Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 10/18/2016 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: 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 feet, 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. 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. 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 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. 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 and Ms. Smith 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. 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 11/15/2016 Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 OCTOBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 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, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; C. Snyder, A. Rowe, S. Dopp, L. Ravin, J. Goodwin, T. Chittenden, T. Barritt, W. Gilbert, M. Scollins, G. Farrell, L. Kleh 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller advised that he and Mr. Cota had attended the city’s Leadership meeting for committee chairs and vice chairs. Mr. Miller also noted that members can attend the fall Planning and Zoning Forum on 2 November. 4. Continued 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 St: Mr. Miller reminded the Board that this is the last chance to make any substantial changes. He also noted receipt of a letter dated 3 October 2016 from Daniel Seff, the attorney representing a number of the neighbors. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 2 The outstanding item from the last hearing was the traffic review by Public Works. The Public Works director is OK with the study and has noted the need for a southbound left turn lane. Mr. Miller reminded the applicant that all pavement markings must be permanent. Mr. Kochman noted 2 points in Mr. Seff’s letter that he felt merited consideration. The first is the lack of standards for the granting of waivers, and the second is the precedent to allow staff’s interpretation of the 200-foot street regulation to allow for extension of a street to the property line of an adjacent property that may be developed in the future. Mr. Kochman said he will not vote against the application, but he felt these issues were important. Mr. Miller made it clear that the DRB is requiring the extension of the street beyond the 200- foot limit. Mr. Wilking noted that the applicant is putting 3 homes on the extension of the street. Mr. Kochman said the DRB could require a cash payment and easement so that the road could be extended in the future. The 3 units would then not be there. Mr. Parsons said there is significant precedent for requiring the extension of the road, and he had no issue with it. Mr. Miller read a text from Mr. Behr who has no issue with the plan. Mr. Belair cited similar requirements on Wildflower Lane, Windswept Lane and Sadie Lane, all of which have been developed to the end of the road. Mr. Rowe cited Article 15 in support of extending the road beyond 200 feet. Mr. Kochman asked if this will be a public street. Mr. Belair said ultimately it will, but it would be private for a while. Ms. Dopp was concerned that if the Gilbert property is not developed, there could be a 400 foot dead end street. Mr. Kochman said this has been a consistent practice. Both parties are well represented and the issue will be decided at the Supreme Court. Ms. Ravin was concerned that the water line easement is still shown on the plan. Mr. Miller said it would be gone by final plat. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 3 Mr. Gilbert asked about the list of waivers. Mr. Belair said staff comments include all the waivers, and all were discussed and approved by the DRB. Dr. Scollins asked about the possibility of the street hooking up with a public street. Mr. Miller said the street could easily hook back to Spear Street. Mr. Kochman felt it would be desirable to extend the street to the public space. Mr. Barritt asked about the possibility of a flashing pedestrian light on Spear Street. Mr. Rowe said the feeling is that there is no “receiving space” on the other side. Mr. Barritt said the shoulder on the other side is a designated bike/walking space which was made narrower. He felt there will be a lot of people in the area and no safe way to cross. He added that the city has made it a plan to make the city pedestrian/bike friendly. Dr. Scollins said there have been discussions that there would be a park somewhere along the rec path, where people can sit down. He felt the southeast corner would be a better location as it has a better view. It would require removing the furthest triplex. Mr. Snyder noted that other neighbors wanted the open space where it is now located. Mr. Rowe noted that the proposed open space area is larger than what is required. Mr. Snyder stressed that this plan follows the LDRs. There have been many iterations, and they have tried to address as many concerns as possible. Mr. Barritt felt that this plan maximizes the amount of open natural space, and that is advantageous. Mr. Wilking cited the need for a true rec path for Spear Street. Mr. Barritt noted the City Council saw plans last night for 4 rec paths in areas where there are no shoulders. This road does have shoulders. Ms. Kleh expressed concern with safety at the Spear/Swift intersection. She was also concerned with car lights shining into her parents’ home. Mr. Snyder said there is vegetation all along the roadway which should prevent that. Mr. Parsons said he would like input from Public Works on a flashing pedestrian light. He was concerned with having a number of crosswalks on Spear Street. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 4 Ms. Ravin noted the 2007 Spear Street Corridor Study shows a bike/ped facility on both sides of Spear Street. Mr. Goodwin said the Bike/Ped Committee would like to weigh in on this. Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant’s traffic plan calls for modification to the Swift/Spear intersection. Mr. Rowe said it does not but there is a traffic impact fee. Mr. Belair explained that the impact fee is used for projects named in the Impact Fee Ordinance. Mr. Rowe said none of those projects is on Spear Street. Members then were asked to “weigh in” on the extension of the 200-foot road. All agreed to go with the precedent. Mr. Wilking then moved to close SD-16-18. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 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: It was noted that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 18 October. Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD-16-26 and SP-16-35 to 18 October 23016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. 