Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 05/17/2016 SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 17 May 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 May 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, D. Sande, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, B. Bertsch, M. Mahoney, T. Barden, A. Senecal, R. Jeffers 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. Parsons noted that he has become a co-owner of a real estate agency. If conflicts of interest arise, he will recuse himself. 4. Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-28 of Saxon Partners, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: (as proposed by the applicant) 1) six boundary line adjustments with adjoining properties, and 2) construction of an 88,548 sq. ft. retail store which will include a 3,348 sq. ft. tire center and a 3,360 sq. ft. receiving area (BJ’s Wholesale Club), 65 Shunpike Road: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Kochman moved to continue #SD-15-28 to 21 June. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-03 of J. Peter & Diane Sande to add a 30 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,088 sq. ft. single family dwelling, 50 Bartlett Bay Road: Ms. Sande said the deck does not go outside the building envelope. She showed the location on the plan. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Wilking moved to close #CU-16-03. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-16-01 and Site Plan Review Application #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding two 8’x20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Wilking noted he had been approached by a City Council member who asked to talk about the problems at Rice High School. He had told the Council member he would not speak with him on that issue. Mr. Barden said Father Bernie couldn’t come to this meeting. His request is to leave the 2 units until August 2017, but he was willing to live with the Board’s decision. Mr. Barden said one unit has sports equipment in it and the other has things for the refreshment stand. Rice will have to build additional space for that storage. The units are 160 sq. ft. each. Mr. Miller said he could live with August 2016. Mr. Wilking said if Rice had a plan tonight, he would feel differently, but it feels like the Board is being ignored. These were not appropriate structures to begin with, and he felt they should be taken care of this summer. He said he could live with having them gone by the end of football season (November 30th). Mr. Mahoney said rice needs to be reminded that they can’t build without going through the DRB process. He cited 2 permanent dugouts that were being built without a permit. Mr. Barden said they have the information to apply for approval of the dugouts. They will also be applying for a permit for the leveling off of an area. He added that when the new Principal comes on, he will suggest that there be someone at Rice to handle these situations. Mr. Wilking moved to close #CU-16-01 and #SP-16-11. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-10 of Allen Brook Development, Inc., to construct a 50,155 sq. ft. building (now 39,535 sq. ft.) which will consist of: 1) 44,155 sq. ft. of warehouse and distribution use (now 35,535 sq. ft.) and 2) 6,000 sq. ft. of retail warehouse outlet use (now 4,000 sq. ft. ), 6 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. O’Leary noted the reduction in building size. This is due in part to the location of a Town of Colchester force main where they cannot build. He showed the location of this. He also showed the location of outside storage areas. The building is set down into the ground and is only about 16 feet above the existing grade from one approach and 9 feet from the other. Windows are now 5 feet tall and 12 feet wide. The applicant will provide a composting bin within the trash enclosure. They are OK with stormwater requirements. Mr. Belair noted that staff received no additional comments on the new plan from the Fire Department. They were OK with the larger building. The City Arborist is OK with the landscaping. Mr. Miller asked if outside storage will be screened. Mr. O’Leary said it will be screened with landscaping. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SP-16-10. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-16-22 of Ten Farrell Street, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 26,125 sq. ft. mixed use building. The amendment is for an umbrella approval to allow for additional permitted uses, 10 Farrell Street: It was noted that the applicant has asked for a continuance until the next meeting. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-22 until 7 June 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-16-08 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development of Phase II consisting of 91 residential units of a 334 residential unit project. The amendment is to reduce the required side and rear yard setback to five feet, Preserve Road: Ms. Jeffers said this was approved 6 months ago, but they didn’t file the plat in time, and the approval expired. Mr. Miller noted receipt of an email from Nicholas Andrews asking a number of questions: a. Why the changes? Ms. Jeffers said the setbacks were originally 5 feet. Mr. Belair added that they were modified in Phase I. The applicant is asking for the same benefit in Phase 2. b. Are changes for front, rear and sides? Ms. Jeffers said just side and rear. c. What are the current setbacks? They are currently 10 ft. Side and rear will be 5 feet. d. Is this applicable to all lots? Ms. Jeffers said no, only to single family lots. Other lots have their own rules and are footprint lots. e. If approved, will future requests be prejudiced? Ms. Jeffers said there is a Master Plan. f. Have the lot boundaries changed? Ms. Jeffers said they have not. Mr. Wilking said there is a lot of open space. It was planned to have a “tighter village look.” Ms. Jeffers said all units can take advantage of the open space. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-16-08. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-16-07 of Rye Associates, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 26 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots 2-5 into three lots, 2) replacing granite posts with boulders to demarcate the neighborhood park, 3) reviewing the site plan for a new 4,726 sq. ft. general office building, and 4) revising landscaping for the general office building on lot #1, 1075 Hinesburg road: Mr. Marshall indicated the building being reviewed for this application. He noted that they originally had a “ring road” to connect the 4 lots, but the Board was not in favor of the additional impervious. The buildings will now be served by a frontage road. In addition, there were originally 5 commercial lots; they are requesting to resubdivide to have only a total of 4. Mr. Marshall showed the area for the park which will serve this development and the surrounding residential areas. The 3’x 3’ boulders that the Board requested are not shown on the plan but should be a condition of approval. The landscaping plan has been revised to reflect the revised value. In reviewing staff notes, Mr. Marshall noted that the trash enclosure will accommodate composting. They have modified stormwater design as requested. They are also OK with the Fire Department request. Lights will all be shielded. Mr. Wilking felt this was a much better parking arrangement, and he was glad the “ring road” was gone. Other members agreed. There were no staff or public issues raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-16-07. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Minutes of 3 May 2016: Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 3 May 2016 as written. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. Other Business: Members discussed when to hold their only August meeting. Mr. Wilking moved to hold the August meeting on 23 August. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. , Clerk 06/21/2016 , Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #CU-16-03 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING J. PETER AND DIANE SANDE—50 BARTLETT BAY RD. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-03 of J. Peter & Diane Sande to add a 30 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,088 sq. ft. single family dwelling, 50 Bartlett Bay Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 17, 2016. The applicants represented themselves. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicants, J. Peter and Diane Sande, seek a conditional use permit to add a 30 sq. ft. deck to an existing 1,088 sq. ft. single family dwelling, 50 Bartlett Bay Road. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are J. Peter & Diane Sande. 3. The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood Zoning District. 4. The application was received on April 20, 2016. 5. The plans submitted consist of a seven (7) page set of plans, page seven (7) entitled, “Residence of Peter and Diane Sande 50 Bartletts Bay Rd. So. Burl., VT Proposed Landscape”, prepared by Betty Ellis Landscape Design, dated 8/29/14 and received 4/20/16. Section 12.01(D) Pre-Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met (Section 12.01(D)(2): a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. The single family house on the site on April 24, 2000 was approved for reconstruction by the Development Review Board #CU-14-10. The Board finds this criteria to be met. b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. #CU-16-03 2 Previously a waiver was granted by the Administrative Officer for the site to have a 15 ft. rear setback. The proposed new deck is on the west side of the house facing Lake Champlain and will not be any closer to the lake than the original home. The Board finds this criteria to be met. c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. The building footprint area existing on April 24, 2000 was 1,296 sq. ft. The house was permitted to have a footprint of 1,703 sq. ft. by the Development Review Board when they reviewed #CU-14-10, which was an application for reconstruction. The current structure has a footprint of 1,655 sq. ft., which is 27.7% greater than the original structure’s footprint. The addition of a 30 sq. ft. deck will increase the footprint to 1,685 sq. ft., which is 30% greater than the footprint of the original structure. The total building footprint will not be more than 50% larger than the footprint which existed on April 24, 2000. The Board finds this criteria to be met. d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. An erosion control plan prepared by an engineering firm has been submitted. The Board finds this criteria to be met. e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. The applicant’s submission included a landscaping plan depicting vegetation and trees existing at the time of their previous application for reconstructing the house as well as plantings and rain gardens that were proposed as part of that application. The applicant verbally told staff on May 5, 2016 that the landscaping plan was accurate and the applicant is still in the process of installing some of the landscaping elements. The Board finds this to be sufficient to meet the criteria. Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards (4) New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review. (a) Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer. (b) Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating #CU-16-03 3 within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures. (c) Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. (d) Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities. (e) Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (f) Stormwater treatment facilities meeting the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources stormwater treatment standards, and routine maintenance thereof, including necessary clearing of vegetation and dredging. Evidence of a complete application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer. (g) Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water. (h) Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing or extending utility services. (i) Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (j) Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer. (k) Hydro-electric power generation The Board considers item (a) and items (c) through (k) to be not applicable to the project. Item (b) is applicable to the project. The area disturbed by this project will be minimal and the applicant’s plans indicate sufficient vegetation will remain so as to protect the purposes of Section 12 of the LDRs. The Board finds this criteria to be met. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations ()Pre-existing structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park), the proposed structure shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E): 14.10(E) General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. The Board finds this criteria to be met. #CU-16-03 4 (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The Board finds the proposed project consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, which is “to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Homes Road.” The Board finds this criteria to be met. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The Board finds this criteria to be met. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. A waiver was previously granted for the rear setback to be at 52 feet. The proposed deck will not violate that setback. As noted above the Board finds that this projects conforms with Section 12.01(C) & (D). (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. The Board finds this criteria to be met. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by __________, to approve conditional use application #CU-16-03 of J. Peter and Diane Sande: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. The plan shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. All plan sheets must show the proposed deck. 3. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 4. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. #CU-16-03 5 Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 99 Proctor Avenue—Rice Memorial High School DATE: May 17, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Conditional use application #CU-16-01 & site plan review application #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding two (2) 8’ X 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue. At the April 19, 2016 meeting the Board decided to continue the hearing. The Board requested the applicant and representatives of Rice Memorial High School come prepared to the DRB meeting on May 17, 2016 to discuss the length of time the accessory structures would remain on site. The draft decision presented to the Board at the April 19, 2016 meeting is in the current packet should you wish to refresh your memory regarding the issues. #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RICE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL—99 PROCTOR AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-01 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-01 & site plan review application #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding two (2) 8’ X 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 19, 2016. The applicant was represented by Tom Barden. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Rice Memorial High School, seeks after-the-fact conditional use and site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility by adding two (2) 8’ X 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 4. The applications were received on January 21, 2016. 5. The plan submitted consists of one page titled “Rice Memorial H.S. South Burlington, Vermont” updated January 18, 2016 and received January 21, 2016 ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 1,553,370 SF No change  Max. Building Coverage 30% 4.6% (71,470 SF) 4.6% (71,790 SF)  Max. Overall Coverage 60% 12.7% (197,196 SF) 12.7% (197,516 SF) *Min. Front Setback Not allowed N/A N/A *Min. Side Setback 5 ft. Unknown Approx. 10 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 5 ft. Unknown 250 ft. *Max. Building Height 15 ft. N/A 8 ft.  In compliance *Standards for accessory structures ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 2 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. The site is greater than one (1) acre in size and all applicable limitations on coverage are currently being met. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The Board finds that the above criterion have been met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. The Board finds that the above criterion has been met. (8) … (9) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in- ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. (10) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. The Board finds the above criterion have been met. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 3 Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that the detached accessory structures (described by applicant as “storage boxes”) will adversely affect any of the above criterion. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The proposed detached accessory buildings represent an increase in overall building coverage and lot coverage, but this change is within the permitted limits. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed detached accessory structures will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes to pedestrian movement are proposed and the proposed detached accessory structures are next to outbuildings of similar size. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes are proposed that would impact any of the above criterion. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. There is extensive vegetation and trees along the east side of the parcel screening the detached accessory buildings from neighboring parcels. #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 4 (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed detached accessory structures are next to outbuildings of similar size, which all relate to the use of that portion of the property for athletics. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements No changes are proposed that would impact any of the above criterion DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by _____________, to approve conditional use application #CU- 16-01 and #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within twelve (12) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the structures. 5. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 5 Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_10_6EthanAllenDrive_Shand_warehouse_May_17_2 016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 11, 2016 and revised May 13, 2016 Plans received: January 6, 2016, Revised March 7 and April 28, 2016 6 Ethan Allen Drive SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-10 Meeting date: May 17, 2016 Owner Robert Shand 5 Ethan Allen Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0640-00006, 0640-00012, and 0640-00018 Mixed Industrial & Commercial Zoning District Location 2 Project Description Site plan application #SP-16-10 of Allen Brook Development, Inc. to construct a 50,155 sq. ft. building which will consist of: 1) 44, 155 sq. ft. of warehouse & distribution use, and 2) 6,000 sq. ft. of retail warehouse outlet use, 6 Ethan Allen Drive. Comments A project on this site was reviewed by the Board as a sketch plan on September 1, 2015 at which time the project consisted of three commercial buildings, two parking areas, and access from both Ethan Allen Drive and Lime Kiln Road. In March the project before the Board was a single building of 50,155 sq. ft. that was intended for use by three (3) tenants with two associated outdoor storage areas and parking. The project currently before the Board is a building of 39,500 sq. ft. intended for use by two tenants with two associated outdoor storage areas and parking. Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and plan updates, which were most recently provided on April 28, 2016, and have the following comments to offer. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements Mixed Industrial & Commercial Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 328,773 SF 328,773 SF Max. Building Coverage 40% 0 % 12% Max. Overall Coverage 70% < 1.0 % 34.2%  Max. Front Yard Coverage(Ethan Allen) 30% ? 6.5%  Max. Front Yard Coverage(Lime Kiln) 30% ? 3.8%  Min. Front Setback (Ethan Allen) 30 ft. N/A 35 ft.  Min. Front Setback (Lime Kiln) 30 ft. N/A 30.4 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. N/A 55.6 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A 240 ft. Max. Building Height (pitched) 40 ft. N/A <35 ft.  Zoning Compliance Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers the proposed building and uses consistent with 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. Warehousing & distribution space requires 0.5 spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. At 35,535 SF, the proposed project would require 17.77 spaces, rounded to 18 parking spaces. Retail warehouse outlet space 3 requires five (5) spaces per 1,000 SF of GFA. At 4,000 SF of retail warehouse outlet space the proposed project requires 20 parking spaces. This results in a total of 38 parking spaces being required. The applicant proposes to construct 41 paved parking spaces, including two (2) dedicated handicap spaces, as well as an additional four (4) spaces for tractor trailer vehicles. 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. (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. Staff considers criterion (a) to be met and (b) is not necessary for this application. 3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed building is situated on a hillside and will take advantage of this change in terrain by building into the hillside. Along the south elevation the plans show the building as 29 feet in height and along the west and north elevations at 25 feet in height, which are heights similar in size to other buildings in the area. Some of the building height along the west elevation will be obscured by the hillside, which will allow the preservation of the view from Airport Parkway and Lime Kiln Road. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The plans indicate that such services are located underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Only one building is proposed on the property. Staff considers this criterion to be met. 2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed building and landscaping is consistent with the surrounding landscape and with others in the vicinity. Staff considers it positive that the building will be built against the hillside as this will allow for view preservation and will generally decrease the impact of the building on its surroundings. Staff considers it positive that there will be an arborvitae hedge surrounding two sides of the outdoor storage 4 area which borders Lime Kiln Rd. as this will provide an additional visual buffer between passerby and the commercial property. In response to earlier comments by staff the applicant provided additional details about the style and materials to be used, including that:  it will have tan metal side paneling,  a forest green painted horizontal stripe that will align with the windows to provide a visual break along Lime Kiln Road, and  the entrances to units 1 and 2 will be decorated with a brick veneer and a forest green awning. In a memo from the applicant dated April 28, 2016 the applicant stated that the “peak on the western elevation has been centered on the windows and the slope of the peak has been increased to a 1 on 4.” Further the memo stated that since “the building has been reduced by 10,620 SF much of the existing vegetation on the northwestern corner of the site will be saved...The new layout will leave some of the existing mature trees at road grade to immediately screen the corner of the building as cars travel south on Lime Kiln Road. The green stripe along the western side of the building will also be extended along the angled corner facing Lime Kiln Road.” In response to staff comments the applicant affirmed that there will be no HVAC equipment on the roof, it will all be ground mounted. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the choice of window size and the ability of windows that size to provide a visual break to the building. Specific Review Standards A. Access to abutting properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plan indicates utilities will be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The dumpster area is located to the east of the outdoor storage area nearest Lime Kiln Rd. and will be screened by a privacy fence. It is unclear from the plans whether space for composting, which is a requirement, will be provided within this enclosure. 5 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how and where space for composting will be provided on the site. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Snow storage is shown on the plan in two locations and runoff is addressed through the use of retaining walls. The applicant has responded to comments from staff and the City Arborist by adjusting the plantings around the perimeter of the building and in the curbed parking islands, by providing information on tree protection during construction, and adjusting the green space in the parking area to meet the 10% requirement. The applicant is providing screening in the form of a privacy fence around the outdoor storage areas. Building construction cost is estimated at $1,950,000. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Remainder over $500,000 ($1,450,000) 1% $14,500 Total: $27,000 The applicant has proposed $28,625 in landscaping. The Landscaping and Screening Requirements of the LDRs state that: At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. Nine (9) shade trees are shown within and around the parking lot area. Staff considers the proposed landscaping budget to be sufficient to provide this site with appropriate plantings. Staff anticipates receiving the arborist comments in time for the meeting. E. Modification of Standards No modifications have been requested. Stormwater Management Standards The plans were reviewed using the Stormwater Management Standards found in Section 12.03 of the LDRs. In an email to staff dated May 11, 2016 Dave Wheeler of the Stormwater Section offered the following comments: 1. The project will result in greater than 1 total acre of impervious area on the parcel. Therefore, the project will require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The 6 applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 2. The project proposes to disturb greather than 1 acre of area. It will therefore require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. 3. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A “Permit to Open Streets or Right-Of-Way” can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. 4. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Regards, Dave 3. Staff recommends the Board support the comments provided by the Stormwater Section and include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Fire Department Staff anticipates receiving the Fire Department comments in time for the meeting. Traffic Generation The applicant indicated in a letter dated April 28, 2016 that Projected Peak Hour Trips for the site would be eight (8) and the site would have an average of 79 weekday trips. Performance Standards Given that the proposed building has several commercial truck bays it was anticipated that the operations of potential tenants could potentially impact neighboring properties and therefore the Board discussed the standards outlined in Appendix A of the LDRs when this project was reviewed on March 15, 2016. Given that the size of the project has decreased since that meeting the staff considers the previous discussion on this topic to have been sufficient. During that discussion the Board expressed no concerns about the performance standards. Floodplain and Wetlands There is a Class II wetland and mapped FEMA 100-year Floodplain located on the eastern edge of the parcel. The proposed building and parking lot are located outside the required 50 ft. wetland buffer and the Floodplain. Runoff from the property will be directed towards stormwater infrastructure. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. Lot Merger 7 This project requires three parcels to be merged. A condition of the final Development Review Board decision will be that a lot merger agreement be recorded in the land records. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer PROPERTY LINE GROUND GRADENORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 20'EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 20'29'-0"Tenant 1WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1"=20' Ethan Allen Drive6Tenant 1Tenant 2LIME KILN ROADLIME KILN ROADETHAN ALLEN DRIVESOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 20'SprinklerTenant 2LIME KILN ROADNORTHJulySun RiseDecemberSun RiseMaySun Set250'-0"274'-0"100'-0"100'-0"10' x 12 fv10' x 10 fv8' x 9 fv8' x 9 fv12' x 14' hl12' x 14' hl12' x 14' hl12' x 14' hl12' x 14' hl8' x 9' fv8' x 9' fv10' x 12' fvUnit 224,535 sfSPRINKLERROOMCOMMDEMARKUnit 115,000 sfFLOOR PLANSCALE: 1"=20'total floor area 39,535 ft2floor elevation 236.0'File NameSheet NumberA100Sheet 1 of 1Sheet TitleFloor PlanElevationsDated: APR 25, 2016Scale: 1" =20'Drawn: W. ADAMSProject NameLots 19, 20 & 21Ethan Allen CommercialParkMulti-tenant BuildingRevisionsOwner's NameUseDistributionSketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal PlanPermitsFor ConstructionAs BuiltDate RevisionWalter M. Adams, Jr.Building DesignEnergy Use ConsultantBuilding Energy Modeling, new or existingLighting Design Phone: (802) 878-2356 Mobile: (802) 734-0428e-mail: wmavermont@comcast.net5/4/16 Misc Revisions NORTHJulySun RiseDecemberSun RiseMaySun SetEAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 20'LIME KILN ROADETHAN ALLEN DRIVESOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 20'WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1"=20'29'-0"PROPERTY LINE GROUND GRADENORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1" = 20' Ethan Allen Drive6Sprink l e r Tenant 1Tenant 1Tenant 2Tenant 3LIME KILN ROADLIME KILN ROADETHAN ALLEN DRIVESprinkle r Tenant 2File NameSheet NumberA602Sheet 1 of 1Sheet TitleLandscapedElevationsDated: April 26, 2016Scale: 116" = 1'-0"Drawn: W. ADAMSProject NameLots 19, 20 & 21Ethan Allen CommercialParkMulti-tenant BuildingRevisionsOwner's NameUseDistributionSketch/ConceptPreliminaryFinal PlanPermitsFor ConstructionAs BuiltDate RevisionWalter M. Adams, Jr.Building DesignEnergy Use ConsultantBuilding Energy Modeling, new or existingLighting Design Phone: (802) 878-2356 Mobile: (802) 734-0428e-mail: wmavermont@comcast.netBased on 7-8 yearsfollowing planting5/4/16 Misc Revisions #SD-16-08 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SOUTH VILLAGE COMMUNITIES, LLC – PRESERVE ROAD FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-08 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-16-08 of South Village Communities, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development of Phase II consisting of 91 residential units of a 334 residential unit project. The amendment is to reduce the required side and rear yard setback to five (5) feet, Preserve Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 17, 2016. Robin Jeffers represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant seeks Final Plat approval to amend a previously approved planned unit development of Phase II consisting of 91 residential units of a 334 residential unit project. The amendment is to reduce the required side and rear yard setback to five (5) feet for lots #38-70, Preserve Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is South Village Communities, LLC. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) Zoning District. 4. The plan submitted consist of one (1) page entitled “Phase 2 Lotting Plat South Village Communities, LLC Spear Street South Burlington, Vermont”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 10/31/13 and last revised on 10/15/2014. 5. The Board granted a similar request for a reduction in side yard and rear yard setbacks from 10 ft. to 5 ft. for Phase I of South Village on January 9, 2008 (#SD-7-74 and #SD-7-75). 6. The Board previously approved this same request (#SD-15-19); however, the final plat plan was not recorded within 180 days, which resulted in voiding of the approval. DECISION Motion by _________, seconded by ___________, to approve final plat application #SD-16-08 of South Village Communities, LLC subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. #SD-16-08 2 3. The Board approves the following waivers: a. The side yard setback and rear yard setbacks are reduced from 10 ft. to 5 ft. for lots #38-70. 4. The final plat plans must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plans: a. The plans must be revised to show side yard setback and rear yard setbacks as 5 ft. for lots #38-70. 5. Any changes to the final plat plan must require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 6. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the project, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 7. The mylars must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 8. The final plat plan (Sheet P2) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plans must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. #SD-16-08 3 The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 123456789101112131415161718192120222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748a49a505152535455596056-5871-8081-9061-7091-991. This sheet depicts the boundaries of proposed lots of Phase 2.2. The perimeter boundary survey was performed during 2004-5using an electronic total station and GPS.3. Bearings shown are referenced to Grid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, related to National GeodeticSurvey marks PG1580 "F 65" and AB9571 "NE Aiken"established by RTK GPS measurements.4. Spear Street has a 66 foot wide right of way. Location wasdetermined by existing monumentation and the traveledportion of the road. Reference Town of Burlington "Highwaysand Roads 1802-1865", Page 22, and Town of ShelburneTown Minutes Volume 1, Page 229.5. This property lies within the "Southeast Quadrant" and the"Spear Street - Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay"zoning districts.NOTE:CAPPED IRON RODSPROPOSED AT LOTCORNERS (TYP.)To the best of my knowledge & be lief this p lat, consis tingof three sheets, proper ly depic ts the results of a surveyconducted under my supervision and is based uponrecords & field evidence found. Perimeter boundariesshown are in substantial conformance wi th the recordsunless noted otherwise . Th is p lat is in substantialcompliance with 27 VSA 1403 "Recording of Land Plats". _______________________________________ Timothy R . Cowan VT LS 597GAC1" = 80'01243.08P2TRCTRCOCT. 31, 2013APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE ____ DAY OF _____________, 2015,SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 2015,BY _____________________________, CHAIRPERSON.4212.04.2013Lot 48 & Common l ands labels & areasTRC08.22.2014Add Sheet P3 (Easements)TRC10.10.2014 Notes & Lot NumberingTRC61-7010.15.2014 Lot Numbering ChangesTRC11.26.2014 Rev. bldg footprintsTRC12.08.2014 B ldg. footprints 22-25, 28, 29TRC 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRoad_RyeAssociates_plat_May3 _mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: May 13, 2016 Application received: March 10, 2016 and updated April 26, April 28, and May 6, 2016 1075 Hinesburg Road Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-16-07 Meeting Date: May 17, 2016 Owner/Applicant Rye Associates, LLC c/o Dousevicz Construction 21 Carmichael Street, Suite 201 Essex, VT 05452 Contact Brad Dousevicz Dousevicz Construction 21 Carmichael Street, Suite 201 Essex, VT 05452 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860-01075 SEQ-NR and SEQ-VC Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Preliminary and final plat application #SD-16-07 of Rye Associates, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots 2 – 5 into three (3) lots, 2) replacing granite posts with boulders to demarcate the neighborhood park, 3) reviewing the site plan of a new 4,726 sq. ft. general office building, and 4) revising landscaping for the general office building on lot 1, 1075 Hinesburg Road. Comments Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt have reviewed the plans submitted on March 10, 2016 and updated April 22 and April 26, 2016 and offer the following comments. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements The SEQ-VC Zoning District table below represents an analysis of the requirements as applied to Lot 2 (location of the new general office building) only. SEQ-VC Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 24,859 SF*  Max. Building Height 50 ft. 28 ft Max. Building Coverage 15% 20.5%* Max. Overall Coverage 30% 50%*  Min. Front Setback (Rye Circle) 20 ft. >20 ft  Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. + 7 ft. 57 ft  Min. Side Setback 20 ft. >20 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A  Zoning compliance * Waiver approved in preliminary plat application #SD-13-22 and final plat application #SD-14-15. SEQ-NR Zoning District Required Proposed Note: No dimensional changes from previously approved final plat application #SD-14-15. Planned Unit Development Standards A. Lot Configuration In final plat application #SD-14-15 thirty lots were permitted, including Lot 2 through Lot 5 on the commercially zoned portion of the property (SEQ-VC), with the use of 31 Transfer of Development Rights. Lots 2-5 are proposed to be reduced to three lots (Lots 2-4). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 Lot # Previously Approved Proposed Change in Size 2 0.43 acres 0.57 acres 0.14 acres 3 0.60 acres 0.58 acres -0.02 acres 4 0.42 acres 0.97 acres 0.55 acres 5 0.67 acres Eliminated Eliminated The only lot which is decreasing in size is Lot 3, which is losing 0.02 acres. This represents a 3.3% decrease in the size of the lot from what was previously approved. It should be noted that in preliminary plat application #SD-13-22 and final plat application #SD-14-15 Lots 1-2 and Lot 4-5 were granted waivers to permit 54% lot coverage and 21% building coverage and Lot 3 was granted a waiver to permit 63% lot coverage and 26% building coverage. 1. Staff recommends the Board approve the suggested lot reconfiguration as being within the density and coverage limits previously envisioned by the Board. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking One parking space on Lot 1 is proposed to be removed to make room for a turnaround and an additional 10 spaces (occurring primarily on Lot 2 but with some portion on Lot 1) will be added that will serve the existing building on commercial Lot 1 and the proposed building on commercial Lot 2. The proposed building on commercial Lot 2 will be accessed through a new curb cut on the south side of the building that will provide access to a new parking lot that will have 11 spaces initially and an additional 10 reserved (to be built in the future) for the as-yet-not proposed building on commercial Lot 3. Those additional spaces will occur on Lot 3 and be accessed through the curb cut on the south side of Lot 2. Section 9.10(D)(4) requires three off-street parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of non-residential use and the DRB may allow on-street parking within 500 lineal feet to count towards the requirement. The applicant has provided the following table to explain their parking allotments for commercial Lots 1-3: Lot Bldg. SF (one story) Req’d Parking Off-street Parking Individual Lot Review 1 5,100 15 13 2 4,726 14 21 3 10 Consolidated Review 1 & 2 9,826 29 34 3 10 In a phone call on May 9, 2016 the applicant told staff the turnaround spots (two are shown on the plans) would be clearly marked with striping and signage to prevent people from parking in those areas. Section 14.06(B)(2)(d) states that parking “shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic.” The parking CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 areas on commercial Lot 1 and commercial Lot 2 are both to the side of the buildings. Staff considers this criterion to be met. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations require one major deciduous shade tree located within or near the parking perimeter for every five parking spaces and trees must have a caliper of 2 ½ inches or more. Plans indicate the required number of trees will be planted and they will be of the correct caliber. The City Arborist told staff in an email dated May 11, 2016 that he had no concerns with the proposed landscaping. C. Wetlands Impact There are no changes to wetlands impacts from the previously permitted final plat application #SD-14-15. D. Parks and Open Space Planning According to Section 13.06(B)(6) of the LDRs, plans are required to show where snow will be stored. The plans indicate snow storage areas adjacent to both parking areas. Applicant has indicated the construction cost for the building on commercial Lot 1 has been reduced from initial estimates to $666,979. This results in a minimum landscaping budget requirement of $14,170, which is illustrated in the table below. Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Remainder over $500,000 ($166,979) 1% $1,670 Total: $14,170 The applicant has requested to amend the previously approved landscaping budget from $16,784 to $14,254.01. Staff considers the landscaping budget and planting plan to be sufficient for the site. 2. Staff recommends the Board support the request for a decrease in the landscaping budget for Lot 1 to $14,254.01. The applicant has indicated the proposed building on commercial Lot 2 will cost $596,650. This results in a minimum landscaping budget requirement of $13,466.50. The applicant has proposed a budget of $13,480.05. Staff considers the landscaping budget and planting plan to be sufficient for the site. Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 Remainder over $500,000 ($96,650) 1% $966.50 Total: $13,466.50 3. Staff recommends the Board support the request for a landscaping budget for Lot 2 of $13,480.05. The applicant has requested to amend the previously approved plan to allow for the use of boulders with average diameters “of three (3) feet” to demarcate the perimeter of the neighborhood park according to a cover letter dated April 22, 2016. This would be instead of granite posts (6”-10” in diameter, 30” tall). 4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to update plans to show this change to three (3) foot diameter boulders. E. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.10 (D) Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District 1. Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. 2. Building Facades a. Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. b. Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. c. Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. d. All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. e. Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. f. Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. The Board has previously indicated that buildings in this SEQ-VC area should be oriented toward Rye Circle. Staff considers that the proposed building for commercial Lot 2 complies with the design standards above, for the following reasons. Windows are numerous and no “blank walls” are shown. The building includes doors facing to the south, west (Rye Circle), and north. The building’s roofs comply with the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 6 standards. The building employs a “four-sided” design principle and incorporates varied architectural features throughout. F. Waste Disposal Section 14.07 C. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, 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). A dumpster is proposed at the eastern end of the parking area on the south side of commercial Lot 2. It will be located on a concrete pad, be accessed via hinged doors, and enclosed with screen board or another similar material. It is unclear from the plans whether space for composting, which is a requirement, will be provided within this enclosure. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how and where space for composting will be provided on the site. G. Lighting Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations discusses exterior lighting and states that: A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 7 nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. There is one pole light on the north side of the proposed building on commercial Lot 2 and one on the south side. These light the parking areas. Poles are shown to be 16 feet and 20 feet tall and to have forward throw fixtures. It is unclear to staff based on the plans whether these fixtures meet the requirements of Appendix D: Lighting of the LDRs and which pole is 16 feet tall and which is 20 feet tall. Components are made of aluminum. 6. Staff recommends the Board request additional details about the lights to ascertain whether they comply with Appendix D of the LDRs, specifically whether they “shield the light source to minimize glare and light trespass.” 6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher than the roof of the structure. The proposed building on Lot 2 will have two (2) cone shade LED gooseneck lights mounted to the building on the northern elevation, three (3) mounted on the eastern elevation, and one (1) mounted on the southern elevation. There will be three (3) recessed LED lights mounted on the ceilings of the entry canopy at the northern elevation, two (2) on the southern elevation, and one (1) on the western elevation. The western side of the property is closest to residential uses and staff therefore finds it reasonable that less lighting would be provided on that side of the building. All of these fixtures will be mounted at less than 30 feet in height. Staff finds this criterion to be met. H. Stormwater Comments In an email to staff dated April 29, 2016 Assistant Stormwater Superintendent Dave Wheeler stated the following: On the Typical Bioswale Detail shown on Sheet C4.2, it appears that the applicant is proposing a stone lined swale. If that is the case, it is unclear why 12” of Planting Mix is proposed under the stone. Consider either removing the compost component, or adding plantings to the swale. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Dave CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_07_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_plat_May3_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 8 7. Staff recommends the Board support the comment provided by the Stormwater Section. I. Fire In an email to staff dated April 28, 2016 Deputy Chief Terry Francis stated “applicant shall ensure adequate fire department access pursuant to NFPA 1.” 8. Staff recommends the Board support the comment provided by the Fire Department. J. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. K. Utility Cabinets/HVAC Units The plans show existing and proposed utility cabinets and/or ground mounted HVAC units. Two (2) units are shown on the west side of the building on commercial Lot 1, three (3) units are shown in the northwest corner of Lot 1, and four (4) units are shown on the east side of the proposed building on commercial Lot 2. According to a site visit by Public Works’ staff, the utility cabinets shown in the northwest corner of Lot 1 could be within the street right-of-way on South Burlington city property when the street is accepted by the city. In previous reviews and approvals of this project the location of the utility cabinets and that their location did not meet setback requirements was not noticed by staff, the applicant, or Board members. This may in part have been due to the cabinets not being labeled on plans. A site visit by Public Works in May 2016 determined the utility cabinets located in the northwest corner of commercial Lot 1 were not a hazard. Per Section 13.18(B)(4) of the LDRs any such utility cabinets and/or HVAC units would be required to be screened with evergreens. The applicant shows plantings around the units which would provide screening and are evergreens. Staff considers this criteria met. RECOMMENDATION The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 123456789101112131415161718192120222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748a49a505152535455596056-5871-8081-9061-7091-991. This sheet depicts the boundaries of proposed lots of Phase 2.2. The perimeter boundary survey was performed during 2004-5using an electronic total station and GPS.3. Bearings shown are referenced to Grid North, VermontCoordinate System of 1983, related to National GeodeticSurvey marks PG1580 "F 65" and AB9571 "NE Aiken"established by RTK GPS measurements.4. Spear Street has a 66 foot wide right of way. Location wasdetermined by existing monumentation and the traveledportion of the road. Reference Town of Burlington "Highwaysand Roads 1802-1865", Page 22, and Town of ShelburneTown Minutes Volume 1, Page 229.5. This property lies within the "Southeast Quadrant" and the"Spear Street - Allen Road Scenic View Protection Overlay"zoning districts.NOTE:CAPPED IRON RODSPROPOSED AT LOTCORNERS (TYP.)To the best of my knowledge & be lief this p lat, consis tingof three sheets, proper ly depic ts the results of a surveyconducted under my supervision and is based uponrecords & field evidence found. Perimeter boundariesshown are in substantial conformance wi th the recordsunless noted otherwise . Th is p lat is in substantialcompliance with 27 VSA 1403 "Recording of Land Plats". _______________________________________ Timothy R . Cowan VT LS 597GAC1" = 80'01243.08P2TRCTRCOCT. 31, 2013APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENTREVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON,VERMONT, ON THE ____ DAY OF _____________, 2015,SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS ____ DAY OF ______________, 2015,BY _____________________________, CHAIRPERSON.4212.04.2013Lot 48 & Common l ands labels & areasTRC08.22.2014Add Sheet P3 (Easements)TRC10.10.2014 Notes & Lot NumberingTRC61-7010.15.2014 Lot Numbering ChangesTRC11.26.2014 Rev. bldg footprintsTRC12.08.2014 B ldg. footprints 22-25, 28, 29TRC SEQ-VCDISTRICT200'CURRENT VCDISTRICTLINETI &I &XXXXRYE CIRCLELANDON RD.HINESBURG RD.41 RYE CIRCLELOT 227 RYE CIRCLELOT 1EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGSIDEWALKEXISTINGPAVEMENTPROPOSEDCONC. CURBPROPOSEDPAVEMENTEXISTING LIGHT POLE TOBE RELOCATED (SEELIGHTING PLAN)(3) EXISTING PARKINGSPACES REDUCED TO2 SPACESEXISTING CURBTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING ON-STREETPARKING89 RYE CIRCLELOT 391 RYE CIRCLELOT 4DUMPSTERENCLOSURE ONCONC. PADPROPOSEDBIKE RACK6' WIDECONC.SIDEWALKPROPOSEDLIGHT POLEADDITIONALSTREET PARKINGPROPOSEDCONC. CURBTURN-AROUNDSPACE w/ NOPARKING SIGNTURN-AROUNDSPACE w/NO PARKINGSIGNBIOSWALEPROPOSED HVAC ANDUTILITY CABINETSEXIST. HVACCABINETSDSMDSMSAL1" = 30'11202C1.0FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDOVERALL SITEPLANACERYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATEDUPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALLDISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED ORABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THEPROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS ADIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE ANDOPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALSINCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOPDRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS ANDANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE0.1 FEET.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDEREDAS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWNAUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES INACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT ANAPPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ONTHE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAP INFORMATION.THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE.17. IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BE PROVIDED INACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT THE WATER LINE TOTWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICESINDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FORCOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILEWHERE APPLICABLE.20. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALL SAFETY FENCES ORRAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNER SHALL VERIFY LOCAL, STATE ANDINSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALLPERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.GENERAL NOTESLEGENDFMEGSTSTW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERFMGSTSTWPROPOSED CONTOUR100PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED FENCEPROPOSED GRAVELPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED GUARD RAILPROPOSED SWALEPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED FORCEMAINPROPOSED GASPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED TELEPHONEPROPOSED WATERSTREAMEXISTING WELLPROPOSED WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINESPROPOSED SEWER MANHOLEDPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDREBAR SETCONCRETE MONUMENT SETPROPOSED HYDRANTPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED UTILITY POLEPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSPROPOSED SETBACK LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINECOMMERCIAL LOT 1 & 2 COVERAGES:ZONE: SEQ - VC DISTRCTMAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 54%MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 21%LOTLOTSIZELOTCOVERAGEBUILDINGCOVERAGELOT 1LOT 226137 SF24859 SF51.03%50.0%21.17%20.50%SEQ-NR DISTRICTSEQ-VC DISTRICTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 5/12/2016 10:03:50 AM UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD WWWETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC SSSSSWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSG G G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W WSSSSSSSSSRELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE GAS SERVICE6" WATER SERVICEETCETC NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK5.0'11.4'16.0'5.0'6.0'18'24'18'R=5'R=5'R=5'EX. 2" HDPE GAS MAINEX. 8" PVC SEWEREX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. 8" D.I. WATER MAINEX. 5" PRIMARYEX. 6" D.I. WATER SERVICEEX. GAS SERVICEEX. (2) 3" SECONDARYEX. GAS SERVICE22.0'8.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'18.0'NEW BIKE RACKEX. SMH #2RIM=406.8INV. IN=399.9INV. OUT=399.8EX. GAS SERVICEEX. 6" SEWER SERVICE(2) 3" CONDUITS FOR ELEC.,TEL. & CABLE SERVICE41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6NEW YD #1 LOT 2RIM=408.25INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25NEW YD #2 LOT 2RIM=407.3INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.04.0'TRANSITION CURBSS6" SDR 35 PVCSEWER SERVICE1/4"/FT. SLOPE MIN.EX. SMHRIM=408.0INV.=401.1CORE NEW HOLE INEX. SMH FOR 6" PVCAT INV.=401.3INVERT AT BUILDING=402.8NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK12" HDPE 12" HDPETRANSITIONCURBCLEANOUTE E NEW CB #2 LOT2RIM 406 8TRANSITIONCURBNEW CB #1 LOT2RIM=408.9INV. IN=404.9INV. OUT=404.812" HDPETRANSITION CURB(TYP.)15" HDPE6" SDR 35 PVC6" PERF. SDR 35 PVCINV.=401.5BIOSWALETOP OF STONEELEV.= 405.5BIOSWALETOP BERM=406.5NEW HVAC ANDUTILITY CABINETS(TYP.)CROSS HATCHINGPAVEMENT MARKING(TYP.)NO PARKING SIGN (TYP.)UD UD UD UD UD UDEETCSTR=5'EX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. OUT=400.9 (15")EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN+407.4TRAN CUR(TYPDSMDSMSAL1" = 10'11202C2.0FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSED SITE& UTILITYPLAN4/25/2016ACEPROGRESS PLANSRYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT11689MATCH LINEMATCH LINEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 5/12/2016 10:03:56 AM UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UDUDTN/F EASTMOUNTAINVIEW, LLCN/FSPHINXDEVELOPMENT,LLCN/FSPANIEL PROPERTIES,LLCANDAVALANCHEDEVELOPMENT, LLCNEW CB #14RIM=409.0INV. (6"UD)=406.0INV. IN (18"N)=402.7INV. OUT (18"S)=402.6NEW CB #13RIM=408.27INV. IN (18"N)=402.3INV. OUT (18"S)=402.2NEW 5'Ø CB #11RIM=405.49INV. IN (18"N)=400.1INV. IN (15"E)=400.5INV. IN (12"W)=400.5INV. OUT=400.0NEW CB #12RIM=405.9INV. (6"UD)=402.9INV. OUT=400.9NEW CB #4ARIM=399.5NV. IN (18")=395.5 OUT (18")=395.4NEW 24' HDPEW/FES #5 INV.=403.3NEW 24'HDPE W/FES #4 INV.=403.7NEW 24" HDPEW/FES #6 INV.=397.5FF=401.2NEW CB #9ARIM=402.5INV. =397.5NEW CB #10RIM=403.85INV. (6"UD)=400.85INV. IN (18"N)=398.5INV. OUT (18"S)=398.4NEW CB #9RIM=403.0INV. (6"UD)=400.0INV. IN (18")=397.0INV. OUT (18")=396.9NEW CB #4BRIM=402.7INV.(18")=397.2400 407 407408400408406F.F. 411.7407405F.F. 410.5B-401.5 F.F. 409.5B-400.5F.F. 409.7B-400.7F.F. 410.0B-401.0407 406 403404405406405 405 404 403405 407 407 406404403403 13TYPE "C2"19TYPE "E"15TYPE"D"UDUDUDNEW YD #9RIM=402.4INV. OUT (12")=398.0INV.=398.5±408408408399F.F. 406.3F.F. 405.0F.F. 408.8 F.F. 407.5 27TYPE "C1"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPROPERTIES, 1st-404.0117TYPE "A"4.0"C"1st-405.5127TYPE "A"03.73"A"1st-405.0115TYPE "B"1st-403.3119TYPE "C"SEE SHEET C3.2ENLARGED PLANOF CMMERCIALLOT 27SEE SHEET C3.3ENLARGED PLANOF THE 4-PLEXBUILDINGS1st-404.0B-395.0FF=402.01st-403.6B-394.6STSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST410408407408RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE HINESBURG RD. EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING ON-STREET PARKING EX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. I N = 4 0 2 . 9 ( 6 " U D ) INV. O U T = 4 0 0 . 9 ( 1 5 " )EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN409 409 409407NEW DMHRIM=404.0± ADJUSTTO FINISH GRADEINV. IN=399.8INV. OUT=399.715" HDPE W/FESINV=399.015" HDPE15" HDPE STONE PAN409 407407 408408 407408408406NEW HVAC ANDUTILITY CABINETS(TYP.)DSMDSMSAL11202C2.1AFEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'OVERALLPROPOSEDGRADING &DRAINAGE PLANACERYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 30'91 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 441 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 289 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 327 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 1P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 5/12/2016 10:04:06 AM UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 07408408407ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST410408407408RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE HINESBURG RD.EX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAIN+408.28+408.5+408.9+409.48+409.58+409.42+409.0+409.5+408.241 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6+BC/TC408.9+BC408.65+409.5+409.5+409.5+409.5+409.6+409.6+408.88+409.6+409.5+409.0+409.0+409.0+409.0+409.5409.5++409.6+409.6+409.0409.0++BC408.3+408.98+TC408.88+409.4++BC407.6+TC407.9+BC407.4+406.5+408.9+408.74+408.0NEW YD #1 LOT 2RIM=408.25INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25NEW YD #2 LOT 2RIM=407.3INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0NEW DMH LOT2RIM=406.4INV. IN (15")=400.8INV. IN (6")=401.3INV. OUT=400.7409409409TRANSITION CURB12" HDPE 12" HDPE407+408.64+408.06TRANSITIONCURB+409.4BC/TC408.81+409 +407.7+407.4NEW CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8INV. IN=402.2INV. OUT=402.1+BC408.0407407408408407TRANSITIONCURB408408NEW CB #1 LOT2RIM=408.9INV. IN=404.9INV. OUT=404.812" HDPETRANSITION CURB(TYP.)15" HDPE4066" SDR 35 PVC6" PERF. SDR 35 PVCINV.=401.5BIOSWALETOP OF STONEELEV.= 405.5BIOSWALETOP BERM=406.5406.3++406.5+405.5NEW HVAC ANDUTILITY CABINETS(TYP.)DSMDSMSAL11202C2.1FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDGRADING &DRAINAGE PLANACERYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 5/12/2016 10:04:01 AM RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE41 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6DSMDSMSAL11202C2.2FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDLIGHTING PLANACERYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 5/12/2016 10:04:11 AM DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C4.2DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEELECTRICAL& GASPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTLEGENDK30.6MTCELECTRICAL CABINETELECTRICAL TEMINATION CABINETETCUNDERGROUND ELEC., TEL. & CABLETCCABLE & TEL. PEDESTALSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 5/12/2016 9:49:09 AM 1" = 40'11202BLA 1FEB. 24, 20161075 Hinesburg Rd.South Burlington, VermontBoundary LineAdjustmentofCommercial Lots 2 - 5- Location Map -Not to ScaleFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.TRCTRCRG/ACERECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKTo the best of my knowledge and belief this plat,consisting of two sheets, depicts the results of asurvey conducted by me as described in "SurveyNotes" above, based upon our analysis of landrecords and evidence found in the field. Existingboundaries shown are in substantialconformance with the records, except as noted.This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA1403, "Recording of Land Plats". This statementvalid only when accompanied by my originalsignature and seal below. __________________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON- Legend -- Survey Notes -4. Iron pipes shown as "found" are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods withoutside diameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods and markersfound are "Good" unless otherwise noted. Corners denoted "Proposed" shalltypically consist of58" diameter X 40" long rebar or by 4" square concrete markers,either type capped with aluminum disks stamped "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VTLS 597", and typically set flush with existing grade.5. Land areas (acreages) shown are calculated to the sidelines of existing orproposed streets as shown.- Reference Plat -A. "Subdivision Plat - Rye Meadows P.U.D."last revised 11/19/2014 by Civil EngineeringAssociates, Inc. Recorded, South BurlingtonLand Records.PROPOSED 10' wide sewer (force main) easement across Commercial Lot 4-5 to serve the Rye Homeowners Association (HOA).PROPOSED 10' wide easement, located along the street R.O.W. across Commercial Lots1 - 5, to serve Green Mountain Power Corp.PROPOSED 10' wide drainage easement crossing Lot 8.COMMERCIAL LOTS 1 - 5MAY be subject to inter-connective reciprocal access easements. Locations to be determined upon individual site plan approvals.EXISTING Easement (10' x 408.5'± ) serving Green Mtn. Power and Adelphia Cable Co., dated December 13, 1994. Volume 371 Page 650.[ SHADED ]PROPOSED drainage easement crossing Lots 1,2,3 and Lot 4-5 to detention basin on Lot 4-5.- Easement Notes -317Proposed Street shown as "Rye Circle". Variable width (from 55' to 61' wide). Land area: 2.25 acres.- Proposed Dedication -108RYE MEADOWP.U.D.1. Purpose of this survey and plat is to depict the adjustment of the boundaries ofCommercial Lots 2, 3, and 4 and to combine the resulting Lot 4 with Lot 5.2. Other (neighboring) property lines and buildings shown may be approximateonly, and are shown for informational purposes only.3. Field survey was conducted during 2012 and consisted of a closed-loop traverseutilizing an electronic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North,Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations on oradjacent to the site.1213P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202 BLA 2-2016 Commercial Lots.dwg, 3/8/2016 1:11:46 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C1.0DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACERYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTPHASE IPROPOSEDCONDITIONSSITE PLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 4/26/2016 10:11:06 AM, aloiselle SEQ-VCDISTRICT200'CURRENT VCDISTRICTLINETI &I &XXXXRYE CIRCLELANDON RD.HINESBURG RD.29 RYE CIRCLELOT 227 RYE CIRCLELOT 1EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGSIDEWALKEXISTINGPAVEMENTPROPOSEDCONC. CURBPROPOSEDPAVEMENTPROPOSED 5' WIDECONC. SIDEWALK W/CURBEXISTING LIGHT POLE TOBE RELOCATED (SEELIGHTING PLAN)(3) EXISTING PARKINGSPACES REDUCED TO2 SPACESEXISTING CURBTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING ON-STREETPARKING89 RYE CIRCLELOT 391 RYE CIRCLELOT 4DUMPSTERENCLOSURE ONCONC. PADPROPOSEDBIKE RACK6' WIDECONC.SIDEWALKPROPOSEDLIGHT POLEADDITIONALSTREET PARKINGPROPOSEDCONC. CURBTURN-ROUNDSPACETURN-ROUNDSPACEBIOSWALEDSMDSMSAL1" = 30'11202C1.0FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDOVERALL SITEPLANACEPROGRESS PLANS4/25/16RYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATEDUPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALLDISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED ORABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THEPROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS ADIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE ANDOPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALSINCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOPDRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS ANDANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE0.1 FEET.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDEREDAS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWNAUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES INACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT ANAPPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ONTHE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAP INFORMATION.THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE.17. IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BE PROVIDED INACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT THE WATER LINE TOTWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICESINDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FORCOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILEWHERE APPLICABLE.20. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALL SAFETY FENCES ORRAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNER SHALL VERIFY LOCAL, STATE ANDINSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALLPERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.GENERAL NOTESLEGENDFMEGSTSTW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERFMGSTSTWPROPOSED CONTOUR100PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED FENCEPROPOSED GRAVELPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED GUARD RAILPROPOSED SWALEPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED FORCEMAINPROPOSED GASPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED TELEPHONEPROPOSED WATERSTREAMEXISTING WELLPROPOSED WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINESPROPOSED SEWER MANHOLEDPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDREBAR SETCONCRETE MONUMENT SETPROPOSED HYDRANTPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED UTILITY POLEPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSPROPOSED SETBACK LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINECOMMERCIAL LOT 1 & 2 COVERAGES:ZONE: SEQ - VC DISTRCTMAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 54%MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 21%LOTLOTSIZELOTCOVERAGEBUILDINGCOVERAGELOT 1LOT 226137 SF24859 SF51.03%50.0%21.17%20.50%SEQ-NR DISTRICTSEQ-VC DISTRICTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 4/26/2016 9:51:39 AM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 15'11202C1.6MARCH, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPARK / OPENSPACE ACTIVEUSE AREAPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 2/23/2016 11:02:24 AM, aloiselle UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD WWWETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC SSSSSWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGSSSG G G G G G G G G G G G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST W W W W W W W W W W W W W WSSSSSSSSSRELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE GAS SERVICE6" WATER SERVICEETCETC NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK5.0'11.4'16.0'5.0'6.0'18'24'18'R=5'R=5'R=5'EX. 2" HDPE GAS MAINEX. 