Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 03/01/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1 MARCH 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 March 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; E. Farrell, T. McKenzie, D. Burke, B. Currier, J. & S. Jewett, J. Feussner, P. Brogna 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 Mr. Barritt was not present as he is a candidate for the City Council and is at the polls. Mr. Conner advised that the new member of the Planning Department, Lindsey Britt began work today. 4. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-15-79 of Jon Svitarsky to amend a previously approved plan for a 7,020 sq. ft. building used as a radio and television station. The amendment consists of converting the building to a Group Home (community residence) use to house a maximum of 25 residents, 372 Dorset Street. Mr. Conner advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-15-79 to 15 March 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 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) 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. Conner advised that the applicant had asked that this item be continued. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 5 April 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-45 of Holmberg Properties for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) six two-family dwellings, and 2) one 3-unit multi-family dwelling, 1170 & 1180 Dorset Street: Mr. Feussner said the property is on Park Road, off Dorset St. He noted there are many changes from the previously presented plan. He said that when they tested for ledge, they confirmed what had been suspected – exposed ledge, 2‐3 feet deep. It goes higher into the upper plateau than they had expected. This confirms the difficulty of connecting the 2 parts of the plan. Mr. Feussner then showed the proposed plan. He indicated the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) restricted areas. These will be addressed as they move forward. Mr. Feussner showed the original location of the triplex. There was interest by the Board in moving it and pulling everything away from Dorset Street. They have thus flipped some units and moved the triplex to the upper lot. This gave them another 15-20 feet between buildings and distance from Dorset Street. It also allows them to coordinate a bit with the project to the north. Curb cuts from the 2 projects will be directly across from each other. A question had also been raised as to whether the driveways were long enough. They have added a few feet to each driveway. All are at least 20 feet long and can accommodate two vehicles. There was also a question about turnarounds. They got information from Terry Francis as to what those should be. The plan is for 2 “Y” turnarounds to conform to what was requested. With regard to the existing pump station, Mr. Feussner said not much can be salvaged from this. They will remove it and put in a new one at the southern end of the project. They have the elevation to make it work. Mr. Feussner noted the importance of getting people (bikers, pedestrians) to the rec path on Dorset Street. He indicated the route of a path to accomplish this without crossing any major roadways. The proposed berms have been revised and raised a bit. There still needs to be a plan for landscaping them. A split rail fence has been added to delineate the wetland buffer and create separation from the yards. With regard to stormwater, Mr. Feussner said there will be a grass swale on Park Road with additional swales to tie into an underground system. The plan is not yet complete, and Public Works still has some concerns. There will be lighting at the westerly curb cut (at least one street light). Mr. Feussner said they are amenable to any other traffic calming. The radii of driveways have been reduced, and they have refined the parallel parking spaced and given them definition. Architecturally, the buildings will be similar to those of Heatherfield, with garages in front. They have extended the buildings and doors to line up with the garages. Renderings will be presented a preliminary plat. Mr. Miller noted that staff notes ask that units #1, 3 and 10 should look attractive on the side that faces Park Road. The berms will probably eliminate the need for them to look so good facing Dorset Street. Mr. Wilking questioned the “fake berms.” Mr. Feussner said they would have them line up with others in the area. They might be able to handle issues without the berms and with just landscaping. Mr. Wilking said he wanted them landscaped so they “don’t look like a giant speedbump.” Mr. Miller noted staff’s request that to the extent practicable, the road widths of the private drives should be reduced where there is no on‐street parking. But there should still be space for bikes and pedestrians. Mr. Miller also noted that the plan should be revised to show the SEQ boundaries in relation to restricted areas. Members felt this plan looks better than the previous plan. There was no public comment. 7. Site Plan Application k#SP-16-04 of Eric Farrell for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30-unit multi-family dwelling * 3,700 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63-unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 54 unit multi-family dwelling. The amendment consists of: 1) altering a pedestrian access along the east side of the building, and 2) revising the landscaping plan, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive: Mr. Farrell said they had made the dog park handicapped accessible and had to rebuild the street. The dog park can now be accessed at grade and meets all handicapped standards. With regard to the landscaping, Mr. Farrell said they eliminated the retaining wall and added plantings to screen the transformer. They also relocated some landscaping (he showed this on the plan). The money value of landscaping is slightly more than before. Members suggested hatch-striping near where vehicles are to indicate that there is pedestrian use. Mr. Farrell said they could also add signage on that side of the curb. Mr. Conner said staff are happy to look at the situation and present it next time. He suggested continuing the application as there isn’t a motion prepared as yet. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-04 to 15 March 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-16-05 and Design Review Application #DR-16-01 of South Burlington Realty Company to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,200 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) changing the use of the building to personal instruction, 2) altering the exterior design of the building, and 3) adding an HVAC unit on the north side of the building, 40 San Remo Drive: Mr. McKenzie said the existing building was built as an industrial building and was most recently a contractor’s office. The new use will be a yoga studio. They need to increase the air conditioning capability because of this use. The exterior of the building will be overlaid with smooth insulated foam panels. They will use a wall of glass to bring light into the back studio area. Mr. McKenzie indicated where the glazing will go on the building. Mr. Wilking felt this will be a great improvement. He said he would like to see a rendering of what the building will look like. Mr. McKenzie asked if they can get the change of use, add the condenser tonight and deal with the design of the building at another time because of a “time crunch.” Mr. Conner explained the “Catch 22” with that plan. Mr. McKenzie showed members the proposed building color (grey with bronze framing of the glass panels). They will replace the current entrance door with a glass door (where there is a canopy). He stressed that they will take better care of the building and also handle snow removal. With regard to trash, Mr. McKenzie said there will be a couple of totes in the back. An upgraded landscaping plan was provided. It indicates a lot of natural vegetation. The new air conditioning unit will have plantings around it. Mr. Conner suggested continuing the hearing to get a draft decision and to get a photo shop version of the siding. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-05 and #DR-16-01 until 15 March 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-16-01 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) shifting Russett Road & Puritan Street to minimize wetland intrusions, 2) revising the storm drains so as to connect all footing drains directly into the stormwater system, and 3) residential design review for the single family dwelling on lots #1- #66, 1580 Dorset Street: Mr. Currier said the plat was not filed within the 180 days. Since then, the stormwater regulations have been updated, and a portion of one road fell under the new regulations. Mr. Currier said Public Works is happy with the new design. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-16-01. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Final Plat Application #SD-16-02 of Jeffery & Elizabeth Goldberg to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) six two-family dwellings, and 2) three single family lots. The amendment consists of planting additional landscaping to replace existing plantings which were removed without approval, Windswept Lane: Mr. Conner noted receipt of letters from two of the neighbors, the Jewetts and the Ruggerios. Mr. Burke then showed what was approved. He said there was also a strip of tree line that did not exist and was shown incorrectly on the plan. The proposal is to plan 10 pine trees. Mr. Burke also noted that Act 250 wanted additional landscaping in front. The City Arborist is OK with the 15 spruces planned there. Some trees were taken down by a second contractor in error. The proposal is to plant trees in that area. Mr. Burke gave members a photo showing the tree line between 2 units. The question is whether what is being proposed behind units 9 and 10 is adequate. Mr. Miller read the comments from the Ruggerios who expressed concern with trees that were cut down. They asked that these be replaced. They want 10-12 foot trees instead of the 6 foot that are proposed. They also want a privacy fence. Mr. Miller then read the letter from the Jewetts. They are questioning the setback requirement for the corner lots. They are also concerned with exterior lighting. Mr. Jewett said that the corner lots should have 2 setbacks according to the ordinance. Mr. Miller noted this is the plan that was approved. Mr. Conner added that if the Board approved it and there was no appeal that is the approved plan. Mr. Burke said the plan was never changed and was staked out that way. He felt that one setback is a side yard setback. Mr. Jewett said that in no plan was there a building penetrating the tree line. Mrs. Jewett said indicated where there had been trees planted in 2 rows, 6 feet apart. She said these were cut down and the stumps taken out of the ground and burned. An overhead of the area before the project was built was shown to members. Mr. Jewett showed an area where there are no trees and “just a pile of dirt.” Mr. Burke said that dirt is temporary. Mr. Jewett said there are no trees behind the dirt and there are supposed to be. Mr. Burke said the trees are there, and the edge of the tree line is consistent with the plan. Mr. Wilking felt that 5 feet was pretty small for trees and suggested something a little larger. Mr. Burke said up to 8 feet is pretty manageable, but it is hard to keep anything more than that alive. They are willing to do 12 feet on center instead of 15. Ms. Jewett said they have an issue with snow blowing through that area. Mr. Wilking said if it is a snow issue, a cedar hedge would serve better than trees. Members were OK with the street trees required by the Act 250 approval. Members agreed that they would like to visit the site. They agreed to do this on 7 March at 4 p.m. Ms. Jewett was also concerned with lighting that is so bright “it looks like a landing strip.” Mr. Jewett said they are LED lights and are not facing down. Mr. Conner said he would recommend that they have them checked as they may be set at the wrong setting. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-02 until the site visit of 7 March 2016 at 4 p.m., and the hearing on 5 April 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Minutes of 16 February 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 16 February 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: Mr. Wilking noted a preliminary report that Mr. Barritt had been elected to the City Council. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. , Clerk 03/15/2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units _sketch_March_1_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 26, 2016 Plans received: February 19, 2016 Holmberg Properties - Park Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-45 Meeting date: March 1, 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_March_1_2016_mtg.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Continued 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 revised plans submitted on February 19, 2016 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. Based on the Board’s feedback at the last meeting, the applicant has revised its plans. These plans, together with the applicant’s summary of the changes, are included in this packet. Please note that the Department of Public Works has not yet had a chance to review and provide feedback on the updated plans. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_March_1_2016_mtg.doc Number of Residential Units The project seeks approval for 15 (fifteen) dwelling units via the construction of six (6) duplex 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 on the plans submitted on December 3, 2015 which are quoted below. NOTE: the Department of Public Works has not yet had the chance to review and provide comments on the revised submittal. The comments below, therefore, remain from the original plans. 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_March_1_2016_mtg.doc 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? 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 on the plans submitted on December 3, 2015 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 Planning & Zoning staff notes that the revised plans submitted on February 19, 2016 appear to address some of the comments however additional consultation with the Public Works Department seems appropriate prior to submission of a preliminary plat application. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_March_1_2016_mtg.doc 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 for preliminary plat application. Neighborhood Design Staff comments are focused on ways to strengthen the identity of this development as a residential neighborhood. The initial comments submitted for the January 19, 2016 meeting are shown below. Additional comments reflecting analysis of the plans submitted on February 19, 2016 are italicized and in brackets below. 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. [The plan has been revised to reduce these radii.] 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. [The applicant has revised the location of the curb cut serving units #1 -9 to align with the proposed location of a future curb cut to the north.] 3. To the extent practicable, the northerly elevations of units 1, 3 and 10 should try to address Park Road rather than looking like the side of a building. A wrap around porch or other feature could be used. [It appears that this comment has been addressed but without seeing elevations for the buildings it is difficult to tell. This can be confirmed at preliminary plat.] 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. [While the applicant has not included this exact recommendation, the proposed gravel footpath will serve this purpose.] 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. [The applicant’s plans now provide for such a footpath.] 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. [It appears no change has been made. Given the need to provide for on-street parking, staff would encourage the applicant to reduce the width of the roads wherever practicable.] 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. [The applicant has indicated that the architecture of the units has been revised to deemphasize the garages on the front of the units. The adjacent frontage of the units, the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_March_1_2016_mtg.doc entrance, walkway and roofline have been pulled forward to make the garages less prominent.] 8. On-street parking area should only be allowed on one side of the street. [The applicant’s revised plans detail the location of on-street parking. This may be more parking than is needed. AS the project moved to preliminary plat, staff will recommend that pavement widths be minimized where possible, while still complying with fire department needs.] 9. Staff would like the applicant to describe the purpose and design of the berms. [Staff would still like the applicant to discuss the berms. With the walking path connection, and with the standards for development within Restricted Areas in the 2003 regulations, the berms as presented are likely acceptable.] 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 (F), 15.18 (A) & (B) of the LDRs. With regards to this issue, the applicant’s engineer commented on February 19, 2016 as follows: One item of note – regarding the request to show the SEQ “Restricted Area” on the plan, as the map scale was a little small, it was difficult to identify the exact boundary line. What was clear, was that most, if not all, of the proposed development falls within the “restricted area” and will be subject to Section 9.08(B) of the LRD’s. As such, instead of identifying a specific line, I’ve simply added this designation as an “overlay district” in the zoning requirement chart on C2.0. Hope this carries the day. As always, any questions, please let me know. Jeffrey Olesky, P.E. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_15_45_1302_ParkRoad_HolmbergProperties_15_units_sketch_March_1_2016_mtg.doc 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. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Peter Holmberg, applicant CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_04_80EastwoodDrive_30JoyDrive_afterfact_pedestria n_access_landscaping DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 26, 2016 Application received: January 11, 2016 F&M DEVELOPMENT CO. – 80 EASTWOOD DRIVE & 30 JOY DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-04 Meeting Date: March 1, 2016 Owner/Applicant F&M Development Co. P.O. Box 1335 Burlington, VT 05402 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0617-00080 1.25 acres C-1-R-15 Zoning District Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_16_04_80EastwoodDrive_30JoyDrive_afterfact_pedestrian_access_landscaping.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-16-04 of Eric Farrell for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved amend a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) consisting of: 1) a 41,000 sq. ft. general office building, 2) a 30 unit multi-family dwelling & 3,700 sq. ft. of light manufacturing use, 3) a 63 unit multi-family dwelling, and 4) a 54 unit multi-family dwelling. The amendment consists of: 1) altering a pedestrian access along the east side of the building, and 2) revising the landscaping plan, 80 Eastwood Drive & 30 Joy Drive. COMMENTS Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner; Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner, Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the application submitted on January 11, 2016, and offer the following comments. The overall project was previously approved on March 21, 2015 by the Board in its Findings of Fact & Decision for application #SD-13-43. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements Table 1. Dimensional Requirements C-1, R-15 Zoning District Required Proposed ◊ Residential Density 15 units per acre (131 units) 146 units √ Max. Building Coverage 40% 12.4 % √ Max. Overall Coverage 70% 43.75 % √ Min. Front Setback (Eastwood Drive) 30 ft. 115 ft. * Min. Front Setback (Joy Drive) 30 ft. 25 ft. √ Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. √ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. * Max Building Height and Max. Stories 35 ft. / 4 stories 62.31 ft. / 5 stories √ zoning compliance ◊ Exceeded allowance; density bonus approved by Board, re application #SD-13-43 *Waivers approved by Board, re application #SD-13-43 (5’ decrease in front yard setback, 27.31’ height increase). SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: 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. In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board found the amount and location of parking acceptable. However, as detailed in sheets L-101; L-103 and L-201, with regards to the issue of adequate planting and safe pedestrian movement, the applicant’s as built-plans are different than what was previously approved. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_16_04_80EastwoodDrive_30JoyDrive_afterfact_pedestrian_access_landscaping.doc Specifically, the as-built plans and requested change remove the sidewalk near the northeast portion of the building which was designed to facilitate access to the sidewalk along Joy Drive and the private dog park as well as provide pedestrian movement as cars entered and exited the property using the adjacent entrance. The original design provided a more predictable and clearer pedestrian crossing of the driveway than the “as-built” access. The original design provided a cross walk across the driveway opposite the access to the dog park whereas the “as-built” access does not provided a cross walk and places the pedestrians in a location which requires them to walk along the driveway for approximately 40 feet without a sidewalk. Having said that, it is not an ADA requirement that this cross-walk, and there are difficult topographic elements to the site. As the Board has paid special attention to this subject at the time of the original applicant, staff felt it appropriate to have this proposed change reviewed and determined by the Board. Staff also notes the numerous minor as-built features (landscaping, benches, flag poles, screening, etc.) that differ from what was approved. 1. The Board should review the plans submitted and determine whether to approve or require modifications to the as-built-plans. Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board previously approved and granted a 27.31 ft. height waiver to allow a five-story building that will be 62.31 ft. in height. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 2. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board previously found this criterion met. However, see note #1 above. 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. In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board previously found this criterion met. 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: 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_16_04_80EastwoodDrive_30JoyDrive_afterfact_pedestrian_access_landscaping.doc provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board previously found that the reservation of additional land was not warranted. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. 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). In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board previously found this criterion met. Landscaping Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plans. The plans show “non-exclusive”, shared snow storage areas for the subject properties. Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G) (2) of the SBLDR. The landscape plan and landscape budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer. In an email to staff dated February 17, 2016, the City Arborist commented as follows: I also looked at the as built landscaping additions for 80 Eastwood Dr. and they’re fine. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board required posting of a landscape bond with a value of $16, 112. The applicant did not plant hedgerows on the north side of the building as detailed in the approved plans. According to the applicant, the value of that hedgerow was estimated at $3,300. The applicant instead planted four (4) magnolias and three (3) birch trees with a value of $3,400. Staff considers this $100 difference to be negligible and that no changes to the bond are necessary and that the property remains compliant with this criterion. Lighting CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SP_16_04_80EastwoodDrive_30JoyDrive_afterfact_pedestrian_access_landscaping.doc Pursuant to Appendix A.9 of the Land Development Regulations, luminaries shall not be placed more than 30’ above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not exceed an average of three (3) foot candles. Pursuant to Appendix A.10(b) of the Land Development Regulations, indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot candles maximum, with an average level of illumination of 0.1 foot candles. All lighting shall be shielded and downcast. In its decision for #SD-13-43, the Board previously found this criterion to be met. However, the applicant is asking for after-the-fact approval of an illuminated flagpole. Staff notes that the applicant needs to apply for a zoning permit to do so pursuant to Section 13.08 Specific Requirements for Nighttime Illumination of Governmental Flags. Stormwater The Department of Public Works provided the following comments to staff via email on February 17, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “80 Eastwood Drive – Proposed Residential Development – Overall Proposed Conditions Plan” prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, dated Oct. 2010, last updated 11/2/15. We do not have any comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent RECOMMENDATION If the Board is satisfied that all the necessary information has been submitted, the hearing should be closed. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Eric Farrell, applicant SAVSAVACL1" = 40'06263C1.0OCT., 2010ACEOVERALLPROPOSEDCONDITIONSPLANLOT 1SIXTY FARRELL STREETASSOCIATES, LLCLOT 2TWENTY JOY DRIVEASSOCIATES, LLCLOT 378 EASTWOOD HOUSING, LLCLOT 4E F FARRELL, LLCD B MORRISSEY,LLC80 Eastwood DriveSouth Burlington, Vermont80 Eastwood DriveLOCATION MAPN.T.S.PROJECTLOCATIONBURLINGTONSO. BURLINGTON1897COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS:LOT SIZE (PUD)BUILDING COVERAGELOT OVERALL COVERAGEMIN. FRONT SETBACKMIN. SIDE SETBACKMIN. REAR SETBACKMAX. BUILDING HEIGHTC1-R15 ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED40,000 SF40%60%30 FT.10 FT.30 FT.35 FT.7.58 ACRES11.00%47.0%7.58 ACRES14.89%50.14%30 FT.10 FT.30 FT.46 FT.SNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGESNOWSTORAGESNOW STORAGERECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT ______________O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF _____________ , 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ONTHE ______ DAY OF ___________ , 20_____ , SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _____________ , 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSONLOT 4 ADDITIONP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06263\1-CADD-DRAWING\06263G.dwg, 1/6/2016 11:57:47 AM, aloiselle SAVSAVACL1" = 20'06263C2.0DEC., 2009ACEPROPOSEDCONDITIONSPLAN80 Eastwood DriveSouth Burlington, Vermont80 Eastwood DriveP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06263\1-CADD-DRAWING\06263G.dwg, 1/6/2016 11:58:37 AM, aloiselle SAVSAVACL1" = 20'06263C3.0DEC., 2009ACEGRADING ANDDRAINAGEPLAN80 Eastwood DriveSouth Burlington, Vermont80 Eastwood