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 and G, and 2) constructing a perimeter road from the existing quarry to the taxiway B extension, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had failed to display the placard as required. He recommended continuing to 18 October. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 OCTOBER 2016 PAGE 5 Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD-16-26 to 18 October 2016. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Master Plan application #MR-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. Belair advised that the applicant had asked to continue to 18 October. Mr. Wilking moved to continue MR-16-01 to 18 October 2016. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. 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 expending the parking area to increase the number of spaces from 25 to 47, 45 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had requested a continuance to 18 October. Mr. Wilking moved to continue SP-16-61 to 18 October 2016. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 20 September 2016: Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 20 September 2016 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Other Business: There was no other business presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:30 p.m. _________________________________, Clerk #CU-16-04 & #SP-16-35 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RICE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL – 99 PROCTOR AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-04 AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-35 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-04 & site plan review 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’ X 8’ dugout, 2) replacing the third base dugout with a 22’ X 32’ dugout, 3) replacing the backstop, and 4) placing 6,449 cubic yards of fill on the front lawn, 99 Proctor Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 23, September 6, September 20, October 4, and October 18, 2016. The applicant was represented by Tom Barden and Sister della Santo. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Rice Memorial High School, seeks 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’ X 8’ dugout, 2) replacing the third base dugout with a 22’ X 32’ dugout, 3) replacing the backstop, and 4) placing 6,449 cubic yards of fill on the front lawn, 99 Proctor Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. 3. The applications were received on June 8, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Residential 4 Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page titled “Rice Memorial H.S. South Burlington, Vermont,” prepared by Forcier Consulting Engineers, PC, and dated 5/24/2016. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. #CU-16-04 & #SP-16-35 2 The site is greater than one (1) acre in size and all applicable limitations on coverage are currently being met. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The Board finds that the above criterion have been met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. The Board finds that the above criterion has been met. (8) … (9) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. The two (2) dugouts have a combined square footage of approximately 960. The principal building on the site is approximately 85,000 square feet; the applicant has not stated what portion is on the first floor. Presuming, conservatively, that at least 50% of the 85,000 square is on the first floor that would limit the applicant to accessory structures that, in total, do not have a square footage greater than 21,250. The dugouts in combination with the other accessory structures, such as the two (2) temporary storage boxes, are less than 1,400 square feet. The Board finds this criteria met. (10) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. The Board finds this criteria met. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS #CU-16-04 & #SP-16-35 3 The detached accessory structures include two dugouts next to a playing field and a backstop associated with the playing field. One dugout is approximately 8 ft. by 32 ft. and the same size as the one which it is replacing. The second dugout is approximately 22 ft. by 32 ft. and 9-10 ft. wider than the one which it is replacing. Within the footprint just described, the second dugout contains a traditional area for players as well as a storage area of approximately 320 sq. ft. Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. The Board finds that the accessory structures and fill in the front lawn do not impact the capacity of the school or any community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. A school and associated playing fields have been part of the area for many years and the Board finds that they are part of the character of the neighborhood. The expansion in size of one of the dugouts could change the character of the area, since it has a more pronounced visual impact than the previous structure; however, the Board finds that its location more than 70 ft. from the closest property line, screened by trees, and with its nearest abutters being non-residential results in the change in size not having an impact on the character of the neighborhood. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The Board finds that the accessory buildings do not have an impact on traffic. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The proposed detached accessory buildings represent an increase in overall building coverage and lot coverage, but this change is within the permitted limits. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed detached accessory structures will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14 of the Land Development Regulations establish the following general review standards for site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. #CU-16-04 & #SP-16-35 4 B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2) Parking 3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The existence of a playing field and its associated structures—dugouts and backstops—is typical of a property that is used by a school, so the Board finds transitioning from a school building to a dugout, for example, to be a natural transition. The school building adjacent to the backstop is of similar height to the backstop and therefore the Board finds them to be compatible. Parking is not impacted by this project. C. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 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 Board finds the area of the playing field with the dugouts and backstop to be well-screened by existing trees from the closest neighboring properties, which are to the south. Additionally, neighbors to the north of the school property are approximately 800 ft. or more from the accessory buildings. 