less than 50% of the lot’s existing impervious surface area, then only those portions of the lot or parcel that are being redeveloped or substantially reconstructed must comply with all parts of Section 12.03(C) of the LDRs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave In an email to staff dated July 14, 2016 the applicant confirmed that the new and reconfigured impervious surfaces will be less than 5,000 sq. ft., that the improvements to the property represent less than 50% of the property, and the development is proposed to conform with stormwater regulations. G. Other In photos of the site submitted by the applicant it appears there may be some outdoor storage occurring onsite that is not reflected on the site plan. It is not clear from the applicant’s materials whether that storage will be moved into the proposed addition or whether it will continue to exist outdoors. 8) Staff recommends the Board get clarification from the applicant regarding whether there is outdoor storage on the site and, if so, ask the applicant to update the site plan to indicate where the outdoor storage is located. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_38_14BerardDrive_MoveablePeaks_addition_accessory_July_19_2016 8 ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 13 e xi sti n g s p a c e s N/FLot 10-11-12 Movable Peaks, Inc.VERMONT TENT COMPANYx286.5 0287.33x290.83x4 existing spaces5 existing spaces5 existing spacesVAN287.00x290.83 xx290.50x290.72291.08xx287.33 New grassConcrete monument foundLegendUtility poleApproximate property line / right of wayExisting water lineNew contourtraverse / control pointXX370370Existing contourNew pervious pavementNew storm lineNew signExisting lightNew or Relocated lightPlanning and Zoning InformationOwner and Applicant: Movable Peaks, Inc.14 Berard DriveSouth Burlington, Vt. 05403(802) - 863-6107Area: 3.27 acresZoned: Mixed Industrial - Commercial District (IC)Lot Coverage: 142,400 s.f.Existing ProposedBuildings 28,514 sf 20.0% 33,398 sf 23.5% (30% max.)Paved/Concrete 33,328 sf 23.4% 32,505 sf 22.8%Pervious Paved0 sf0%997 sf0.70%Total lot coverage 61,842 sf 43.4% 67,019 sf 47.0% (70% max.)Front yard: 15,836 s.f.Paved 4,181 sf 26.4% 4,720 sf 29.8% (30% max.)Parking: Previous approved:35 employees x 2 spaces/3 employees 24 spaces8 company vehicles8 spacesRequired spaces 32 spacesThis Application(Equipment Rental, 2 spaces/1,000s.f. floor area required)4820 s.f. new structure / 1,000 s.f. x 2 =9.6 spaces10 spaces42 spaces requiredTotal: 42 spaces providedThe existing building will continue to be served by municipal water and sewer.DateProjectDesignDrawnCheckedScaleDate revisedDescription Checked DateWHNSITE PLANLot 10, 11 Berard Drive South Burlington, VermontSP-1SLM6/7/16File namePrinting date6/8/1615356 vt tent kl-base15356Bar Scale1" = '200'20'40'80'120'VERMONT TENT COMPANY1" = 20'Remove existing RR Tie walls16' DoorFFE 291.33Proposed Addition4,820 sq. ft.FFE 291.33Relocate and re-stripe10 spaces. Providehandicap space.Extend existing 8" PVC culvert to new daylight @ 284.50Relocate existing trash and recycling containersRelocate one existing containerRemove asphalt, curb and gravelbase. Replace with on-site fill and 4"topsoil.Seed and mulch with rollederosion fabric (typ.).Sawcut/remove asphalt, curband gravel base. Replace withon-site fill and 4" topsoil.Seedand mulch with rolled erosionfabric (typ.).New pervious pavement and full base. See detail.Cut existing curb. Provide new tip-down at driveway edgeChange to handicap spaceand stripe appropriately.Shim pavement to requiredelevations.New/relocated bicycle rack30' Front Setback10' Side SetbackSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow StorageSnow Storage 3 Proposed Spaces 6 Proposed SpacesSnow Storage New concrete curbNew sharp cutoff wall lamp OHD OHD2 new OHD'sRemove existing OHD. Replace with newman door. Provide stairs (by others).Maintain existing OHDNew man door. Relocateexisting awningNew man doorNew handicap signNew handicap signRemove a portion (or all) of existing concrete padAssumed relocated existingutility easement (by others)30' Rear S etback Relocated container on railroad tiesConstruct 6 permitted spaces 13 ex is t in g s p a ce s N/FLot 10-11-12 Movable Peaks, Inc.VERMONT TENT COMPANY4 existing spaces5 existing spaces5 existing spacesAdditional topographic field work was completed by Krebsand Lansing in September 2002 & April 2016.6.Site information for Vt. Tent lot taken fromdesign drawings by Michael Lawrence Assoc.dated 12/8/97.5.4.dated 9/1/95.record drawing for Lot 12 Berard Drive Site information for Agway lot taken fromAdditional boundary information was taken from a Plat of Survey for Peter Bove, Sr. & PeterBove, Jr. prepared by John Marsh dated 5/23/83.See final plat for Pidgeon by Harold Marsh.(Interpolation used to create 5 foot contours.)Chittenden County Regional Planning.Rene J. Berard prepared by John Marsh. Burlington tax maps and a Plat of Survey forTopographic information provided byBoundary information was taken from South Notes:1.2.3.Existing number and locations of containers shown asdirected by Owner.7.DateProjectDesignDrawnCheckedScaleDate revisedDescription Checked DateWHNEXISTING FEATURES PLANLot 10, 11 Berard Drive South Burlington, VermontEX-1SLMWHN6/7/16File namePrinting date6/8/1615356 vt tent kl-base15356Bar Scale1" = '300'30'60'120'180'VERMONT TENT COMPANY1" = 30'See SP-1 for Legend Schematic Building ElevationScale:Date:Scale:VERMONT TENT COMPANYJob No:KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618klengineers@comcast.netEL-1153565/25/16NTS1/8"=1'-0"Dashed line indicates end of existing structureRelocated fabric awningexistingOHDNewOHDNewOHDNew sharp cut-off lamps. See Lighting Plan.Partial South ElevationExisting retaining wallNew retaining wallSiding material, pattern and colorto match existing. See photosNote: This drawing is a schematic only.Architectural services will be required forbuilding design and code compliance.Remove existing OHD. Replace with man door.New stairs (by others) 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_17_1891WillistonRoad_CrestaNedde2_PUD_building_ division_July_19_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 15, 2016 Plans received: June 16, 2016 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-17 CRESTA, NEDDE 2, LLC—1891 WILLISTON ROAD Meeting Date: July 19, 2016 Owner Cresta, Nedde 2, LLC 747 Pine Street, Suite 501 Burlington, VT 05401 Applicant Doug Nedde 747 Pine Stree, Suite 501 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_17_1891WillistonRoad_CrestaNedde2_PUD_building_division_July_19_2016.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-17 of Cresta, Nedde 2, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for a 49,159 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of obtaining approval for a planned unit development to divide the building into two (2) buildings of 5,010 sq. ft. and 44,149 sq. ft., 1891 Williston Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on June 16, 2016 and have the following comments to offer. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Mixed Industrial-Commercial Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 156,816 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 29.8% 29.7% *Max. Overall Coverage 70% 78.5% 78.5% *Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 38.6% 38.6%  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft >10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. >30 ft.  Zoning Compliance * Pre-existing non-compliance B) MULTIPLE USES AND MULTIPLE STRUCTURES Pursuant to Section 3.09(A) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, only one (1) principal building or structure is allowed on a lot unless the project meets the standards of Section 3.09(C), which allows the Development Review Board to approve multiple principal structures as part of a PUD. C) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18(A) of the LDRs, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. (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. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. (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 above criterion are unaffected by the proposed project, which consists of removing a small, single-story connector between two (2) sections of the building to create two (2) separate buildings. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_17_1891WillistonRoad_CrestaNedde2_PUD_building_division_July_19_2016.doc 3 (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. Staff considers that the removal of the single-story connector will not change the visually compatibility of the project with its surroundings. (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. Open space areas will not be impacted by this project. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The applicant shared with staff that their discussion with the Fire Department indicated the Department did not have an issue with the proposal. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). None of the above criterion will be impacted by the proposed project. D) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan will not impacted by this project. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Staff considers that the proposed removal of a single-story connector to create two (2) buildings will alter the transition between the two (2) buildings by creating greater separation; however, this alteration is minor and staff considers it insignificant. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_17_1891WillistonRoad_CrestaNedde2_PUD_building_division_July_19_2016.doc 4 (2) Parking… (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The above criterion will not be impacted by the proposed project. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The above criterion will not be impacted by the proposed project. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) The above criterion will not be impacted by the proposed project. RECOMMENDATION Discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 21 JUNE 2016 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 June 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Planning Department; E. Farrell, M. McCormack, 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted that he and Ms. Smith had been interviewed by the City Council for reappointment to the DRB. 4. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-22 of Ten Farrell Street, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 26,125 sq. ft. mixed use building. The amendment is for an umbrella approval to allow for additional permitted uses, 10 Farrell Street: Mr. McCormack reviewed additional landscaping provided at the Board’s request, including 2 honey locust trees and redwood/dogwood shrubs. There are also 5 river birch more toward the corner. Mr. McCormack also noted that there is actually more existing screening than what was shown on the plan. Mr. Miller noted that Mr. Behr had communicated that he is now satisfied with the screening provided. No other issues were raised. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 21 JUNE 2016 2 Mr. Cota moved to close #SP-16-22. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-16-09 of Eric Farrell to subdivide a 6.67 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 2.559 acres (lot #1) and 4.111 acres (lot #2), 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Parsons and Mr. Kochman stated that they have both done business with Mr. Farrell in the past but did not feel this required them recusing themselves from this hearing. Mr. Farrell explained that parcel #1 has frontage on Shelburne Road. Parcel #2 is a right-of-way access of Larkin property to Fayette Drive. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-09. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. 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: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to a later date. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 23 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Master plan application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and an unspecified square footage of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Staff advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-16-01 to 5 July 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5- 0. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 21 JUNE 2016 3 8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-16-13 of O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, to subdivide a 49.9 acre parcel into eight lots ranging in size from 1.94 acres to 13.51 acres, 255 Kennedy Drive: Staff advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-13 to 5 July 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5- 0. 9. Sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12- unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Staff advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 19 July 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5- 0. 10. Staff report on administrative site plan decisions: Mr. Belair directed attention to spread sheets indicating site plan decisions including those made as administrative decisions. He noted that some approvals have expired because zoning permits were not secured within the required six months. 11. Minutes of 7 June 2016: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 7 June 2016 as written. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Other Business: No other business was presented. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 21 JUNE 2016 4 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:31 p.m. ______________________________, Clerk ______________________________, Date