DriveNOTE:THE AVERAGEPRECONSTRUCTIONPREPARED GRADE FOR THESITE IS ELEVATION 234.P:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06263\1-CADD-DRAWING\06263G.dwg, 1/6/2016 11:59:13 AM, aloiselle SAVSAVACL1" = 20'06263C4.0DEC., 2009ACEUTILITYPLANCWD Specifications: All work to be performed in accordance with theSpecifications and Details for the Installation of Waterlines and Appurtenances for all Water Systems Ownedby the Champlain Water District, the City of SouthBurlington, Colchester Fire District #1 and the Village ofJericho. Details should be modified to the abovereference specifications.80 Eastwood DriveSouth Burlington, Vermont80 Eastwood DriveP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06263\1-CADD-DRAWING\06263G.dwg, 1/6/2016 11:59:43 AM, aloiselle CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_05_and_DR_16_01_40SanRemoDrive_SB_Realty_C ompany_changeuse_exterior_HVAC DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 26, 2016 Plans received: January 13, 2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY COMPANY – 40 SAN REMO DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-05 & DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION #DR-16-01 Meeting date: March 1, 2016 Applicant/Owner/Contact Person Attn: Tim McKenzie South Burlington Realty Company PO Box 2204 South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1490-00040 Volume 115, pages 76-78 Central District 4 and Design Review Districts 18,500 SF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-16-05 and design review application #DR-16-01 of South Burlington Realty Company to amend a previously approved plan for a 3,200 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) changing the use of the building to personal instruction, 2) altering the exterior design of the building, and 3) adding an HVAC unit on the north side of the building, 40 San Remo Drive. COMMENTS Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner; Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on January 13, 2016 and have the following comments. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: Table 1. Dimensional Requirements CD-4 Zoning District Requirement/Limitation Existing Proposed √ Min. Lot Size No Min 18,500 s.f. No change √ Max. Building Coverage 40% 17.3 % No change √ Max. Total Coverage 90% 61.0 % No change √ Front Yard Coverage 30% 30% No change √ Min. Front Setback 32’ from centerline of Road ~30 ft. from edge of right-of-way No change √ Min. Side Setback 5 ft. >5 ft No change √ Min. Rear Setback N/A – building envelope >50 ft No change √ Zoning Compliance SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with the Goals and Objectives and stated land use policies of the Comprehensive. Staff considers this criterion to be met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes are proposed that materially affect the transitions referenced in this criterion or affect planting, pedestrian movement and parking. Staff considers this criterion to continue to be met. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim (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. Nearly all of the parking is located to the side of the building. One half of one handicapped parking space extends beyond the front line of the building, however this is a pre-existing non- conformity. Staff considers this criterion to continue to be met. The required parking for the proposed use is two (2) spaces and 14 spaces and one (1) handicapped space and a bike rack are being provided. It is staff’s position that this requirement is being met. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. Not applicable. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No change to the height of the building, currently 17 feet, is proposed. Staff considers this criterion to continue 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. No changes to utility services or service modifications are proposed. Staff considers this criterion to continue to be met. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The replacement of the large overhead door with glass panels, the replacement of the existing door with glass and the installation of insulated panels over the existing metal siding will add some variety to the structure itself while maintaining consistency of the structure with other buildings in the vicinity. Staff considers this criterion to continue to be met. 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: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. Staff does not consider the reservation of land to be necessary. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The applicant should provide information at the meeting on how trash, recycling and compost will be handled. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The costs of street trees are above and beyond this minimum landscape requirement. Staff notes as this project does not propose an addition to the building nor a new building, a minimum landscaping budget is not required. However, pursuant to Section 13.18 Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures, the proposed new HVAC unit requires new screening. The applicant has provided a drawing indicating the type and location of landscaping. Staff has informed the applicant that while the location and type appear to be acceptable, the revised landscaping plan will need to be provided by a landscape professional. The applicant may provide these at the meeting. Based upon the use of Google Earth data including street view, the Site Plan submitted by the applicant appears to be outdated and should be updated to better reflect existing conditions. 1. The Board should ask the applicant to provide updated plans showing existing landscaping as well and have the proposed HVAC landscape screening included and prepared by a landscape professional. C. City Center Design Review Overlay Districts and Purpose Statements. The CCDR Overlay District is divided into the following three (3) sub-zones as depicted on the South Burlington Overlay Districts Map: Design District 1, Design District 2, and Design District 3. A brief description of the location and proposed design character of each district is provided below: (1) Design District 1 - ………… (2) Design District 2 - This area includes all land on both sides of San Remo Drive. This area is unique in that it is the only area in the designated City Center which is substantially developed with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim buildings and uses. Many of the buildings, however, are in need of updating and aesthetic improvement. The City’s vision for this area is that of a somewhat unique and eclectic neighborhood with a wide variety in design in terms of color, materials, building shapes and site layouts. It is the City’s vision that the existing buildings and sites be improved for example by replacing metal facades with higher quality materials, adding windows and doors to the first floors, and doing improvements to the sites to better relate the properties to the public street thereby promoting pedestrian movement. Design plans for properties within Design District 2 shall comply with the following design criteria, as outlined in Section 11.01(F) of the Land Development Regulations: F. Criteria for Approval. Prior to granting design plan approval, the Development Review Board shall find that any development or activity specified in Section (D) above shall conform substantially to the following design criteria: (1) Building Design (a) Consistent design. Building design shall promote a consistent organization of major elements; and decorative parts must relate to the character of the design. All sides of a building shall be designed so that they are compatible in terms of material, window treatments, architectural accents, cornice/parapet design, etc. In Design Districts 1 and 3, the design of a building should consider the design features of other structures in the area so as not to be harshly discordinate with other nearby buildings. The replacement of the large overhead door with glass panels and the replacement of the existing door with glass will add some decorative elements to the building. Staff supports these changes. (b) Materials used. High quality, attractive materials shall be used on all buildings. Natural, indigenous materials of stone and masonry are highly encouraged, if not required. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows:. ………………. (ii) Design District 2. A wide variety of both natural and high quality man-made materials are allowed. Examples of acceptable materials include red brick, indigenous stone (i.e., granite, limestone, and marble), architectural concrete, synthetic stucco, wood clapboard (synthetic materials such as vinyl siding may be used in place of wood provided it is of high quality and closely resembles wood clapboard/shingles), and glass or glass block. Other materials may be used as an architectural accent provided they are harmonious with the building and site. Examples of unacceptable materials include metal skin and laminated wood (e.g., T-111). The proposed exterior panels will be smooth with a gray finish. (c) Colors and textures used. The color and texture of the building shall be harmonious with the building itself and with other buildings on the site and nearby. Colors naturally occurring from building materials and other traditional, subdued colors are encouraged. More than three (3) predominant colors are discouraged. The proposed exterior panels will be smooth with a gray finish. The color is harmonious with the building and with other buildings on the site. (d) Windows and doors. Window and door treatment (i.e., the arrangement of windows CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim and doors into a pattern) shall be a careful response to the buildings interior organization as well as the features of the building site. The treatment of windows and doors shall be in a manner that creates a rhythm that gives necessary order and unity to the facade, yet avoids monotony. In Design Districts 1 and 2, for sides of buildings that front or face a public street, existing or planned, the majority of the first floor’s facade area shall consist of see-through glass in order to promote pedestrian activity, however, the windows and/or doors should be of a human scale so as to welcome, not overwhelm, the pedestrian. The replacement of the overhead door with glass panels will break up the monotony of façade. (e) Use of “human-scaled” design elements. Larger buildings shall incorporate the use of design elements, such as pilasters, colored or textured bands, or window and door treatments, in order to reduce the larger building’s apparent overall size and, therefore, avoid a large or long monotonous appearance. The replacement of the overhead door with glass panels will reduce the amount of large or long monotonous appearance. (f) Roofs as a design element. Roofs shall be part of, or define, the style of a building. They shall be used creatively to break up long facades and potentially long roof lines. Specific requirements for each Design District are as follows: (i) Design Districts 1 and 2. For one-story structures, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 8 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Only a small portion of roof area on one-story buildings may be flat provided it is not visible from the public street, existing or planned, and does not detract from the overall design and harmony of the building. For structures of two (2) or more stories, the minimum and maximum slope of a pitched roof shall be 5 on 12 and 12 on 12, respectively. Where flat roofs are used, particularly on structures of two (2) or more stories, architectural elements such as cornices and parapets shall be included to improve the appearance and provide interest. Large, low-slope (i.e., less than 5 on 12) gable forms are discouraged. There are no changes proposed to the roof or roofline. (g) Orient buildings to the public street. Buildings shall be designed in a manner that relates the building to the public street in order to protect the integrity of city blocks, present an inviting street front and promote traditional street patterns. In Design Districts 1and 2, new buildings shall be built to the street property line. The Development Review Board may approve building locations, or portions thereof, that are set back from the street property line, provided, the Development Review Board finds the overall site layout to be in conformance with the City Center goals. The primary entrance to buildings shall be designed as such and shall be oriented directly on the public street rather than facing parking lots. The upper floors of taller buildings (i.e., floors four (4) and up) may need to be “stepped back” or otherwise sited to avoid creating a “canyon” effect and to maintain a pedestrian friendly public edge. In all Design Districts, for existing buildings undergoing renovation, improvements shall be done to relate the building better to the public street. Such improvements could include the installation of doors and windows along the sides of the building facing the public street, or the construction of walkways between the building and street. The building is already somewhat oriented to the street. The replacement of the door with a glass door will enhance the building’s pedestrian presence along San Remo Drive. (h) Conceal rooftop devices. Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances to be CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_14_18_and DR_14_05_135HinesburgRd_BlackbayVentures_prelim used in the operation or maintenance of a structure shall be arranged so as to minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such features, in excess of one foot in height, shall be either enclosed by outer building walls or parapets, or grouped and screened in a suitable manner, or designed in themselves so that they are balanced and integrated with respect to the design and materials of the building. There are no rooftop devices. (i) Promote energy efficiency. Where feasible, the design of a building should consider solar energy and the use of natural daylight by capturing the sun’s energy during the winter and providing shade during the summer. As the building is not new, it would not be feasible to apply this criterion. (j) Pedestrian promenade along Market Street. In Design District 1, the provision of a covered pedestrian promenade along Market Street is required in order to protect pedestrians from inclement weather and promote walking. Any pedestrian canopy, or portion thereof, that is proposed to be located within or encroach into the public R.O.W. shall meet the specifications identified in the City Center Streetscape Guidelines. An applicant may elect to incorporate a covered pedestrian promenade as a component of the building and completely on the applicant’s property, provided the promenade is at least 10 feet high and 8 feet deep. The Development Review Board may waive the requirement for a covered pedestrian promenade or canopy on a building or portion thereof if the Development Review Board finds that the block on which the building is located is adequately covered by other existing promenades/canopies. This criterion is not applicable to the subject application. Staff feels that the proposed project meets the design review criteria above. RECOMMENDATION If all issues are addressed and there is no additional information needed to make a decision, the Board should close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Tim McKenzie, applicant CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_So uth_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_desig nreview DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 26, 2016 Application received: January 19, 2016 FINAL PLAT PLAN APPLICATION - #SD-16-01 1580 DORSET STREET & 1699 HINESBURG ROAD – JJJ SOUTH BURLINGTON, LLC Meeting Date: March 1, 2016 Applicant / Owner JJJ South Burlington, LLC c/o Brad Dousevicz 21 Carmichael Street, Suite 201 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Contact Person Paul O’Leary O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite #1 Essex, VT 05452 Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat application #SD-15-11 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) shifting Russett Road & Puritan Street to minimize wetland intrusions, 2) revising the storm drains so as to connect all footing drains directly into the stormwater system, and 3) residential design review for the single family dwelling on lots #1 - #66, 1580 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Director of Planning and Zoning, Paul Conner; Administrative Officer Ray Belair; and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on January 19, 2016, with a modified Sheet S8 dated 2-17-2016. The overall PUD for the project was last reviewed and approved as Final Plat application #SD-08-34 on November 20, 2008. With regards to this application, a Final Plat (#SD-15-11) for the project was previously approved on July 21, 2015. However, the applicant failed to record the final plat sheets within 180 days of that approval. While the application is the same as #SD-15-11, the City’s LDRs have pending changes that became effective in the meantime, including with regard to the use of Low Impact Development principles for stormwater management, therefore the Board should confirm that the Department of Public Works finds the proposed plans to be acceptable. See note 1 below. The remainder of the application is unchanged. Staff notes that this application consists of three principal elements: 1. To comply with Condition #22 of Final Plat Decision #SD-08-34 which stated: “No zoning permits can be issued in the development for any residential unit until such time as the Development Review Board has approved the residential design pursuant to Section 9.08 (C) of the LDRs.” 2. A request from the applicant to make minor adjustments to the street and lot layout to address revised wetland boundaries on the site since the time of the original approval (November 20, 2008). 3. Other infrastructure modifications Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: No changes are being proposed at this time which might affect previous approvals granted to the development under its Master 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 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des 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. 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. 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. (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. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 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. 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. 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. 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 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des to be fenced or screened. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 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. See below for applicable review of landscaping and utilities. The remaining criteria are not proposed to be changed with this application. 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 shall obtain final water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (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. Erosion control specifications and grading plans have been submitted with the application. Staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. See discussion under section (A)(8) below. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The proposed revisions to the original Cider Mill Phase II plans in this application are expressly for the purposes of minimizing the impacts to wetlands. The applicant received an Individual Wetland Permit for the project from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources issued on June 2, 2015 (File # 2014-201, DEC ID # EJ04-0087). No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (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. Pursuant to Section 9 of the City LDRs: A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well-planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features, visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses. The proposed road and infrastructure layout in this application is compatible with the planned development patters in the area. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The proposed revisions to the original Cider Mill Phase II plans in this application are expressly for the purposes of minimizing the impacts to wetlands. This will have the added benefit of protecting contiguous open space located to the west and south of the Phase II project area. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (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. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (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. 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. Upon review of the plans under the City’s pending Land Development Regulations, the Department of Public Works informed the applicant that it did not appear that the portion of Nadeaucrest Drive that flows to Muddy Brook (s/n 002) meets the revised stormwater requirements in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). On February 16, 2016, the Deputy Director of Public Works provided the following comments on the 2015 Plans based on the revised regulations Mr. DiPietro via email: Ray, I reviewed the “Cider Mill - Phase II” site plan prepared by O’Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC, dated 10/5/13 and last updated on 6/1/15. I would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the Muddy Brook watershed. Water reaches Muddy Brook via one of two discharge points (labeled s/n 001 and s/n 002 on sheet S1). 2. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and will therefore require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Section. Phase 1 of the Cider Mill project was covered by State stormwater permit 3144-9015. The existing permit may also require modification due to changes proposed by this project. The applicant should acquire State stormwater permit(s) before starting construction. 3. The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Section. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 4. Impacts to class 2 wetlands and their buffer are only allowed in conjunction with issuance of a wetlands permit by the Vermont DEC. 5. The City’s minimum drainage pipe size is 15”. The applicant should confirm that any drainage pipes under roadway that may someday be turned over to the City meet this minimum requirement. 6. Discharge point s/n 002 does not meet the requirements of section 12.03.C(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations. The application must revise this portion of the project and submit information (plans and modeling) to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des 7. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director The applicant provided a revised sheet, Plan Sheet S8 dated 2-17-2016 based on these comments. The Deputy Director of Public Works reviewed the revised sheet and indicated to staff in an emailed dated 2-26-2016 that his concerns are satisfied. 1. The applicant shall comply with the Public Works Department’s recommendations. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The 2011 Comprehensive Plan notes the following goal for the Southeast Quadrant. GOAL STATEMENT: It is a goal of this City to support a planned strategy for land conservation and neighborhood development in the Southeast Quadrant that preserves areas of ecological significance, creates a cohesive and publicly accessible open space system, and encourages neighborhood development patters, including street systems, that create walkable neighborhoods, a range of housing choices, and a strong sense of place. It is a further goal of this City to create a small, appropriately-scaled and designed neighborhood service center in the SEQ, and a circulation system that balances automobile transportation with bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes in a safe, integrated system. If and when this Cider Mill Phase II is completely built out, approximately 109 housing units will be added via a mix of single family homes, carriage style homes and multi-family structures. Sidewalks and bike paths are proposed and the project will also connect the development to Hinesburg Road. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR. 9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub-Districts The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ: A. Height. (1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub-district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 8 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des (2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub-district shall not exceed fifty feet (50’); the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub-districts. In addition, the standards set forth in C-2 – Dimensional Standards Applicable in All Districts shall apply. The most restrictive limitations shall apply at the time a zoning application is submitted. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels The applicant has proposed to shift the roadways slightly. Staff considers this shift to be minor and not affecting this standard. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 9 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des supported agriculture. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. See above discussion under PUD standards. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. D. Parks Design and Development. (1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini-parks as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department. Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car-free destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter-mile of every home. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 10 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des (2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ- NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC districts: (a) Distribution and Amount of Parks: (i) A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation. (ii) Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development. (iii) Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program. (iv) A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided within a one-quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or other publicly-owned developed recreation area. (b) Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by a homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (c) Design Guidelines (i) Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make them sociable, safe and attractive places. (ii) Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections. (iii) To the extent feasible, single-loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. 9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-NRT sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid-block public sidewalk or recreation path connections. (2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets may not exceed 200 feet in length. 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). No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 11 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des (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. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (4) Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards (1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the NR sub- district are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR. No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5’) in width with an additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose. (3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30’) on center. The applicant has provided review landscaping plans. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (4) On-street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4). No substantive changes are proposed from the present approval. (5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5). No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12’ to 14’) shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall illumination levels CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 12 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des should be consistent with the lower-intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot-spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety. Fixtures shall not exceed the heights described above. All street lights proposed to become public shall be LED. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. C. Residential Design As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #SD-08-34, the Board established Condition #22 which stated: “No zoning permits can be issued in the development for any residential unit until such time as the Development Review Board has approved the residential design pursuant to Section 9.08 (C) of the LDRs.” The applicant has submitted a document entitled “Single Family Home Design Guidelines – revised - 06/11/15 Cider Mill Phase II.” (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets). See the enclosed applicant document. All proposed buildings are oriented to the street. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. See discussion below under Mix of Housing Styles. (3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings should be set back twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. See the enclosed applicant document. All buildings are proposed to comply. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials. All buildings are proposed to comply. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 13 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_01_1580DorsetSt1699HinesburgRd_CiderMill2_JJJ_South_Burlington_LLC_Final_PUDamend_wetland_drains_des (5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. All buildings are proposed to comply. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. (6) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. The applicant has submitted a design guideline document for the Board’s consideration. The guidelines are proposed to be mandatory. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. AOT LETTER OF INTENT The state statutes now require that an applicant submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) from the Agency of Transportation before a decision can be rendered when a project has an access to a state highway. The applicant provide a copy of said LOI from the Vermont Agency of Transportation dated June 11, 2015. No changes in this current application affect the project’s compliance with this criterion and staff notes that the Board previously found this criterion to be met in its decision on #SD-15-11. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review the numbered and italicized issues in red font above. Respectfully submitted, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Bryan Currier, O’Leary-Burke           Single Family Home Design Guidelines ‐ revised 06/12/15  Cider Mill ‐ Phase II  Objectives:    There are 66 single family lots in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision.  In order to promote a rich and  interesting neighborhood, JJJ South Burlington LLC adopts the following design guidelines governing the  design of single family homes within the subdision.     Legal Requirements:     Homes in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision must comply with legal requirements found in the   City Of South Burlington , Land Development Regulations  Adopted May 12, 2003   Amendments Effective: September 24, 2013  Article 9, Section  C. Residential Design.     "(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary   entries for single family and multi‐family buildings must face the street. Secondary building   entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to   arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty‐five percent (35%) of translucent   windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south.     (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation   approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be   varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies   that create semi‐private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.     (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is   critical to the ambiance of the street environment.    (a) Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk    (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front           setbacks.     (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages where the vehicle entrance is parallel   to the front building line of a house, the front building line of the garage must be set behind the   front building line of the house by a minimum of eight feet. The DRB may waive this provision   for garages with vehicle entries facing a side yard, provided that (i) the garage is visually   integrated into the main house and (ii) the front building line of the garage is no more than   eight (8) feet in front of the front building line of the house. Rear alleys are encouraged for   small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and townhouses. "    (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,   and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be   mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized   into sections of near‐identical units"    Design Constraints:    Potential homeowners in the Cider Mill Phase II Subdivision are encouraged to be creative and a wide  variety of styles, colors and forms will be allowed. In addition to the minimum legal requirements, the  following limits apply:    1.  Any given Home Model can be varied in one or more of the following five (5) ways: by mirroring   the plan, changing the color scheme, revising the placement or orientation of the garage,   changing the palate of materials or modifying the roof lines.    2. Identical Models ( without the variations noted above) may not be constructed on adjoining lots,   or facing one another across the street. A given model must change any two of the five   variables in Item #1 to be determined sufficiently different.    3. No single Home Model, depicted as Types one (1) through six (6) on sheets A201, A202, and    A203, or any new design as described in constraint eight (8), shall be repeated on more than   fifteen lots within the subdivision.     4. A home's color palate is comprised of five (5) elements: its primary siding color, accent siding   color, roofing color, trim color and colored accents such as shutters or door and window frames.    A given color palate must change any two of the five variables to be determined sufficiently   different.  No home, regardless of model, shall have the same primary siding color within three   lots of a home of the same color.  For every 12 homes on one side of a street block, there shall   be at least three different roof colors.     5. A mix of housing size options will be available, 1,500sf‐2,000sf, 2,000sf‐2,500sf, 2,500sf‐3,000sf,   providing significantly different pricing options for the neighborhood.    6. Prior to Construction, house plans shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Staff of the City   of South Burlington for determination that the proposed home complies with Article 9, Section   C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and these design control standards.     As part of the submission, it must be confirmed that the proposed design conforms with   these standards.    7. JJJ South Burlington LLC shall maintain a color coded copy of the subdivision plat that shows the   home model, Color Scheme and  any Variations proposed for each lot as they develop. An 11 x   17 inch  color copy of the map shall be included with each home permit application for use by   the zoning administrator in checking compliance with these requirements.    8. Additional designs, substantially differing from types shown on Sheets A201, A202, and A203,   may be constructed, provided that the designs are in compliance with these standards.  