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. No new utilities are proposed. 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). #CU-16-04 & #SP-16-35 5 Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No new dumpsters, recycling, or composting areas are proposed. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The property is heavily screened along the west side by wooded land. There are also stands of trees along the south (which is where the accessory buildings are located), east, and most of the north side of the property. The Board finds the existing landscaping to be sufficient. ALTERATION OF EXISTING GRADE A permit is needed to remove land when the amount is equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. When the grade is being altered site plans must show the area to be filled or removed and the existing grade and the proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The plans do show the area to be filled and the grade. Public Works submitted the following comment to staff in an email dated June 20, 2016: With all the work completed and the fact that three of the four items are specific to the baseball field, we have no comments on the fill that occurred. The Board finds this criteria met. BACKSTOP The maximum height permitted in the R4 Zoning District for an accessory structure is 15 feet. The application currently before the Board does not seek a height waiver and therefore the backstop must be 15 feet or less in height. The applicant has submitted another separate conditional use application to request the backstop be allowed to exceed 15 feet in height. That application will be considered by the Board at a future hearing. DECISION Motion by ________, seconded by _________, to approve conditional use application #CU-16-04 and site plan application #SP-16-35 of Rice Memorial High School, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the accessory structures, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 3. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the structures. #CU-16-04 & #SP-16-35 6 4. 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. 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. Any change to the approved 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. Rice Memorial High SchoolDrawing D-1 - NO SCALE3rd Base Dugout Plan view & North-Side ElevationHigh SchoolRice Memorial HNO SCALEDrawingD-1 - Nut 3rd Base Dugourth-Side ElevationPlan view & NorNORTH Rice Memorial High SchoolDrawing D-2 - NO SCALE1st Base Dugout Plan view & West-Side ElevationRice Memorial High SchoolDrawing D-2 - NO SCALE1st Base Dugout ationPlan view & West-Side ElevaNORTHNORTH Rice Memorial High SchoolDrawing D-3 - NO SCALEDugouts and BackstopPlan viewRice Meemorial High SchoolDrawingg D-3 - NO SCALEDugoutss and BackstopPlan viewwNORTHNORTH SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTREVISIONSLOT COVERAGE (EXISTING AND PROPOSED)SURVEY NOTESTOPOGRAPHIC AND SURVEY INFORMATION HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM THE FOLLOWINGRESOURCES:1) "EXISTING SITE PLAN-RICE HIGH SCHOOL" PREPARED BY THERMO CONSULTINGENGINEERS, APRIL, 1993.2) "PROPOSED SITE MODIFICATIONS-RICE HIGH SCHOOL" PREPARED BY FORCIERALDRICH & ASSOCIATES, LAST REVISED 3/31/96.3) "BURLINGTON CENTRAL CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL-PLOT PLAN" PREPARED BY FREEMANFRENCH FREEMAN ARCHITECTS, DATE UNCLEAR.4) GOOGLE EARTH IMAGERY DATED 5/19/20125) ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON LOCALIZED BENCHMARK.6) IRRIGATION LINES AND SECONDARY UNDERGROUND POWER LINES ARE NOT SHOWN.7) UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIESLOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO PROJECT PROPERTY. EXISTING UTILITIY INFORMATIONARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS(IF ANY). THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (1-800-225-4977) A MINIMUMOF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.GENERAL NOTES15 MARINER HEIGHTSCOLCHESTER VT 05546(802) 777-9601FCEVT.COM3 AD #3 - 3/14/142014-04-29FOR ZONINGTemporary Storage Box #1Temporary Storage Box #2Updated 5/24/16 toshow the dugouts &backstopUpdated5/31/16 toshow thelawn in-fill35'-0" 59'-0"47'-6"32'-3"22'-3"32'-3"8'-3"8486889091848688909186889091486889090409191908684828288Red dashed line = Previous gradeBlue solid line = New gradeGrading LegendRed dashed line = Previous gradeBlue solid line = New gradeGrading LegendLawn in-fill area38,692 SF #CU-16-06 & #SP-16-65 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RICE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL – 99 PROCTOR AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-06 AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-65 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-06 & site plan review 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 ft. height limit by a maximum of 21 feet, for a maximum height of 36 feet, 99 Proctor Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on October 18, 2016. The applicant was represented by Tom Barden and Sister della Santo. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Rice Memorial High School, seeks 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 ft. height limit by a maximum of 21 feet, for a maximum height of 36 feet, 99 Proctor Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. 3. The applications were received on September 14, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Residential 4 Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of seven (7) pages with the first page titled “Baseball Backstop Fence— Proposed design alterations for existing fence,” prepared by the Diocese of Burlington, and dated 9/7/2016. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. #CU-16-06 & #SP-16-65 2 The site is greater than one (1) acre in size and all applicable limitations on coverage are currently being met. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The Board finds that the above criterion have been met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. The Board finds that the above criterion has been met. (8) … (9) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in-ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. The total square footage of all accessory structures is not changing as a result of this application. The Board finds this criteria met. (10) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. The total square footage of all accessory structures is not changing as a result of this application. The Board finds this criteria met. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The detached accessory structure under review is the backstop. The maximum height permitted in the R4 Zoning District for an accessory structure is 15 feet. The applicant has requested a waiver from the maximum height which would allow the backstop to be a maximum of 36 feet in height. #CU-16-06 & #SP-16-65 3 Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. None of the above criterion will be impacted by the increased height of the backstop. The Board finds there will be no undue adverse effects. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14 of the Land Development Regulations establish the following general review standards for site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. 2) Parking 3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The school building adjacent to the backstop is approximately 25 feet in height and therefore similar to the backstop, which will be 36 feet in height. The Board finds them to be compatible. C. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. 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. #CU-16-06 & #SP-16-65 4 The Board finds the area of the backstop to be well-screened by existing trees from the closest neighboring properties, which are to the south. Additionally, neighbors to the north of the school property are approximately 800 ft. or more from the backstop. 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. No new utilities are proposed. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No new dumpsters, recycling, or composting areas are proposed. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The property is heavily screened along the west side by wooded land. There are also stands of trees along the south (which is where the backstop is located), east, and most of the north side of the property. The Board finds the existing landscaping to be sufficient. DECISION Motion by ________, seconded by _________, to approve conditional use application #CU-16-06 and site plan application #SP-16-65 of Rice Memorial High School, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the accessory structure, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 3. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the structures. #CU-16-06 & #SP-16-65 5 4. 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. 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. Any change to the approved 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. Title: BASEBALL BACKSTOP FENCE - Proposed design alteration for existing fenceLocation: Rice Memorial High School, 99 Proctor Ave, South Burlington, VT 05403Date: September 7, 2016Prepared by the Diocese of BurlingtonPage 1 of 3Plan View:Existing Fence with ExtensionSouth, Front View ElevationGrade24 ftOVERALL HEIGHT, EXISTING8 ftSECTION HEIGHT, EXISTING12 ftOVERALL HEIGHT, EXTENSION8 ftSECTION HEIGHT, EXTENSION4 ftSECTION HEIGHT, EXTENSIONSouth, Front ViewDugout OpeningNSWENSWEOVERALL LEGNTH, EXISTING47.6 ftOVERALL LEGNTH, EXTENSION57 ftOVERALL LEGNTH, EXTENSION PAST 1ST BASE32 ft Title: BASEBALL BACKSTOP FENCE - Proposed design alteration for existing fenceLocation: Rice Memorial High School, 99 Proctor Ave, South Burlington, VT 05403Date: September 7, 2016Prepared by the Diocese of BurlingtonPage 2 of 3Plan View:Existing Fence with ExtensionSouth-West Side View ElevationSouth-West, Side ViewGrade24 ftOVERALL HEIGHT, EXISTING8 ftSECTION HEIGHT, EXISTING12 ftOVERALL HEIGHT, EXTENSION8 ftSECTION HEIGHT, EXTENSION4 ftSECTION HEIGHT, EXTENSION30oOVERALL LEGNTH, EXISTINGActual Height Gained = 2.6 ftActual Overall Height Gained = 10.6 ft47.6 ftOVERALL LEGNTH, EXTENSION57 ft1ST BASEDugout OpeningOVERALL LEGNTH, EXTENSION PAST 1ST BASE32 ftHOME PLATENSWENSWE Title: BASEBALL BACKSTOP FENCE - Proposed design alteration for existing fenceLocation: Rice Memorial High School, 99 Proctor Ave, South Burlington, VT 05403Date: September 7, 2016Prepared by the Diocese of BurlingtonPage 3 of 3Plan View:Existing Fence with ExtensionAerial ViewNSWENSWEDUGOUT 1st3rdHomeDUGOUT LEGNTH, EXISTING47.6 ftLEGNTH, EXTENSION57 ftLEGNTH, EXTENSION PAST 1ST BASE32 ftLEGNTH, EXISTING35 ftLEGNTH, EXISTING59 ft 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_26_1200AirportDrive_CityOfBurlington_Burlington Airport_sketch_taxiways_road_October_18_2016_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 14, 2016 Application received: September 6, 2016 CITY OF BURLINGTON/BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT—1200 AIRPORT DRIVE SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-26 Meeting date: October 18, 2016 Owner City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 2000-0000C Airport Zoning District & Airport Industrial Zoning District Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 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 and G, and 2) constructing a perimeter road from the existing quarry to the taxiway B extension, 1200 Airport Drive. COMMENTS 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) Zoning District Dimensional Standards Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 3 acres 770 acres in Airport and Airport Industrial Zoning Districts No change  Max. Building Coverage 30% Unknown Unknown  Max. Overall Coverage 50%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 35 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. Airport Industrial Zoning District Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 3 acres 770 acres in Airport and Airport Industrial Zoning Districts No change  Max. Building Coverage 30% Unknown Unknown  Max. Overall Coverage 50%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 35 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 50 ft.  Given the very large size of the parcel with much of it undeveloped, staff considers the parcel to be in compliance with the dimensional standards. B) Planned Unit Development Standards Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. No change. 3 (A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. This information will be available at a future review stage of the project. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. This project is contained on the subject parcel within the security fence. (A)(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. (A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. (A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The site is already developed as an airport and the proposed project supports the development already present and does not impact open space on the site or any wetlands. (A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. (A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. The unique nature of the site—an airport—makes these criteria inapplicable to the site. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The proposed project supports the airport development already present, which is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as an existing and growing use within the Northeast Quadrant of the City. RECOMMENDATION 4 Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 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: October 18, 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 September 6, 2016. Staff considers that the following are items the Board expressed interest in and/or requested specific follow up action from the applicant: A) Provide a phasing plan o Staff notes that the applicant has provided some information regarding the likely order of development; however, the applicant has refrained from specific commitments to the geography, order, or scale of phases. o Staff considers that the development of the parkland and trail system are key to the overall project, particularly because the Board has been asked to grant a waiver to the pedestrian access easement requirement and the development of the trail system has been used by the applicant to justify that request. Additionally, and importantly, future residents of this development will want to know when those amenities will exist. o Staff notes that in future stages of the review process, such as preliminary and/or final plat, the Board will have the opportunity to review streets and other infrastructure as they are proposed to ensure a logical progression that also meets the requirements of the Land Development Regulations. o Staff recommends the applicant discuss with the Fire Marshall and Public Works Department how those departments would like the phasing of the development, especially streets, to unfold. Staff suggests this discussion happen prior to future stages of the review process, because it could help the applicant pursue phasing of the development that is aligned with the needs and concerns of those departments. o Staff recommends that a stipulation of the approval of the Master Plan be that the trail system and parkland represented in the Master Plan are constructed and that certain thresholds are set for when the various sections of the trail system and parkland must be constructed. For example, a stipulation could be that after a certain number of housing units are built then a particular section of the trail system must be built. B) Update plan to include dedicated open space buffer around the pedestrian path in Zone 6 that leads towards Old Farm Rd. o There are two (2) dedicated 30 foot wide easements for pedestrian connections at either end of proposed Street E. 2 C) Provide coverage info for each zone o The applicant has suggested the following maximum coverages in each zone: Zone Acreage Type of Units Coverage Zone 1 7.1 Single Family Detached 50% Zone 2A 7.3 Apartment 85% Zone 2B 3.4 Apartment 90% Zone 3 4.4 Townhome in duplex form 65% Zone 4 4.1 N/A (open space, park, and open space easement) 25% Zone 5 5 N/A (open space and stormwater management) 25% Zone 6 8 Townhome in duplex form and Single Family Detached 60% Totals: 39.3 o At present the density in each zone is unknown, because the number of units in each zone has not been provided. In the current application the applicant is requesting 360 units; however, the applicant has expressed to staff and noted in their submittals an intent to increase the number of dwelling units in the project, which would be done through an amendment to the Master Plan. o Staff recommends the Board approve the maximum zone coverages and associated housing types listed in the table above and stipulate that the overall coverage for the entire Master Plan area shall not exceed the coverages allowable in each zoning district within which the project occurs. D) Provide information needed under 3.07(D)(2)(b) for height waiver requests o The applicant has withdrawn their request for a height waiver per se and is instead requesting the Board commit to granting a height waiver in the future when the details required by Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) of the Land Development Regulations are provided. o Staff considers that the Board does not have the necessary information required by Section 3.07 to make a binding commitment to providing a future height waiver and there is no distinction between granting a height waiver now and guaranteeing to grant one in the future. o Staff recommends the Board not grant the request to commit to granting a future height waiver request. E) Receive recommendations from Fire and Public Works regarding the road standards waiver request o The applicant has withdrawn its request for a road standards waiver. o Instead the applicant is requesting the Board find that the circulation patterns, layout of streets, and sizing and location of the open space are acceptable. o Staff has received comments from the Fire Marshal and Public Works indicating they are agreeable to the street layouts, but that fine tuning details remain to be worked out during other stages of the review process, such as preliminary plat. 3 o Staff recommends the Board find the circulation patterns, layout of streets, and sizing and location of open spaces are acceptable. F) Receive input and recommendations from the Bike/Ped and Recreation Committees o The applicant has met with the committees. o Staff recommends the Board await comments and/or meeting minutes from those committees to find out whether they have suggested any changes. Staff suggests the Board also consider the following items relevant to the project and limit their discussion at this meeting to these elements with additional outstanding items to be addressed at a future meeting. 1. 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 the application at the discretion of the DRB.  Staff recommends the Board grant the request to adjust the position of the zoning district boundary line to the position shown on the applicant’s plan. 2. Request for front yard setback waiver  The applicant originally requested multiple setback waivers; however, now is only requesting the following front setback waivers: i. Six (6) foot front setback on Street B, which will have larger buildings including apartments and commercial spaces ii. Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street A, which will have duplex townhomes, and 11 foot front setback for garages iii. Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street E, which will have duplex townhomes and single family detached houses, and 11.5 foot front setback for garages iv. Five (5) foot front setback for houses and 10 foot front setback for garages on residential streets (not required to be shown on the Master Plan) in Zone 1, which will have single family detached houses, and Zone 6, which will have duplex townhomes and single family detached houses  Staff considers that the setbacks being requested on Street A, Street E, and the residential streets could be reasonable; however, it is premature for the Board to consider such comparatively small setbacks without having the street design details, which would typically be presented to the Board at another stage of the review process.  