Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 11/01/2016
SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 1 NOVEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 November 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: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; L. Britt, Planning Department; B. Gilbert, T. Barritt, H. & T. Riehle, T. Chittenden, M. Simoneau, T. McKenzie, C. Snyder, R. Rushford, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, S. Dopp, A. Rowe, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, B. Doucevicz, M.E. Jeffries, W. Woolfry, J. Goodwin, I Jewkes 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #8 to #4 and to adjust the other numbering accordingly. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-16-28 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 29.1 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 27.8 acres (lot #1) and 1.29 acres (lot #1-F), 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. McKenzie indicated the piece to be subdivided and sold to the neighbor to allow him greater density on his property. Mr. McKenzie noted this piece is separated from the rest of their property by a wetland. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Kochman moved to close SD-16-28. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Consider request to reopen the hearing for preliminary plat application #SD-16-18 of the Snyder Group, Inc., for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one single family dwelling, 2) constructing 18 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten 2- family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Snyder explained that they had been contacted by Ray Belair who advised that a Master Plan had not been submitted. This is a requirement for this development. Mr. Snyder said they had thought this had been resolved a long time ago. Mr. Miller explained that there was a Master Plan years ago, but it had never been finalized or approved. Mr. Miller also noted receipt of a letter from Daniel Seff saying the application should not be reopened. The Board received a response from City Attorney Lafferty advising them to reopen the hearing. Mr. Conner noted the letter from the City Attorney is privileged information, unless the Board wishes to make it public. Mr. Kochman moved to make the letter from City Attorney Lafferty part of the record. Mr. Miller seconded. Mr. Conner said that typically they would check with the City Attorney as to whether releasing the information would allow an adversary to use the information. Mr. Wilking said he wouldn’t want his attorney’s information released. Mr. Cota said he had questions he would like to ask before releasing the letter. The vote on the motion was 1-5, with all but Mr. Kochman voting against. Mr. Kochman reminded the applicant that once the application is reopened, everything is ‘on the table.” Mr. Snyder said he understood this. Mr. Cota then moved to reopen SD-16-18 of The Snyder Group, Inc., on 6 December 2016. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kochman said he felt there should be an independent review of traffic at that time and consideration of mitigation of hazards at the Swift/Spear intersection. Mr. Parsons noted that issue had been left to Final Plat; it was not being ignored. Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilking had the same recollection. 6. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller said the Board would allot an hour to this application, unless it appeared they are near the end. He also noted the application would be continued so the Board could consider in deliberative session whether there is anything more they wish to hear. Mr. Langfeldt noted that the unit count differs from what was proposed in April because more land was added. This was not re-noticed properly. They will work with staff to properly re-notice it. The correct unit count is 458. Mr. Conner noted that this is an optional Master Plan. Mr. Langfeldt asked that the deliberative session be an open session so they can provide clarity. Mr. Kochman said the applicant could not participate in the deliberative session, but he did feel it should be an open session to address transparency. Mr. Langfeldt said they wanted to be sure there is no “misinterpretation” of what they have proposed. Mr. Kochman suggested staff do a report to the Board prior to the deliberative session, and the applicant could look at that. Ms. Britt said this could be done by 15 November. Members voiced no objection to this process. Re: Mixing of uses with a Master Plan: Mr. Langfeldt said they believe they can move uses around within a PUD. They are asking that uses allowed in C-1-LR zoning be allowed in Zone 2 of the Master Plan. He noted that staff feels this request is “premature.” Mr. Kochman said he didn’t believe you can change uses just because there is a PUD. Mr. Langfeldt reviewed the issue of “implication” noting a Supreme Court decision on this. Members then reviewed section 15.03 of the LDRs. The applicant believes the language allows for all uses. Board members did not agree. Re: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Langfeldt said they believe the Master Plan meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and asked that the Board agree with this. They want to put this issue “to rest” so they can deal with “minutia.” Mr. Miller noted there is a specific disagreement regarding front yard coverage on Kennedy Drive. Staff believes that the green appearance on Kennedy Drive should be maintained. Mr. Langfeldt said they are OK with the requirement. Mr. Gill added they are no longer asking to waive the 15-foot green buffer on Kennedy Drive.. They do believe that landscaping with new trees might be better than keeping the existing trees. Mr. Langfeldt said they are not asking to waive front yard coverage, though they might want to ask to allow for something like a patio. Mr. Gill said they issue is off the table because the Board won’t allow commercial uses in this area. Ms. Britt said offices would be allowed but not the uses the applicant had asked for. Mr. Langfeldt said they would like consensus from the Board that they are meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Conner read from Section 15.07 (C)(2) indicating that the Board’s statement that a plan is ‘consistent’ is sufficient. He said he wouldn’t make that statement about an application the Board has not seen. Mr. Kochman suggested that the Board could say “what you show so far is consistent.” Mr. Conner explained that this is an issue of “level of detail” and the Board’s ability to fully review a future plan. Mr. Gill said they are concerned that things already decided (e.g., paths, green space, etc.) would be re-opened. Mr. Wilking said he understood that the applicant is trying to protect against what might happen if the membership of the Board changed. Ms. Britt said staff is OK saying this particular plan meets with Comprehensive Plan. It is not OK with saying that future plans do. Re: movement of the zoning boundary: Mr. Langfeldt noted that staff feels this is not part of the Master Plan review, but they feel this is the right point to allow for this. Members agreed it is appropriate for this review. Re: innovation and whether the plan meets that requirement: Mr. Langfeldt said they feel there is innovation in such things as layout, housing types, uses, green space, etc. Mr. Conner said there is no question of this plan being innovative. It is. The question is future plans. Mr. Langfeldt said they are using this Master Plan to make development innovative. Mr. Wilking suggested saying the plan “as contemplated” is innovative. The applicant was OK with that statement. Re: Landscaping budget: Mr. Langfeldt said in some zones the budget will be significant. They are not asking for a waiver but are asking the board to say that at a future they can find that landscaping can be put on a different part of the development. Mr. Wilking questioned taking landscaping off site. Mr. Gill said they may not fit 100% of the required trees and shrubs on a different part of the site. Mr. Conner said that historically, the Board has required landscaping to be as close as possible to the development site. Mr. Wilking said he had no issue as the Board can control where landscaping goes. Mr. Kochman wanted the flexibility for the Board to allow landscaping elsewhere on the site where it would look better. Mr. Miller was OK with saying “within the Master Plan.” Re: Choice of landscaping plantings: Mr. Langfeldt said they are asking that when they have a landscaping design the Board could approve plants staff does not now feel are appropriate (e.g., ornamental grasses). They ask to keep things open to consider that. Mr. Conner said the Board has typically said landscaping consists of “trees and shrubs.” Mr. Kochman noted the LDRs include “grasses and ground cover.” He suggested the applicant include them and see what the DRB says. Re: Site plan review: Mr. Langfeldt asked if they can submit a plan with parking on another lot and submit them as “tandem.” Mr. Conner said this could be on one plan or 2 successive plans on the agenda. Mr. Langfeldt said they agree with the rest of the staff comments. Mr. Wilking moved to continue MP-16-01 to 15 November 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. At this point, Ms. Riehle noted there were three City Council members present. She stressed that no city business would be discussed at this meeting. 7. Continued Site Plan application #SD-16-61 of Bill Shearer to amend a previously approved plan for an 8400 sq. ft. building consisting of the following uses: 1) 4100 sq. ft. of auto service and repair, 2) 3300 sq. ft. of wholesale, 3) 1000 sq. ft. of general office. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area to increase the number of spaces from 25 to 32, 45 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Jewkes indicated they had met with the City Arborist. They have removed the black locust trees and replaced them with honey locust and Arborvitae. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-16-61 of Bill Shearer. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-27 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) increasing the number of residential units by 58 units to 167 units, 2) incorporating the adjacent “Nadeau” 10.1 acre parcel into the development. The 167 units will consist of the following: 125 single family dwellings and 42 two-family dwelling units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Miller noted receipt of comments from DRB member Mark Behr and from Fire Marshall Terry Francis. Correspondence was also received from neighboring residents. Mr. O’Leary showed a plan of Cider Mill I and identified the access roads. He noted the location of single family and multi-family residences. He then showed the proposal for the additional homes including those in the parcel acquired from the adjacent landowner. There will be no change in the street network. They will go from 109 to 167 units. There is sufficient allowance for these additional units. They have changed to duplexes and carriage homes in order to respond to market trends. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a process to amend a Master Plan. Mr. Conner indicated that a Master Plan can be amended to change collector roads and add homes. The next step would be for the applicant to submit a revised Master Plan. It is within the Board’s purview to approve or disapprove that application. The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows: #1: Extending the road to the property line for connection to the adjacent property, were it to be developed. Mr. O’Leary said they only issue is a wetland and the setback from the wetland. He felt it was unlikely they could get a permit to extend the road through the wetland if there is no existing plan to develop the adjacent property. They are willing to provide a right-of-way. Mr. Kochman suggested a different route for the road, avoiding the wetland. Mr. Wilking saw no reason to connect to a lot that now has solar panels on it that will be there for 25-30 years. Mr. O’Leary said they could reduce the road to fewer than 200 feet and solve the issue. This would lose 6 units. Mr. Miller said extending the road doesn’t make sense and suggested making the road fewer than 200 feet. #2, 3 and 4: Open space issues: Mr. O’Leary said they did discuss where there could be more open space. He showed potential locations for park/community garden spaces. These could possibly be closer to Cider Mill I which was built before the requirement for open space was in the regulations. They are willing to look at this. #5 & #6: Residential design: Mr. O’Leary said they will provide a variety of housing styles. #7: Lot ratio: Mr. O’Leary said they will look at this. The applicant then addressed comments from Terry Francis. Mr. O’Leary said they will provide an adequate turning radius for fire equipment. They do have a permit from the State to extend the water system. They will also assure that the road is designed not to be a high speed cut-thru. Members then addressed written and oral comments from neighbors. One of the written comments addressed the obstruction of a wildlife corridor. Mr. Miller noted that this is an issue that is dealt with by Act 250, not at the local level. Another comments suggested that Cider Mill I and II were connected “too directly,” and that it would look like “wall to wall” development. This writer also wanted more of a jog in the road. Mr. O’Leary said that road network is similar to what was approved, but instead of 2 90 degree bends, there is a loop, and there is a fairly circuitous route from Hinesburg Road to Dorset St. There are also “neckdowns” at about every intersection. Regarding a question about TDRs, Mr. Conner explained the TDR process. Mr. O’Leary said they have enough TDRs for 109 units and will acquire those needed for the 167 units. Mr. Wolfrey expressed concern that the road will go through a street with family housing. He suggested another route. Mr. Miller noted that the city is committed to “connectivity” between major arteries. Ms. Jeffries said many cars not try to cut through, even though the road is closed off. She felt the road would be used as a “cut thru.” Mr. Miller said the road has already been permitted, but the DRB will try to make it as safe as possible. Mr. Kochman reminded neighbors of their right to testify about traffic concerns at both the DRB and Act 250 hearings. They can also work with the developer to get something they feel is safer. Ms. Dopp expressed concern with the north/south wildlife corridor. Mr. O’Leary said that most of the additional units are within the Village Residential zoning area. They will not be clearing a lot of woods, and the buildings are being placed on open field areas. Another member of the audience suggested pulling back some of the duplexes so the corridor can remain natural. Mr. Barritt said staff has worked hard to preserve wildlife corridors. He felt this proposal squeezes down that corridor. He asked the Board to consider this very carefully. Mr. Riehle noted that a deed requires that the land at the end of the proposed development not be developed. He also expressed concern with the rec path going down into Hinesburg Road where there is a 50 mph speed limit. He didn’t feel biking should be encouraged there. He asked if the developer would consider a berm and indicated the location. Mr. O’Leary said they would gladly consider that. Mr. Chittenden asked if the property touches the Scott property that the city owns. Mr. Conner said it does. He indicated the corner where the 2 properties abut. Mr. Goodwin of the Bike/Ped Committee, said the Committee would like to see more of what is planned. Mr. Miller encouraged the developer to speak with that committee. Mr. O’Leary said they are comfortable going to Master Plan and Preliminary Plat. 9. Minutes of 18 October 2016: Ms. Smith noted that she also recused herself during the hearing on item #10. Mr. Cota then moved to approve the Minutes of 18 October 2016 as amended. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: Mr. Kochman said he would like a discussion on affordable housing to take place with the City Council in an open session. Mr. Miller said he felt that is a good idea, but he questioned whether the Board can have such a discussion if it does not relate to an application being heard. Mr. Conner said he would ask the Council if there are any problems with such a discussion. Members were OK with this. Mr. Conner noted the city now has a new in-house legal counsel, Andrew Bolduc. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. , Clerk 12/20/16 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SD-16-28 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SBRC PROPERTIES, LLC – 284 MEADOWLAND DRIVE FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-16-28 of SBRC Properties, LLC to subdivide a 29.1 acre undeveloped parcel into two (2) lots of 27.8 acres (lot #1) and 1.29 acres (lot #1-F), 284 Meadowland Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 1, 2016. The applicant was represented by David Marshall. 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, SBRC Properties, LLC, seeks to subdivide a 29.1 acre undeveloped parcel into two (2) lots of 27.8 acres (lot #1) and 1.29 acres (lot #1-F), 284 Meadowland Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is SBRC Properties, LLC. 3. The application was received on September 26, 2016. 4. The property lies within the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page titled “Subdivision of Lot 1-F from Lot 1 SBRC Properties, LLC Hinesburg Road & Meadowland Drive City of South Burlington, Vermont” prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, and dated 7/15/2016. Zoning District The area of proposed Lot 1-F is separated by wetlands from the rest of the existing lot of which it is part. Earlier in 2016 the property owner sought and received a change in zoning for proposed Lot 1-F from Industrial-Open Space to SEQ-NR so that Lot 1-F’s zoning district designation would be consistent with other abutting parcels. Southeast Quadrant District (Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations) A. Density No buildings are currently proposed; however, if subdivided as proposed, the two (2) lots do meet minimum lot size requirements in their applicable zoning districts. B. Access and Circulation Proposed Lot 1-F has frontage on Hinesburg Road and proposed Lot 1 has frontage on both Hinesburg Road and Meadowland Drive. #SD-16-28 2 C. Lot Ratios As pertains to Lot 1-F, Section 9.08.A.4 states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” Lot 1-F has a ratio of approximately 1:3, which exceeds the minimum standard. DECISION Motion by _________, seconded by ___________, to approve final plat application #SD-16-28 of SBRC Properties, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will 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. 3. The plat 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 plat. a. The survey plat must be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. 4. The mylar must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 5. The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of the project plan as approved in digital (PDF) format. 6. The final plat plan must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 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 #SD-16-28 3 _____________________________________ Bill Miller, 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. +286(*$5$*(0HDGRZODQGV%XVLQHVV&RPSOH[&RQGRPLQLXPV//&9RO3J6%5&3URSHUWLHV//&9RO3J*UDQGYLHZ)DUP,QF9RO3J%&*DUGQHU9RO 3J * 1 /LQ H V 9 R O3 J & 7 'DYLV 9 R O3 J 0 .%R X FK HU 9R O3 J 7 16KHDKDQ 9RO3J6 53HQQLQJWRQ9RO 3J&LW\RI6%XUOLQJWRQ 52:56FKXOHU9RO3J6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ5HDOW\&R//&9RO 3JQI-RKQ/DUNLQ,QF9RO 3J(DVW0WQ9LHZ//&/RW$UHD $F3URSRVHG$UHD $F0DQVILHOG9LHZ/Q&($3URSHUWLHV//&/RW$9RO 3J5HI3ODW%&859('$7$5 / ǻ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utoCADD Projects\2014\14183\1-CADD Files-14183\Dwg\14183-Subdiv Lot 1F.dwg 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: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: MP-16-01 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: November 1, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Continued master plan application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Board last discussed this application on October 18, 2016. Staff suggests the Board consider the following items relevant to the project and limit their discussion at this meeting to those elements which can be addressed within one hour with additional outstanding items to be addressed at a future meeting. 1. Request for front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirements of Section 3.06(H), which limits front yard coverage for non-residential uses to 30% and requires the maintenance of a landscaped strip 15 feet wide which can only be developed with and traversed by driveways and sidewalks. Staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20). Section 15.18(A)(10) of the LDRs states that one of the standards for a Master Plan is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that granting this waiver request along Kennedy Drive would be inconsistent with and oppositional to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers that it would be acceptable to create a more urban feel along the proposed Street B and therefore the requested waivers would be appropriate. Staff strongly recommends the Board only permit front yard coverage to exceed 30% on Street B and remove the requirement for a 15 foot landscaped strip on Street B. 2. Request to find that the Master Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that applications made pursuant to the Master Plan are also consistent The project proposes 360 dwelling units in a relatively dense arrangement, which staff considers to be conducive to supporting efficient transit infrastructure, including busses, which is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan in the Northwest Quadrant. As discussed above, staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20). Section 15.18(A)(10) of the LDRs states that one of the standards for a Master Plan is consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2 Staff recommends the Board find the Master Plan application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan only if the front yard coverage and landscaped strip waiver request is not granted along Kennedy Drive, as discussed above. Staff strongly recommends the Board not issue a determination about future applications being consistent with the Master Plan since the nature of future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan cannot be known at this time. 3. Request to allow up to 60% of the landscaping costs that will be associated with buildings in Zone 2 to be allocated towards common elements of the landscaping throughout the project, including the park Staff considers that the landscaping costs required as part of Section 13.06 are meant to be associated with the site where the planned building improvements will take place. Before considering the possibility of spreading those required budgetary dollars to other areas of the PUD the Board would need to know more about why the money could not be spent on site, what landscaping would occur on the site, and what landscaping would occur elsewhere in the PUD with that reallocated money. Historically in South Burlington the cost for developing parkland has been undertaken separately from the landscaping budget requirement of Section 13.06. Staff recommends the Board not grant this request at this time and suggest the applicant revisit the concept during later stages of the development process when more details are known and the Parks & Recreation Committee could also be consulted on the specifics of the parkland. 4. Request to allow the cost of perennials and ornamental grasses to be used to meet the landscape budget requirements of the project Staff considers perennials and grasses to not be of a sufficiently substantial and permanent nature to meet the landscaping budget requirements of Section 13.06. Historically it has been the policy of the Board that the minimum landscaping budget be met with trees and shrubs. Additionally, staff considers that a request of this nature could only be appropriately reviewed if there were an actual landscaping plan with site specific details. Staff recommends the Board not grant this request. 5. Request to find all applications made pursuant to the Master Plan meet the PUD standard for being innovative PUD standards have not been fully discussed as part of the Master Plan process and PUD standards are not identical to the criteria under which a Master Plan is reviewed. Since PUD standards have not been discussed, staff considers that waiting until a project is proposed would be the most appropriate time to evaluate a project based on the PUD standards. Staff strongly recommends the Board not grant this request since PUD standards have not been fully reviewed and the nature of future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan cannot be known at this time. 6. Request for site plan only (rather than PUD) for single structures on single lots and associated parking areas on separate lots It has been the practice of the Development Review Board and Planning & Zoning to require a single building on a single lot in the R12 Zoning District to be reviewed under Site Plan and not PUD standards. Any associated parking, if located on a separate lot, would also be reviewed under Site Plan in its own application. Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s request for Site Plan review of single buildings on a single lot and Site Plan review of associated parking areas. 7. Request to forgo preliminary plat approval when requesting an amendment to an already approved final plat that was made pursuant to the Master Plan 3 If the applicant does not want that intermediary step of preliminary plat then staff does not have an issue with that request and the staff notes that should the applicant desire to do a preliminary plat that option would still be open to them. Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s request to forgo preliminary plat approval for future applications made pursuant to the Master Plan. 8. Request for the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and duplex homes within the Master Plan to be allowed by Zoning Permit This request allows homeowners to make minor changes to the property without going through a longer review and amendment process. It has been the practice of the Board to allow these modifications with only a Zoning Permit when footprint/building envelopes are shown as part of a PUD or site plan. Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s request to allow the addition of decks, porches, and sunrooms to single family and duplex homes with a Zoning Permit. 9. Request to find that uses permitted in the C1-LR Zoning District be allowed in Zone 2 of the Master Plan The areas noted as Zone 2A and Zone 2B in the proposed project contain two zoning districts, R12 and C1-LR. C1-LR allows many more uses than R12, which is primarily residential. The applicant has requested that uses allowed in C1-LR be allowed throughout the property. Use is not an issue area covered during the Master Plan process and therefore staff considers this request to be pre-mature and best dealt with at a later stage of the development review process. If the Board chooses to address this issue now then staff recommends it not grant the request. A reason for not allowing this request is that the LDRs specifically address the issue of PUDs which are on split lots (more than one zoning district), so this was an issue contemplated by and accounted for by the Planning Commission when drafting the LDRs. Section 3.03(C) permits the Board, as a conditional use, to extend the regulations permitted in one zoning district into the abutting zoning district, but not by more than 50 feet. Section 15.03(C) loosens the review standard for PUDs by allowing the DRB, at its discretion, to relocate the boundary of a zoning district up to 50 feet in either direction within the area affected by the application. If the Planning Commission had intended for a use permitted in any district within a PUD to be allowed anywhere in that PUD then these limits would not have been outlined within the LDRs. 10. Request for zoning district boundary line adjustment The applicant has requested the zoning district boundary line between the R12 Zoning District and R1-PRD Zoning District be adjusted to the position shown on the applicant’s plan. According to Section 15.03(C) the boundary of a zoning district may be relocated up to fifty (50) feet in either direction within the area affected by a PUD or subdivision application at the discretion of the DRB. This issue was previously discussed by the Board and applicant at the October 18, 2016 hearing and at the time staff recommended granting the request; however, in reviewing Section 15.03 again in conjunction with the applicant’s request regarding uses in the C1-LR being allowed throughout Zone 2 (discussed above) staff has a new recommendation. Staff considers that Section 15.03(C) limits zoning district boundary adjustments to when the Board is reviewing a PUD or subdivision application. This section of the LDRs does not indicate that a zoning district boundary adjustment can be reviewed in conjunction with a Master Plan application. Staff recommends the Board not grant this request as it is not a request allowed outside of a PUD or subdivision application. 