Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 09/20/2016
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 September 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; F. Cresta, D. Cummings, A. Dow, D. Marshall, D. Hernberg, M. Janswold, D. & C. Michaelides, W. Chesbrough, V. Lambert. T. Kavanagh, C. Westin, D. Seff, W. Gilbert, M. Scollins, L. Ravin, A. Rowe, C. Snyder, S. Dopp 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: Ms. Smith noted she had participated in the Walk to End Alzheimer’s. 4. Preliminary and final plat Application #SD-16-25 of Fernando Cresta to amend a previously approved plan for a 49,159 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of obtaining approval for a planned unit development to divide the building into two buildings of 5,010 sq. ft. and 44,149 sq. ft., 1891 Williston Road: Mr. Kochman asked why the change is being made. Mr. Cresta said he wants to disconnect the two buildings and also provide more pedestrian space. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-16-25. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-16-19 of Veronica Lambert to subdivide a 4.11 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling and a two-family dwelling into two lots of 1.44 acres (lot #1) and 2.67 acres (lot #2), 1405 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Chesbrough said a 3-bedroom home and garage are on lot #1 with a metal shed in back. The intent is to separate the rental unit from the residence for the purpose of resale. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD-16-19. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. 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: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 18 October 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-24 of Donald R. Cummings to subdivide two parcels developed with single family dwellings into three lots of 1.63 acres (lot #1), 0.58 acres (lot #2) and 0.58 acres (lot #3), 1811 Spear Street & 25 Harbor Ridge Road: Mr. Marshall showed an overhead photo of existing conditions. He noted that one property front on Spear Street (across from the solar installation) and the other, which has a single family home on it, is near the water tanks. Mr. Marshall then showed a picture of the originally proposed subdivision. He noted that a zoning district line goes through one lot. That proposal resulted in a lot that did not have enough density on it, even though the total allowed density of the whole property is 3 units. This resulted in the applicant considering a PUD, which would allow for the 3 lots and still maintain the character of the neighborhood. One challenge with this proposal is that staff required that the density of the underlying zoning district not be compromised. Mr. Marshall then noted that there is a section of the LDRs that talks about zoning districts that cut through a property. It allows the rules to be changed for up to 50 feet. This provides for the density to allow for the third house. The requirement for that adjustment is a conditional use approval. Mr. Marshall said they feel they can meet those requirements and want to know if the DRB would look favorably on that procedure. Mr. Cummings said that the Comprehensive Plan tries to encourage infill, so long as the overall density is met. He felt that is the case here. A PUD would allow the creation of 2 smaller lots and keep the integrity of the Spear Street lot. Mr. Marshall said they would be looking at a low-impact design, the introduction of a bio-swale and a driveway plan. Mr. Wilking said that as long as there is an innovative stormwater management plan, he is fine with the request. Mr. Michaelides, an abutting neighbor, expressed concern with the possibility of losing his view of the lake. He felt that moving the R-1 line adversely impacts his property. Mr. Belair noted that this property is not in a view protection zone. Mr. Wilking said the Board could ask the applicant to identify a building envelope. Mr. Marshall then showed an overhead photo that included marking for setback allowances. Mr. Cummings indicated the most “comfortable” spot to build a house which would have a good view. He said there would be a height limit in the deed when the property is transferred. Mr. Miller asked that when the applicant comes back, the application should include a sketch of what the view would look like from each property. Mr. Michaelides also indicated trees which he believes are on his property and which are blocking his view. He wants to chop them down. Mr. Marshall said a survey is needed to determine the accurate location of the trees. Another abutting neighbor said he has a favorable opinion of the proposed plan. 8. 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, and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Miller indicated items to be covered in staff comments. Mr. Snyder addressed those items as follows: a. They have not yet been in touch with the Fire Department regarding sprinklers. They will do this after preliminary plat. b. They have agreed to the changes recommended by the City Arborist. c. They have met with the Public Works Director regarding location of street lights. A plan of lighting locations was distributed to members. The lights will be in compliance with the new city requirements. They will all be the same fixture design. Mr. Belair noted the regulations require 12’ to 14’ pedestrian scale lights. Mr. Snyder noted there was a letter from UVM regarding the water line extension and the possibility of sharing that line. Mr. Snyder said they will remove that from the plan and not request that easement. They have other alternatives. Mr. Kochman commented that the “public space” doesn’t look very “public” to him. He asked how people would get to the gravel drive. Mr. Snyder said there are four nearby parking spaces and also access from the rec path. Mr. Wilking said he sees this as “open land” rather than park space. Mr. Miller then asked for public comment that had not previously been made regarding this application. Mr. Scollins asked whether the applicant talked with the Parks/Recreation Department regarding location of the open space. Mr. Rowe said that Parks/Recreation was contacted. The applicant made it clear that the city could do what it chooses with the property in the future. Mr. Seff, representing a group of neighbors, said they feel that “Street A” violates the 200‐foot rule. Mr. Kochman said he understood there is an exception to that rule for a street that might be extended to connect to an adjacent property when that property is developed. He understood that there might be future development on the Gilbert property. Mr. Gilbert said he does not plan to develop there but wants to be sure a successive owner would have a logical access to the property. He showed where he felt it makes sense to have the connection. Mr. Belair said the regulations specifically require a developer to extend a street to a border where the adjacent property could be developed in the future. He noted that the DRB has approved several such extensions which are temporarily dead-ended. All of these extensions exceed 200 feet. Mr. Miller noted the applicant will have to return when they have a traffic impact review statement. Ms. Dopp asked if consideration was given to the proximity to a dangerous intersection. Mr. Belair noted the DRB tells the developer which intersections to include in their study. Mr. Rowe said the Spear/Swift intersection is in that study. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-18 to 4 October. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Minutes of 6 September 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 6 September 2016 as written. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. , Clerk 10/04/16, Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SD-16-17 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING FERNANDO CRESTA – 1891 WILLISTON ROAD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-25 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-16-25 of Fernando Cresta to amend a previously approved plan for a 49,159 sq. ft. multi-use commercial building. The amendment consists of obtaining approval for a planned unit development to divide the building into two (2) buildings of 5,010 sq. ft. and 44,149 sq. ft., 1891 Williston Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on September 20, 2016. The applicant was represented by himself. 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, Fernando Cresta, seeks to divide an existing building of 49,159 sq. ft. into two (2) buildings of 5,010 sq. ft. and 44,149 sq. ft, 1891 Williston Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Cresta, Nedde2, LLC. 3. The application was received on August 15, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Mixed Commercial-Industrial Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of two (2) pages titled “1891 Site Plan,” prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers and dated 6/15/2016, and “Plat of Survey Lands of Lee Zachary #1891 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont,” prepared by A.W. Harris & Associates and dated 1/20/1994. A) MULTIPLE USES AND MULTIPLE STRUCTURES Pursuant to Section 3.09(A) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, only one (1) principal building or structure is allowed on a lot unless the project meets the standards of Section 3.09(C), which allows the Development Review Board to approve multiple principal structures as part of a PUD. B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18(A) of the LDRs, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. #SD-16-17 2 (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The above criterion are unaffected by the proposed project, which consists of removing a small, single-story connector between two (2) sections of the building to create two (2) separate buildings. (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. The Board finds that the removal of the single-story connector will not change the visually compatibility of the project with its surroundings. (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. Open space areas will not be impacted by this project. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. The applicant shared with staff that their discussion with the Fire Department indicated the Department did not have an issue with the proposal. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). None of the above criterion will be impacted by the proposed project. C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. #SD-16-17 3 The Board finds that the goals of the Comprehensive Plan will not impacted by this project. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The Board finds that the proposed removal of a single-story connector to create two (2) buildings will alter the transition between the two (2) buildings by creating greater separation; however, this alteration is minor and The Board finds it insignificant. (2) Parking… (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The above criterion will not be impacted by the proposed project. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The above criterion will not be impacted by the proposed project. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) The above criterion will not be impacted by the proposed project. #SD-16-17 4 DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by ____________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-16-25 of Fernando Cresta subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 4. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the building modifications, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 5. The mylars must be recorded prior to permit issuance. 6. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months for the building modifications pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 7. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the structures. 8. Any change to the final plat will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board. 9. The final plat plans (Plat of Survey) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair #SD-16-17 5 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. #SD-16-19 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING VERONICA LAMBERT – 1405 HINESBURG ROAD FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-19 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-16-19 of Veronica Lambert to subdivide a 4.11 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling and a two (2) family dwelling into two (2) lots of 1.44 acres (lot #1) and 2.67 acres (lot #2), 1405 Hinesburg Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 19, September 6, and September 20, 2016. The applicant represented herself. 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, Veronica Lambert, seeks to subdivide a 4.11 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling and a two (2) family dwelling into two (2) lots of 1.44 acres (lot #1) and 2.67 acres (lot #2), 1405 Hinesburg Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Marie J. Dubois, who is deceased. 3. The application was received on July 6, 2016. 4. The property lies within the SEQ-Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page titled “Estate of Marie J. Dubois 1375 and 1405 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Proposed Two Lot Subdivision” prepared by Richard W. Bell Land Surveying, Inc., and dated 7/6/2016. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements In the SEQ-NR Zoning District a single family house is required to have a minimum lot size of 12,000 sq. ft. Proposed Lot 1 has an existing single family house and the lot will be 62,625 sq. ft. A two-family house is required to have a minimum lot size of 24,000 sq. ft. Proposed Lot 2 has an existing two-family house and the lot will be 116,327 sq. ft. The two (2) houses are existing and with the proposed lot lines will be in compliance with setbacks and coverages of the SEQ-NR Zoning District. Southeast Quadrant District (Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations) A. Density The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The applicant has proposed three (3) units (one existing single family and one existing duplex), which is within the density calculation for this parcel (4.11 acres). When the subdivision is complete the #SD-16-19 2 duplex will be on a parcel of 2.67 acres and the single family home will be on a parcel of 1.44 acres. The resulting densities will be below 1.2 units per acre, therefore no TDRs are required. B. Access and Circulation Access to Lot 1 from Hinesburg Road is provided by an existing driveway that currently has two (2) access points. The south entrance is proposed to be abandoned by saw cutting the existing pavement to the right-of-way line, removing the gravel subbase, and constructing a new swale to match the existing. The north entrance will be widened and upgraded to be in compliance with current state standards for residential driveways. Access to Lot 2 from Hinesburg Road is provided by an existing driveway and no changes are proposed. C. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.08 of the SBLDR lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff found that the submitted sketch plan shows the housing units with entrances facing public roads—a requirement of the regulations. The duplex on Lot 2 has a front setback of less than 25 feet on Hinesburg Road, which is allowed by the current regulations. D. Lot Ratios Section 9.08.A.4 states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” Lot 1 has a ratio of approximately 1:0.78. Lot 2 has a ratio of approximately 3:5 or 1:1.67. The existing lot does not meet the standard of Section 9.08.A.4 (1:0.7) and it would not be possible to divide the lot into two (2) lots with ratios that meet the standard of Section 9.08.A.4. The proposed lots will not create a greater nonconformity with the standard than what currently exists. DECISION Motion by _________, seconded by ________, to approve final plat application #SD-16-19 of Veronica Lambert, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. The survey plat must be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. 4. The mylar must be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance. 5. The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of the project plan as approved in digital (PDF) format. 6. The final plat plan must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the #SD-16-19 3 final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_24_1811SpearStreet_25HarborRidgeRoad_PUD_subdi vision_sketch_Sept_20_2016 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: September 16, 2016 Plans received: August 18, 2016 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-24 DONALD R. CUMMINGS—1811 SPEAR ST. AND 25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 Applicant/Owner Donald R. Cummings 1811 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Parcel 1640-01811, Parcel 0770-00025 Residential 1 and Residential 2 Zoning Districts Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-24 of Donald R. Cummings to subdivide two (2) parcels developed with CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_24_1811SpearStreet_25HarborRidgeRoad_PUD_subdivision_sketch_Sept_20_2016 2 single family dwellings into three (3) lots of 1.63 acres (lot #1), 0.58 acres (lot #2) and 0.58 acres (lot #3), 1811 Spear Street & 25 Harbor Ridge Road. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans and have the following comments to offer. 1. Since there are several pieces to this project and it is not necessarily intuitive or easy to explain using only words, staff strongly encourages board members to examine the annotated visuals provided by the applicant. A. Zoning District and Dimensional Standards R1 Zoning District Required Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF Max. Building Coverage 15% Max. Overall Coverage 25% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Min. Side Setback 25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. B. Planned Unit Development Standards Section 15 of The South Burlington Land Development Regulations addresses Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review and reads, in part, as follows: 15.01 Purpose It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the further purpose of this Article to coordinate site plan, conditional use and subdivision review into a unified process. The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens. The standards for determining whether a project warrants the flexibility provided by PUD review include the following: • To encourage innovation in design and layout. • Efficient use of land. • The viability of infill development and re-development in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the R2 Zoning District Required Min. Lot Size 22,000 SF Max. Building Coverage 20% Max. Overall Coverage 40% Min. Front Setback 30 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_24_1811SpearStreet_25HarborRidgeRoad_PUD_subdivision_sketch_Sept_20_2016 3 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has asserted that the project is an efficient use of land and will provide compatible infill in the neighborhood. Staff considers the proposed project to be an efficient use of land, but that greater innovation in design could be sought by the applicant in future stages of the review process. At present, staff considers the layout of the proposed PUD to be typical and, due to the constraints of the zoning districts’ dimensional standards, it would be difficult to be innovative; however, innovation in design would be possible. Staff has suggested to the applicant that innovation could be achieved, for example (but not limited to), through stormwater management practices that go beyond what would otherwise be required and landscaping that attends to the needs of wildlife. 2. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant incorporate innovative design elements into the overall project, not only the proposed new lot, but the existing lots as well. C. Density The project size of 2.8 acres spread between the R1 and R2 Zoning Districts can accommodate a density of three (3) dwelling units with 1.49 units being permitted in the R2 and 2.04 units being permitted in the R1. D. Subdivision Standards 15.10 Lot Layout A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions. B. Except within the City Center FBC District, the following standards shall apply: Corner lots shall have extra width to conform to setbacks on each street. No subdivision showing any reserved strips shall be approved. A width to length ratio of one to five (1:5) shall be used as a guideline by the Development Review Board in evaluating lot proportions. Developments consisting predominantly of square or roughly square lots or lot with an excessive length to width ratio (i.e. spaghetti lots) shall not be approved. Proposed Lot 1 will have a ratio of approximately 1:3 and Lots 2 and 3 a ratio of approximately 1:2.5. The existing lot on Harbor Ridge Road currently has a ratio of close to 1:1, therefore the subdivision will create two (2) lots will ratios closer to the recommended 1:5. The existing lot on Spear Street will maintain the same ratio. In combination with the applicant’s request to change the location of the zoning district boundary lines, the proposed lots can be developed in compliance with the land development regulations. Staff considers these criteria to be met. E. Access All three (3) proposed lots will be accessible from public roads. The existing two (2) houses already have driveways connecting them to either Spear Street (1811 Spear St.) or Harbor Ridge Road (25 Harbor Ridge Rd.) and if/when a house is developed on the third lot it will have access to Harbor Ridge Road via a new driveway or a shared driveway with 25 Harbor Ridge Road. SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.1AUG., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDOVERALLNEIGHBORHOODPLANPROJECTLOCATION25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTACETOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARY 1Slide 1: Existing Conditions• The blue Lot on the west fronts on Harbor Ridge Road while the Green Lot fronts of Spear Street.• Note the character of the lot sizes of the Harbor Ridge Road neighborhood.50,906 SF = 1.17 Acres70,865 SF = 1.63 Acres451 3'498.6'156.1'228.3200.02 SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'101.3'103.4'108.8'109.5'244.1'LOT 3(25,425.55 S.F.)LOT 2(25,478.00 S.F.)LOT 1(70,864.63 S.F.)CONSTANTINOS MICHADELIDES1809 SPEAR ST.JOHN LARKIN INC.200 ALLEN RD.FUSAN T FLOYD TRUST1813 SPEAR ST.DONALD R. & LYNN T. CUMMINGS25 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.62 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.44 HARBOR RIDGE RD.DONALD R. CUMMINGS1811 SPEAR ST.DAVID R. & ELIZABETH J. LECLAIR24 HARBOR RIDGE RD.50' ZONE ADJUSTMENT342344346348350352354356358360362364366368306308310312314316318320322324326328330332334336338340342370JOHN LARKIN INC.(CHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT)200 ALLEN RD.ABUTTER NEEDEDADDRESS UNKNOWNPROPOSED 50' ADJUSTMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS50'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDSKETCH PLANPROJECTLOCATIONACE25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTTOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2016\16184\1-CADD Files-\Dwg\16184 - Site.dwg, 8/12/2016 2:20:32 PM 2Slide 2: Proposed Subdivision• Looking at the character of the surrounding neighborhood residential lots, subdividing the blue lot into two lots would appear to be in keeping with the existing conditions. The blue lot fronting on Harbor Ridge Road is proposed to be split in two to creates of generally the same size as those in the immediate neighborhood.25,456 SF= 0.59 Acres244.1425,450 SF= 0.59 Acres70,864 SF = 1.63 Ac. 498.6'6151 2' 156.1'266 3'32101 3' 103 4 '108 8' 109 5 ' 156.1 SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'101.3'103.4'108.8'109.5'244.1'LOT 3(25,425.55 S.F.)LOT 2(25,478.00 S.F.)LOT 1(70,864.63 S.F.)CONSTANTINOS MICHADELIDES1809 SPEAR ST.JOHN LARKIN INC.200 ALLEN RD.FUSAN T FLOYD TRUST1813 SPEAR ST.DONALD R. & LYNN T. CUMMINGS25 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.62 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.44 HARBOR RIDGE RD.DONALD R. CUMMINGS1811 SPEAR ST.DAVID R. & ELIZABETH J. LECLAIR24 HARBOR RIDGE RD.50' ZONE ADJUSTMENT342344346348350352354356358360362364366368306308310312314316318320322324326328330332334336338340342370JOHN LARKIN INC.(CHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT)200 ALLEN RD.ABUTTER NEEDEDADDRESS UNKNOWNPROPOSED 50' ADJUSTMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS50'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDSKETCH PLANPROJECTLOCATIONACE25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTTOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2016\16184\1-CADD Files-\Dwg\16184 - Site.dwg, 8/12/2016 2:20:32 PM• Unfortunately subdivision the Harbor Ridge Road Blue parcel is not that straight forward.• The zoning district line between the R1 and R2 districts runs through the Blue Harbor Ridge Road Lot.• Rather than running the line along the back of the Spear Street lots, the line was set 600-feet from the center of Spear Street.• The available area in the R2 district does not permit the subdivision of the blue lot as there is only 1.49 units of density available.• Interestingly , the two properties in the R1 district would allow for a subdivision of the Green lot and a portion of the blue lot into two lots as it has 2.04 units of eligible density.• The total residential density between the two lots is 3.53 units.Slide 3: Existing Conditions with Zoning Boundaries 388,892 SF/43,560 SF per Unit= 2.04 Units32,879 SF / 22,000 SF per Unit= 1.49 UnitsR2R1498.6'6151 2' 156.1'101 3' 103 4 '108 8' 109 5 ' 156.1 SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'101.3'103.4'108.8'109.5'244.1'LOT 3(25,425.55 S.F.)LOT 2(25,478.00 S.F.)LOT 1(70,864.63 S.F.)CONSTANTINOS MICHADELIDES1809 SPEAR ST.JOHN LARKIN INC.200 ALLEN RD.FUSAN T FLOYD TRUST1813 SPEAR ST.DONALD R. & LYNN T. CUMMINGS25 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.62 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.44 HARBOR RIDGE RD.DONALD R. CUMMINGS1811 SPEAR ST.DAVID R. & ELIZABETH J. LECLAIR24 HARBOR RIDGE RD.50' ZONE ADJUSTMENT342344346348350352354356358360362364366368306308310312314316318320322324326328330332334336338340342370JOHN LARKIN INC.(CHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT)200 ALLEN RD.ABUTTER NEEDEDADDRESS UNKNOWNPROPOSED 50' ADJUSTMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS50'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDSKETCH PLANPROJECTLOCATIONACE25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTTOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2016\16184\1-CADD Files-\Dwg\16184 - Site.dwg, 8/12/2016 2:20:32 PM• City Comprehensive Plan has a strategy that supports “accommodating compatible infill and additions to existing neighborhoods”• The LDRs describe the PUD process as allowing “for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land and the viability on infill development”• Providing that overall density requirements are met. The existing conditions permit 3 Units of residential density and the proposed condition creates 3 Units of density. 4Slide 4: Why a PUD?228.3'8200.0'002266.3'332451.3'498.6'6151.2'56.8' 156.1''498.6'689,199 SF/43,560 SF per Unit= 2.05 Units32,572 SF / 22,000 SF per Unit= 1.48 UnitsR2R1101 3' 56.8 156.1 SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'101.3'103.4'108.8'109.5'244.1'LOT 3(25,425.55 S.F.)LOT 2(25,478.00 S.F.)LOT 1(70,864.63 S.F.)CONSTANTINOS MICHADELIDES1809 SPEAR ST.JOHN LARKIN INC.200 ALLEN RD.FUSAN T FLOYD TRUST1813 SPEAR ST.DONALD R. & LYNN T. CUMMINGS25 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.62 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.44 HARBOR RIDGE RD.DONALD R. CUMMINGS1811 SPEAR ST.DAVID R. & ELIZABETH J. LECLAIR24 HARBOR RIDGE RD.50' ZONE ADJUSTMENT342344346348350352354356358360362364366368306308310312314316318320322324326328330332334336338340342370JOHN LARKIN INC.(CHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT)200 ALLEN RD.ABUTTER NEEDEDADDRESS UNKNOWNPROPOSED 50' ADJUSTMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS50'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDSKETCH PLANPROJECTLOCATIONACE25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTTOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2016\16184\1-CADD Files-\Dwg\16184 - Site.dwg, 8/12/2016 2:20:32 PM• One of the challenges with the PUD approach is that staff requested that the allowable number of future units be located within the respective zoning district consistent with the current density. 2 Units int he R1 and 1 Unit in the R2..• This can be achieved through a Conditional Use Approval. On those lots where a district line runs not along the lot line but through the lot, the zoning district line can be moved by up to 50 feet .• The revised district regulation line enables two units in the R1 District consistent with the allowable density in that district and provides one new unit in the adjusted R2 zoning area. 5Slide 5: 3 Lots as Proposed89,199 SF/43,560 SF per Unit= 2.05 Units32,572 SF / 22,000 SF per Unit= 1.48 UnitsR2R1498.6'6156.1'101 3' 103 4 ' 109 5 ' 156.1 SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'101.3'103.4'108.8'109.5'244.1'LOT 3(25,425.55 S.F.)LOT 2(25,478.00 S.F.)LOT 1(70,864.63 S.F.)CONSTANTINOS MICHADELIDES1809 SPEAR ST.JOHN LARKIN INC.200 ALLEN RD.FUSAN T FLOYD TRUST1813 SPEAR ST.DONALD R. & LYNN T. CUMMINGS25 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.62 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.44 HARBOR RIDGE RD.DONALD R. CUMMINGS1811 SPEAR ST.DAVID R. & ELIZABETH J. LECLAIR24 HARBOR RIDGE RD.50' ZONE ADJUSTMENT342344346348350352354356358360362364366368306308310312314316318320322324326328330332334336338340342370JOHN LARKIN INC.(CHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT)200 ALLEN RD.ABUTTER NEEDEDADDRESS UNKNOWNPROPOSED 50' ADJUSTMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS50'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDSKETCH PLANPROJECTLOCATIONACE25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTTOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2016\16184\1-CADD Files-\Dwg\16184 - Site.dwg, 8/12/2016 2:20:32 PM• This plan shows the application of the R1 and R2 front, side and rear yards.• Opportunities to further enable character of the neighborhood to be applied on the south half of the blue lot with waivers on sideyard setbacks.Slide 6: 3 Lots with the Proposed building Envelopes 6RR2225R5H10.00 ft 244.14498.6'6156.1'101 3' 103 4 ' 109 5 ' 0.00 ft 00.00 ft00ft0 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_24_1811SpearStreet_25HarborRidgeRoad_PUD_subdivision_sketch_Sept_20_2016 4 F. Zoning District Boundary Adjustment The zoning district boundary between R1 and R2 cuts through the existing Harbor Ridge Road parcel. By adjusting the boundary line as proposed the existing house on Harbor Ridge Road and the existing house on Spear Street will both be in the R1 Zoning District. The total R1 Zoning District area within the PUD and within which the existing houses will be located is proposed to be 2.05 acres, which is sufficient to accommodate the proposed density of two (2) housing units in that zoning district (1 unit/acre). The total R2 Zoning District area within the PUD is proposed to be 0.75 acres, which is sufficient to accommodate one (1) housing unit in that district (2 units/acre). Staff considers that the boundary line adjustment should be viewed within the context of the PUD, i.e. if the proposal is meeting the standards of a PUD and the adjustment is necessary to advance the project then the adjustment should be made. 3. Staff recommends the Board first consider whether the proposed project is meeting the PUD standards before deciding if the zoning district boundary adjustment is warranted. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer Copy to: Gene Richards, applicant SPEAR ST.HARBOR RIDGE RD.IRISH FARM RD.228.3'200.0'266.3'451.3'498.6'151.2'156.1' 56.8'101.3'103.4'108.8'109.5'244.1'LOT 3(25,425.55 S.F.)LOT 2(25,478.00 S.F.)LOT 1(70,864.63 S.F.)CONSTANTINOS MICHADELIDES1809 SPEAR ST.JOHN LARKIN INC.200 ALLEN RD.FUSAN T FLOYD TRUST1813 SPEAR ST.DONALD R. & LYNN T. CUMMINGS25 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.62 HARBOR RIDGE RD.ALLEN ROAD LAND CO. INC.44 HARBOR RIDGE RD.DONALD R. CUMMINGS1811 SPEAR ST.DAVID R. & ELIZABETH J. LECLAIR24 HARBOR RIDGE RD.50' ZONE ADJUSTMENT342344346348350352354356358360362364366368306308310312314316318320322324326328330332334336338340342370JOHN LARKIN INC.(CHAMPLAIN WATERDISTRICT)200 ALLEN RD.ABUTTER NEEDEDADDRESS UNKNOWNPROPOSED 50' ADJUSTMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS50'DSMDSMSAL1" = 40'16184C1.0--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'DONALDCUMMINGS1811 SPEAR STREETSOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403PLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTPROPOSEDSKETCH PLANPROJECTLOCATIONACE25 HARBOR RIDGE ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTTOWN BOUNDARYTOWN BOUNDARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2016\16184\1-CADD Files-\Dwg\16184 - Site.dwg, 8/12/2016 2:20:32 PM244.14• It makes an infill lot viable and is the most efficient way to use the existing land to create 2 new lots sharing 1 common driveway with each having easy access to existing utilities (city fresh water and waste water & electrical)• Allows for 2 lots that are in keeping with the feel of the existing Harbor Ridge neighborhood• Maintains the existing feel of the Spear Street neighborhood and allows the existing heavily landscaped border between the Blue lot and the Green lot to remain.• This PUD allows an innovative and creative way to avoid unusual shaped lots that could result from a typical subdivision process. Those lots could allow for an odd placement of a house site or create maintenance problems in the future due to part of a lot being out of sight of the house.• The real innovative use of the PUD here is to create 2 attractive lots in keeping with their respective neighborhoods vs. a new lot with a house being placed in what is effectively the Spear St house’s backyard. 7Slide 7: The Benefits of a PUD228.3'8200.0'002266.3'332451.3'498.6'6151.2'56.8' 156.1''498.6'6101 3' 56.8 156.1 9/20/16 Sketch Plan Meeting for 25 Harbor Ridge / 1811 Spear St PUD Slide 1: Existing Conditions The blue Lot on the west fronts on Harbor Ridge Road while the Green Lot fronts of Spear Street. Note the character of the Harbor Ridge Road neighborhood. Slide 2: Proposed Subdivision Looking at the character of the surrounding neighborhood residential lots, subdividing the blue lot into two lots would appear to be in keeping with the existing conditions. The blue lot fronting on Harbor Ridge Road is proposed to be split in two to creates of generally the same size as those in the immediate neighborhood. Slide 3: Existing Conditions with Zoning Boundaries Unfortunately subdivision the Harbor Ridge Road Blue parcel is not that straight forward. The zoning district line between the R1 and R2 districts runs through the Blue Harbor Ridge Road Lot. Rather than running the line along the back of the Spear Street lots, the line was set 600-feet from the center of Spear Street. The available area in the R2 district does not permit the subdivision of the blue lot as there is only 1.49 units of density available. Interestingly , the two properties in the R1 district would allow for a subdivision of the Green lot and a portion of the blue lot into two lots as it has 2.04 units of eligible density. The total residential density between the two lots is 3.53 units. Slide 4: Why a PUD? City Comprehensive Plan has a strategy that supports “accommodating compatible infill and additions to existing neighborhoods” The LDRs describe the PUD process as allowing “for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land and the viability on infill development” Providing that overall density requirements are met. The existing conditions permit 3 Units of residential density and the proposed condition creates 3 Units of density. Slide 5: 3 Lots as proposed One of the challenges with the PUD approach is that staff requested that the allowable number of future units be located within the respective zoning district. This can be achieved through a Conditional Use Approval. On those lots where a district line runs not along the lot line but through the lot, the zoning district line can be moved by up to 50 feet . The revised district regulation line enables two units in the R1 District consistent with the allowable density in that district and provides one new unit in the adjusted R2 zoning area. Slide 6: 3 Lots with the Proposed Building Envelopes This plan shows the application of the R1 and R2 front, side and rear yards. Discussion on opportunities to make the southern half of the Blue Lot consistent with the remaining neighborhood with side yard waiver. The Benefits of this PUD 9/20/16 Sketch Plan Meeting for 25 Harbor Ridge / 1811 Spear St PUD It makes an infill lot viable and is the most efficient way to use the existing land to create 2 new lots sharing 1 common driveway with each having easy access to existing utilities (city fresh water and waste water & electrical) Allows for 2 lots that are in keeping with the feel of the existing Harbor Ridge neighborhood Maintains the existing feel of the Spear Street neighborhood and allows the existing heavily landscaped border to remain. This PUD allows an innovative and creative way to avoid unusual shaped lots that could result from a typical subdivision process. Those lots could allow for an odd placement of a house site or create maintenance problems in the future due to part of a lot being out of sight of the house. the real innovative use of the PUD here is to create 2 nice lots in keeping with their respective neighborhoods vs. a new lot with a house being placed in what is effectively the Spear St house’s backyard. Cummings PUD Existing Conditions 70,865 1811 Spear Street Lot 1.63 50,906 Harbor Ridge Road Lot 1.17 R1 Area 70,865 1811 Spear Street Lot 18,027 Harbor Ridge Road Lots 88,892 2.04 43,560 Min. Denisty per Unit 2.04 Max. Number of Units R2 Area 32,879 Harbor Ridge Road Lots 22,000 Min. Denisty per Unit 1.49 Max. Number of Units Proposed Conditions 70,865 1811 Spear Street Lot 1.63 25,478 Harbor Ridge Road North Lot 0.58 25,428 Harbor Ridge Road South Lot 0.58 R1 Area 70,865 1811 Spear Street Lot 18,334 Harbor Ridge Road Lots 89,199 2.05 43,560 Min. Denisty per Unit 2.05 Max. Number of Units R2 Area 32,572 Harbor Ridge Road Lots 0.75 22,000 Min. Denisty per Unit 1.48 Max. Number of Units 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: SD-16-18 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street — The Snyder Group, Inc. DATE: September 20, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Continued preliminary plat application #SD-16-18 of The Snyder Group, Inc. for a planned unit development on 26.15 acres developed with two (2) single family dwellings. The project consists of: 1) razing one (1) single family dwelling, 2) constructing 18 single family dwellings, 3) constructing three (3) 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) constructing ten (10) 2-family dwellings, 1302, 1340, & 1350 Spear Street. Staff considers that the items listed below are the primary outstanding items for discussion following the August 23, 2016 meeting with the applicant: 1. Whether there will be sprinkler systems for the housing units located on the private roads 2. Responding to the comments of the City Arborist by choosing appropriate tree species, 3. Receiving comments from Public Works (especially about the Traffic Impact Statement), and 4. Noting the location and style of street light fixtures. Items 1, 2, and 4 are the responsibility of the applicant. Staff has not received comments yet from Public Works (Item 3). The staff comments for the August 23, 2016 meeting are available on ClerkBase. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant any updates or progress on the above outstanding issues. &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( 6,7(/2&$7,21 3/$1/(*(1'352-(&7 %281'$5<('*( 2) :(7/$1'29(5$//6,7( 3/$1:$7(56+(' 3527(&7,21 %8))(5(;,67,1* &217285$%877,1* 3523(57< /,1(127(6 7+( 385326( 2) 7+,6 3/$1 ,6 72 35(6(17 7+( 29(5$// 6,7( /$<287 2) 7+(3/$11(' 5(6,'(17,$/ '(9(/230(17 6(( 27+(5 3/$16 )25 $'',7,21$/ '(6,*1 $1' %281'$5< ,1)250$7,21=21,1* '$7$ 7$; 0$3 3$5&(/ 180%(5 352-(&7 3$5&(/ $5($ $&5(6=21,1* ',675,&7 6287+($67 48$'5$17 1(,*+%25+22' 5(6,'(17,$/ 1529(5/$< ',675,&76 :$7(56+(' 3527(&7,21 %8))(5'(16,7< %$6( 5(6,'(17,$/ '(16,7< 81,76 $&5(6 ; 81,76$&5( 81,76$9(5$*( $//2:$%/( '(16,7< 81,76 $&5(6 ; 81,76$&5( 81,76352326(' '(16,7< 81,761/$1'2:1(5 63($5 0($'2:6 ,1& 63($5 675((76287+ %85/,1*721 97 ,17(567$7( 62,/6 0$3176.(<62,/ 0$33,1* 81,7+6*N&Y &29,1*721 6,/7< &/$< ' *H& *H% *(25*,$ 6721< /2$0 & /K /,9,1*6721 &/$< ' 0Q& 0$66(1$ 6721< 6,/7 /2$0 & 9H% 9(5*(11(6 &/$< ' 75((/,1(7+( &2175$&725 6+$// 127,)< ',*6$)( 35,25 72 $1< (;&$9$7,216+((7 ,1'(; 29(5$// 6,7( 3/$16 6,*16 3$9(0(17 0$5.,1*6 6,7( 87,/,7,(6 1257+ 6,7( 87,/,7,(6 6287+ 6,7( 87,/,7,(6 3,11$&/( $7 63($5 ;&28175< :$7(5/,1( 352),/( 63($5 0($'2: 52$'352),/(9$/('5,9( 352),/(9$/('5,9( 675((7$ /$1'6&$3( 3/$1 (526,21 3527(&7,21 6(',0(17 &21752/ 3/$1 '(7$,/6 63(&,),&$7,216 675((76 '(7$,/6 63(&,),&$7,216 6(:(5 67250 '(7$,/6 63(&,),&$7,216:$7(5 6(:(5 3803 67$7,21 '(7$,/6 63(&,),&$7,216 (36& '(7$,/6 63(&,),&$7,216 67250 321'63/ 3(5,0(7(5 %281'$5< 6859(< 3/$73/ 68%',9,6,21 )22735,17 /27 3/$7352326(' 5,*+72):$< 6:,)7675((763($5675((7'256(7675((76+(/%851(52$'*H&0Q&9H%9H%9H%/K&Y&Y/K&Y9H%*H%176$33/,&$17 7+( 61<'(5 *5283 ,1& 6+(/%851( 52$' 68,7( 6+(/%851( 97 63($5675((71%8,/',1* 6800$5< 6,1*/( )$0,/< &$55,$*( +20(6 '83/(; +20( 81,76 %8,/',1*6 75,3/(; 72:1+20( 81,76 %8,/',1*6 (;,67,1* 6,1*/( )$0,/< +20( 72 5(0$,1 727$/ +20(6 &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( 66,*16 3$9(0(170$5.,1*6&21&5(7( &85%6723 6,*1176 72*5281''28%/( <(//2:&(17(5 /,1(6723 6,*1 2)) )$&(2) &85% :+,7( 6723 %$5 72 %(/2&$7(' %$&. )520 ('*( 2)75$9(//(' :$< 25 )7 %(+,1'&5266 :$/.6,'(:$/. *$8*( 648$5( 67((/6,*1 3267 :,7+ $1&+25 ; :*(1(5$/ 127(6 1(: 3$9(0(17 0$5.,1*6 21 723 &2856( 3$9(0(17 6+$// %( '85$%/( $1',1 $&&25'$1&( :,7+ 7+( 97 $*(1&< 2) 75$163257$7,21 67$1'$5'63(&,),&$7,216 )25 &216758&7,21 7(0325$5< 3$9(0(17 0$5.,1*6 21 %$6( 3$9(0(17 0$< %( 3$,17 $// 6,*16 6+$// %( ,167$//(' 21 648$5( 67((/ 32676 :,7+ $1&+256 $// 6,*16 6+$// %( ,167$//(' :,7+ 0,1,080 )((7 &/($5$1&( %(7:((1 7+(%27720 2) 7+( 6,*1 $1' ),1,6+ *5$'( ; :36(( 3/$1 )25 6,*1 /2&$7,216/(*(1'6723 6,*1 6(( ,17(56(&7,21 &216758&7,21 '(7$,/ 3('(675,$1 6,*1 : :3 6(( '(7$,/ 7+,6 6+((7 ; : /7 57 ; :,167$// 6,*16 727$/ 6,*1 )$&,1* 6287+ 6,*1 )$&,1* :(67&+(9521 6,*1 : 6(( '(7$,/ 7+,6 6+((7 &251(5 :$51,1* 6,*1 : 6(( '(7$,/ 7+,6 6+((7 % ; :6(( 3/$1 )25 6,*1 /2&$7,2163('(675,$1 =21( 6,*1 : 6(( '(7$,/ 7+,6 6+((7 3$7+ (1'6 6,*1 6(( '(7$,/ 7+,6 6+((7 ; 3& 37 3& 37 3& 35& 37 3& 37 666 666 )')')' )')')'' 6)0)0)0)0 )0 )0)0)0)0)0 ')')')')' )' )'' ::::::::::::6666666666666666: : : : 6 6 66666666666 6 6 6666666666:::::::::::::::::::::::)'::' ' ')')')')')')')')')')' )' )' )' )' )' )')'66 ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( ))( %)( 0$7&+/,1(67$6'539&&% &% &% &% &% &% &% 3(3(3(3(3(3(3( 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 67250:$7(5 321'1250$/ :$7(5 %27720 321' 63,//:$< (0(5*(1&< 6725$*( 7$1.6(:(5 3803 67$7,219$/9( 3,70$7&+/,1(67$&/',:$7(5&/',:$7(5&/',:$7(5 &/',:$7(5 &/',6(( 6+((7 )25 6(:(53803 67$7,21 '(6,*1 '(7$,/66721( 63,//:$<(/(9 287/(7 322/%27720 )25(%$<%27720 3( :,7+ (6,19 3( :,7+ (6,19 3( :,7+ (6,19 287/(7 6758&785(*5$7( ; :(,5 287 287 3( :,7+ (6,19 67250:$7(5 321'1250$/ :$7(5 %27720 321' 63,//:$< )25(%$<%27720 3( :,7+ (6,19 3( 3( :,7+ (6,19 7<3,&$/ 6721(67250 287)$//&/$66 :(7/$1' 6'539& 6'539&6721( 63,//:$<(/(9 287/(7 322/%27720 287/(7 6758&785(*5$7( 25,),&( 287 287 (;,67,1* +286( $1'*$5$*( 72 %( 5(029('(;,67,1* :$7(5 6(59,&(72 %( 5(029('&225',1$7( :,7+:$7(5 '(3$570(175(029( (;,67,1* *5$9(/'5,9($1'5(3/$&(:,7+72362,/ 6((' 08/&+ 3( :,7+ (6,19 3( :,7+ (6,19 &/$66 :(7/$1'&225',1$7( &216758&7,21 2) 1(:'5,9(:$< 72 (;,67,1* +286( :,7++20(2:1(5 3529,'( 0,1,080 2) *5$9(/ 68%%$6( $1' 7<3( ,,, 3$9(0(17(;,67 +286((;,67 60+5,0 1(: ,1 ,1 ,1 287 6'539&6'539&6'539& 6'539& 6'539& 6'539& 6'5 39&,19 :(7/$1'%8))(5 7<3 6'5 39&,19 :,'( 87,/,7< ($6(0(17 72+20(2:1(56 $662&,$7,21 (;,67,1* +286( $1'*$5$*( 72 %( 5(029('7(0325$5< 3$9('7851$5281' 5(1' '(),1('&+$11(/6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 675($0%8))(5 7<3 675($0%8))(5 7<3 675($0 &+$11(/ 675($0 &+$11(/1(: 675((7 /,*+71(: 675((7 /,*+7&RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(176,7( 3/$1 87,/,7,(6 1257+ LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 6(:(5 0$1+2/( '$7$&$7&+ %$6,1 '$7$60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 6 ,1 : 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' 287 ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 8' 287 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 287 &% $67$ 57 287 7+( &2175$&725 6+$// 127,)< ',*6$)( 35,25 72 $1< (;&$9$7,216(( 6+((7 )25 /(*(1' $1' 127(6)281'$7,21 '5$,10$1+2/( '$7$)'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1 287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( 6(:(5 0$1+2/( '$7$&$7&+ %$6,1 '$7$60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 60+ 67$ &/5,0 ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 8' 287 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 ( ,1 : 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 8' 287 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 ,1 287 &% 5,0 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 8' 287 ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' 287 ,1 287 &% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 287 0$7&+/,1(67$352-(&7 3523(57< /,1(352326(' 3523(57< /,1($%877,1* 3523(57< /,1((;,67,1* &$7&+ %$6,1 &8/9(57(;,67,1* 75(( /,1((;,67,1* &217285:(7/$1' %8))(5:(7/$1' %281'$5<(;,67,1* :$7(5 /,1((;,67 6(:(5 0$1+2/( 6(:(5 /,1(87,/,7< 32/( 29(5+($' :,5((;,67,1* )(1&( ')')'6:61(: 6(:(5 /,1( 0$1+2/(1(: )227,1* '5$,1 0$1+2/(1(: &$7&+ %$6,1 3,3( 81'(5'5$,1),1,6+ *5$'( &2172851(: :$7(5 0$,1 +<'5$176,7( 3/$1 87,/,7,(6 6287+)281'$7,21 '5$,10$1+2/( '$7$)'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 )'0+ 5,0 ,1287 1(: )25&(0$,1)07+( &2175$&725 6+$// 127,)< ',*6$)( 35,25 72 $1< (;&$9$7,21352326(' 675((7 /,*+7 &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( &$7&+ %$6,1 '$7$&% 67$ 575,0 8' ,1 287 (;,67,1* &% 67$ /7(;,67 5,0 1(: 5,0 8' ,1 )' ,1 1(: ,1 287 &% 67$ /75,0 8' ,1 287 (;,67,1* &% 67$ 57(;,67 5,0 1(: 5,0 8' ,1 )' ,1 1(: ,1 287 6(( 6+((7 352-(&7 3523(57< /,1(352326(' 3523(57< /,1($%877,1* 3523(57< /,1((;,67,1* &$7&+ %$6,1 &8/9(57(;,67,1* 75(( /,1((;,67,1* &217285:(7/$1' %8))(5:(7/$1' %281'$5<(;,67,1* :$7(5 /,1((;,67 6(:(5 0$1+2/( 6(:(5 /,1(87,/,7< 32/( 29(5+($' :,5((;,67,1* )(1&( ')')'6:61(: 6(:(5 /,1( 0$1+2/(1(: )227,1* '5$,1 0$1+2/(1(: &$7&+ %$6,1 3,3( 81'(5'5$,1),1,6+ *5$'( &2172851(: :$7(5 0$,1 +<'5$176,7( 3/$1 87,/,7,(63,11$&/( $7 63($5 ;&28175< :$7(5/,1(6(( 6+((7 )25 127(6LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( 3/$1 2) &5266 &28175< :$7(50$,17+( &2175$&725 6+$// 127,)< ',*6$)( 35,25 72 $1< (;&$9$7,21 (23(23ȭ,17(56(&7,21(/(9 67$ 67$ȭ63($5675((767$&8/9(57ȭ,17(56(&7,21(/(9 67$ 67$ 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( ),1,6+*5$'((;,67,1**5281'),1,6+*5$'((;,67,1**5281' 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( &% 67$&%67$&% 67$&% 67$6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(287/(7 7267250:$7(5 321'6 )7)7 [3()520 &% 72 &% )520 &% 72 &% )520 &% 72 &% 287/(7 7267250:$7(5 321' [6'539&6 )7)760+67$60+67$60+67$60+ [6'539&6 )7)7 [6'539&6 )7)7)520 60+ &/',:$7(5&/',:$7(5 0,1&29(57<3,&$/ 675((7 ),1,6+*5$'( (/(9$7,21&RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17352),/(63($5 0($'2: 52$'LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( LQFK IW LQIHHW *5$3+,&6&$/( ȭ,17(56(&7,21(/(9 67$ 67$ &%67$&%67$&% 67$&% 67$6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(&(17(5/,1( 52$'),1,6+ *5$'((;,67,1**5281'&(17(5/,1( 52$'),1,6+ *5$'((;,67,1**5281'&% 67$6 )7)7287/(7 7267250:$7(5 321'287/(7 7267250:$7(5 321')520 &% )520 &% 72 &% )520 &% 72 &% 60+)520 60+ [3(60+67$ [6'539&6 )7)760+67$ [6'539&6 )7)7 [6'539&6 )7)760+67$ [6'539&6 )7)772 6(:(5 3803 67$7,21&/',:$7(5 0,1 &29(5&/',:$7(57<3,&$/ 675((7 &(17(5/,1(),1,6+ *5$'( 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( 9&. $' 39, (/(9 %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( &%67$ &% 67$&% 67$&%67$&% 67$6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3(6 )7)7 [3()520 &% 72 &% )520 &% 72 &% )520 &% 72 &% 60+ 67$ 60+67$ [6'539&6 )7)760+67$ [6'539&6 )7)7&/',:$7(5&/',:$7(5 0,1 &29(5 ),1,6+*5$'(&RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( LQFK IW LQIHHW *5$3+,&6&$/( 352),/(9$/( '5,9(67$ 6':.(23(23(;,6760+67$ (;,67&%V67$0$7&+(;,67,1*3$9(0(17 9&. $' 39, (/(9 39, 67$ %9&6 %9&( (9&6 (9&( (;,676'539&678%&(17(5/,1( 52$'),1,6+ *5$'((;,67,1* *5281'(;,676'539&(;,673(&% 67$)520 &% 72(;,67,1* &% 0,1 &29(5 &/',:$7(5(;,67',:$7(5678%$3352;,0$7( /2&$7,21 2)(;,67,1* :$7(5 6(:(50$,1 678%6 3( &8/9(577<3,&$/ 675((7 &(17(5/,1(),1,6+ *5$'(ȭ,17(56(&7,21(/(9 67$ 67$ ),1,6+*5$'((;,67,1**5281' &% 67$)520 &% 72 &% 60+67$ [6'539&6 )7)7)520&%72&% 0,1 &29(5 &/',:$7(5&RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17352),/(9$/( '5,9( 675((7 $ LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( LQFK IW LQIHHW *5$3+,&6&$/( 9$/( '5,9(67$ 675((7 $ &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(177+( &2175$&725 6+$// 127,)< ',*6$)( 35,25 72 $1< (;&$9$7,21LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( )281'$7,21 3/$17,1* 5(48,5(0(176 $ 0,1,080 2) '(&,'8286 6+58%6 $1' (9(5*5((1 6+58%6 6+$// %(3/$17(' )25 ($&+ ':(//,1* 81,7 7+( &808/$7,9( 180%(5 2) 3/$17,1*6 )25 $%8,/',1* &217$,1,1* 08/7,3/( ':(//,1* 81,76 0$< %( $33257,21(' $5281' 7+(3(5,0(7(5 2) 7+( %8,/',1* %$6(' 8321 7+( /2&$7,21 2) :,1'2:6 325&+(6'(&.6 5(7$,1,1* :$//6 $1' 27+(5 6,7( &21',7,216 3/$176 6+$// %( 6(/(&7(' )520 7+( /,676 %(/2: %$6(' 8321 7+(%8,/',1* 6 (;32685( $ 0,1,080 2) 63(&,(6 6+$// %( 6(/(&7(' )520 ($&+*5283 '(&,'8286 6+58%6 $1' (9(5*5((1 6+58%6 Botanical NameCommon Name SizeCornus alba 'Sibirica'7DUWDULDQ GRJZRRG )25 6811< 81,76 )$&,1* 6287+ $1' :(67DECIDUOUS SHRUBSIlex verticillata 'Jim Dandy'-LP 'DQG\ ZLQWHUEHUU\ Ilex verticillata 'Redsprite'5HG 6SULWH ZLQWHUEHUU\Clethra alnifolia'Compacta'&RPSDFW VXPPHUVZHHWRhus armoatica 'Gro-Low'*UR/RZ VXPDFJuniperus communis 'GreenCarpet'*UHHQ FDUSHW MXQLSHU EVERGREEN SHRUBSMicrobiota decussata5XVVLDQ DUERUYLWDH Juniperus sabina 'Broadmoor'%URDGPRRU MXQLSHUBotanical Name Common Name SizeSymphoricarpus alba&RPPRQ VQRZEHUU\ )25 6+$'< 81,76 )$&,1* 1257+ $1' ($67DECIDUOUS SHRUBSHydrangea arborescens 'Annabelle'$QQDEHOOH VPRRWK K\GUDQJHDIlex glabra 'Shamrock',QNEHUU\Clethra alnifolia 'Rubyspice'5XE\ VSLFH VXPPHUVZHHWRhus armoatica 'Gro-Low'*UR/RZ VXPDFTaxus x media'Hicksii'*UHHQ FDUSHW MXQLSHU EVERGREEN SHRUBSMicrobiota decussata5XVVLDQ DUERUYLWDHJuniperus sabina'Monna''&DOJDU\ FDUSHW MXQLSHU(;,67,1* &8/'(6$& ,16(76(( ,16(7 %(/2: )255(0$,1'(5 2)/$1'6&$3,1* 3/$1/$1'6&$3( 3/$1:(7/$1' %8))(5 '(/,1($7,217+( :(7/$1' %8))(5 6+$// %( 0$5.(' ,1 7+( /2&$7,216 6+2:1 :,7+ 21( 25 025(2) 7+( )2//2:,1* 0(7+2'6 %28/'(56 +$9,1* $ 0,1,080 +(,*+7 2) $1' $ 0$;,080 63$&,1* 2) )((7 2& 63/,7 5$,/ )(1&( 5(' &+2.(%(55< 25 :,17(5%(55< 6+58%6 $7 $ 63$&,1* 2) )((7 2& 5,9(5 %,5&+ 75((6 &$/,3(5 $7 $ 63$&,1* 2) )((7 2&&RPPRQ +DFNEHUU\&DO75(( 3/$17,1* '(7$,/ &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV ,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH 'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 63($5 675((7 9$/( '5,9( 6287+ %85/,1*72163($5 0($'2:6$ 5(6,'(17,$/ 3/$11(' 81,7 '(9(/230(17 (526,21 3527(&7,21 $1'6(',0(17 &21752/ 3/$167$%,/,=(' 67$*,1* 6725$*(LQFK IW LQ IHHW *5$3+,& 6&$/( 7+( 67250:$7(5 %$6,16 6+$// %( 86(' $6 6(',0(17$7,21 %$6,16 '85,1* &216758&7,21 7+( 6(',0(17$7,21 %$6,16 6+$// %( &216758&7(' 72 7+( *5$'(6 6+2:1 (;&(37 7+$7 7+( )25(%$<6+$// %( 29(5(;&$9$7(' 72 $ '(37+ 2) )227 %(/2: 7+( *5$'(6 6+2:1 7<3( , 6721( ),// 0$< %( 3/$&(' 21 7+( %$6,1 6,'(6/23(6 72 67$%,/,=( 7+( 62,/ ,) 9(*(7$7,21 '2(6127 %(&20( (67$%/,6+(' '8( 72 )/8&78$7,1* :$7(5 /(9(/6 :,7+,1 7+( %$6,1 7+( '(37+ 2) 6(',0(17 ,1 7+( )25(%$<6 6+$// %( 021,725(' 7+528*+287 &216758&7,21 $1' 6+$//%( 5(029(' :+(1 ,7 5($&+(6 $ '(37+ 2) )((7 6(',0(17 5(029(' )520 7+( %$6,1 6+$// %( ',6326(' ,1 $1 83/$1' /2&$7,21 21$6/23(/(667+$1 $1' 12 /(66 7+$1 )((7 )520 $ :(7/$1' 25 675($0 7+( 0$7(5,$/ 6+$// %( 6(('(' $1' 08/&+(',00(',$7(/< 72 (67$%/,6+ 9(*(7$7,9( &29(5 &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 5(9,6,21663($5 0($'2:6 ,1&/$1'6 2) 63($5 67 6287+ %85/,1*721 97-.5$%5'/+ $%56+7 126&$/('$7(&+(&.(''5$:1'(6,*16859(<352-(&7 12'HVFULSWLRQ'DWHE\$%5'-*$6 127('/2&$7,21 0$3176127(6 7+,6 3/$7 :$6 &203,/(' )520 ),(/' 6859(<6 $1' 5(&25'5(6($5&+ ,1&/8',1* 7+( 86( 2) 7+( )2//2:,1* 3/$16 $/$1'6 2) 52%(57 $1' 0$5-25,( 6.,)) 6:,)7 675((7 6287+%85/,1*7219(50217/2768%',9,6,213/$7'$7('/$67 5(9,6(' %< /$0285(8; ',&.,1621 &2168/7,1*(1*,1((56 ,1& $6 5(&25'(' ,1 6/,'( 2) 7+( &,7< 2) 6287+%85/,1*721 /$1' 5(&25'6% 6:,)7 (67$7(6 6287+ %85/,1*721 9(50217 '$7(' %< :,//,6 (1*,1((5,1* $6 5(&25'(' ,1 92/ 3$*( 257+( 6287+ %85/,1*721 /$1' 5(&25'6& 3/$7 2) %281'$5< $'-8670(17 /$1'6 2) 63($5 0($'2:6,1& 5 7 7$55$17 ' & )5$1=21, 63($5 675((7 6287+%85/,1*721 9(50217 '$7(' -$18$5< %< &,9,/(1*,1((5,1* $662&,$7(6 ,1& $6 5(&25'(' ,1 6/,'( 2)7+( &,7< 2) 6287+ %85/,1*721 /$1' 5(&25'6' 3/$7 2) 6859(< /$1'6 2) )$55(// &2/( 63($5 675((7 6287+ %85/,1*721 9(50217 '$7('129(0%(5 %< &,9,/ (1*,1((5,1* $662&,$7(6 ,1& $65(&25'(' ,1 6/,'( 2) 7+( &,7< 2) 6287+ %85/,1*721 /$1'5(&25'6( ),1$/ 3/$7 )25 68%',9,6,21 2) 3523(57< 2) *(5$/' 0,/27$1' -2+1 /$5.,1 3,11$&/( # 63($5 )250(5/< 12:/$1' 7:2 63($5 675((7 6287+ %85/,1*721 9(50217 '$7(' /$67 5(9,6(' %< 9$8*+1 & %87721 /6 $6 5(&25'(' ,16/,'(2)7+(&,7<2)6287+%85/,1*721/$1'5(&25'6 7+( %($5,1*6 6+2:1 21 7+,6 6859(< :(5( *(1(5$7(' )5206859(< *5$'( *36 2%6(59$7,216 5(&25'(' ,1 $35,/ $1' $5( %$6(' 21 7+( 9(50217 67$7( 3/$1( &225',1$7(6<67(0 1$' &256 7+( ),(/':25. )25 7+,6 6859(< :$6 &203/(7(' ,1 $35,/ 7+,6 3523(57< 0$< %( 68%-(&7 72 27+(5 ($6(0(176 $1'255,*+762):$< 02180(17$7,21 )281' ,6 $6 127(' 21 7+,6 3/$1 7+( :,'7+ 2) )285 52'6 6+2:1 )25 63($5 675((7 ,6%$6(' 21 $ '(6&5,37,21 )281' 21 3$*( 2) 7+( 72:1 2)%85/,1*721 +,*+:$<6 $1' 52$'6 6(( 6+((7 3/ )25 7+( 0(7(6 $1' %281'6 2) 7+( 352326(',17(5,25 3523(57< /,1(6 )22735,17 /276 $1' 352326('($6(0(1766:,)76763($5676,7(3(5,0(7(5 %281'$5<6859(< 3/$73//(*(1'1),3),36$*%*352-(&7 3523(57< /,1($%877,1* 3523(57< /,1((;,67,1* 3523(57< /,1(352326(' 72 %( ',662/9('6,'(/,1( 2) ($6(0(17%$5%(' :,5( )(1&(6721( :$//,521 3,3( )281',521 52' )281'767$.( )281'&21&5(7( 02180(17 72 %( 6(7,521 3,3( 6(76859(< 32,17 12 0$5.(5 12: 25 )250(5/<$%29( *5$'(%(/2: *5$'(,5)76)$33529(' %< 5(62/87,21 2) 7+( '(9(/230(175(9,(: %2$5' 2) 7+( &,7< 2) 6287+ %85/,1*7219(50217 21 7+(BBBB '$< 2) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 68%-(&7 72 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 $1' &21',7,2162) 6$,' 5(62/87,21 6,*1(' 7+,6 BBBB '$< 2)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB %< &/(5. 25 &+$,50$1 &RQVXOWLQJ (QJLQHHUV,QF/$0285(8; ',&.,1621 0RUVH'ULYH(VVH[ -XQFWLRQ 97 7HO 5(9,6,21663($5 0($'2:6 ,1&/$1'6 2) 63($5 67 6287+ %85/,1*721 97-.5$%5'/+ $%56+7 126&$/('$7(&+(&.(''5$:1'(6,*16859(<352-(&7 12'HVFULSWLRQ'DWHE\$%5'-*$6 127('/2&$7,21 0$3176127(6 6(( 6+((7 3(5,0(7(5 %281'$5< 6859(< 3/$7 )25 6859(< 127(6 7+( 352-(&7 %281'$5< $1'/27 7+( $5($6 '(3,&7(' 21 7+,6 3/$7 )25 7+(&20021 $5($ /276 (;&/8'( 7+( $5($6 :,7+,17+( 5(63(&7,9( )22735,17 /2766:,)76763($5676,7(180%(5 317 1257+,1*($67,1*68%',9,6,21 )22735,17 /27 3/$73//(*(1'1),3),36$*%*352-(&7 3523(57< /,1($%877,1* 3523(57< /,1(6,'(/,1( 2) ($6(0(17%$5%(' :,5( )(1&(6721( :$//,521 3,3( )281',521 52' )281'767$.( )281'&21&5(7( 02180(17 72 %( 6(7,521 3,3( 6(712: 25 )250(5/<$%29( *5$'(%(/2: *5$'(&20021 $5($ /27 180%(5)22735,17 /27 180%(5,5) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6)180%(5 317 1257+,1*($67,1* 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6) 6)&021,3&02176)$33529(' %< 5(62/87,21 2) 7+( '(9(/230(175(9,(: %2$5' 2) 7+( &,7< 2) 6287+ %85/,1*7219(50217 21 7+(BBBB '$< 2) BBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 68%-(&7 72 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 $1' &21',7,2162) 6$,' 5(62/87,21 6,*1(' 7+,6 BBBB '$< 2)BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB %< &/(5. 25 &+$,50$1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 September 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, South Burlington Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman, M. Behr (by phone for Reorganization) ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; E. Langfeldt, D. Marshall, S. Ploof, G. Davis, J. Painter, L. & M. O’Brien 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: The agenda was adjusted due to the delayed arrival of an applicant. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Reorganization: a. Elect Chair, Vice Chair & Clerk: Mr. Behr participated in the reorganization via telephone. Mr. Belair presided over the election of officers. He opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Wilking nominated Mr. Miller for Chair. Mr. Parsons seconded. There were no further nominations for Chair. Mr. Kochman nominated Mr. Cota for Vice Chair. Mr. Behr seconded. There were no further nominations for Vice Chair. Ms. Smith nominated Mr. Parsons for Clerk. Mr. Miller seconded. There were no further nominations. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 2 In the vote that followed, all nominated officers were elected unanimously. b. Establish regular meeting dates and times: Members agreed unanimously to continue to meet on the first and third Tuesdays of the month at 7:00 p.m. 5. Continued conditional use application #CU-16-04 and 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’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 requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #CU-16-04 and #SP-16-35 to 4 October 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-22 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 29.1 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 27.8 acres (lot #1) and 1.29 acres (lot #1-F), 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Marshall indicated the dividing line on the plan. He noted that because of the rezoning of the I-Open Space district, the adjacent property owner (Mr. Gardner) wants to add a piece of the SBRC property to his lot. No development plans for either lot are part of this request. No issues were raised by the Board. 7. (formerly #8) Continued final plat application #SD-16-19 of Veronica Lambert to subdivide a 4.11 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling and a two- family dwelling into two lots of 1.44 acres (lot #1) and 2.67 acres (lot #2), 1405 Hinesburg Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 3 It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-19 to 20 September 2016. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. (formerly #9) Minutes of 23 August 2016: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 23 August 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. (formerly #7) Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langfeldt said the plan encompasses both low density (zone 1) and higher density (zone 2) locations and the open space. Ms. Britt drew attention to staff’s cover memo with a suggested approach to this application. This approach includes: a. The project must meet PUD standards b. Waiver requests should be considered in light of whether and how the applicant is meeting the physical and visual environment that the applicant intends to create The applicant was then asked to address the staff notes as follows: a. Phasing of roadways: Mr. Langfeldt said they will provide a phasing plan at the next meeting. He showed the first roads to be built. He also indicated the walking paths and parkland. He noted that although the city will be deeded only 3 acres of parkland, there will be landscaping around that area so there will actually be 4 acres of green open space. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 4 Mr. Kochman asked if the park will be built as part of Phase I. Mr. Langfeldt said he thought it would be completed by the end of Phase I. Ms. Britt noted that staff suggests a phasing plan be part of the Master Plan. Mr. Langfeldt agreed to that and said it makes sense. b. & c. Glazing standards on all sides of buildings and cornices as an architectural design feature: Mr. Langfeldt said they are OK with glazing. With regard to cornices, he said that if staff feels that when they come in with a building design cornices are appropriate, they can have that discussion. He didn’t feel it was appropriate at this stage. c. Applicant should consult with the Parks & Recreation Department and Recreation Committee regarding the proposed park and open space: The applicant agreed to do this. d. Arrangement of housing in less dense zones to achieve larger areas of contiguous open space with adjoining parcels: Ms. Britt noted that a goal of master planning is to have contiguous open space with adjacent parcels. Mr. Miller noted that the buildings in zone #6 cut off the open space in zone #4 from the open space in the adjacent property. Mr. Langfeldt said there would be contiguous open space for pedestrians throughout (he indicated footpaths that would provide this). He also indicated a proposed trail network which connects all the green spaces. Ms. Britt said the regulations require contiguous open space, not just connectivity. Mr. Miller noted that zone #4 is topographically challenging so housing is being put in zone #6 which isn’t contiguous to the adjacent open space. Ms. Britt said staff thought it might be possible to arrange housing so that an open space connection between the project’s open space and adjacent parcels could be maintained. Mr. Kochman asked how far would any resident have to walk to get to the park. Mr. Wilking said it appears there is never more than a quarter mile distance to open space, not necessarily to the park. He suggested the applicant meet with the Recreation Committee. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 5 Mr. Miller suggested moving a bit more green space into zone 6 to be contiguous with the adjacent piece. e. Will the open area abutting zone #5 be open space in the Master Plan? Mr. Langfeldt said it will. f. Support the comments of the Fire Marshall. Mr. Langfeldt said they will. g. Commercial uses should be appropriate to a residential area Mr. Langfeldt said there will be ancillary services to support residents. Ms. Britt said there is a question as to whether those uses are allowed where the applicant indicates they will be. Mr. Langfeldt said they believe in a PUD the DRB can mix the uses. Ms. Britt said that interpretation is different from staff’s view. Members asked that the City Attorney’s opinion be sought on this issue. h. & i. How to better support the Comprehensive Plan and future stage compliance with PUD standards including innovation and affordable housing: Mr. Langfeldt said they will have a mix of housing. He noted that 70% of new housing in the city in recent years has been priced at $400,000 and up. He said they don’t intend to include any subsidized housing but they will have housing that appeals to an “underserved” market. This would include smaller lots, denser housing, and relatively low prices. Mr. Kochman said the applicant is proposing more than 400 units with zero affordable housing. This is not helping the city’s goal, and probably won’t work. He supported staff’s recommendation for the applicant to move in that direction. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 6 Mr. Belair noted that one of the standards for a PUD is innovation. Mr. Langfeldt said they are creating moderate housing on challenging landscaping with differing housing types and higher density. He said the regulations say “innovation is encouraged” not required. Mr. Miller agreed with Mr. Kochman that there should be some affordable housing. i. Staff recommends the Board not grant the request to freeze the LDRs. Mr. Langfeldt said they realize this is an unusual request, but he felt they are “going out on a limb” regarding infrastructure. It’s a multi-year process, and in that time there could be significant changes to the LDRs. Mr. Kochman asked if the plan would be grandfathered. Mr. Langfeldt said the waivers are grandfathered; other things are not. He added that it’s the “unknown” that is a problem. He noted there is discussion about “inclusionary zoning” taking place now, and that would mean a significant change to the project. He suggested saying that any material changes would have to be worked out with the applicant. Mr. Miller stressed that the DRB does not make the regulations; the Planning Commission does. The DRB can’t tell the Planning Commission what to do. Mr. Wilking said the applicant’s request is unrealistic. j. DRB should not act on any zoning change until details of the proposed changes are provided and details of the proposed development are known in order to determine compatibility. Mr. Belair said staff doesn’t know which boundaries are being moved and where. Mr. Langfeldt said the only one would be to shift the C-1 line (he indicated this) 50 feet to the south. Mr. Belair noted that C-1 allows commercial uses, so it would be moving into a residential zone. There was no voiced objection to the applicant’s request. k. When in the development process it would be appropriate to develop some/all of the pedestrian paths so there is connectivity for residents. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 7 Mr. Langfeldt said they will commit to that when safety allows. Ms. Britt noted that streets “A” and “E” have no connection to the pathways. Mr. Langfeldt said Street “A” has sidewalks on both sides and a rec path on one side. Street “E” has a sidewalk on one side. Mr. Wilking said he would want crosswalks to address the gradient issues. l. Applicant should discuss pedestrian connectivity with the Bike/Ped Committee. m. Board should wait to discuss waivers for road standards until the Public Works Director has provided a response to the new requests. Members voiced no objections to this. n. Applicant should provide information on coverage in the zones and also information on the building types in each zone. Mr. Langfeldt said he didn’t think this was appropriate to look at on a zone by zone basis as some zones are just open. Mr. Belair said the DRB should know whether the other zones will be 70%, 80%, 50%...etc., covered. Mr. Langfeldt said there would never be 100% coverage as there are setbacks, landscaping, etc. Ms. Britt said that staff wants this information because there could be different building heights, different types of housing, etc., and they want to know what it would look like. She said it is a question of coverage, not density. Mr. Langfeldt said they could provide a little more detail. Mr. Miller said a zone-by-zone coverage ratio would be OK with the Board. o. Waiver requests: It was noted that the applicant is requesting a 10 foot instead of 30 foot rear setback; 5 foot instead of 10 foot side setback, and a 5 foot instead of 30 foot front setback. The questions was raised as to whether these are appropriate setbacks in zones 2A and 2B. Mr. Langfeldt showed building concepts which, he said, de-emphasize the mass of a building. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 8 Mr. Miller noted that staff is recommending 10 feet for side and front setbacks in zones 2A and 2B to allow more room for landscaping. Ms. Britt said this would soften the larger buildings. Mr. Kochman expressed concern for a standard by which the Board decides whether to grant a waiver. He said he doesn’t support or oppose the requests, but wants to know how the decision is made. Mr. Wilking said he has a problem with a 10 foot rear setback any time it abuts a neighbor’s residential property. Mr. Langfeldt said they can live with 10 feet in zones 2A and 2B. Mr. Wilking suggested deferring a decision on this issue until the Board sees what the coverages are. p. Staff recommends the Board carefully consider changes to front yard setbacks as these are a large difference from the standard and will be more visible than changes to the side or rear. In addition, the types of setbacks in each zone may be more or less appropriate depending on the type of development in those zones. q. The Board should consider the setback waivers as interconnected with height and story waivers and then determine whether the waivers are appropriate. Mr. Langfeldt said they are willing to forego the reduced setbacks where they border onto existing residences. The Board agreed to consider varying the setbacks by zone. r. With regard to height/story waivers, staff recommends additional information on types of development in zones 1, 3, and 6. DRB members voiced no objections to this. s. Providing a concept for each type of residential design DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 9 Mr. Langfeldt said if the Board did not like one type, it would be expensive to deal with. Mr. Wilking said he was concerned with the buildings they are getting a height waiver for. He wanted to see all the different styles (i.e., one of each type of change/style). t. The Board should not grant a waiver to allow uses in C1-LR in the R-12 portion of the property during the Master Plan phase Members wanted an opinion from the City Attorney on this. u. The Board should grant the request to waive the requirement in Section 3.06(i) (1). v. The Board should not approve the front landscape waiver but consider it at a later date. Mr. Langfeldt questioned why there is a master plan process if the city wants them to come in with a fully planned development. He stressed that a 100% effort will go into this project. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Ploof, president of the adjoining condo association, asked to clarify what is planned for the small section in zone 3 adjacent to Lancaster. Mr. Langfeldt said that is to be determined and can be discussed. Mr. Ploof asked if Road B will go into a 4-way intersection. Mr. Langfeldt said it would. Mr. Ploof said he would like to see Road B built sooner as there are 2 blind corners on Eldridge Street, and the road is not well maintained which has led to accidents. Mr. Langfeldt said they are looking at that. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue #MP-16-01 to 4 October 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 SEPTEMBER 2016 PAGE 10 10. Other Business: No other business was discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:01 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date