Staff also considers that one concern with the proposed setbacks is that parking could occur in the Right of Way and, without knowing more details about the housing units and street design, it would be premature to make a decision that parking in the ROW would be acceptable.  Staff recommends the Board reduce the minimum front setback throughout the entire development to 20 feet to provide some initial relief from the setback requirement of 30 feet. In the future when street designs are known then the applicant could request additional relief from the requirement during another stage of the development review process.  Staff recommends the Board grant the request for a six (6) foot front setback on Street B. 3. 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. 4  Staff considers that the Comprehensive Plan clearly calls for the area along Kennedy Drive to remain green and with trees (page 3-20).  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 recommends the Board permit front yard coverage to exceed 30% on Street B and remove the requirement for a 15 foot landscaped strip on Street B. 4. 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. 5. 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.  Staff recommends the Board not grant this request. 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 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_61_45GreenMountainDrive_Shearer_parking_Oct_1 8_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 14, 2016 Plans received: September 6, 2016 45 Green Mountain Drive Site Plan Application #SP-16-61 Meeting date: October 18, 2016 Owner Rava LLC PO Box 566 Burlington, VT 05402 Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Applicant Bill Shearer PO Box 566 Burlington, VT 05402 Property Info Tax Parcel 0720-00045 Commercial 2 Zoning District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_61_45GreenMountainDrive_Shearer_parking_Oct_18_2016 2 Project Description 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. Comments Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following comments to offer. A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 71,860 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 11.7% No change Max. Overall Coverage 70% 42% 68.6%  Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% Unknown No change  Min. Front Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft. No change Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change Max. Building Height (pitched) 40 ft. Unknown No change  Zoning Compliance B. 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 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 applicant has indicated to staff that the increase in parking is due to the anticipated future use of the property primarily for auto servicing; however, staff notes that for an 8,400 sq. ft. building whose use is categorized as auto and motorcycle sales, service, and repair the required number of spaces would be only 17. Staff considers that the increase in impervious area and parking could be viewed as excessive given the size of the building with which the parking is supposed to be associated with and used by. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_61_45GreenMountainDrive_Shearer_parking_Oct_18_2016 3 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the number of parking spaces is excessive for the site given its current uses. 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. Staff considers its impact on surrounding properties and buildings to be minimal. C. 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, Screening, and Street Trees. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_61_45GreenMountainDrive_Shearer_parking_Oct_18_2016 4 Staff received the following comments from the City Arborist in an email dated October 12, 2016: The landscape plan in general looks OK. I would recommend a thorough assessment of the existing Black Locusts that are slated for retention, particularly those along the back fence that are going to be overhanging the parking lot. Black locusts are prone to dead limbs and decay as they mature. In addition, these trees are quite tall and are adapted to growing in a wooded lot, most of which will be removed, thereby increasing their exposure to winds from the south and west. The applicant’s proposed site plan commits to the landscaping plan as shown, so if in the future a Black Locust were to need to be removed due to decay then, as a change to the landscaping plan, the site plan would need to be updated and reviewed by either the Administrative Officer or the Board. 2. Staff recommends the applicant consider whether an assessment of the Black Locusts should be done prior to the Board making a decision on the proposed project to identify any trees that need to be removed. This would allow the applicant to make any necessary landscaping plan changes now rather than having to submit a new application in the future for those changes. D. Stormwater Staff received the following comments from the Stormwater Section in an email dated October 14, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “45 Green Mountain Drive” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing, dated 10/4/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project will create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. Therefore, this project will need an operational stormwater permit from the State. 2. Consider relocating the 6” perforated underdrain of the Pervious Concrete system to an elevation above the ponded depth of the 1-year, 24-hour rainfall event, or consider installing a cap or valve on the underdrain outlet to be opened as needed based on infiltration rates of the system. 3. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The applicant should be required to maintain an infiltration rate of 3.0” per hour for the porous concrete/paver system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave Staff received the following additional comment from the Stormwater Section in an email dated October 14, 2016: I think it might be a good idea to modify item number 3 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. I think inclusion of the word minimum is necessary for accuracy. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_61_45GreenMountainDrive_Shearer_parking_Oct_18_2016 5 3. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Stormwater Section. 