4 Prior to closing the hearing on this Master Plan staff recommends the Board hold a deliberative session to review the requested waivers, findings, and evidence. This will allow the Board to review what has been discussed and determine if any additional information is needed prior to closing the hearing. VIA HAND-DELIVERY October 12, 2016 South Burlington Development Review Board C/O Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Master Plan Application Parcel ID #1260-0200F and 0970-00255 Planned Unit Development Dear Development Review Board, On September 6, 2016, the Applicant, O’Brien Farm Road, LLC met with the South Burlington Development Review Board (the “Board,”) at the “Hearing” to discuss its application for a Master Plan Approval (the “Master Plan”) for the planned development of up to 450 dwelling units on approximately 37.5 acres of land located in the C1-LR and R12 Zoning Districts in the Northwest Quadrant of the City of South Burlington. The site is adjacent to Eldredge Street, Kennedy Drive and Old Farm Road (the “Project”). At the Hearing several conclusions were reached regarding the proposed application. Several additional questions were asked, and information was requested. The following letter is divided into several parts for your convenience. They are as follows: I. Project Background, Applications in Process, Intended Goals of Master Plan Approval; II. Discussion of Additional Information Requested by the Board at the Hearing and Density Increase; III. Amended List Of Waiver Requests For Approval (After Discussion with the Board); and IV. Findings of Fact: Applicant Requested Findings of Fact Related to the Master Plan; V. Conclusions and Next Steps. I. Project Background, Applications in Process, Intended Goals of Master Plan Approval. O’Brien Farm Road, LLC (the “Applicant”), is proceeding with two parallel applications for these parcels of land. The first application is this Master Plan. The second application is for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for a subdivision of land (as a PUD), and a proposed residential for-sale housing development located in several zones of this Master Plan (the 2 “Preliminary Plat”). Previous discussions with the Board have not made clear the link between these two projects, which the Applicant wishes to clarify to provide context to this Master Plan. Specifically, the Applicant wishes to make clear to the Development Review Board that the Master Plan being granted creates no permitted right for the Applicant to build anything until the Preliminary Plat is also approved. Attached as Exhibit A please find an updated version of the Preliminary Plat application that the Applicant is currently working on, and which it anticipates filing in the coming weeks. This application (which was discussed at the August 23, 2016 Board hearing), will have a full review under the existing PUD standards. As part of that review, specific elevations, site coverages, road and sidewalk types will be provided to the Board, and final granting of waivers regarding height of buildings in the residential zones will be requested by the Applicant.1 As you can see, this application is proposing a number of different for sale residential housing options. On the north end of the property it is also creating a subdivision of large multi- family/mixed-use lots, which will be developed in the future. The goal of moving forward both this Master Plan and the initial PUD application is to ensure the development is reviewed holistically in its entirety by the Board.2 Also, the Applicant wishes to use the Master Plan process to secure findings and waivers applicable to future reviews that will allow the project to develop as conceived and committed to by O’ Brien Brothers over the course of its phased build out. The City Master Plan process is designed for this exact purpose, and the flexibility of the waivers available is an appropriate and powerful tool for ensuring a clear and transparent development process – for both the City and the Applicant – as the project is realized. In combination, the Master Plan and first PUD review should allow for the entire development to be reviewed one time in detail as a PUD, allowing later applications for individual aspects of the approved PUD to proceed more expeditiously with abbreviated review proceedings. Below at Section II, the Board will find a review of the outstanding items requested at the last hearing. We have provided what we hope and believe to be sufficient information for the DRB to make an informed decision on these items. Section III and Section IV outline the waivers and findings of fact requested by the Applicant in totality (including stating again items already agreed), such that one comprehensive list is available for review and final confirmation by the Board. Items not included here, but included previously, are no longer being requested. The Applicant has drafted specific language pertaining to each request, such that it can be reviewed and agreed prior to drafting the particular decision, in the hope of expediting the permit issuance and subsequent board reviews. 1 Originally the Applicant requested those waivers as part of the Master Plan, but the Applicant understands the need for more information prior to issuance of such waivers. 2 For instance, the Applicant is requesting that site coverage be viewed for the entirety of the site, not on a lot-by-lot basis. In this case, and many others, requirements of the regulations can be met by the development in totality and not necessarily by each individual portion. 3 The Board should note when reviewing the below that there is a difference between waivers and findings requested by the Applicant. A waiver creates a specific entitled right for the applicant to do something contrary to the regulations as written: i.e., a holder of a permitted waiver may build to X height instead of Y height as prescribed as a result of the DRB’s approval. A finding of fact states something definitively, such that it is binding for future reviews, but does not necessarily create a right for the Applicant to do something contrary to the Regulations.3 For instance, the Board might find that the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan as currently outlined (and as it confirmed at the last hearing). This does not waive any requirements necessarily; it simply states a fact to expedite future reviews. For instance, the Preliminary Plat will require we prove the development furthers the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Master Plan is approved, satisfaction of that criterion would be proven by referencing the Board’s finding of fact in the Master Plan. By way of an example of past findings that were not waivers, the Applicant would point to the Rye Meadows Master Plan decision, attached as Exhibit F. In this decision the Board made a number of findings that were not necessarily waivers of any particular regulation. For instance, page four of the decision finds that: “PUD lot coverage to exclude City Recreation Paths.” This is not a coverage waiver (they still must meet requirements) but rather a finding that dictates how the DRB will evaluate future applications in the Master Plan. The distinction is subtle, but it is important to note the Board has issued such findings before. In review of the below, the Applicant hopes that the Board will agree that the waivers and findings requested are suitable and appropriate for the scale of the proposed development as well as the site’s unique topography, and that the level of detail required to issue such findings has been satisfied. The Applicant suggests that some items can be postponed until Preliminary Plat review, as the Board should note that nothing in this Master Plan will be useful or valid outside of that Preliminary Plat process. It is a requisite second step that will proceed before the Board in the coming months. II. Discussion of Additional Information Requested by the Board at the Hearing and Density Increase. Before discussing the particular waivers and findings proposed, the Applicant would like to address each request for more information from the Hearing to complete those discussions: A. Project Density: Since the Hearing the density proposed for the plan has changed and the current maximum density proposed within the Master Plan is 458 units, the majority of which will be located in Zone 2 shown on the Master Plan. Since our initial filing two items have impacted the density proposed: 3 In many instances herein the Applicant is requesting from the DRB a finding of fact. A finding of fact is a binding part of the decision issued. Section 15.07 (C)(2) of the Regulations describes the binding findings of fact the DRB issues pertaining to Master Plans: “The DRB shall review the master plan and all areas proposed for preliminary plat simultaneously, and shall make separate findings of fact as to the master plan and the areas reviewed for preliminary plan or plat. The findings of fact pertaining to the master plan shall be binding on the DRB and the applicant for all subsequent…applications made pursuant to the master plan approval.” [emphasis added] 4 1. Addition of Existing Lot 3 to Master Plan: At the request of the Board and the City Staff, the Applicant has added the land of Existing Lot 3 from a previous subdivision to the Master Plan area. The result of this addition was to increase the acreage within the Master Plan by two acres or 24 units. The Applicant hopes that with the height waivers requested, these additional units can be accommodated in Zone 2. 2. Zoning District Boundary Adjustment: In the course of preparing our Preliminary Plat application discussed herein, the Applicant discovered that the zoning district boundary between the R1-PRD and R12 Zoning District is actually located a bit further into the Master Plan area than originally shown. This error was the result of the length of time that the Applicant has been working on this project. Years ago when planning first started, the City Zoning map was much harder to interpret in terms of district boundaries, and when we checked the line against newer information available, it became clear the line was off a bit, by approximately 50-60’. We apologize for any confusion this has caused. Given that our plan as reviewed and discussed by the Board has contemplated the district boundary to be approximately 50-60’ west of where it actually is located, the Applicant is requesting that the Board approve the relocation of that line to be 50’ to the west, as shown on the Master Plan.4 This will also help to ensure that future houses can be located mostly in a single district, which will help to simplify future Preliminary Plat applications. Because the Board has generally expressed its approval for the direction of the Project, the Applicant has calculated density assuming this 50’ district boundary relocation is approved. With the boundary located 50’ west as proposed for approval by the Board, the overall acreage by district for the land within the Master Plan is as follows: District Acreage Density (# of units) R12 37.82 453.8 C1-LR .27 3.24 R1-PRD 1.07 1.0 Total 458.04 B. Open Space Near Kennedy Drive Included: The open space included at Zone 5B is approximately 2 acres, and has been formerly added to the Master Plan as requested. The Board will note that this has increased the land involved in the Master Plan, and therefore increased the maximum potential density for the plan. The new density will be requested and built in the high density residential area. The number of homes in the area currently proposed for Preliminary Plat will remain the same. 4 Authority is specifically granted to the board to move the border of a zoning district up to 50’ at Section 3.03(C) of the Regulations. 5 C. Green Space Connectivity Zone 4 to Zone 6 and Remaining Lands: Further to staff comments the Board requested that the Applicant expand the green connection between Zone 4, Zone 6, and the west side of New City Road E. In response to this request, the Applicant has reconfigured the proposed housing and removed a unit from the east side of New City Road E, to allow for green corridors connecting Zone 4 with the remaining lands. These corridors are approximately 30’ wide and create a contiguous green connection between open space areas, and future phases of development as Staff requested and which the Board reiterated. As you will see at Exhibit B, the Master Plan has been reconfigured to show an Open Space Easement extending into Zone 6, and across New City Road E ending at the remaining lands. This easement is not intended to be untouched wilderness, but rather is an intentional and landscaped green pedestrian corridor. The particular landscaping proposed here and the pedestrian path will be presented as part of the Preliminary Plat application that is forthcoming. At the Master Plan level, the applicant feels that the reconfigured and broader proposed area and its designation as a pedestrian easement should be sufficient for the Board to move forward on this item. D. Committee Meetings: The Applicant anticipates having met with the Bike and Pedestrian Committee with regard to the planned development prior to this hearing, though at the time of filing this letter, it has not because of that Committee’s frequency of meetings. The Applicant is confident that the Bike and Pedestrian Committee will support the project because they have supported similar concepts of the current plan as they relate to their purview, including the street typologies presented in previous meetings. The Applicant is committed to reviewing the Preliminary Plat application with the Bike and Pedestrian Committee as it is developed and the fine details are worked out. Since the last Master Plan hearing with the Board the Applicant has met with the Recreation & Parks Committee, and they reviewed the Master Plan and passed a unanimous motion in support of the plan’s general layout and recreation concepts. We will continue working with the committee to determine the particular features and amenities to be included in the project as part of the Preliminary Plat application now progressing. At the Master Plan level, the Applicant would suggest that the Board can find that the general pedestrian circulation pattern and means of circulation presented is acceptable and that the open space proposed is located appropriately, but that particular details as to features constructed, plantings, crosswalks, dimensions, etc., will be flushed out at subsequent review proceedings. E. Height Waivers: At Staff’s direction the Applicant provided the board with a list of specific architectural conditions it is willing to commit to in order to demonstrate that future buildings will be of a high quality and of appropriate massing, fenestration and articulation justifying the granting of height waivers in Zone 2. In reviewing these 6 features and the massing study presented, the Board agreed that the height seemed reasonable for this area. Neighbors to the Project have also supported the height waiver in previous hearings, because it allows for less dense development near their existing homes while still achieving the intended zoning of the site. This last point was thoughtfully and intentionally planned by the Applicant to be consistent with the existing development pattern, considerate of existing neighbors, while also meeting the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations to add more housing at a broad spectrum of price points in a dense and efficient neighborhood layout. During the Hearing it was discussed that Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) states the following: For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public right of ways. As stated above, the Board cannot definitively grant a height waiver without the plans and elevations specified. Given this, the Applicant is no longer requesting a height waiver be granted at this time. The Applicant is requesting a binding finding of fact, pursuant to Section 15.07 of the Regulations. To this end, the Applicant would request that the board consider a statement such as the following be included in the Findings of Fact: The Board finds the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. Furthermore, the Board finds that the architectural conditions committed to by the Applicant provide sufficient detail as to how the future buildings will be massed and articulated. Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), and the architectural specifications provided by Applicant herein, a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B. We believe that by issuing this finding it will secure the Applicant’s ability to statutorily achieve a height waiver, while also allowing the Board to retain final review of the proposed architecture, per Section 3.07 of the Regulations. Furthermore, this finding will protect the applicant against potential changes in underlying zoning which might prohibit the issuance of height waivers in the future. While this may be unlikely, it is not outside the realm of possibility, and given that the integrity of this entire Master Plan application (including the significant commitments made by the Applicant) rests in the density shift to Zone 2, the Applicant considers the security provided by this finding to be of 7 paramount importance, while also retaining the Board’s continued oversight. F. Distance from Building Entrances to Park Access: Attached as Exhibit C the Board will find a visual which demonstrates the distance that must be travelled by pedestrians from various locations in the project to trail heads for various park amenities. As you will see, no resident is required to walk more than 500 feet before being able to enter park and trail amenities. For reference, if we consider an average walking speed to be about 3.2 miles per hour, it would take approximately 1 minute and 42 seconds to walk the furthest distance to access the park. This seems like a perfectly reasonable – not to mention healthy – level of walking required to access a park area that is designed for recreation and health benefits. The network of sidewalks in the Project will also be pleasantly landscaped with street trees and front porches near and facing pedestrian passersby (as shown in road sections included in this Application), which will provide for an enjoyable experience prior to arriving in any of the park spaces. Furthermore, requiring residents to walk on sidewalks rather than shortcutting into the park at several additional mid-block easements will further the potential for interaction amongst residents, enabling community building and relationship development that might not otherwise happen. G. Building Types: Staff requested more information on building types proposed in each zone. Attached as Exhibit D, please find the site plan associated with the Sketch Plan Application heard by the Board on August 23rd. As discussed at that hearing, these are the general structure/concepts contemplated in each zone. As mentioned above, a preliminary plat application will be forthcoming that applies for specific permits to build all of the low density residential portions shown. The larger buildings are not currently proposed, and will not be proposed in the forthcoming Preliminary Plat application. Rather, this Master Plan seeks to set up future review of those buildings under Site Plan review only by satisfying PUD and waiver requirements in this Master Plan and the Preliminary Plat review. H. Zone by Zone Coverage: The Applicant believes its coverage request may be misunderstood by the Board. In a recent Rye Meadows Master Plan decision, the board found the following: “The applicant is seeking approval at the Master Plan level for the maximum building and lot coverages to be for the entire PUD and not any individual lot. The board finds this to be acceptable.” In this Project the Applicant is requesting an identical finding, nothing more. At this level of review there are a number of different development scenarios that might play out, and each could result in different coverage levels on particular lots or in particular zones. Duplexes have different coverage requirements than multi-family, commercial is also different than multi-family and duplex. Without final locations and unit mixes confirmed, knowing exact coverages is impossible. Given that the Application seeks to Master Plan 39.3 acres of land, it seems reasonable that coverage should be evaluated for 39.3 acres of land collectively on a project by 8 project basis when detailed plans are submitted. This is also what Rye Meadows sought and ultimately obtained. In an effort to preserve maximum flexibility we would request that the Board approve the finding that it approved for Rye Meadows. If such a finding is not applicable to this Project, the Applicant suggests the following finding: The Board finds that building and lot coverages will be reviewed for the entire PUD and not any individual lot, provided that coverage in each zone does not exceed the following: Description Approximate Acreage Maximum Total Coverage Zone 1 7.1 50% Zone 2A 7.3 85% Zone 2B 3.4 90% Zone 3 4.4 65% Zone 4 4.1 25% Zone 5 5 25% Zone 6 8.0 60% The Board should note that while these percentages are high, hitting the maximum in each zone would not be permitted, as it would cause the total coverage for the entire 39.16 acre parcel to exceed the maximum by a substantial amount. The percentages are high because we do not have specific proposals for these zones, and so it is difficult to make a definitive proposal at this time. If these limits are too low, it will force complicated and time consuming permit amendments at some future date. This is why the Applicant prefers the finding requested, which was issued for Rye Meadows and seems most applicable and appropriate for the Master Plan process. I. Master Plan Phasing: As mentioned above, the Applicant is simultaneously pursuing a Preliminary Plat application for the permitting of a for sale residential neighborhood. This neighborhood will consist of approximately 117 new residential housing units. Given this, the Applicant has an interest in making sure the development and construction of that neighborhood is conducive to the enjoyment of potential customers, which will involve access to neighborhood amenities. That said, the Applicant also must ensure that construction can happen safely and effectively. Construction of the roads, sidewalks and infrastructure elements of this plan will be a challenging process because of the grade, underlying rock ledge, and scale of development. For some reference, the length of the roads within the project total approximately 4,000 lineal feet. In addition to the earth work involved in the road construction, 117 house foundations must also be installed in the residential zones. The site is steep and heavily forested, and the housing proposed for construction is dense and 9 will take place over an extended construction period projected at approximately five +/- years. Some roads will require significant earth work with cuts of 8-10’ of material being removed. For this reason, large staging sites and material storage areas will be needed in various parts of the site. Furthermore, upland water diversion and temporary stormwater controls will also be required, which have yet to be definitively located, and which may require use of space within areas eventually deeded to public or open space use. Heavy equipment will be operating to clear land and haul earthen materials from different portions of the site to stockpiles, and truck traffic across the lands not involved in active infrastructure construction will be fairly high, including the potential for haul roads, etc. The park land that is surrounded by infrastructure will likely not be able to be in full use, until the majority of the housing is built around it, and the roads and sidewalks are complete. Without detailed construction plans that will be part of the Preliminary Plat application, it is difficult to make particular phasing commitments on the park space. While we understand that the Board needs more detail regarding when and how construction will occur, the Applicant suggests that this level of detail is better provided at the Preliminary Plat review (which will be happening in the coming weeks). During that review specific construction phasing can be provided, and specific triggers for construction of particular amenities can be permitted. Likewise, the Preliminary Plat application will define exactly what the park will include. It is of course difficult to warrant that something will be built, prior to understanding what will be built. At the Master Plan level, the Applicant suggests a much more general commitment to phasing. If during Preliminary Plat review details were discovered that changed our phasing needs, the Applicant might be required to re-open and amend this Master Plan, which would be a cumbersome and wholly unnecessary process, since the issue could just be settled at Preliminary Plat, where the Board has full authority to issue such phasing approvals. Given this, the specific recommendation herein for a finding is as follows: 1. Applicant will work with the Board during Preliminary Plat review to confirm project phasing that allows for the completion of pedestrian amenities to be linked with the completion of infrastructure and home construction, and a mutually agreed upon phasing plan will be developed. 2. Applicant agrees that the formal parkland highlighted at Exhibit G is relatively isolated from construction activities outside of Zone 1 and the start of Zone 3,and that this area will be developed when it is safe and reasonable to do so, as determined by the Board and the Applicant during Preliminary Plat review. The goal of these commitments is to say, we are in agreement that some pedestrian facilities, parks and recreation opportunities should be built prior to the completion of all infrastructure and structures. However, we need to consider this schedule carefully, and will do so at the Preliminary Plat level when all details are known. 10 With the above understanding, the Applicant realizes that the Board may still have lingering questions as to what this phasing plan might look like. To this end, we have provided a potential phasing plan at Exhibit H. As noted on the plan, it is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent a binding commitment. However, this is a potential starting point for the more detailed review we recommend at Preliminary Plat. J. Setback Waivers Information Requested: In its original application, the Applicant requested several setback waivers as part of Master Plan review. Currently, the Applicant has removed the majority of these requests, with the exception of front yard setback waivers. The Applicant believes that the issuance of front yard setback waivers is critical to the finalization of the Master Plan, as without such waivers, the major components of the plan cannot be constructed. If houses along New City Road A and New City Road E are forced to be 38-50 feet from the edge of the sidewalk or road (as the 30’ front yard setback would force), the park will fundamentally shrink, causing this Master Plan to be void and/or need amendment prior to issuance of any permits.5 Initially, the Applicant requested a blanket setback waiver because it could be universally applied to the Master Plan, and would be much less complicated. As Staff and the Board have indicated this is not desirable, the Applicant has proposed specific street types and zone-specific road waivers as listed below. It is important to note that the Applicant is requesting these setback waivers for two purposes: to provide a significant greenspace within the development and to provide more pedestrian-resident connectivity by engaging the architecture with the streetscape and pedestrian areas in the spirit of New Urbanism-style design. The Applicant is presenting the Board with several visuals for evaluation and approval. These visuals depict proposed building setbacks, street widths, right-of-way widths, sidewalk and recreation path locations and widths, driveway lengths and greenbelt widths. The Sections are broken down as follows and are attached at Exhibit E: 1. New City Road A: This section shows the proposed layout of amenities along New City Road A. It also shows the proposed minimum setbacks for porches and garage doors. You will note that while the requested setbacks are relatively small, the garage is a minimum distance of 20’ from the edge of the closest City-owned impervious surface (i.e. edge of sidewalk). This allows a space for parking between what the City will plow, and the garage itself. Porches are set back approximately 6’ from the ROW and 15’ from the edge of the closest impervious surface providing for a safe, comfortable, attractive and engaging neighborhood-style streetscape. 