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_02_WindsweptLane_Goldberg_PUD_amend_new_t rees DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 26, 2016 Plans received: February 1, 2016 WEDGEWOOD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – WINDSWEPT LANE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD 16-02 Meeting date: March 1, 2016 Applicant Wedgewood Development Corp. 41 Gauthier Drive, Suite 1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Owners Jeffrey & Elizabeth Goldberg 232 Autumn Hill Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer David Burke O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 1 Corporate Drive, Suite #1 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel Volume 333, Page 292 SEQ & BBW Districts 27.2 Acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_02_WindsweptLane_Goldberg_PUD_amend_new_trees.doc PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat application #SD-16-02 of Jeffery & Elizabeth Goldberg to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) six (6) two-family dwellings, and 2) three (3) single family lots. The amendment consists of planting additional landscaping to replace existing plantings which were removed without approval, Windswept Lane. COMMENTS Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner; Administrative Officer Raymond Belair and Planner Temporary Assignment Dan Albrecht, referred to herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on February 1, 2016 and offer the following comments. The overall development was approved in the Board’s Findings of Fact & Decision for application #SD- 14-17. Stormwater In an email to staff on February 17, 2016, the Deputy Stormwater Superintendent commented on this Plan as follows: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Goldberg Parcel” site plan prepared by O'Leary-Burke, dated 3/17/14, last updated 11/16/15. We do not have any comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave Wheeler Deputy Stormwater Superintendent Landscaping and Screening Requirements The applicant’s February 1, 2016 submission included a revised Site Plan indicating the location of new plantings as follows: -along the Pedestrian Access Easement behind units 11 and 12 -behind units 9 and 10 -along Dorset Street In an email to staff on February 17, 2016, the City Arborist commented on this Plan as follows: I’d recommend something other than Austrian Pine along Dorset St. Austrian Pines are very susceptible to a number of disease problems and often they tend to decline very quickly. Hardwoods may be a better choice ion this location as they will be less susceptible to damage from salt spray. If conifers are preferred, American Larch, Japanese or European Larch will tolerate salt spray but will shed their needles in the fall. Let me know if you have any questions. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_02_WindsweptLane_Goldberg_PUD_amend_new_trees.doc Subsequently on February 18, 2016, the applicant’s engineer replied: Hi Dan / Craig, After checking in with the project landscaper (Rick Rice), we have substituted the Austrian Pines with Meyeri Spruce. Do you want us to drop off new hard copies? Let me know if there are any other questions/comments. Thanks, Peter F. Heil, PE, CPESC | O'Leary-Burke Civil Associates, PLC To which the City Arborist replied that same day as follows: Meyeri Spruce is fine. I don’t need a hard copy of the plans. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist Staff would also like to note that the Board should review the letter and information provided by John and Susan Jewett of 197 Autumn Hill Road which is included in the packet. 1. The Board should review the materials provided by the applicant and by John and Susan Jewett. The Board should determine if the proposed new landscaping adequately replaces the pre-existing plantings which were removed without approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review item #1 and then decide whether or not to close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ______________________________ Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: David Burke, O’Leary Burke Civil Associates SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 16 FEBRUARY 2016 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 February 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room, 19 Gregory Drive. MEMBERS PRESENT: T. Barritt, Chair; B. Miller, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; D. Burke, L. O’Farrell, K. Stevenson, B. Gardner 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: No announcements were made. 4. Continued site plan application #SP-15-69 of Greer Family, LLC, for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 15,608 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of converting 775 sq. ft. of retail use to tavern/night club use, 10 Dorset Street: Mr. Barritt reminded the Board that the remaining item concerned trip generation. The applicant has provided a trip generation report which indicated that the number of seats in the bar/tavern would need to be reduced to 17 seats so as not to exceed the traffic budget for the property. The applicant indicated that he was OK with this. Members had no issue with the report. Mr. Miller moved to close #SP-15-69. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54-unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) constructing a 100 room hotel, ) constructing a 51 room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: and SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 16 FEBRUARY 2016 2 6. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-15-41 of Eric Farrell for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) subdividing an undeveloped 6.7 acre parcel into two lots of 4.1 acres & 2.6 acres, and 2) construction of a 50-unit multi-family dwelling on the 4.1 acre parcel, 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicants for both item #5 and #6 have asked for a continuance until 15 March. Mr. Miller moved to continue # SD-15-40 and #SD-15-41 until 15 March 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch plan application #SD-15-48 of Gardner & Sons Development Corporation for a planned unit development to further develop a 2.16 acre parcel developed with a two- family dwelling. The proposal consists of: 1) constructing a single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 3-unit multi-family dwelling, O’Brien Drive: Mr. Burke reviewed the staff comments as follows: The Fire Chief has asked that the triplex have residential sprinklers. These will be installed. The applicant will also be talking with the Chief about other issues. A 6-foot front porch will be added to the house. The garage will be on the opposite side of the storm line. It will have a pitched from north to south and will be parallel to the house. New renderings will be provided at the next level. They will work out the issue of the drainage pipe easement. The existing stockade fence will be extended to the property line. Mr. Barritt suggested the entrance to the house be on the south side to give more separation from the foot path. Ms. Smith asked if the house and garage locations can be flipped. Mr. Burke said there is not enough depth. Mr. Burke showed a rendering of the 3-unit building. Mr. Barritt reminded the applicant that the buildings must be built to Act 250 stretch codes energy standards. The applicant indicated they have always been 5-star plus. SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 16 FEBRUARY 2016 3 Mr. Stevenson, who lives across from the project’s proposed access, indicated his house on the overhead photo. He expressed a number of concerns as follows: a. Headlights from cars exiting this property and shining into his front rooms. b. Increased traffic. c. This has traditionally been a single family area. There are now duplexes that did not have to come to the DRB. He was concerned with rental to college students. d. Asked that unit #3 be eliminated. e. A significant part of the parcel is wetland or wetland buffer. He felt that using the undevelopable land to allow more development was unreasonable. f. The number of cars using the proposed driveway would be 8-14 with several trips a day in and out. He was concerned with danger to children in the neighborhood. g. Felt a significant retaining wall will have to be built to create enough flat land behind unit #3. h. There is a lot of debris in the ravine so you can’t see the drainage pipe. He asked for this to be cleared out. i. Was concerned with damage to his lawn during hook-up to the water service and wanted an agreement that his lawn would be put back to its previous condition. With regard to item #i, Mr. Burke didn’t feel there would be an issue. They will video the pre-existing condition and return the lawn to that condition. Mr. Burke said they have to go by the regulations which allow this proposal. They are still below the allowable density. He noted that the triplex is the same size as the existing duplex. He also felt that no retaining wall will be needed. Mr. Burke also noted that the ravine is much better than it was a year ago and will only get better. Regarding headlights, Mr. Burke suggested they could provide some financing for an evergreen tree on Mr. Stevenson’s property that would block the light. Mr. Wilking said he was concerned with the location of #3. He felt the overall density was OK, but he would look at it more closely at preliminary and final. He was concerned with how the path will work. Mr. Burke said they plan to submit a joint preliminary and final plat. No other issues were raised. 8. Minutes of 19 January and 2 February 2016: SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 16 FEBRUARY 2016 4 Mr. Miller moved to approve the Minutes of 19 January and 2 February 2016 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:35 p.m. _______________________________ Clerk _______________________________ Date