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 TP2TP1TP1 12" INLET MANIFOLD STUB12" INLET MANIFOLD TRUNKInlet MANIFOLD. Inv. 208.9212" OUTLETMANIFOLD STUB12" OUTLET MANIFOLD TRUNKOutlet MANIFOLD. Inv. 350.52" TO 5" WASHED STONE OR BANK RUN GRAVELMIRAFI 160N GEOTEXTILECHAMBER ENDCAPCOMPACTED GRANULAR FILLPOLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATERCOLLECTION CHAMBERSUMPINSPECTION PORTSEE DETAILCOVER ENTIRE ROW WITHMIRAFI 160N GEOTEXTILE2 LAYERS OF MIRAFI 500X BETWEEN FOUNDATIONSTONE AND CHAMBERS IN A 5'-6" WIDE STRIP12" HDPE ACCESS PIPENOTES:1. INSPECTION PORT MUST BE CONNECTEDTHROUGH KNOCK-OUT LOCATED AT CENTEROF CHAMBER.2. ALL SCHEDULE 40 FITTINGS TO BE SOLVENTCEMENTED.CONNECTION DETAILNTSINFILTRATION CHAMBER4" SCH40 PVC SCREW-N CAPCRUSHED STONEMIRAFI 160N GEOTEXTILECORE 412" Ø HOLE INCHAMBER4" SCH40 PVC PIPE4" SCH40 PVC COUPLING4" SCH40 PVC PIPE2 Piece, sliding type valve box with topflange box top and base. Install flushwith finish gradeSTORMTECH SC-310 OR APPROVED EQUALSTORMTECH SC-310 OR APPROVED EQUALSCARIFY OR RAKE BOTTOM ANDSIDES OF TRENCH PRIOR TOFILLING WITH STONESTORMTECH SC-310 CHAMBERSOR APPROVED EQUAL.INDIVIDUAL CHAMBERS ARE 16"HIGH X 34" WIDE X 90.7" LONG.CONNECT CHAMBERS TOATTAIN LENGTHS SPECIFIED ONPLANS.Infiltration System Construction Notes:All upstream/upslope construction shall be complete and stabilized prior to allowing runoff toenter any infiltration systems. "Stabilized" shall mean paved surfaces, washed crushed stone,or vegetated areas that have established a dense and vigorous vegetative cover.12" OUTLET FROM TOP OFISOLATOR ROWTO MANIFOLD TRUNKOutlet Isolator Row. Inv. 209.25 Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control NotesWinter Construction Requirements (October 15th - April 15th) TP2TP1EXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREETO REMAINEXISTING TREETO REMAINEXISTING TREETO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAIN1-AF1-AFCONTINUOUS TREE PITREFER TO DETAILSF&G/LA-101EXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAINEXISTING TREESTO REMAINCONTINUOUS TREE PITREFER TO DETAILSCONTINUOUS TREE PITREFER TO DETAILSF&G/LA-101EXISTING TREESTO REMAIN7-TO10/04/2016----GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVESouth Burlington, VermontByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersPLANT LISTKEYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.SIZEREMARKSDECIDUOUS TREES:AF Acer freemani 'Sienna' Sienna Glen Red Maple 2 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, FullNOTES: 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'MKWMKWPLANTING PLANLA-10040'20'10'0Graphic Scale: 1"=20' 10/04/2016----GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVESouth Burlington, VermontByDateDescriptionRev.File:NorthScale:Date:Checked By:Revisions:Drawn By:TitleSheet Number:Project Number:131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8fax: 8 0 2. 8 6 5. 2 4 4 0w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and PlannersAS NOTEDMKWMKWPLANTING DETAILSLA-101CONTINUOUS TREE PLANTING PITSCALE 1/2" = 1'-0"SUB-BASE8'-0", TYP.CONTINUOUS TREE PITTREEPLANTING3'-0"LANDSCAPE BACKFILL MIX FOR TREE PLANTINGBEDS, REFER TO SOIL PREPARATIONSPECIFICATIONLA-101ALAWNTREE PLANTINGSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"18"18"1'-0"MIN.FINISH GRADE2" HEMLOCK BARK MULCHREMOVE TOP HALF OF WIRE CAGECUT AND REMOVE BURLAPFROM ROOTBALLBACKFILL MIX FOR TREE PLANTING BEDS,REFER TO SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATIONTOP OF ROOTBALL, ROOT FLARE SHOULDBE EVIDENT. IF ROOT FLARE IS NOT EVIDENT,THEN SCRAPE OFF THE TOP LAYER OF SOILBUILD UP ON TOP OF ROOTBALL FROM NURSERY.UNDISTURBED GRADEEXCAVATE ONLY TO SPECIFIEDPLANTING DEPTH TO ENSURESTABLE BASEBREAK APART EDGE OF EXCAVATIONW/ SHOVEL AND BLEND PLANT MIXW/ EXISTING SOIL TO PROVIDETRANSITION TO UNDISTURBED GRADENOTE: EXAMINE ENTIRE TREE AND REMOVEALL NURSERY TAGS, ROPE, STRING, ORSURVEYORS TAPE TO PREVENT FUTUREGIRDLING.SURROUNDING SOIL SHOULD NOTEXCEED 80% COMPACTION, DRAINAGEWILL BE REQUIRED IF COMPACTEDSOILS ARE PRESENTTEMPORARY WATERING BASIN212" HARDWOOD STAKES. ALIGNSTAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD/ WALKSOR PARALLEL W/ DIRECTION OFPREVAILING WIND, REFER TO TREESTAKING DETAILNYLON STRAPWITH 3/4" GROMMETS,REFER TO SPECIFICATIONSFASTEN WIRE BELOW POINT OFMAJOR BRANCHING OR TO MAJOROUTSIDE TRUNK.REFER TO CONTINUOUSTREE PIT DETAILDECIDUOUS TREENOTE:1. ALL TREE PLANTING BEDS ARE TO BE CONTINUOUS,COMPLETELY DUG OUT AND BACKFILLED WITH THEPROPER PLANTING BED BACKFILL MATERIAL, REFERTO SOIL PREPARATION SPECIFICATION. TREE PLANTINGBEDS INCLUDE PARKING ISLANDS.A. TREE STAKING ALONG ROAD OR WALKSB. TREE STAKING IN OPEN SPACESC. TREE GUYINGDIRECTION OF PREVAILING WIND180180EDGE OF WALK OR CURBEDGE OF WALK OR CURBALIGN STAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD OR WALKSALIGN STAKES PARALLEL W/ DIRECTION OF PREVAILINGWIND. ALL STAKES TO BECONSISTENT.3" CALIPER TREESOR LARGER -ALIGN 2 STAKES PARALLEL W/ ROAD OR WALKSNO SCALETREE STAKING LAYOUTp-stake.dwg120120120TREE PLANTING PIT PLANSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"CONTINUOUS TREE PITCONTINUOUS8'16'8'BACKFILL TREE PIT WITHLANDSCAPE BACKFILL,REFER TO SOIL PREPARATIONSPECIFICATIONINDIVIDUAL TREE PIT8' Min.ABCD 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sket ch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 14, 2016 Application received: May 20, 2016 150 Swift Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 Meeting Date: October 18, 2016 Owner Martin Thieret 210 Maquam Shore Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 Contact Nathan Dagesse EIV Technical Services 55 Leroy Rd., Suite 15 Williston, VT 05495 Applicant Eastern Development Corp. 300 Swift St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1700-00150 Residential 1 with Planned Residential Development District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Oct_18_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six (6) two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements R1-PRD1 Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 217,800 SF 914,760 (21 acres) Max. Building Height 25 ft. (flat), 28 ft. (pitched) Unknown Max. Building Coverage 15% <1% Max. Overall Coverage 25% 2% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Approx. 36 ft. Min. Side Setback 25 ft. >25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. 1Section 4.01(F)(1) states that for lots within the Residential 1 District that are five (5) acres in size or more and designated as R1-PRD a PUD may be permitted at a maximum of four (4) units per acre. The applicant is applying under this provision. Eighty-four (84) units are possible given the size of the property and the number of units allowed per acre. Twelve (12) units are proposed. If the applicant were not applying as a PUD under R1-PRD and instead under R1 then one (1) unit per acre would be allowed for a total of 21 units. In both scenarios, the applicant is presenting a project which is less than the maximum density allowed.  