2. New City Road B (with Parking): This section shows the proposed setbacks along New City Road B in locations where parallel parking is provided. In this area we are requesting a setback that will allow structures to be 10’ from the edge of the sidewalks proposed. The required setback to allow for this location would be 6’. As shown on the view provided at Exhibit E, this would only be applicable at certain 5 As the Board knows, per Section 15.06(D) a change in the proposed open space areas in an approved Master Plan is considered a new application, and a Sketch Plan review and new Master Plan review would be required. 11 corners of the building given the curvature of the road. The resulting streetscape would at minimum have 19.5’ of width between the curb of New City Road B and the closest edge of the structure. That dimension includes 4’6” of greenbelt between the curb and the sidewalk, a 5’ sidewalk, and a minimum of 10’ of greenbelt in between the sidewalk and structure (4’ of which would occur in the ROW). Again, this creates a safe and engaging streetscape in a zone of the development that is intended to have a more urban-style pedestrian engagement with the buildings. 3. New City Road B (without Parking): This section shows the proposed setbacks along New City Road B in locations where no parking is provided. Again, in this Section we are requesting setbacks such that buildings can be 10’ from the edge of the sidewalk at their closest point. Because this road is curved, these setbacks will vary, 10’ would be the smallest point. Exhibit E, shows the curvature of the road and how that impacts the building line. Again the front yard setback would be 6’, allowing the buildings to be placed as shown. And as with the New City Road B section with parking the streetscape would at minimum have 19.5’ of width between the curb of New City Road B and the closest edge of the structure. The dimension includes 4’6” of greenbelt between the curb and the sidewalk, a 5’ sidewalk, and a minimum of 10’ of greenbelt in between the sidewalk and structure (4’ of which would occur in the ROW). 4. New City Road E: This section shows the proposed setbacks along New City Road E, again achieving a goal where the garage is 20’ minimum from the edge of the nearest impervious surface, and the porch is set closer to the street, while remaining outside of the right-of-way. Here the porch is shown just six feet from the edge of the ROW, requiring a 6’ front yard setback. The garage is setback 11.5’ from the edge of the ROW, but is 20’ from the edge of the sidewalk. You will notice that the porch location and the ability to project the porch proud of the garage is largely dictated by the edge of the City Right-of-way. While having driveway in the ROW is feasible, placing any part of the home in the ROW is not. When the ROW is well off the edge of the pavement as on this road, smaller setbacks are required in order to preserve the street-friendly presence the Applicant is looking for. Here we have 26 feet between the curb and the face of the structure. The dimension includes, 6.5’ of greenbelt, 5’ of sidewalk, 14.5 feet of greenbelt between the sidewalk and structure (8.5 feet of which would occur in the ROW). 5. Zone 1 and Zone 6 Residential Road Prototype: This road is not included on the Master Plan, but is an anticipated road type for use in Zone 1 and a portion of Zone 6. Locations for the road type are shown at Exhibit A. This road type is fairly innovative, and is something that to our knowledge has not been used before in the City. The sidewalk is integrated into the road surface to allow 20’ of flat surface for fire vehicle accessibility, while limiting pavement width to 15’. The effect will be to calm traffic via a narrower drive lane, while still providing a clearly defined pedestrian lane via a change in surface material, and to still meet Fire Department accessibility codes. This is an innovative way to provide for multiple modes of transportation while reducing impervious surfaces and accommodating emergency 12 vehicle requirements on a slow speed neighborhood-style street. As shown on this section, the relative narrowness of the road causes the need for slightly longer driveways to ensure porches can be proud of the garage, without entering the right of way. Here we are showing 25’ driveways.. The requested setback waiver to the porch is 5’. The requested waiver to the garage is 10’. The Applicant has provided all of these road typologies to the Director of Public Works and the City Fire Marshal for review. The Director of Public Works has indicated support at a conceptual level for the road types and, generally, the road layout overall. The Applicant is seeking a Master Plan approval of the setbacks required along each proposed roadway. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting findings of fact supportive of the road types and facilities defined herein. The specific language requested is provided in the following sections pertaining to waivers and findings. III. Amended List Of Waiver Requests For Approval (After Discussion with the Board): The following is a complete list of the waivers requested by the Applicant. Any waiver not included and previously discussed, is no longer requested. Where the Board has already decided a waiver is appropriate, the text is underlined. Where more information has been requested by the Board or Staff, it is provided below. Please note that some new waiver requests are also included below. A. Sketch Plan review for future applications under the Master Plan is waived. B. Applicant requests that the requirements of Section 3.06(I)(1) which forces large setbacks and landscape buffers between residential and non-residential uses be waived within the borders of the Project to allow for mixed use development. C. Applicant requests that the Board waive the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) which states: “permanent pedestrian easements twenty feet in width may be required through blocks 600 feet or more in length.” There was some discussion about this waiver request at the Hearing, and additional information was requested by the Board. This information is provided and discussed above at Section II(E). Exhibit C has been provided demonstrating the distance that pedestrians will be required to walk in order to access amenities. As noted above, the distance is minimal, and the time it takes to reach each access is nominal. As discussed above, the Applicant believes that the trail amenities and the sidewalk and other pedestrian amenities proposed are connected. In prior discussions with the Planning Commission it was stated that the City has a goal of creating more space for neighbors to interact. The suggestion has been to increase the use of front porches to engage the streetscape and pedestrian traffic. The Applicant suggests that facilitating the use of sidewalks throughout the development and making those pedestrian areas 13 pleasant and attractive along with increased front porch elements and decreased front yard setbacks will further that stated goal of the Planning Commission and the City. D. Applicant requests the requirements of Section 3.06(H) pertaining to a 15’ green belt for non-residential development be waived. Section 3.06(H) of the regulations imposes a 15-foot continuous green strip as a front yard setback from the city ROW if the use proposed is non-residential. The Applicant believes that this additional setback is un-necessary, and that the use in the building should not impact the streetscape approved for the project. Herein at Exhibit E, Applicant has presented a streetscape concept along Road B, which may include non- residential uses. Applicant requests that the provisions of Section 3.06 regarding the 15’ green buffer be waived, such that the waivers requested below can control setbacks.6 E. Applicant has requested front yard setback waivers in Zone 1, Zone 2, Zone 3 and Zone 6 that correspond with the street-scapes shown at Exhibit E. Specifically: 1. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road B are reduced to be 6’. 2. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road A are reduced to be 6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11’ from the garage to the ROW. 3. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road E are reduced to be6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11.5’ from the garage to the ROW. 4. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks along planned residential access roads in Zone 1 and Zone 6 be reduced to be 5’ from the structure to the ROW and 10’ from the garage to the ROW. IV. Summary Findings of Fact: Requested Findings of Fact Related to the Master Plan. As outlined above, the Applicant is looking to confirm via binding findings of fact, several aspects of its application for Master Plan. Given the length and complexity of this application, the Applicant has provided the requested findings below in bold to help facilitate the creation of a decision. Items previously agreed to by the Board in meetings are underlined. Please note that some new findings not previously discussed are also suggested below. A.The Board finds that the provided application for a Master Plan for the construction of up to 4market-rate housing units presents a plan that is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected districts. Applications made pursuant to this Master Plan are by participation in 6 Section 3.06(H) states in pertinent part: “No portion of the required front setback shall be used for storage or for any other purpose except as provided in this section. In addition, a continuous strip fifteen (15) feet in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way line and the balance of the lot, which strip should be landscaped and maintained in good appearance.” 14 this plan, also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. We believe that after a long discussion at the Hearing, this conclusion was reached and agreed, and we request that the board find this accordingly in its findings of fact and decision on this Master Plan such that the Applicant can move forward with security in planning all parts of this project. B.The Board finds that encroachment into the Class 3 wetlands located within the Project boundaries is permitted, as the requirements at Section 12.02(E)(3)(a-c) pertaining to this encroachment have been met. C.The Board finds that within the borders of the approved Master Plan, any zoning district boundary may be moved 50 feet in any direction, to accommodate the future applications for particular development on lots within the boundaries of the Master Plan. D.The Board finds that the Master Plan presented and approved is for the construction of up to 458 market-rate housing units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space on an approximately 39.16 acre parcel of land, located in the R12 and C1-LR zoning districts. E.The Board finds that all future applications made pursuant to this approved Master Plan are innovative because of their participation in this Master Plan. Staff comments have suggested that “innovation,” is a requirement for a project to be considered a PUD and to receive the benefit of waivers from the Board during review proceedings. The Board has concluded that the Master Plan presented is indeed innovative for a number of reasons stated on the record in the Hearing. Staff comments also suggest that future applications made pursuant to this Master Plan will need to prove their “innovation.” The applicant suggests that this continued evaluation of Project innovation at every level creates a vague and uncertain state for the Master Plan presented and approved as desirable by the Board. If an Application is made for land included in this Master Plan, pursuant to the plan presented here, that Application should receive the full benefit of the Master Plan, and should itself be considered innovative.7 F.The Board finds that within the Master Plan area future applications for development of a single structure on a single lot requires final site plan review and approval only. Including development where parking for that single structure may be shared with or located on more than one lot, provided the structure itself is entirely on a single lot. 7 The Applicant wishes to note as stated in the Hearing, that there does not appear to be any requirement that an application be innovative to receive PUD review in the current Regulations. The Board seemed to agree with this reading of the text of the Regulations at the Hearing. That said, because this issue was raised by Staff, and may be raised again, the Applicant is seeking this finding to insulate its future applications from this continued line of review. Regardless of whether the requirement of innovation exists, the Board has determined the Project to be innovative, and all parts of the project permitted subsequent to this plan are therefore also innovative. 15 The applicant is requesting this to expedite future reviews for large residential lots that will be created during the review of the Preliminary Plat application that is forthcoming. Once that application is reviewed and approved, the Applicant believes that only site plan review should be required for the large structures planned and approved as part of this Master Plan. Currently any application for residential units in the R12 district must be reviewed as a PUD. Continuing to require PUD review for the sub-parts of this Master Plan is redundant, given that an overarching review will be completed in the coming months. G.The Board finds that within the Master Plan, any subsequent approval to Preliminary and Final Plat approval shall require only Final Plat approval. This request is designed to expedite review of any amendments to the development that are requested. Once initial reviews are complete, if a mistake was made or something was missed, this expedited review will allow it to be changed quickly. H.“The applicant is seeking approval at the Master Plan level for the maximum building and lot coverages to be for the entire PUD and not any individual lot. The board finds this to be acceptable.” As mentioned above if this is not a sufficient finding, as it was for Rye Meadows (this is a quote from the Rye Meadows decision), the included above chart could be inserted setting maximums for each zone. However, this seems like an unnecessary complication at this early stage of review, and again there is clear and recent precedent for doing so. I.The Board finds that within the Master Plan, the addition of a deck, porch or sunroom to any single family or duplex home shall require only the issuance of a Zoning Permit. This request will not necessarily be applicable to the Applicant, but it will protect buyers who want to make these minor improvements to their home from needing to go through extensive permitting processes to do so. While we are amenable to holding this request until Preliminary Plat, we are unsure if process waivers can be issued at a Preliminary Plat level, or if they must be part of the Master Plan. J.The Board finds that the Project generated traffic of 428 PM Peak Hour Trips will not create an undue adverse effect on traffic in the surrounding area, as outlined in the TIA submitted. The Applicant wishes to note that while the TIA submitted contemplates 417 residential units and the current application contemplates 458 units, the TIA also contemplates 55,000 square feet of commercial and office space. The Master Plan area simply cannot fit 458 apartments and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, even with the proposed waivers. The Applicant has analyzed the trip ends available, and should 458 residential 16 units be constructed, a proportionate decrease in the amount of commercial space would allow for the trip ends to remain below the 428 projected in the TIA. Given this, the Applicant is comfortable that the finding of 428 PM Peak Hour trips is sufficient to accommodate its entire project, however the particular unit count and commercial space details unfold. K.The Board finds the height study provided by the Applicant is sufficient to conclude that the proposed buildings will not detract from the scenic views from adjacent public roadways. Furthermore, the Board finds that the architectural conditions committed to by the Applicant provide sufficient detail as to how the future buildings will be massed and articulated. Subject to the submission of plans and elevations which meet the requirements of Section 3.07(D)(2)(b), and the architectural specifications provided by Applicant herein, a height waiver shall be issued by the Board of up to 79 feet in Zone 2A and 66 feet in Zone 2B. This request is explained in detail at Section II herein above. L.The Board finds that the general pedestrian circulation pattern and means of circulation presented is acceptable and that the open space proposed is both located and sized appropriately, but that particular details as to features constructed, plantings, crosswalks, dimensions, etc., will be determined during Preliminary Plat review. M.The Board finds the street locations and layouts shown in the Master Plan to be acceptable, subject to the review of the Director of Public Works, the Fire Chief and the City Stormwater Superintendent. N.The Board finds that Applicant will work with the Board during Preliminary Plat review to confirm project phasing that allows for the completion of pedestrian amenities to be linked with the completion of infrastructure and home construction, and a mutually agreed phasing plan will be developed. O.The Board finds that the formal parkland highlighted at Exhibit G will be developed as soon as it is safe and reasonable to do so, as determined by the Board and the Applicant during Preliminary Plat review. P.The Board finds that within the PUD uses allowed in the C1-LR zoning district (which comprises a portion of the land involved in the project) are allowed in the entirety of Zone 2, which is an appropriate location for such uses within the Master Plan community. The Applicant has made available in its previous application a legal opinion explaining how this finding is in compliance with the Regulations. The Board has requested a confirmation of such opinion by its attorney. The Applicant awaits a response on this 17 issue and hopes that the City attorney will confirm the Applicant’s reading of the Regulations. Q.The board finds that during future site plan reviews within the Master Plan, the Board may waive the requirements of Section 3.06(H) to facilitate commercial development within Zone 2, fronting on Kennedy Drive. There was limited discussion of this item at the Hearing, but the Applicant believes that with some clarification, the Board can grant this finding. The specific requirements of Section 3.06(H) are as follows: In the case of nonresidential uses, not more than thirty percent (30%) of the area of the required front yard setback shall be used for driveways and parking and the balance shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance…In addition, a continuous strip fifteen (15) feet in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right of way line and the balance of the lot, which strip should be landscaped and maintained in good appearance. The Applicant has already requested above that the separate 15 foot green strip (de-facto setback) requirement contained herein be waived by the Board. Here the Applicant requests that the board allow for future site plan reviews to modify the percentage of hardscape allowed in the front yard, in order to leave open the possibility of commercial type development facing Kennedy Drive. The reason for this request is that the Regulations view the front yard as being along Kennedy Drive, despite the fact that buildings will likely be oriented toward New City Road B. Future mixed-use plans may envision the space between the new building and Kennedy Drive as a hardscaped area available for outdoor café seating with pedestrian connections to the sidewalk. They may envision the area as suitable for screened storage for a commercial user. It is unclear currently what the specific proposal for this lot might be. What is clear, is that this restriction could be prohibitive of many creative ideas that the Board and City might find desirable. By finding that the Board has the ability to waive this provision in connection with future site plan reviews, the Board will leave open their ability to allow a specific plan at a future date to proceed, while not making a commitment for such allowance in their current decision. Again, this request speaks to the Applicant’s overall goal, which is for this Master Plan permit to set the stage for expeditious permitting in the future. Absent this finding, we believe that issuance of such a waiver would require the Applicant to enter into a PUD process, which will be trigger much more extensive permit proceedings which in large part defeats the purpose of having gone through this extensive Master Plan process in the first place. 18 R.The Board finds that up to 60% of the required landscaping costs associated with Site Plan review requirements for the lots in Zone 2 of the Master Plan can be allocated to landscaping in common elements of the Master Plan, including the park, with the approval of specific proposals by the Board at future reviews. This is a new request from the Applicant and is made with the intention of improving the community for all residents. In reviewing site coverage proposed in the different zones, the Applicant realized that in higher density areas, sites will be mostly covered by buildings and parking. This will limit the amount of space available on each site for landscaping. A five story residential apartment building of approximately 80,000 square feet could cost upwards of $10,000,000 to construct in full. Given current landscaping requirements, the landscape budget required for each structure could be over $100,000. While the Applicant understands that the goal should be to use that landscaping to enhance what will be a high-coverage lot and use, it might be impossible, awkward or wasteful to fit so much landscaping on the proposed lots. A similar situation recently took place on an airport project, and our goal would be to better utilize those landscaping dollars throughout the project for the betterment of the residents and the broader community The Applicant feels that opening up the use of landscape dollars to common areas of the site will allow for the largest impact on livability for residents. To be clear, this finding will not obligate the board to allow such allocation, but will create the possibility of such allocation being confirmed by the Board at a later hearing. Attached as Exhibit I the Board will find a landscape plan recently confirmed for the Hayes Apartment Project in South Burlington. As the Board may recall, this plan had a total associated landscaping value of approximately $51,000. This is half of the requirement for one potential building in the Master Plan. As shown on the attached plan, this landscape plan included 34 trees, many of which were of the 3” caliper. Three hardscaped patios, and over 300 shrubs. The potential budget for one lot in our Master Plan Zone 2 area could double these numbers. It is infeasible to think that 68 trees and 600 shrubs could – or should - fit on the lots shown in Zone 2 at Exhibit D. If they did fit, it is likely that the effect would be overwhelming, and contrary to the goals of the ordinance. Given this, the Applicant is requesting that the Board find accordingly, that the budget may be allocated to common elements of the Master Plan in addition to the individual lots where Site Plan review is proceeding, and at the Board’s discretion. S.The Board finds that perennials and ornamental grasses can be used in the Master Plan and that the cost of such plantings will be allowed in satisfaction of Landscape Budget Requirements for all portions of this Master Plan. The Applicant’s landscape architect has advised that perennials and ornamental grasses are not counted toward landscape budget requirements in South Burlington. The Applicant believes that these are desirable and attractive plantings, as confirmed by the 19 Applicants award winning Landscape Architect. The Applicant hopes that the Board will allow these plants to be included to facilitate the best landscape design possible, and avoid a seemingly arbitrary restriction for the landscape designer. V. Conclusions and Next Steps: To conclude, we would like to focus not on the particulars included above, but importantly also on the big picture goals of this application and the review and feedback the Applicant has received thus far. After all this is a Master Plan and it should be looked at as a high level review of a project, with the nitty gritty details to be parsed out in the Preliminary and Final Plat applications, which are forthcoming. The Applicant has been meeting with City staff and the Board discussing this project in particular detail since the first sketch plan application was filed in August of 2014. In that time the Project has admittedly been altered, but we believe it has consistently changed for the better, adapting to and better addressing community needs, and moving toward a project that can be supported by a broad spectrum of interests and stakeholders within this area and of the broader city. The Project has been thoughtfully designed to be sensitive and respectful to its neighbors, and by proactively addressing the needs of those neighbors our development now enjoys many of those neighbor’s support. To that end the Applicant would also note that per City and State regulations we have mailed nearly 300 notices per meeting to our neighbors to warn them of relevant hearings over the course of the last two years. As the Board has seen, the number of interested or concerned parties that have attended those hearings is likely less than twenty individuals over that time period. And those who have attended, while voicing initial concerns, have been largely supportive of the Project and how it has been structured to transition from lower density-type residential units adjacent to existing properties to the higher density and larger buildings closer to the Kennedy Drive-Kimball Avenue intersection. By doing so the project creates a balance of being respectful of existing residents while also achieving the underlying zoning density as desired by the City and providing much needed new housing stock of in a variety of ownership and price point options as directed by the Building Homes Together initiative. Many projects of this scale are controversial and raise the ire of neighbors, but this project has not. We believe the reason is that we have been proactive in addressing concerns, have dedicated significant open space and public land, and are being respectful of an existing development pattern while also innovative in how we achieve the desired density. We are proud of this fact and believe that this development will be a wonderful addition to this area and to the community at large. The Applicant has also received the support of the Recreation and Leisure Arts Committee in the form of a unanimous resolution at their last hearing. Based upon previews reviews by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee the Applicant is optimistic about meeting with that committee on October 12, prior to this hearing but after this information was submitted to Staff. However, at their last review of the proposed development layout they were very receptive to what was being proposed, and the project has only become more fleshed out since that time. The Applicant has shown the project plans to the Planning Commission, and to a 20 number of other City volunteers and stakeholders, all of whom have voiced support for the plan, including the siting of high density residential uses. Now, the Applicant is before the Board for the second time and is providing the additional information requested for this Master Plan application. We are hopeful that the Board now has enough information at hand that it can support the Applicant’s requested findings of fact and applicable waivers for a Master Plan so that we might move on to the Preliminary Plat submission, where the Board will have further oversight and authority over more granular details. We also recognize that our Master Plan application has deviated from most – if not all – that have previously come before the Board in that it is proposing a high level review prior to moving forward on the detailed review found in the Plat process. However, we also believe that is the purpose of having a Master Plan process in the first place. The Applicant firmly believes our requests are grounded in the text of the Land Development Regulations, which allow for the Board to create binding findings of fact, to waive provisions of the zoning regulations, and to abbreviate the requirements for future review. The Board now has the opportunity to help the Community realize the Project that so many have reviewed and expressed support for. The findings requested herein will: A. Solidify the planned development as shown to the Board. B. Confirm the size and location of large open space tracts to be donated to the City. C. Confirm the roads, pedestrian connectivity and pedestrian improvements allocated to the City. D. Allow the Applicant to proceed with permitting in confidence that the plan reviewed to date will be reflective of the plan the Applicant is permitted to build. E. Allow the Applicant certain waivers from the Regulations to ensure the proposed development can be constructed as shown. F. Allow the Applicant to proceed with expedited review of its future applications, given the level of detailed review already provided. G. Allow the Applicant to seek certain waivers at a future date which might not otherwise be available, in order to realize the full benefits of the Project for both the City and the Applicant. H. Allow for the mixing of small scale commercial uses on the first floor of large residential buildings, further to the goals of the community, the Planning Commission and the Applicant, as allowed by the language of the PUD and Master Plan provisions. While this Master Plan is not the final permit to be issued, it will represent a significant step forward and in the right direction, and a mutual commitment between the Applicant and the City to realize the development as envisioned. We are excited to close these permit proceedings and begin the next phase of our Project in filing a Preliminary Plat application for a detailed review, such that we can begin construction in the summer of 2017. We hope that City Staff and the Board are as excited as we are, and we look forward to continued discussion in the Preliminary Plat process. We appreciate the continued attention to this project and the time and effort it has taken by both Staff and the Board. 21 Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C O’BRIEN HOME FARM MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY - PHASE I SCALE: 1” = 100’ 10.12.2016 KEY TRAIL HEAD BUS STOP BIKE ROUTE CITY REC TRAIL PROPERTY TRAILS EXIST. SIDEWALKS NEW SIDEWALKS NEW REC TRAIL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE RECREATION, PARK & OPEN SPACE LAND NOTE: *TRAIL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATIONS.TYPICAL ROAD “A”TYPICAL ROAD “E”TYPICAL ROAD ZONE 1TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 1 ” TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 2 ” Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G O’BRIEN HOME FARM MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY - PHASE I SCALE: 1” = 100’ 09.01.2016 KEY TRAIL HEAD BUS STOP BIKE ROUTE CITY REC TRAIL PROPERTY TRAILS EXIST. SIDEWALKS NEW SIDEWALKS NEW REC TRAIL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL/MIXED USE RECREATION, PARK & OPEN SPACE LAND NOTE: *TRAIL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATIONS.TYPICAL ROAD “A”TYPICAL ROAD “E”TYPICAL ROAD ZONE 1TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 1 ” TYPI C A L R O A D “ B - 2 ” Park Area Exhibit H Exhibit I #SP-16-61 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BILL SHEARER—45 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-61 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan application #SP-16-61 of Bill Shearer to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,400 sq. ft. building consisting of the following uses: 1) 4,100 sq. ft. of auto service and repair, 2) 3,300 sq. ft. of wholesale, and 3) 1,000 sq. ft. of general office. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area to increase the number of spaces from 25 to 32, 45 Green Mountain Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on October 18 and November 1, 2016. The applicant was represented by Ian Jewkes and Malcolm Willard. 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, Bill Shearer, seeks to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,400 sq. ft. building consisting of the following uses: 1) 4,100 sq. ft. of auto service and repair, 2) 3,300 sq. ft. of wholesale, and 3) 1,000 sq. ft. of general office. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area to increase the number of spaces from 25 to 32, 45 Green Mountain Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Rava, LLC. 3. The application was received on September 6, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Commercial 2 Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of six (6) pages with the first page titled “Site Plan 45 Green Mountain Drive” prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., and last revised 10/20/16. Site Plan Review Standards Section 14 of the Land Development Regulations establish the following general review standards for site plan applications: 1) Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2) Parking #SP-16-61 2 The applicant is proposing a new parking area to the rear of the existing building. This parking area will be separated from the current parking area by a landscaped buffer. The number of parking spaces will increase from 26 to 32. The total required number of spaces for the current uses (Auto and motorcycle sales, service, and repair and Retail business) is 31. The Board finds this criteria is met. 3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. No changes to the existing building are proposed. 3) Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 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 parking area will be buffered from surrounding properties by existing trees and proposed additional plantings. The Board finds its impact on surrounding properties and buildings to be minimal. A. SPECIFIC REVIEW STANDARDS A. Access to abutting properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plans do not show the addition of any utility infrastructure. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non- dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. Two (2) new screened dumpster areas are proposed to the rear of the existing building. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, #SP-16-61 3 Screening, and Street Trees. Staff received the following comments from the City Arborist in an email dated October 21, 2016: The landscaping plan has addressed all my concerns. The Board finds this criteria met. B. Stormwater Staff received the following comments from Dave Wheeler of the Stormwater Section in an email dated October 21, 2016: All stormwater comments have been addressed as well. As noted in an email from Tom on 10/14, the DRB conditions should be as follows: The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The DRB should include a condition requiring the porous concrete/paver system be maintained so that it provides a minimum infiltration rate of 3.0 inches per hour. The Board finds the conditions suggested by the Stormwater Section to be appropriate. DECISION Motion by _________, seconded by _________, to approve site plan application #SP-16-61 of Bill Shearer, 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 will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. The porous concrete/paver system must be maintained so as to provide a minimum infiltration rate of three (3) inches per hour. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 5. 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. 6. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use of the parking lot. #SP-16-61 4 7. Any change to the site plan will 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 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, 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. TP2TP1TP1 TP2 TP1 EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN 1-AF 1-AF CONTINUOUS TREE PIT REFER TO DETAILS F&G/LA-101 CONTINUOUS TREE PIT REFER TO DETAILS CONTINUOUS TREE PIT REFER TO DETAILS F&G/LA-101 7-TO 1-GT 1-GT 1-AF 1-AF 1-AF CONTINUOUS TREE PIT REFER TO DETAILS F&G/LA-101 CONTINUOUS TREE PIT REFER TO DETAILS F&G/LA-101 1-GT 1-GT 1-AF 1-GT 10/04/2016 ---- GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE South Burlington, Vermont ByDateDescriptionRev. File: North Scale: Date: Checked By: Revisions: Drawn By: Title Sheet Number: Project Number: 131 C h u r c h S t r e e t B u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1 tel:8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8 fax:8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0 w w w . s e g r o u p . c o m Landscape Architects and Planners mjl10.20.16Planting plan revision1 PLANT LIST KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME QTY.SIZE REMARKS DECIDUOUS TREES: AF Acer freemani 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Red Maple 6 2.5-3" Cal.B&B, 6' Branching Ht. (Min.) GT Gleditsia triacanthos 'Shade Master'Honeylocust 5 2.5-3" Cal.B&B, 6' Branching Ht. (Min.) EVERGREEN TREES: TO Thuja occidnetalis 'Nigra' Dark American Arborvitae 7 5-6' Tall B&B, Full NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY ALL PLANT QUANTITIES FOUND IN THE PLANTING PLANS. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY. 2. FINAL LAYOUT AND PLACEMENT OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS. 4. REFER TO PLANTING DETAILS FOR PROPER PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. 5. ALL TREE, SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS, COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THE PROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL TO DEPTH SPECIFIED IN DETAILS AND SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION. 6. IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PROPOSES A SUBSTITUTE PLANT SPECIES, ALL SUBSTITUTES NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY ARBORIST AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN WRITING PRIOR TO ORDERING. 1"=20' MKW MKW PLANTING PLAN LA-100 40'20'10'0 Graphic Scale: 1"=20' 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_27_1699HinesburgRoad_1580DorsetStreet_JJJSout hBurlington_PUD_amend_sketch_Nov_1_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 28, 2016 Plans received: September 22, 2016 1699 Hinesburg Road & 1580 Dorset Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-27 Meeting date: November 1, 2016 Owner/Applicant JJJ South Burlington, LLC 21 Carmichael St., Suite 201 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570-R1580, 0860-01731, 0860-01625_R SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District- Village Residential, SEQ Zoning District- Natural Resource Protection 70.49 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-27 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of: 1) increasing the number of residential units by 58 units to 167 units, 2) incorporating the adjacent “Nadeau” 10.1 acre parcel into the development. The 167 units will consist of the following: 125 single family dwellings and 42 two-family dwelling units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Applicant has previously been approved for 109 housing units. In this application they are proposing to add in and develop upon a portion of the adjacent Nadeau land and to develop on the northernmost portion of the Cider Mill property, which had previously been left aside for future phases. Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A. Dimensional Requirements: This development (Cider Mill I and II) received the following dimensional standards waivers from the Board as part of the Master Plan (#MP-07-01): Single family minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft. Single family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60% Single family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42% Multi-family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60% Multi-family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42% Multi-family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet Multi-family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet B. Master Plan The property is presently subject to a Master Plan and this project will require a change to that plan. At least one reason for the change to the Master Plan is the increase in the total number of units, but there are other possible reasons that could also necessitate the change. C. Density The SEQ-NR and the SEQ-VR districts allow 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The applicant has acknowledged that the proposed project will require TDRs; however, the exact number needed has not yet been supplied by the applicant. The proposed project is part of a larger master planned area and the density of the already built project phases could have an impact on the proposed phase’s need for TDRs. The issue of TDRs will be fully addressed at a later stage in the review process and staff considers the TDRs should be addressed no later than when the Master Plan is addressed. D. Access Staff has reviewed the proposed street layout in relation to Article 9 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which states that the 3 intention of the street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian-oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. And further states Dead end streets are strongly discouraged (e.g. cul de sacs). Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels… Staff considers the proposed network of streets to be well-connected and pedestrian-friendly with sidewalks throughout that lead to Hinesburg Road and into Cider Mill I. There is one cul de sac over 200’ in length in the northeast section of the property. Staff considers that the neighboring property could be developable and, if the Board agrees, then the road should be continued to the property line to provide for future street connections or the street shortened to less than 200 feet. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the neighboring property could be developed and, if yes, request the applicant either extend the street to the property line or reduce the street’s lengths to under 200’. E. Parks and Open Space Section 9.07 provides specific standards relating to park design in the Southeast Quadrant, which the proposed project must meet. Of particular note is that “Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parked parkland per 1,000 population.” It appears to staff that there are some open areas in the development; however, it is not clear whether these will be parks that meet the design and size guidelines of Section 9.07 and staff suspects that currently there is not enough parkland being provided. Additionally staff notes that when the existing Cider Mill I was permitted the design and size guidelines in Section 9.07 were not in place and therefore Cider Mill I residents may be underserved in terms of parkland, which makes the establishment of adequate park space especially important in Cider Mill II. Furthermore, the additional housing units proposed in this application were not contemplated at that time and this impacts whatever parks and open space currently exist in the surrounding area. 2. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant incorporate parks and open space which meet the standards of Section 9.07. 3. Staff recommends the applicant consider whether providing parkland, such as a mini-park, closer to Cider Mill I is possible to help meet the recreation needs of those residents as well as the prospective residents of Cider Mill II. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant meeting with the Recreation & Parks Committee to discuss the project. F. Building Orientation and Design Sections 9.08 and 9.09 of the LDRs lay out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the proposed housing units will have entrances facing a public road—a requirement of the regulations— however it is not clear from the submitted materials whether the proposed units will meet the other Residential Design standards of the LDRs. The current proposal shows a variety of housing types (single family, carriage home, and duplex), but they are not mixed together as is encouraged by Section 4 9.08(C)(4)(d) and it is not clear whether there will also be a mix of housing styles (ex: ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.). 5. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant to review the Residential Design requirements and recommendations of Section 9.08(C) and 9.09(C) prior to future stages of the review process. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the project could provide a variety of housing types throughout the development. G. Lot Ratios Section 9.08(A)(4) states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” The applicant has not provided dimensional information on the proposed single-family house lots. In the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD-16-01) similarly sized and proportioned single-family lots in a near identical layout were approved by the Board in the southernmost section of the project. In the present proposal that southernmost portion loses one unit and six (6) additional single-family lots are added elsewhere in the project area. Those new lots are of similar proportion to the previously approved lots. Staff considers that the proposed single-family lots do not all meet the ratio requirement of Section 9.08(A)(4); however, given that the Board has previously permitted similarly sized and proportioned lots in the southernmost section of the project, staff does not consider it appropriate to re-open a discussion on those lot proportions. Staff considers that the proposed new single-family lots (#66-#71) should meet the requirements of Section 9.08(A)(4). 7. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant address the lot ratio issue of lots #66-#71 prior to future stages of the review process. H. Fire and Public Works The applicant received comments from the Fire Chief and City Engineer at an in person meeting on October 25, 2016. Staff has not received any written comments from either department. I. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 October 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman, M. Behr (by phone for application #SD-16-14 only) ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Leinwohl, T. Barden, Sr. Laura Della Santo, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, M. Simoneau, M. Willard, E. Von Turkovich, L. Ravin, N. Dagesse, M. O’Brien, S. & D. O’Brien, D. Burton, I. Jewkes 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to hear Agenda item #9 before #8. They also agreed to hear the Minutes as item #2 on the Agenda. 2. Minutes of 4 October 2016: Mr. Kochman asked to add to his statement regarding the extension of the dead end street that he would not vote against it but that he “agreed with the interpretation of the opposing party.” Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 4 October 2016 with the above addition. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-16-04 & Site Plan Application #SP-16- 35 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: 1) replacing the first base dugout with a 32’x8’ dugout, 2) replacing the third base dugout with a 22’x32’ dugout, 3) replacing the backstop, and 4) placing 6,449 cubic yards of fill on the front lawn, 99 Proctor Avenue: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 2 Mr. Belair reminded the Board that the main reason for the continuation was to get more information about the height of the backstop. The backstop exceeds the height limit. The next item on the agenda would apply for a height waiver. This item would be approved without a height waiver. Mr. Kochman indicated he would vote against the application because it is “after the fact.” He felt there was no reason the applicant could not have gotten approval in advance. Mr. Wilking then moved to close #CU-16-04 and #SP-16-35. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-06 & Site Plan Application #SP-16-65 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 allowing a baseball backstop to exceed the 15-foot height limit by a maximum of 21 feel, for a maximum height of 36 feet, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Miller noted that the property is screened along the back side, and staff feels there is sufficient landscaping. Mr. Kochman asked why there is a 15-foot height limit. Mr. Belair said the Planning Commission created that limit for accessory structures. Mr. Wilking moved to close #CU-16-06 and #SP-16-65. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-26 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) extending taxiways B & G, and 2) constructing a perimeter road from the existing quarry to the taxiway B extension, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl showed the location of the next taxiways on the plan. He indicated a problematic intersection in the area that the FAA has expressed concern with. This plan will alleviate that concern. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 3 The perimeter road will allow vehicles to get from the quarry to the construction site. It will remain after construction as a service/maintenance road. There will be a separate site plan for taxiway G because the rules have been changed. They are ready to go with taxiway B and anticipate construction next year. Mr. Kochman asked about overall coverage. Mr. Leinwohl said they have 770+ total acreage. He showed an aerial photo indicating all the grassed areas. Mr. Kochman recommended providing a coverage number, even if it is within a range. Mr. Leinwohl said they will come in with a combined Preliminary and Final Plat. No further issues were raised by the Board. 8. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller advised that a 1-hour time limit had been set for this discussion at this meeting. Mr. Langfeldt addressed staff comments beginning with phasing. He said they don’t disagree that once they have more detail, they will have a final phasing plan. This will occur by preliminary plat. He then showed a plan for 3 phases. They agreed that public spaces need to be put in in a timely manner, when it is safe to do so. The applicant is asking that if the Board needs a phasing plan up front, that it be open to “tweaking” in the future without a formal amendment. Mr. Belair said that because phasing is not part of the regulations for a master plan, “tweaking” is OK. Things that would trigger an amendment include, but are not limited to, relocation of collector roads, and an increase in the number of units. Regarding the coverage request, Mr. Langfeldt showed a chart of potential coverages. He noted that the total exceeds what is allowable, but they agreed they will not exceed the overall coverage allowed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 4 Regarding types of units, Mr. Langfeldt said there is a potential to do more or less of a particular type. They are asking to remove the words “and associated housing types.” Ms. Britt noted that the Board wanted coverages in relation to types of houses. Mr. Parsons noted that the chart shows the maximum for each area of coverage, but there could be less or more in each; however, total coverage won’t exceed what is allowed. Ms. Britt said this would be made clear in the approval motion. Regarding height waivers, Mr. Langfeldt said waivers are needed to achieve the level of density. He also felt that without waivers, the purpose of a master plan “goes out the window.” He noted that neighbors have asked that higher densities be put at the north end of the property. Mr. Belair noted that with the proposed waivers, the DRB will not be able to say no to a building of the allowable height, regardless of design. He then read the standards for allowing height waivers, including the architectural design. Mr. Gill said their concern is a change in zoning that would preclude a height waiver. Mr. Langfeldt said they are not asking for a height waiver now, they are asking for a “finding” that if they meet all the criterial the Board is OK with a height waiver. Mr. Kochman said he understood that but didn’t feel it got them anything. Mr. Wilking said he had no problem giving them that finding if they meet today’s criteria. Mr. Langfeldt then showed a picture of what that height would look like in that setting. Mr. Kochman asked to take out the second sentence of the finding. Mr. Gill was OK with that. Members had no issue with removing the second sentence of the proposed finding. Regarding road layout, Mr. Langfeldt said they agree with that finding. He noted that both the Bike/Ped Committee and the Recreation Committee gave unanimous support with the 2 recommendations: 1) continue bike path on new Road “A” for future connections, and 2) have flashing beacons on both sides of signs at new proposed Hinesburg Road crossings. It was noted that the second recommendation would have to have State approval as this is a State road. Regarding a zoning district boundary adjustment, Mr. Langfeldt noted that the R-12 zone would shift slightly to the west. Mr. Kochman was concerned there are no given standards for this. Other members expressed no concerns with the boundary adjustment. Regarding front setbacks, Mr. Langfeldt said they have created different street types in each zone to show what it looks like from the road to the front of the houses. He showed a plan DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 5 indicating this. He felt there was enough detail, subject to Public Works input. He added that the more they set back, the less open space there is. Mr. Miller noted that staff is recommending 20 feet throughout except for street “B” which would have a 6-foot front setback. Mr. Langfeldt said they are saying this is the closest it would be. Mr. Miller said that staff is proposing waiting until there is more information available. Mr. Gill said that a change to green space location throws out the entire master plan. If you push the buildings back, the open space shrinks. Mr. Belair noted that the Board can grant this waiver at Final Plat. Mr. Miller said that staff’s point is that so much can change and the applicant can come in for plat review with an outcome the Board/City doesn’t like. Ms. Smith said she generally favors the applicant’s request, given the topography. Mr. Kochman said since there are no specific criteria, he supports the applicant’s request. Other members had no issue granting the waiver now. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue #MP-16-01 until 1 November 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-61 of Bill Shearer to amend a previously approved plan for an 8,400 sq. ft. building consisting of the following uses: 1) 4100 sq. ft. of auto service and repair, 2) 3300 sq. ft. of wholesale, and 3) 1000 sq. ft. of general office. The amendment consists of expanding the parking area to increase the number of spaces from 25 to 32, 45 Green Mountain Drive: The applicant noted that parking in the back doesn’t function well, and they are trying to “clean up the mess back there.” There are currently 2 tenants, Portland Glass and Keene Medical Products. The plan is to elevate the parking which would allow them to put in an infiltration system and get a clean, functioning lot. This will also provide ample parking for tenants. Regarding landscaping, the will replace some black locust with honey locust and maples to address the Arborist’s concerns. He has not yet seen the new plans. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 6 The applicant had no issue with the stormwater comments. They have a State permit. Ms. Britt noted that the building use could change and require fewer parking spaces, but with all retail, it could require more. Members expressed no issue with the parking as presented. Mr. Miller said they will continue the application to get comments from the Arborist and Stormwater people. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SP-16-61 to 1 November 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12-unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six two- family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Messrs. Parsons and Kochman recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Behr participated in this application via telephone. Mr. Dagesse said they have made quite a few changes since the last hearing. This is now a more urban style row development similar to the homes at the end of Market Street. Mr. Behr asked what allows for this style of development given the other homes on Swift St. Mr. Belair said the other properties are zoned R-1 to the east of this property. There is UVM land across the street. Properties down the hill are well developed with commercial uses. Mr. Dagesse said they gain more usable recreational land because of moving buildings closer to the street. There would also be a sidewalk in front with landscaping. They are looking for a minimum 22 foot setback. This would be 30 feet off the road. There would be some parking under the buildings and also parking in the rear. Mr. Behr didn’t feel this was a good fit in this area as the area is much more rural than the Market St. area. He thought it would appear to be one long building and would be a new “design trend” for Swift St. that might not be continued. Ms. Britt said that taking direction from the Market St. development was a recommendation for the Director of Planning & Zoning, but the Board has raised some points staff hadn’t considered. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 7 Mr. Behr suggested looking at something more like the cottage development on Kirby Road. Ms. Britt said that was suggested, but there is an issue with site conditions. Mr. Dagesse said they need to have on-site sewer, which further limits use of the site. And not much can happen beyond the wetland limits. Thus, they are restricted to being closer to the street. Mr. Behr said he couldn’t support the setback waiver and wanted more lawn. Mr. Cota and Mr. Wilking agreed. Mr. Dagesse suggested staggering the buildings further back as you move to the west. He thought the topography could still work. Mr. Behr suggested possibly shortening one building and adding units to another. Mr. Belair said they are limited to 4 units per structure. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 6 December 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:30 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date