8" PVC SEWEREX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. 8" D.I. WATER MAINEX. 5" PRIMARYEX. 6" D.I. WATER SERVICEEX. GAS SERVICEEX. (2) 3" SECONDARYEX. GAS SERVICE22.0'8.0'9.0'9.0'9.0'18.0'NEW BIKE RACKEX. SMH #2RIM=406.8INV. IN=399.9INV. OUT=399.8EX. GAS SERVICEEX. 6" SEWER SERVICE(2) 3" CONDUITS FOR ELEC.,TEL. & CABLE SERVICE29 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6NEW YD #1 LOT 2RIM=408.25INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25NEW YD #2 LOT 2RIM=407.3INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.04.0'TRANSITION CURBSS6" SDR 35 PVCSEWER SERVICE1/4"/FT. SLOPE MIN.EX. SMHRIM=408.0INV.=401.1CORE NEW HOLE INEX. SMH FOR 6" PVCAT INV.=401.3INVERT AT BUILDING=402.8NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK12" HDPE 12" HDPETRANSITIONCURBCLEANOUTE E NEW CB #2 LOT2RIM 406 8TRANSITIONCURBNEW CB #1 LOT2RIM=408.9INV. IN=404.9INV. OUT=404.812" HDPETRANSITION CURB(TYP.)15" HDPE6" SDR 35 PVC6" PERF. SDR 35 PVCINV.=401.5BIOSWALETOP OF STONEELEV.= 405.5BIOSWALETOP BERM=406.5UD UD UD UD UD UDEETCSTR=5'EX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. OUT=400.9 (15")EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN+407.4TRAN CUR(TYPDSMDSMSAL1" = 10'11202C2.0FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSED SITE& UTILITYPLAN4/25/2016ACEPROGRESS PLANSRYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT11689MATCH LINEMATCH LINEP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 4/26/2016 9:52:07 AM, aloiselle UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD 07408408407ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST410408407408RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE HINESBURG RD.EX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAIN+408.28+408.5+408.9+409.48+409.58+409.42+409.0+409.5+408.229 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6+BC/TC408.9+BC408.65+409.5+409.5+409.5+409.5+409.6+409.6+408.88+409.6+409.5+409.0+409.0+409.0+409.0+409.5409.5++409.6+409.6+409.0409.0++BC408.3+408.98+TC408.88+409.4++BC407.6+TC407.9+BC407.4+406.5+408.9+408.74+408.0NEW YD #1 LOT 2RIM=408.25INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25NEW YD #2 LOT 2RIM=407.3INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0NEW DMH LOT2RIM=406.4INV. IN (15")=400.8INV. IN (6")=401.3INV. OUT=400.7409409409TRANSITION CURB12" HDPE 12" HDPE407+408.64+408.06TRANSITIONCURB+409.4BC/TC408.81+409+407.7+407.4NEW CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8INV. IN=402.2INV. OUT=402.1+BC408.0407407408408407TRANSITIONCURB408408NEW CB #1 LOT2RIM=408.9INV. IN=404.9INV. OUT=404.812" HDPETRANSITION CURB(TYP.)15" HDPE4066" SDR 35 PVC6" PERF. SDR 35 PVCINV.=401.5BIOSWALETOP OF STONEELEV.= 405.5BIOSWALETOP BERM=406.5406.3++406.5+405.5DSMDSMSAL11202C2.1FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDGRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN4/25/2016ACEPROGRESS PLANSRYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 4/26/2016 9:52:33 AM, aloiselle UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UDUDTN/F EASTMOUNTAINVIEW, LLCN/FSPHINXDEVELOPMENT,LLCN/FSPANIEL PROPERTIES,LLCANDAVALANCHEDEVELOPMENT, LLCNEW CB #14RIM=409.0INV. (6"UD)=406.0INV. IN (18"N)=402.7INV. OUT (18"S)=402.6NEW CB #13RIM=408.27INV. IN (18"N)=402.3INV. OUT (18"S)=402.2NEW 5'Ø CB #11RIM=405.49INV. IN (18"N)=400.1INV. IN (15"E)=400.5INV. IN (12"W)=400.5INV. OUT=400.0NEW CB #12RIM=405.9INV. (6"UD)=402.9INV. OUT=400.9NEW CB #4ARIM=399.5NV. IN (18")=395.5 OUT (18")=395.4NEW 24' HDPEW/FES #5 INV.=403.3NEW 24'HDPE W/FES #4 INV.=403.7NEW 24" HDPEW/FES #6 INV.=397.5FF=401.2NEW CB #9ARIM=402.5INV. =397.5NEW CB #10RIM=403.85INV. (6"UD)=400.85INV. IN (18"N)=398.5INV. OUT (18"S)=398.4NEW CB #9RIM=403.0INV. (6"UD)=400.0INV. IN (18")=397.0INV. OUT (18")=396.9NEW CB #4BRIM=402.7INV.(18")=397.2400 407 407408400408406F.F. 411.7407405F.F. 410.5B-401.5 F.F. 409.5B-400.5F.F. 409.7B-400.7F.F. 410.0B-401.0407 406 403404405406405405 404 403405 407 407 406404403403 13TYPE "C2"19TYPE "E"15TYPE"D"UDUDUDNEW YD #9RIM=402.4INV. OUT (12")=398.0INV.=398.5±408408408399F.F. 406.3F.F. 405.0F.F. 408.8 F.F. 407.5 27TYPE "C1"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPROPERTIES, 1st-404.0117TYPE "A"4.0"C"1st-405.5127TYPE "A"03.73"A"1st-405.0115TYPE "B"1st-403.3119TYPE "C"SEE SHEET C3.2ENLARGED PLANOF CMMERCIALLOT 27SEE SHEET C3.3ENLARGED PLANOF THE 4-PLEXBUILDINGS1st-404.0B-395.0FF=402.01st-403.6B-394.6STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST410408407408RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE HINESBURG RD. EXISTINGSIDEWALK EXISTINGPAVEMENT EXISTING ON-STREETPARKING EX. 18" STORMEX. 6" UNDERDRAINEX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. O U T = 4 0 0 . 9 ( 1 5 " )EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN29 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6409409 409407NEW DMHRIM=404.0± ADJUSTTO FINISH GRADEINV. IN=399.8INV. OUT=399.715" HDPE W/FESINV=399.015" HDPE15" HDPE STONE PAN409 407407 408408 407408408406DSMDSMSAL11202C2.1AFEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'OVERALLPROPOSEDGRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN4/25/2016ACEPROGRESS PLANSRYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 30'91 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 429 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 289 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 327 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 1P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 4/26/2016 9:53:03 AM, aloiselle RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE29 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6DSMDSMSAL11202C2.2FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDLIGHTING PLAN4/25/2016ACEPROGRESS PLANSRYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 4/26/2016 9:53:35 AM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C4.2DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEELECTRICAL& GASPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 4/26/2016 2:01:26 PM, aloiselle RELOCATE LIGHT POLERYE CIRCLE HINESBURG RD.29 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 2PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGF.F. EL. 409.6NEW YD #1 LOT 2RIM=408.25INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=404.25NEW YD #2 LOT 2RIM=407.3INV. IN (12" HDPE)=403.0INV. OUT (12" HDPE)=403.0NEW DMH LOT2RIM=406.4INV. IN (15")=400.8INV. IN (6")=401.3INV. OUT=400.7409409409EROSION CONTROL MATTINGBETWEEN CURB AND SIDEWALKCATCH BASININLET PROTECTION(TYP.)INSTALL STABILIZEDCONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE TO NEWCONSTRUCTION AREATRANSITION CURBINSTALL SILT FENCEINSTALL SILT FENCE12" HDPE 12" HDPE40715" HDPE TRANSITIONCURBEROSION CONTROLMATTING BETWEENPAVEMENT AND SWALE409NEW CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8INV. IN=402.2INV. OUT=402.1407407408408407TRANSITIONCURB408408NEW CB #1 LOT2RIM=408.9INV. IN=404.9INV. OUT=404.812" HDPETRANSITION CURB(TYP.)15" HDPECATCH BASININLET PROTECTION(TYP.)4066" SDR 35 PVC6" PERF. SDR 35 PVCINV.=401.5BIOSWALETOP OF STONEELEV.= 405.5BIOSWALETOP BERM=406.5EROSION CONTROLMATTING BETWEENPAVEMENT AND SWALEDSMDSMSAL11202C3.0FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSED EPSCPLAN4/25/2016ACEPROGRESS PLANSRYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 4/26/2016 10:01:10 AM, aloiselle CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 May 2016, at 6:45 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman, M. Behr ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Barlow, City Attorney; A. Roche 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. Training Session with City Attorney: Mr. Barlow said he had been asked to speak to the Board regarding conflicts of interest and ex- parte communication. He stressed that if a member has a concern with either of those situations, they should speak with Mr. Belair or Mr. Conner as dealing with a potential problem is easier than doing “damage control.” Mr. Barlow noted that prior to 2004, there was no requirement for a DRB or any other quasi- judicial board to have rules of procedure. In 2004, the Legislature enacted requirements for DRBs to have both Rules of Procedure and Conflict of Interest regulations. The South Burlington DRB has met both of these requirements. In addition, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) did a Rules of Procedure Manual which South Burlington used as a model. Mr. Barlow suggested members review this document. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 2 Mr. Barlow then outlined the difficulties in dealing with conflicts of interest: a. It is hard to define the boundaries b. People have different levels of sensitivity to these issues c. South Burlington is a comparatively small town in the grand scheme of things; therefore, people on the DRB know a lot of people (the connections that make life valuable to members also make them vulnerable) d. People chosen to serve on the Board are most likely to have connections that cause conflicts because they are involved and engaged in the community. Mr. Barlow stressed that it is important to deal with conflict of interest effectively so that decisions of the Board are not repealed by the Court. The Environmental Court can remand a decision back to a board and require the recusal of a member with a conflict. Mr. Barlow also stressed that the City has a significant investment in the land use program, including the time of everyone who serves on committees. Preserving the integrity of the program is of supreme importance. If community members are not confident in the ability of a board to render unbiased opinions, they will appeal that board’s decision(s). Mr. Barlow then directed attention to the definition of “conflict of interest” in the Rules of Procedure as follows: a. Someone closely associated with you that has a financial interest in a decision you are making b. Someone closely associated with you that has a direct or indirect personal interest, where a decision is important for other than a financial reason (e.g. a view) Mr. Barlow said if a member or members have one of those conflicts of interest, they should not participate in a hearing. He urged members to err on the side of caution if they are not sure of a conflict. He added that a member with a conflict can state that he/she believes he or she can act in an impartial manner or recuse him/herself. If there is a recusal, that person should leave the table and possibly the room. If a question of conflict comes up, the Board can take a break, discuss it, make a decision and then come back and reveal the decision. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 3 Mr. Kochman asked about an “opponent” (in a law case, for example). Mr. Barlow said recusal is not necessary unless there has been some ex-parte communication. Mr. Wilking asked about an application in which a Board member is an applicant and needs to be present. Mr. Barlow said this gives the perception that the Board member is “an inside player.” He stressed the need to be transparent and up front with the member’s position. Mr. Wilking asked if he should announce that he worked with a particular engineer in the past. Mr. Barlow said he should. Mr. Miller asked if this should occur at Sketch Plan Review or at Preliminary/Final hearings. Mr. Barlow said yes to all three. Mr. Kochman asked if an applicant can ask a member to recuse him/herself. Mr. Barlow said yes, but the Board member doesn’t have to comply. This could, however, lead to an appeal of the Board’s decision. Mr. Barlow also stressed that ex-parte communication with an interested party in an application is improper, even after a decision has been made. Mr. Wilking suggested that discussion of potential conflicts of interest and ex-parte communication become part of the DRB process prior to the hearing of an application. Mr. Kochman asked about the discretion the Board has regarding the design of a project. Mr. Behr said the Board can advise on design. Other members noted this can be a “bargaining chip.” Mr. Belair said there is no longer “design review.” There are specific design criteria in the Form Based Code district. Members then agreed to hear agenda item originally numbered as #5 following the three items being continued in order to comply with a specific time designation. 5. Preliminary & Final Application #SD-16-07 of Rye Associates, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots 2-5 into three lots, 2) replacing granite posts with boulders to demarcate the neighborhood park, 3) reviewing the site plan for a new 4,726 sq. ft. general office building, and 4) revising landscaping for the general office building on lot #1, 1075 Hinesburg Road: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 4 Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 17 May. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-07 to 17 May 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. 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, 3) constructing a 51 room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 7 June. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-15-40 to 7 June 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-10 of Allen Brook Development, Inc., to construct a 50,155 sq. ft. building which will consist of: 1) 44,155 sq. ft. of warehouse & distribution use, and 2) 6,000 sq. ft. of retail warehouse outlet use, 6 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-10 to 17 May 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Minutes of 5 and 19 April 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 5 April 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Kochman asked that the words “members were OK with this” be stricken from the minutes of 19 April. Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 19 April 2016 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 5 9. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for a 3-month extension from the Brown Estates approval on Hinesburg Road. Mr. Wilking moved to grant a 3-month extension to the Brown Estates approval for 57 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. (formerly #5): Design Review Application #DR-16-02 of Ann Roche to revise a Master Signage Permit for a new free-standing sign, 370 Dorset Street: Ms. Roche said she thought the sign provider had secured a permit for the sign, but he hadn’t. Mr. Belair said the sign is compliant with the Master Sign Criteria. Ms. Roche asked if the sign can be lighted. Mr. Belair said the Board would need details of the lighting. The applicant was given the option of continuing the hearing to add the lighting details to the application or approving this application and filing a new one for the lighting. The applicant chose to get an approval for the existing application and to file a new one for the lighting. Mr. Behr then moved to close #DR-16-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:10 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 May 2016, at 6:45 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman, M. Behr ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Barlow, City Attorney; A. Roche 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. Training Session with City Attorney: Mr. Barlow said he had been asked to speak to the Board regarding conflicts of interest and ex- parte communication. He stressed that if a member has a concern with either of those situations, they should speak with Mr. Belair or Mr. Conner as dealing with a potential problem is easier than doing “damage control.” Mr. Barlow noted that prior to 2004, there was no requirement for a DRB or any other quasi- judicial board to have rules of procedure. In 2004, the Legislature enacted requirements for DRBs to have both Rules of Procedure and Conflict of Interest regulations. The South Burlington DRB has met both of these requirements. In addition, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) did a Rules of Procedure Manual which South Burlington used as a model. Mr. Barlow suggested members review this document. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 2 Mr. Barlow then outlined the difficulties in dealing with conflicts of interest: a. It is hard to define the boundaries b. People have different levels of sensitivity to these issues c. South Burlington is a comparatively small town in the grand scheme of things; therefore, people on the DRB know a lot of people (the connections that make life valuable to members also make them vulnerable) d. People chosen to serve on the Board are most likely to have connections that cause conflicts because they are involved and engaged in the community. Mr. Barlow stressed that it is important to deal with conflict of interest effectively so that decisions of the Board are not repealed by the Court. The Environmental Court can remand a decision back to a board and require the recusal of a member with a conflict. Mr. Barlow also stressed that the City has a significant investment in the land use program, including the time of everyone who serves on committees. Preserving the integrity of the program is of supreme importance. If community members are not confident in the ability of a board to render unbiased opinions, they will appeal that board’s decision(s). Mr. Barlow then directed attention to the definition of “conflict of interest” in the Rules of Procedure as follows: a. Someone closely associated with you that has a financial interest in a decision you are making b. Someone closely associated with you that has a direct or indirect personal interest, where a decision is important for other than a financial reason (e.g. a view) Mr. Barlow said if a member or members have one of those conflicts of interest, they should not participate in a hearing. He urged members to err on the side of caution if they are not sure of a conflict. He added that a member with a conflict can state that he/she believes he or she can act in an impartial manner or recuse him/herself. If there is a recusal, that person should leave the table and possibly the room. If a question of conflict comes up, the Board can take a break, discuss it, make a decision and then come back and reveal the decision. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 3 Mr. Kochman asked about an “opponent” (in a law case, for example). Mr. Barlow said recusal is not necessary unless there has been some ex-parte communication. Mr. Wilking asked about an application in which a Board member is an applicant and needs to be present. Mr. Barlow said this gives the perception that the Board member is “an inside player.” He stressed the need to be transparent and up front with the member’s position. Mr. Wilking asked if he should announce that he worked with a particular engineer in the past. Mr. Barlow said he should. Mr. Miller asked if this should occur at Sketch Plan Review or at Preliminary/Final hearings. Mr. Barlow said yes to all three. Mr. Kochman asked if an applicant can ask a member to recuse him/herself. Mr. Barlow said yes, but the Board member doesn’t have to comply. This could, however, lead to an appeal of the Board’s decision. Mr. Barlow also stressed that ex-parte communication with an interested party in an application is improper, even after a decision has been made. Mr. Wilking suggested that discussion of potential conflicts of interest and ex-parte communication become part of the DRB process prior to the hearing of an application. Mr. Kochman asked about the discretion the Board has regarding the design of a project. Mr. Behr said the Board can advise on design. Other members noted this can be a “bargaining chip.” Mr. Belair said there is no longer “design review.” There are specific design criteria in the Form Based Code district. Members then agreed to hear agenda item originally numbered as #5 following the three items being continued in order to comply with a specific time designation. 5. Preliminary & Final Application #SD-16-07 of Rye Associates, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots 2-5 into three lots, 2) replacing granite posts with boulders to demarcate the neighborhood park, 3) reviewing the site plan for a new 4,726 sq. ft. general office building, and 4) revising landscaping for the general office building on lot #1, 1075 Hinesburg Road: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 4 Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 17 May. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-07 to 17 May 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. 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, 3) constructing a 51 room extended stay hotel, 4) constructing 77 residential units, and 5) constructing 9,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 7 June. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-15-40 to 7 June 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-10 of Allen Brook Development, Inc., to construct a 50,155 sq. ft. building which will consist of: 1) 44,155 sq. ft. of warehouse & distribution use, and 2) 6,000 sq. ft. of retail warehouse outlet use, 6 Ethan Allen Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SP-16-10 to 17 May 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Minutes of 5 and 19 April 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 5 April 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Kochman asked that the words “members were OK with this” be stricken from the minutes of 19 April. Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 19 April 2016 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 5 9. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for a 3-month extension from the Brown Estates approval on Hinesburg Road. Mr. Wilking moved to grant a 3-month extension to the Brown Estates approval for 57 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. (formerly #5): Design Review Application #DR-16-02 of Ann Roche to revise a Master Signage Permit for a new free-standing sign, 370 Dorset Street: Ms. Roche said she thought the sign provider had secured a permit for the sign, but he hadn’t. Mr. Belair said the sign is compliant with the Master Sign Criteria. Ms. Roche asked if the sign can be lighted. Mr. Belair said the Board would need details of the lighting. The applicant was given the option of continuing the hearing to add the lighting details to the application or approving this application and filing a new one for the lighting. The applicant chose to get an approval for the existing application and to file a new one for the lighting. Mr. Behr then moved to close #DR-16-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:10 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date