Zoning compliance Comments The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major land use regulations impacting this development and are, at this stage, intended to provide feedback on the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: lot configuration, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, open space planning, and building orientation. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, etc., certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, all hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these issues: Planned Unit Development Standards Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are intended “to encourage innovation in design and layout” and “efficient use of land.” Staff considers that the proposed project of three (3) condominium buildings each with four (4) units with shared parking behind the buildings away from the road could be considered an innovative layout since many developments place parking in front, which often makes cars a very prominent site feature and detracts from housing design. Staff appreciates the efficient use of land that results from the shared parking and single driveway. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Oct_18_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 Staff notes that in later stages of the review process the applicant will need to request a waiver from the front setback requirement of 50 feet. This waiver may be considered by the Board as part of a PUD application. A. Lot Configuration Lots are to be laid out in such a way as makes it possible for the lot to be developed in full compliance with the land development regulations and “giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions” (Section 15.10). There are no new lots proposed at this time. On the existing lot housing is clustered near Swift Street and away from wetlands and the Potash Brook. The lot presents difficulties in that it has both wetlands, Potash Brook running through it, and steep topography. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking The development is accessed from Swift Street by a driveway which enters the property at the eastern edge and ends behind the most western housing unit. A five (5) foot wide sidewalk is proposed in front of the housing units. At a future stage of the review process staff recommends the applicant discuss with the Bike/Ped Committee and/or Parks & Recreation Committee whether this area of Swift Street should have a sidewalk or a recreation path, which is typically 10 feet wide. Staff considers that extending the sidewalk along Swift Street to the west would provide the residents of the proposed development with easier, safer access to the adjacent University of Vermont property where there is a woodland trail system. Additionally or alternatively, a network of trails on the applicant’s site which could connect to the UVM trail system would also be positive. These types of pedestrian connections and recreation opportunities could help the project be more innovative in its design, which is a component of being a PUD. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the property could best be used to meet the recreation needs of the residents. The applicant is proposing 21 surface parking spaces and it is unknown whether there will be any garages. Staff considers that the site’s topography could support ground-level rear garages beneath the dwelling units. 2. Staff recommends the applicant consider the parking requirements laid out in Section 13.01 of the Land Development Recommendations prior to the next stage of the review process to determine whether the project will meet the requirements or whether a waiver will be requested. C. Wetlands Impact Section 12.02(E) of the Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedure reads E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Oct_18_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows the location on the property of Class II wetlands. The applicant stated in the submitted Project Narrative dated May 19, 2016 that the project would have no wetland impacts and no permanent impacts on the wetland buffers. D. Parks and Open Space Planning The project shows an area to the rear of the buildings and parking which is labeled as “community recreation area” and contains garden plots. At this stage details about the recreation area and design of the gardening area are unknown. As mentioned earlier in these comments, staff would consider it positive if there were an onsite network of trails, especially if they connected to the UVM property to the west. 3. Staff recommends the Board provide guidance to the applicant as to what types of onsite recreation amenities the Board would view as positive and discuss with the applicant how the gardening area would be designed (for example: would these be raised beds with a tap for watering?). E. Building Orientation The buildings will be oriented towards Swift Street with parking to the rear through a single access point. Given the topography of the site and presence of wetlands, staff considers this layout to be an efficient use of the space. Orienting the buildings in a row along the street will allow the applicant to take advantage of a steep drop-off to the rear and place parking below the height of the street. F. Stormwater Comments CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Oct_18_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 Staff received an email June 13, 2016 from the Stormwater Section: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Overall Property Plan with Proposed Development – 150 Swift Street” prepared by EIB Technical Services, dated 5/12/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The overall lot coverage proposed is currently below 0.5 acres of impervious surface. Should future site plan submissions evolve to include 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. The applicant is encouraged to confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State. Since receiving these comments the applicant’s plans have changed; however, the comments of the Stormwater Division remain relevant. 8. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State prior to the next stage of the review process. G. 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. H. Other Staff notes that the applicant is proposing onsite wastewater treatment. Requirements for such systems should be reviewed with the Public Works Department by the applicant prior to the next stage of the review process. RECOMMENDATION The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer