Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/15/2017DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 AUGUST 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 August 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, M. Cota, F. Kochman, M. Behr ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Anderson, M. Cushman, D. Welch, G. Titcomb, M. Weissman, K. & T. Easton, T. Ryan, M. Traub, M. Curran, M. Janswold, S. & D. Mowat, J. Boisvert, D. Twitchell, R. Jeffers, W. Davis, D. Marshall, S. Darnell, P. Brogna, J. Goodwin, L. Bresee, P. O’Brien, J. Soncranz, N. Andrews, A. Owens 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Appeal #AO-17-03 of Century Partners, LP, and Thirty Three Mary Street, LLC, appealing the issuance of site plan application #SP-17-29 for the construction of a 58,551 sq. ft. four-story mixed-use building which includes 39 residential units, 146 Market Street: Mr. Cota moved to continue #AO-17-03 to 24 August 2017, 7 p.m. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-17-08 of Cushman Design Group to raze an existing single family dwelling and construct a new 2-story single family dwelling with an accessory residential units, 34 Brigham Road: Ms. Keene noted that a new application was received today indicating that the retaining wall is now consistent with the regulations. Mr. Cushman noted they have also added a dock to the plan which had not been visible until the water level went down. Mr. Cushman showed the existing home and cottage on the plan and said both will be demolished. They will rebuild the main residence. The cottage will also be rebuilt, moving it to within the setback line. There will be a covered connection between the two buildings. The sea wall will be replaced (Mr. Cushman indicated the location). No trees will be removed; however, they will add some trees. They will also add some parking. They are still under the allowable pervious coverage. The building height is 6 inches under the maximum allowable. Mr. Miller said the plan now complies with environmental regulations. The applicant has been cautioned to take care of existing trees during excavation. Mr. Cushman said the large cottonwood in question will not be threatened. Mr. Cushman noted the change of material for the retaining wall. It will be a “boulder wall.” Mr. Belair said the cottage is considered an accessory residential use. Mr. Miller noted receipt of a memo from the neighbors. Mr. Belair said it appears there is a boundary dispute, which is not within the Board’s purview to resolve. However, the Board may want to delay action until the dispute is settled because it may result in a change in the site plan. Mr. Cushman asked that there be a condition in the approval that this issue needs to be resolved. He showed the area of contention, and said it does not affect the footprint of the existing building or the buildings in the site plan. Mr. Kochman felt the issue was irrelevant unless the applicant needed the additional land to meet requirements. Mr. Cushman said they are well under all coverages. Mr. Kochman cited a recent Supreme Court decision which allowed a development to go forward because there was not a “material change.” He felt this was so trivial that the applicants should not be held up. Mr. Behr agreed with Mr. Kochman and said the applicant can come back with an amended plan after the issue is settled. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-17-08. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-17-07 of Don Welch Architecture to raze existing single family dwelling and construct a new 2-story single family dwelling with an attached garage, 115 Holmes Avenue: Mr. Welch said they will take down the existing structure and build a new house. The existing house has a “mostly attached” garage; the new house will have a fully attached garage. They will move the house back from where the existing house is, and the square footage will be reduced by about 1000 sq. ft., as will the coverage. Six trees will be removed (one of which is hanging over the neighbor’s driveway and some of which are not healthy). They are proposing 7 new trees as well as a buffer planting to mitigate stormwater runoff in the northwest corner. The driveway is being reduced in size, and the gate at the end of the driveway will be removed. The new house will be lower than the existing house. The concrete steps are not being touched. Mr. Welch showed pictures of the proposed new house. Mr. Kochman asked if the house is on city water and sewer. Mr. Welch said it is. Mr. Miller noted staff comments on erosion control. Mr. Welch said they will address those issues. Mr. Easton asked if there is a stormwater plan. He didn’t want to hold up the project, but he wanted to see the erosion plans. Mr. Welch said they are currently working with an engineer. The aim is to reduce the amount of water that goes onto the Easton property. A lot of that water is coming off the roof during a heavy storm. They will now be pitching the roof further back, and there will be a dry well underneath. That will slow the water down. Mr. Easton said he was confident it would be worked out amicably. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-17-07. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-17-18 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings; 2) four two-family dwellings, 3) two three-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) two 12-unit multi-family dwellings, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers showed an overall Master Plan with all three phases and identified each. She noted that Phase 1 is 80% complete; phase 2 is about 30% complete and is under construction; phase 3 is now just a field. Ms. Jeffers reminded the Board that South Village is an “agri‐hood” with 12.8 acres of farm in the middle. It is also a conservation area with over 130 acres to be conserved. For this reason, development is done in a dense manner. Houses all have front porches and connect to a sidewalk. The application includes waivers similar to those in the previous 2 phases. Some of the houses will be “rear loaded.” They will face the street, but the driveway/garage will be in the rear. The south side of the street will have a rec path; the other side will have a sidewalk. Ms. Jeffers noted that staff has asked that there be no sidewalk on both sides where there are just 3 houses. She asked the Board to approve sidewalks there. Mr. Marshall then reviewed the history of South Village including a consent decree that created more open space preservation for a wildlife corridor. He also noted conditions in the Master Plan regarding connectivity. Mr. Marshall also advised that ultimately there will be a $20,000 payment to the City for traffic calming on Midland Avenue. Mr. Marshall said that Phase 3 benefits from work done in the previous phases (e.g., sewage system). The current site has a number of drainage divides. There is also a gravel wetland for initial treatment. Mr. Marshall showed the location of these. Mr. Miller asked if cleaning of wetland is required. Mr. Marshall said it is not. Mr. Marshall indicated the 12-plex buildings which are in the Master Plan. They are working on some of staff’s comments regarding these and will have answers in time for a continued hearing. The majority of parking is underground, but there will be some parking, including handicapped parking, above ground. There will be no regular parking in front of buildings. The entire project is subject to a State wetlands permit. They will try to document how existing features have worked (photos, etc.). The continued hearing will have that level of detail. Mr. Miller asked about affordable housing. Ms. Jeffers said there is a requirement for affordable housing. They have asked to work with staff on that, specifically where those units would be located. Ms. Jeffers said they are requesting that the sidewalk be on both sides of the road, even where staff has asked that it shouldn’t be. In the past, residents have asked for a sidewalk on both sides when that was not provided. The sidewalk would be just in front of the 3 units to the crosswalk. Mr. Parsons suggested the applicant think about an alternative to a traditional sidewalk. Mr. Behr showed a potential route for a sidewalk that would connect with one of the other 2 neighborhoods. He said he could support that. Ms. Jeffers said the will certainly think about that option. Mr. Kochman asked why they should be able to build to the limit before building any affordable housing. Mr. Marshall said not all the phases have been worked out, and there is still room for affordable housing in all phases. Mr. Kochman felt there should be a clear affordability plan before any more units are built. Mr. Behr noted that the affordable housing comes with a density bonus; half of the bonus has to be affordable. The bonus kicks in at the 269th unit. After that, half of the housing has to be affordable. It also has to be spread out and be evenly distributed. Mr. Kochman stressed that the affordable units should not be “concentrated” in one area. Mr. Behr asked that before this preliminary and final plat are approved the applicant come in and show how they will distribute the affordable units. He said he would lean toward a condition that there be a plan that distributes affordability proportionally in all three phases. Mr. Miller noted there is still room in Phase 1 and Phase 2 for 10% of the units to be affordable. Ms. Owens asked that there be speed bumps to slow down traffic through the intersection near her home. She said that cars go over the roundabout at high speeds. Mr. Marshall said he spoke with the Public Works Director who is supportive of raised areas for traffic calming, and it is their intent to do that. He also noted that the height of the roundabout was determined by the Fire Department. Ms. Darnell said there was a meeting of the neighborhood at which they saw plans for the rest of the buildout mostly in Phase 1. There were very attractive row houses. She asked if these would not be built in order to meet the affordable housing requirement. Mr. Behr said one of those row houses could be an affordable unit. He stressed that all the units would look the same from the outside. The “affordability” factor would involve inside finishes, so there would be no distinction between the units from the outside. Ms. Soncranz was concerned with the multiplex going behind their home and the possibility of affordable units reducing the value of their home. Mr. Kochman said that if the spirit of the law is observed, it will still be a great community. Mr. Mowat asked that Phase 3 not be considered on its own but as part of the Master Plan. He was concerned that considering it on its own would “compromise” the other areas. Mr. Andrews asked about the median income that would establish who the affordable units would be built for. Ms. Jeffers said the median income is $84,600. A purchase price of $280,000 meets that income level. Mr. Behr added that there is a process to oversee that the affordable units remain affordable. Mr. Behr also stressed that affordable housing does not reduce property values. It provides housing for people who work in the community so they can live in the community. It will not be substandard housing. Mr. Bresee noted that when the bike path was first created, there was a “tag” put on it that said: “a green ribbon to tie the city together.” He felt there wasn’t a project that does it better than this one. Ms. Darnell felt South Village is an ideal place for affordable housing. She just did not understand how it will work considering the prices of houses in the area. She felt it would be hard to pull off because it wasn’t planned from the beginning. Ms. Jeffers said the details are not yet worked out, but it is their intention to build to that price point. Champlain Housing Trust will vet potential buyers. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-17-18 to 19 September 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Minutes of 1 August 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 1 August 2017 as written. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: Mr. Kochman noted there has been a proposal pending for an amendment to the LDRs since February to be taken up by the Planning Commission. That has not yet happened. He thought there would have to be an exception for duplexes (regarding setbacks). He also stressed the need to get rid of the “supposed legal opinion,” which he has never seen, which says that footprint lots are not lots. He felt there is nothing to support that. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on September 5, 2017. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: AO-17-03 Appeal of SP-17-29, 146 Market Street DATE: August 15, 2017 DRB Meeting At its last meeting, the Board held a discussion of a request to continue Appeal #AO-17-03 to a future meeting date. The Board agreed by common consensus to a continuance to Thursday, August 24, 2017, at 7 pm. 1. Staff recommends that at this meeting, the Board open the Public Hearing as noticed, and the immediately formalizes its action to continue the hearing to August 24th at 7 pm here at City Hall. #CU‐17‐08  1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    MILFORD CUSHMAN ‐‐‐ 34 BRIGHAM ROAD  CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU‐14‐05  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Conditional  use  application  #CU‐17‐08  of  Cushman  Design  Group  to  raze  an  existing  single  family dwelling and construct a new 2‐story single family dwelling with an accessory residential  unit, 34 Brigham Road.     The  Development  Review  Board  held  a  public  hearing  on  August  15,  2017.  The  applicant  represented himself.  Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board  finds, concludes, and decides the following:    FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The applicant, Cushman Design Group, seeks to raze an existing single family dwelling  and construct a new 2‐story single family dwelling with an accessory residential unit, 34  Brigham Road.     2.  The owner of record of the subject property is Margie Straub.    3.  The subject property is located in the Lakeshore Neighborhood District.    4. The application was received on July 14, 2017.    5. The plan set submitted consists of an eight (8) page set of plans. Sheet C1.1 is entitled,  “Proposed Conditions Site Plan”, prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, dated July 14,  2017.     ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    LN Zoning District Required Existing Proposed   Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF  14,255  14,255   Max. Building Coverage 20 %  18 %  17 %    Max. Overall Coverage 40 %  22 %  27 %    Min. Front Setback 20 ft.  >>20 ft.  >> 20 ft.   Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  6.2  ft.  house,  7.5 ft. garage  6.2  ft.  house,  >10 ft. garage   Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  N/A  N/A  @ Waterfront Setback  150 ft.  28.7 ft.  29.3 ft.      √  Zoning Compliance        @ Existing nonconforming  #CU‐17‐08  2   6. The dimensional requirement criteria are met. See below under Section 12.01 regarding  waterfront setback.     A. ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS    According to Section 3.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations:    One (1) accessory residential unit constructed within or attached to a primary single‐ family dwelling or within an existing, permitted accessory structure shall be a permitted  single‐family use, in accordance with the following criteria:  (1) Floor space of the accessory residential unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%)  of the total habitable area of the single‐family dwelling unit.    The accessory residential unit is proposed to be 524 gross square feet, which is approximately  19% of the habitable area of the house.  The Board finds this criteria to be met.    (2) The principal dwelling shall be owner‐occupied.    The applicant confirmed that the principal dwelling will be owner‐occupied.  The Board finds this  criterion to be met and notes that pursuant to the Regulations, this is an ongoing requirement.    (3) The accessory dwelling unit shall be an efficiency or one‐bedroom unit.    The applicant confirmed that the unit will be a one‐bedroom unit.  The Board finds this criterion  to be met.    (4) Adequate wastewater capacity is available to service the accessory unit.    Prior to being issued a zoning permit, the applicant will have to show that either a Wastewater  Allocation or on‐site wastewater permit has been issued.      (5) Two (2) additional off‐street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot,  either  in  a  garage  or  in  a  driveway,  and  not  in  any  areas  required  to  meet  coverage limitations, or any front yard area other than a driveway, required by  these Regulations.  (6) If occupancy of the unit is to be restricted in the deed of the single‐family home  to a disabled person, no additional off‐street parking is required.    The proposed plan shows four (4) parking spaces in the driveway.  The Board finds these criteria  to be met.    (7) A zoning permit shall be required for each accessory residential unit.    B. Section 12.01(D) Pre‐Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park    Section  12.01(D)  of  the  SBLDR  includes  all  lands  within  one  hundred  fifty  feet  horizontal  distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of  #CU‐17‐08  3 pre‐existing  structures  on  these  lands  may  be  approved  by  the  DRB  as  a  conditional  use  provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are  met:    a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before  April 24, 2000.     7. This structure was constructed before April 24, 2000.    b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of  horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the  closest point of the existing structure.     8. The proposed new dwelling is no closer to the lake than the closest portion of the  existing structure. This criterion is satisfied.    c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be  more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April  24, 2000.     9. The proposed structure meets this criterion, as the 2,487 sf footprint of the new home is  less than the 2,567 sf footprint of the existing home.   The applicant provided two  separate calculations of building footprint area, one via email and one on the plans.  The  numbers herein are from the email and the applicant has confirmed that these numbers  are correct. The applicant is directed to update the plans to reflect the correct numbers.    d) An  erosion  control  plan  for  construction  is  submitted  by  a  licensed  engineer  detailing  controls  that  will  be  put  in  place  during  construction  or  expansion  to  protect  the  associated surface water.    10. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan prepared by a licensed professional  engineer. The City Assistant Stormwater Superintendent offers the following comment  on the erosion control plan.    Marla,     My only comment is on Sheet C2.1, Rain Garden detail, Construction Note 5, the name and  number of the engineer have not been included for the contractor’s reference.     Regards,  Dave Wheeler    The Board finds that with the amended information, this proposal meets the requirement of  subsection (b) above. This criterion is satisfied.    e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and  ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide  a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream.   #CU‐17‐08  4   11. The applicant submitted detailed landscaping plans for the property. This criterion is  met.    C. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA    Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (Pre‐ existing structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park), the proposed structure  shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following  standards  of  Section  14.10(E):    14.10(E) General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed  conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations.  The  proposed  conditional  use  shall  not  result  in  an  undue  adverse effect on any of the  following:    (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.    12. This  project  will  have  no  adverse  effect  upon  community  facilities.  This  criterion  is  satisfied.    (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.     13. It is the Board’s position that the proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose  of the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, which is “to encourage residential  use  at  densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore  neighborhoods  located  in  the  vicinity  of  Bartlett  Bay  Road  and Homes  Road.”    This  criterion is satisfied.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    14. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.  This criterion is satisfied.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    15. This project is compliant with current bylaws and ordinances. This criterion is satisfied.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    16. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. This criterion is satisfied.      Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards  #CU‐17‐08  5   C.   Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”)    (1)   Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as  follows:   …….   (e)   All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high  water elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be  one hundred two (102) feet above mean sea level datum.  This applicable area includes the entire property.    (2)   General  standards.  It  is  the  objective  of  these  standards to promote the  establishment of heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce  the impact of stormwater runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base  flows in the City’s streams and Lake Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted  by the DRB pursuant to the standards in Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below,  all lands within a required stream buffer defined above shall be left in an undisturbed,  naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and landscaping with appropriate  species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted. The specific standards  for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows:  (a)   The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or  other natural events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than  invasive species, is permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or  (4) below.    (b)   Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are  disturbed during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather  than  standard  lawn  grass,  and  shall  not  be  mowed  more  than  one (1)  time  per  calendar year after establishment.  The applicant submitted a detailed landscaping plan and rendering. The plan identifies  an area of mixed perennial plantings and a border of ornamental grasses in locations  that are existing lawn, as well as two stone boulder retaining walls, one located below  and  one  located  above  the  high  water  elevation  of  Lake  Champlain,  separated  by  approximately ten feet of sedge plantings on a level grade.  The plan also indicates that  several new trees will be planted and that new plantings will also be placed in the front  yard of the building.  The City Arborist offers the following comments on the proposed vegetation plan.  Marla,  The proposed landscaping is fine.  The only caution I have is that any excavation or grade  change around existing trees that are being retained could adversely affect the trees or  destabilize them.      Craig Lambert    #CU‐17‐08  6 17. The Board finds that this plan meets the intent of Section (2) (a) & (b) of the LDRs above  and that these criteria are met.     (c)   The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after  the effective date of these regulations.     18. New lawn areas are not proposed as part of this application. This criterion is met.  (d)   Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not  be located within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that:   (i)  There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same  property.  (ii)  Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site  plan and/or stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and  contaminated runoff entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt.    19. Snow storage is not required for residential properties.  A stone  drip  edge  and  settlement basin has been incorporated into the front lawn to promote infiltration.    (3)   Expansion of pre‐existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre‐ existing structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be  permitted only in accordance with the standards for non‐complying structures in Article 3,  Section 3.11 of these Regulations.  20. This criterion is met. See discussion below.    (4)      New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment of new land  development  activities  into  the  City’s  stream  buffers  is  discouraged. The DRB may  authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards  and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this  section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review.    (a)   Agriculture,  horticulture  and  forestry  including  the  keeping  of  livestock,  provided  that  any  building  or  structure  appurtenant to  such  uses  is  located  outside the stream buffer.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Not applicable    (b)   Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only  to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or  conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that:  i.   There  is  no  practicable  alternative  to  the  clearing,  filling  or  excavating within the stream buffer; and   ii.   The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion  controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐See Criterion 10 above.    #CU‐17‐08  7 (c)  Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the  public health, safety and welfare.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Not applicable    (d)   Encroachments  necessary  for providing for or improving public  facilities.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Not applicable    (e)   Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of  channel of the surface water.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Not applicable    (f)   Stormwater  treatment  facilities  meeting  the  Vermont  Agency of  Natural  Resources  stormwater  treatment  standards,  and  routine  maintenance  thereof,  including  necessary  clearing  of  vegetation  and  dredging.  Evidence  of  a  complete  application to the VANR for coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall  be required to meet this criterion for encroachment into a stream buffer.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Not applicable    (g)   Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer  area to gain access to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing  safe  access  to  an  approved  use,  in  cases  where  there  is  no  feasible  alternative  for  providing safe access and the roadway or access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from  the edge of channel of the surface water.    21. There is no feasible alternative to the proposed use of the preexisting access drive. The  drive is located on the far side of the parcel from Lake Champlain. This criterion is met.    (h)   Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to  the extent necessary to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible  alternative for providing or extending utility services.    22. There is no feasible alternative to the use of preexisting utility service locations. This  criterion is met.    (i)   Outdoor  recreation,  provided  any  building  or  structure  (including  parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.    (j)   Research and educational activities provided any building or structure  (including parking and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream  buffer.    (k)   Hydro‐electric power generation    #CU‐17‐08  8 Criteria (i)‐(k) are not applicable.      DECISION    The South Burlington Development Review Board hereby approves Conditional Use application  #CU‐17‐08 of Milford Cushman subject to the following stipulations:      1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein.     2. The plan shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the  Administrative Officer.  Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to  the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance.  a. The applicant shall add the name and number of the engineer for contractor  reference to the Rain Garden detail on Sheet 2.1.  b. The applicant shall correct the existing and proposed building footprint on plan  Sheet C1.1.    3. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file  in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.    4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of  the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void.     5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development  Review Board or the Administrative Officer.       Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  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 _ – _ – _       Signed this __th day of August 2017, 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 with the Superior Court,  Environmental Division.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal also must be mailed  #CU‐17‐08  9 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  802‐951‐1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental   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 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.  BULKHEADFLAGPOLE 1' WIDE STONE PLANTER GABIONSEDGE OF LAKE 1' WIDE CONC. WALL FF WOOD ELEV.=111.1 THRESHOLD STONE ELEV.=110.0 STONE PAVER STONES MAILBOXES UNDERGROUND ELEC ELECTRIC METER THRESHOLD STONE ELEV.=112.3 MANHOLE RIM=114.7 CURB STOP (TYP.) STEP IN WALL 4" HDPE INV.=104.5 EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING GARAGE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOETHRESHOLD ELEV.=112.4 TOP OF CONC. ELEV.=110.2 6" TIMBER STEPS (TYP.) THRESHOLD ELEV.=111.4 GRAVEL W W W W W EXISTING WALL DECK “ 94' +/- TO LOW WATER LIN E SPIKE GPS SPIKE GPS CHAIN LINK FENCE DECK ELEV. 112.0 WOOD WALK 1" CEDAR 2" CEDAR GRAVEL EXISTING RIP RAP18" STUMP 18" STUMP 12" STUMP 16" STUMP GRAVEL SPIKE SPIKE MH GRAVEL PLANTER DECKELEV.=111.8109108107111112113 114113111108 105110n/f S& W ECKHARDT n/f B. BAYER n/f B. BAYER BRIGHAM STREET SHELBURNE BAY STRAUB, MARGARET M. TRUST 34 BRIGHAM ROAD 114 11 311211010910710610510410310210110095.59895.5 9 8 99CLUSTER 4" MAPLES 15" MAPLE (2) 18" COTTONWOOD 24" COTTONWOOD BOUL D E R S 100RAILING GATE LOT 9 LOT 10 “ “ “CHAINLINK FENCE IS 1' SOUTH OF PROPERTY CORNER  “72/2: WATER LINE 10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 20' SETBACKSHORELANDUPLAND100' JLM MAB 1" = 10' 17134 C1.0 07/14/17 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' MARGARET M. STRAUB TRUSTEE OF THE MARGARET M. STRAUB REVOCABLE TRUST 34 BRIGHAM ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 05403 CURRAN/STRAUB PROPERTY EXISTING CONDITIONS SITE PLAN SH E L B U R N E SO U T H B U R L I N G T O N PROJECT LOCATION A C E 34 BRIGHAM ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT NOTES 1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 2. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON DEED INFORMATION ABSTRACTED FROM THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. 3. AREA CALCULATIONS DETERMINED UTILIZING THE 95.5' CONTOUR (NGVD29) BEING THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT FOR THE STATE OF VERMONT PER THE SHORELAND PROTECTION ACT OF 2014. 4. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC MAY 2017. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONT COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL) AND NAVD88 (VERTICAL) ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE. 5. PROJECT BENCHMARK IS LAKE CHAMPLAIN ESTABLISHED FROM THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GAUGING STATION 04294500 LOCATED IN BURLINGTON, VERMONT (DATUM NGVD 29). 6. PARCEL LIES IN THE LAKESHORE NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT AND THE FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT. 7 LEGEND 100 EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING GRAVEL EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING MANHOLE EXISTING SHUT OFF / CURB STOP EXISTING UTILITY POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE APPROXIMATE SETBACK LINE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND MH EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE OE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC P:\AutoCADD Projects\2017\17134\1-CADD Files-17134\Dwg\17134-Site Revision 7-14-17.dwg, 8/3/2017 11:53:18 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 FLAGPOLE GABIONSEDGE OF LAKE 1' WIDE CONC. WALL STONES MAILBOXES UNDERGROUND ELEC MANHOLE RIM=114.7 CURB STOP (TYP.) STEP IN WALL 4" HDPE INV.=104.5 OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEW W W W W 2 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED GABION WALL BY OTHERS PROPOSED RAIN GARDEN SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLATING PLAN & DETAILS DRIP EDGE PER DETAIL OVERFLOW PIPE FROM RAIN GARDEN TO DISCHARGE IN SHOT ROCK BEHIND LARGE BOULDER WALL EXISTING WALL DECK “ 94' +/- TO LOW WATER LIN E CHAIN LINK FENCE 1" CEDAR 2" CEDAR 18" STUMP 18" STUMP 12" STUMP 16" STUMP MH 109108107111112113 114113111108 105110n/f S& W ECKHARDT n/f B. BAYER n/f B. BAYER BRIGHAM STREET SHELBURNE BAY STRAUB, MARGARET M. TRUST 34 BRIGHAM ROAD 114 11 311211010910710610510410310210110095.59895.5 9 8 99CLUSTER 4" MAPLES 15" MAPLE (2) 18" COTTONWOOD 24" COTTONWOOD BOUL D E R S 100GATE LOT 9 LOT 10 “ “ “CHAINLINK FENCE IS 1' SOUTH OF PROPERTY CORNER  “72/2: WATER LINE 10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK 20' SETBACKPROPOSED RESIDENCE ))(  “ PROPOSED DECK PROPOSED BUILDING ))(  “ PROPOSED BOULDER WALL BY OTHERS- (ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED ABOVE 98' CONTOUR)AA PROPOSED 4" SDR SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DETAILS SHORELANDUPLAND100' PERVIOUS GRASS PARKING SURFACE 2 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED TREES PROPOSED TREES JLM MAB 1" = 10' 17134 C1.1 LOCATION MAP 1" = 2000' MARGARET M. STRAUB TRUSTEE OF THE MARGARET M. STRAUB REVOCABLE TRUST 34 BRIGHAM ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VERMONT 05403 CURRAN/STRAUB PROPERTY PROPOSED CONDITIONS SITE PLAN SH E L B U R N E SO U T H B U R L I N G T O N PROJECT LOCATION A C E 34 BRIGHAM ROAD SOUTH BURLINGTON VT 7 LEGEND 100 EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE EXISTING GRAVEL EXISTING PAVEMENT EXISTING MANHOLE EXISTING SHUT OFF / CURB STOP EXISTING UTILITY POLE EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE APPROXIMATE SETBACK LINE APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND MH EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE OE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC SEE CUSHMAN DESIGN PLANS FOR ARCHITECTURAL , LANDSCAPE AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS PLANS. 07/14/17 Total Parcel Size = 14254.6 Sq. Feet - Coverage Calculations - Building Overall Impervious Coverage Existing Buildings = 1674.6 Sq. Feet 11.7% Proposed Building = 2085.7 Sq. Feet 14.6% (includes covered decks) Existing = 3119.9 Sq. Feet 21.9% Proposed = 3790.9 Sq. Feet 26.6% TREE DATA BASAL AREA WITH REDUCTION CALCULATIONS 08/02/17 JLM REVISE TO REMOVE INCONSISTENCIES W/ SHEET L1-1 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2017\17134\1-CADD Files-17134\Dwg\17134-Site Revision 7-14-17.dwg, 8/3/2017 11:53:21 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 112' - 0" 112' - 0" 111' - 6" EXG. 42"x72" GABION WALL 110" BLW F.F. ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTY 105' 105'6 106' 106'6 107'6 107'107'8 107'10 108'4 108'10 2' - 11 13/16"25' - 0"15' - 9"20' - 0"3' - 0"111' - 6" 114' - 0" PERVIOUS GRASS PARKING SURFACE 110' - 6" TYP. AROUND BUILDING 1 1/2" MULTICOLORED BLUESTONE REMOVABLE STAIRWAY PANTON BOULDER RETAINING WALL PANTON FILLED GABION RETAINING WALL w/IPE CAP PANTON FILLED GABION STEPS w/IPE TREAD EXG. CHAIN LINK FENCE EXG. GATE EXG. POWER POLE EXG. 12" WIDE CONC. WALL ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTY LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM KITCHEN ENTRY RESIDENCE ENCLOSED BREEZEWAY DECKTO TO TO TO TO TO CA IMPERVIOUS PARKING IMPERVIOUS PARKING BLUESTONE STEPS RETAINING WALL - DRY LAID PANTON STONE TYP. BLUESTONE STEPS RETAINING WALL 1 1/2" MULTICOLORED BLUESTONE 1 1/2" MULTICOLORED BLUESTONE STEPS CP CP S S S S S CE CE MPF MPF CK - ORNAMENTAL GRASSESPQ - VINESACCESSORY COTTAGE EXG. TREES ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY EXG EXG EXG EXG EXG. ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTY EXG 10' - 5"SETTLEMENT BASIN6" SDR FROM ROOF DRAINAGE - OUTFALL INTO SHOT ROCK BEHIND BOULDER WALL TIMBER RETAINING WALL - ON NEIGHBORS PROPERTY EXG. TREES ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY STONE DRIP EDGE ROOFLINE ABV. LINE OF EXISTING & PROPOSED LAKESIDE CONSTRUCTION EXTENTS LINE OF EXISTING COTTAGE ROOF OVERHANG LINE OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT PLANT SCHEDULE KEY TYPE QUANTITY COMMON NAME TO SCIENTIFIC NAME SIZE SPACING CA CK PQ MPF CP CE S CONIFER 6 THUJA OCCIDENTALIS-NIGRA WHITE CEDAR 10'-12'AS SHOWN ORNAMENTAL DECIDUOUS ORNAMENTAL GRASS VINE PERENIALS SEDGE SEDGE SOD 1 CORNUS ALTERNIFOLIA PAGODA DOGWOOD 3" CALIPER AS SHOWN 26 CALAMA GROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA, 'KARL FORSTER' FEATHER REED GRASS 3 GALLON 24" o.c. 17 PARTHENOCISSUS QUINQUEFOLIA VIRGINIA CREEPER 3 GALLON 36" o.c. 325 MIXED PERENNIAL/FERNS 1 GALLON 18" o.c. 413 CAREX PENNSYLVANICA PENNSYLVANIA SEDGE 416 CAREX EBURNER IVORY SEDGE PREMIUM KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BLEND FROM TUCKAHOE TURF FARM 1 GALLON 1 GALLON 18" o.c. 18" o.c. GENERAL NOTES: PROPOSED HOUSE FLOOR AREA - 2,747sf PROPOSED ACCESSORY COTTAGE - 524sf 19% OF HOUSE EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT (BLDGS, DECKS, WALKWAYS, ROOF OVERHANGS) - 2,567sf PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT (BLDGS,DECKS, BREEZEWAY, ROOF OVERHANGS)- 2,487sf P. O. B O X 6 5 5, 1 0 0 M O U N T A I N R D. S T O W E, V T 0 5 6 7 2T E L 8 0 2. 2 5 3. 2 1 6 9 F A X 8 0 2. 2 5 3. 2 1 6 0 www.cushmandesign.comCreative Intuitive Functional EfficientTHESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE CUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC.FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THECUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC. AND THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED ORALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC.Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets### As indicated 7/25/2017 8:01:09 AMC:\Revit local files\1642 Straub-central_ryan.rvtPRICING SET 1642 RB 07.24.2017 L1-1STRAUB-CURRANRESIDENCERENOVATIONS FORSOUTH BURLINGTON - VERMONTLANDSCAPE PLANREVISIONS 1 1" = 10'-0"L1-1 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN MAIN LEVEL 0" T.O. SUBFLR UPPER LEVEL 10' - 6 5/8" T.O. SUBFLR AVERAGE PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2' - 5" GRADE 24' - 6 5/8"MAIN LEVEL 0" T.O. SUBFLR UPPER LEVEL 10' - 6 5/8" T.O. SUBFLR AVERAGE PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2' - 5" GRADE24' - 6 5/8"P. O. B O X 6 5 5, 1 0 0 M O U N T A I N R D. S T O W E, V T 0 5 6 7 2T E L 8 0 2. 2 5 3. 2 1 6 9 F A X 8 0 2. 2 5 3. 2 1 6 0 www.cushmandesign.comCreative Intuitive Functional EfficientTHESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE CUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC.FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THECUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC. AND THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED ORALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC.Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets### 3/16" = 1'-0"7/14/2017 8:57:15 AMC:\Revit local files\1642 Straub-central_ryan.rvtPERMIT REVIEW SET 1642 rb 07.14.2017 A3-1STRAUB-CURRANRESIDENCERENOVATIONS FORSOUTH BURLINGTON - VERMONTBUILDING ELEVATIONSREVISIONS 3/16" = 1'-0"A3-1 1 EAST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"A3-1 2 NORTH ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL 0" T.O. SUBFLR UPPER LEVEL 10' - 6 5/8" T.O. SUBFLR AVERAGE PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2' - 5" GRADE24' - 6 5/8"MAIN LEVEL 0" T.O. SUBFLR UPPER LEVEL 10' - 6 5/8" T.O. SUBFLR AVERAGE PRE-CONSTRUCTION -2' - 5" GRADEMAX. BUIDING HEIGHT24' - 6 5/8"P. O. B O X 6 5 5, 1 0 0 M O U N T A I N R D. S T O W E, V T 0 5 6 7 2T E L 8 0 2. 2 5 3. 2 1 6 9 F A X 8 0 2. 2 5 3. 2 1 6 0 www.cushmandesign.comCreative Intuitive Functional EfficientTHESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE CUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC.FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THECUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC. AND THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED ORALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE CUSHMAN DESIGN GROUP, INC.Date Scale Drawn Job Sheet of Sheets### 3/16" = 1'-0"7/14/2017 9:22:54 AMC:\Revit local files\1642 Straub-central_ryan.rvtPERMIT REVIEW SET 1642 rb 07.14.2017 A3-2STRAUB-CURRANRESIDENCERENOVATIONS FORSOUTH BURLINGTON - VERMONTBUILDING ELEVATIONSREVISIONS 3/16" = 1'-0"A3-2 1 WEST ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0"A3-2 2 SOUTH ELEVATION CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  CU_17_07_115HolmesRoad_Welch_Aug_2_mtg  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: August 11, 2017  Application received:  July 12, 2017  AGENDA ITEM #7    115 Holmes Road  Conditional Use Application #CU‐17‐07  Meeting date: August 15, 2017    Applicant  Don Welch  Don Welch Architecture  60 Blodgett Street  Burlington, VT 05401  Owners  Michelle Weissman and Greg Titcomb  109 Hayes Avenue  South Burlington, VT  Engineer  O’Leary‐Burke Civil Associates, PLC  13 Corporate Drive  Essex Junction, VT  Property Information  Tax Parcel ID  0870‐00115  Lakeshore Neighborhood District          PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Conditional use application #CU‐17‐07 of Don Welch to remove an existing two‐story house and garage  and build a new smaller house.  Existing concrete deck and steps to remain.      This represents an approximately 10% decrease in the footprint area. The plans also show a variety of  other site improvements, including two covered porches and an on‐grade deck, reduction of the existing  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_17 07_115HolmesRoad_Welch driveway area, and removal and replacement of various landscaping elements. Where the existing home  has a semi‐detached garage, the garage serving the new home will be attached.    COMMENTS    Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene have reviewed the plans  submitted on July 12, 2017, and offer the following comments.    This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, Section  12.01 pre‐existing structures along Lake Champlain, and Section 14.10 conditional uses.    Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements:     LN Zoning District Required Existing Proposed   Min. Lot Size 12,000 SF  22,658 SF  16,480 SF   Max. Building Coverage 20 %  11%  10%   Max. Overall Coverage 40 %  26%  24%    Min. Front Setback 20 ft.  >>20 ft.  >>20 ft.   Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  >10 ft. on both  sides  >10 ft. on both  sides   Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  N/A  N/A  @ Waterfront Setback 150 ft.  43 ft.  61 ft.      √  Zoning Compliance        @  Existing nonconforming    Section 12.01(D) Pre‐Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park    Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the  high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre‐existing structures on  these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying  zoning district and the following standards are met:    a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24,  2000.     The existing structure was constructed in 1929.    b) The  expanded  or  reconstructed  structure  does  not  extend  any  closer, measured in terms of  horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest  point of the existing structure.     The proposed new dwelling is no closer to the lake than the closest portion of the existing structure.  This criterion is satisfied.    c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than  fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000.     CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_17 07_115HolmesRoad_Welch The proposed structure meets this criterion, as the footprint of the new home smaller than the  existing home.     d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that  will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water.    The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan prepared by a licensed professional engineer.  Erosion control plans provides for temporary or permanent stabilization within 30 days of initial  disturbance  in  one  place  and  separately  call  out  stabilization within  21  days  in  another  place.   Stabilization  within  21  days  is  the  requirement  in  Section  16.03B(1).    Topsoil  and  seeding  specifications provide for a 5 day timeline from final grading in one place and separately a 48‐hour  timeline from final grading in another place.  Topsoil and seeding within 48 hours of final grading is  the  requirement  in  Section  16.03B(5).    Compliance  with  4”  minimum  topsoil  thickness  is  not  demonstrated.    1. Staff recommends the erosion control plan be amended to clarify the stabilization and seeding  timelines and to add the topsoil thickness requirement.    e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground  cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and  vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream.     A Landscaping Plan has been provided.  Additional information about final surface treatments is  included on the Site Plan.  Six trees are proposed to be removed as part of the Project.  The Applicant  is proposing to install several new trees for screening along the south side lot and front of the lot.  The  applicant is proposing a shrub bed and planting rehabilitation along the lake side of the property to  enhance erosion resilience.  The applicant is also proposing a perennial bed along the north side lot  to detain and slow runoff from impervious surfaces.  The City Arborist has agreed that the tree  removals are warranted, and that the landscaping plan is appropriate for the site.  Staff considers the  provided landscaping provides adequate erosion prevention and water pollution control to prevent  undue impacts to Lake Champlain, and that this criterion is met.      CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA    Pursuant  to  Section  12.01(D)  of  the  South  Burlington  Land  Development  Regulations  ()Pre‐existing  structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park), the proposed structure shall be reviewed  as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E):    14.10(E)  General  Review  Standards. The  Development  Review  Board  shall  review  the  proposed  conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The  proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following:    (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.    This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met.    (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.   CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_17 07_115HolmesRoad_Welch   Staff feels that the proposed project consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood  District, which is “to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the  existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Homes  Road.”  Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers  this criterion met.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    Staff considers this criterion met.  See below for a discussion of compliance with general surface water  protection standards.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met.      Section 12.01 (C) (2) General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards    C.   Surface Water Buffer Standards (“Stream Buffers”)    (1)   Applicability. The requirements of this Section shall apply to all lands described as follows:   …….   (e)   All land within one hundred fifty (150) feet horizontal distance of the high water  elevation of Lake Champlain, which for purposes of these regulations shall be one hundred two  (102) feet above mean sea level datum.  This applicable area includes approximately 90%  of the property.    (2)   General standards. It is the objective of these standards to promote the establishment of  heavily vegetated areas of native vegetation and trees in order to reduce the impact of stormwater  runoff, reduce sedimentation, and increase infiltration and base flows in the City’s streams and Lake  Champlain. Therefore, except as specifically permitted by the DRB pursuant to the standards in  Section 12.01(C)(3), (C)(4), (D) and/or (E) below, all lands within a required stream buffer defined  above shall be left in an undisturbed, naturally vegetated condition. Supplemental planting and  landscaping with appropriate species of vegetation to achieve these objectives shall be permitted.  The specific standards for the vegetation and maintenance of stream buffers are as follows:  (a)   The clearing of trees that are not dead, heavily damaged by ice storms or other natural  events, or diseased, and the clearing of any other vegetation other than invasive species, is  permitted only in conjunction with DRB approval pursuant to (3) or (4) below.   Six (6) existing trees are proposed to be removed. The landscape plan identifies five trees to be  removed, but there is an additional approximately 24‐inch oak tree located within the footprint  of the proposed garage.  The applicant is proposing to plant seven new trees as well as install  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 5 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_17 07_115HolmesRoad_Welch shrubs and a perennial bed to control erosion and sediment as described above.   (b)   Any areas within a required stream buffer that are not vegetated or that are disturbed  during construction shall be seeded with a naturalized mix of grasses rather than standard lawn  grass, and shall not be mowed more than one (1) time per calendar year after establishment.  (c)   The creation of new lawn areas within stream buffers is not permitted after the effective  date of these regulations.     Areas where impervious surfaces are proposed to be removed are proposed to be planted as  lawn.  However, the applicant is proposing to replace existing lawn areas with unmowed areas to  offset the new lawn areas.  New lawn areas are limited to areas where impervious surfaces are  proposed to be removed.  Staff considers these criteria met.   (d)   Snow storage areas designated pursuant to site plan or PUD review shall not be located  within stream buffers unless the applicant can demonstrate that:   (i)  There is no reasonable alternative location for snow storage on the same property.  (ii)  Measures such as infiltration areas have been incorporated into the site plan and/or  stormwater treatment system to reduce the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff  entering the associated stream as a result of snow melt.    Snow storage is not required for residential uses.  The driveway area is proposed to be  reduced as part of the Project.    (3)   Expansion of pre‐existing structures within stream buffers. The expansion of pre‐existing  structures within stream buffers, except as provided in Section D below, shall be permitted only in  accordance with the standards for non‐complying structures in Article 3, Section 3.11 of these  Regulations.  The area of the structure within the stream buffer is proposed to be reduced.  Staff considers these  criteria met.    (4)      New uses and encroachments within stream buffers. The encroachment  of  new  land  development activities into the City’s stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the  following  as  conditional  uses  within  stream  buffers,  subject  to  the  standards  and  conditions  enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD  review without a separate conditional use review.    (a)   Agriculture, horticulture and forestry including the keeping of livestock, provided that  any building or structure appurtenant to such uses is located outside the stream buffer.    Not applicable    (b)   Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent  directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on  the same property and where the DRB finds that:  (i)   There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the  stream buffer; and   (ii)  The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings,  protection of existing vegetation, and/or other measures.  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 6 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_17 07_115HolmesRoad_Welch   The  applicant  submitted  an  erosion  control  plan,  designed  by  a licensed  professional  engineer. The proposed limits of disturbance are limited to that necessary for construction.  Details of the erosion control plan are described above    (c)  Encroachments necessary to rectify a natural catastrophe for the protection of the public  health, safety and welfare.    Not applicable    (d)   Encroachments necessary for providing for or improving public facilities.    Not applicable    (e)   Public recreation paths, located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the  surface water.    Not applicable    (f)   Stormwater  treatment  facilities  meeting  the  Vermont  Agency  of  Natural  Resources  stormwater  treatment  standards,  and  routine maintenance  thereof,  including  necessary  clearing  of  vegetation  and  dredging.  Evidence  of  a  complete  application  to  the  VANR  for  coverage under the applicable permitting requirements shall be required to meet this criterion  for encroachment into a stream buffer.    Not applicable    (g)   Roadways or access drives for purposes of crossing a stream buffer area to gain access  to land on the opposite side of the buffer, or for purposes of providing safe access to an approved  use, in cases where there is no feasible alternative for providing safe access and the roadway or  access drive is located at least ten (10) feet from the edge of channel of the surface water.    There is no feasible alternative to the proposed use of the preexisting access drive. The drive is  located on the far side of the riverfront area and is more than ten (10) feet from the edge of the  channel of the surface water. Staff considers these criteria met.    (h)   Utility lines, including power, telephone, cable, sewer and water, to the extent necessary  to cross or encroach into the stream buffer where there is no feasible alternative for providing  or extending utility services.    There is no feasible alternative to the use of preexisting utility service locations. Staff considers  these criteria met.    (i)   Outdoor recreation, provided any building or structure (including parking and driveways)  appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.    (j)   Research and educational activities provided any building or structure (including parking  and driveways) appurtenant to such use is located outside the stream buffer.  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING CU_17 07_115HolmesRoad_Welch   (k)   Hydro‐electric power generation    Criteria (i)‐(k) are not applicable.        Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,      ___________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner                Existing Basswood Tree to be removed. View of bank and existing house. View of the front of the existing house. Existing concrete steps and dock to remain. Existing concrete dock and bank. View of NW corner of property. Proposed new house west elevation. 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:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐17‐18 1840 Spear Street—South Village Communities, LLC, Phase III Preliminary &  Final Plat    DATE:    August 15, 2017   Development Review Board meeting      South Village Communities, LLC, has submitted an application for preliminary and final plat for Phase IIIB,  consisting of 60 dwelling units. The applicant and staff agreed that for this meeting, the applicant would  provide an overview of the project, its context within the overall South Village plan, and review key elements of  the project.    Staff notes herein reflect a review of the major topics for review and are, at this stage, intended to review the  basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant and Board as to any potential problems and  concerns relating to those major issues.  Staff met with the applicant to review their application on August 3,  2017.  As part of that meeting, the applicant has agreed to provide supplemental and amended application  materials.  Application components where supplemental or amended materials are forthcoming are indicated  in the notes below.  Staff notes are relatively limited in this situation, because staff—and the Board—are aware  that the applicant is providing supplemental and amended application materials in support of this application.      Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the  plans submitted on July 12, 2017 and offer the following list of topics for the Board’s attention.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    As part of the Master Plan approval, triplexes are not subject to site plan approval.  The applicant has requested  site plan review for the two twelve‐unit buildings as part of this application, and has submitted information to  allow that review.      MASTER PLAN    The roadway configuration has not changed substantially from the master plan approval.  The roadway  configuration for the cul‐de‐sac in Phase III has changed from the master plan, however it remains substantially  a cul‐de‐sac and therefore does not rise to the threshold of requiring Master Plan amendment/approval.     A suite of typical roadway cross sections was approved as part of the master plan.  Subsequent to master plan  approval, the City has adopted roadway standards for the southeast quadrant (SEQ).  The applicant has  indicated their intent to abandon the master plan approved roadway cross sections in favor of the SEQ  roadway standards.  In all cases, the SEQ roadways result in equal or less total road width than the approved  2 cross sections.  The applicant will be providing amended road sections to demonstrate that the wetland  crossing complies with current width standards.  Staff recommends that the recreational path width continue  to be reduced from 10‐feet to 8‐feet at the wetland crossing.    Other changes from the master plan include minor modifications to the shape of lots 104, 105, 106, removal of  one developable lot north of the park, removal of vacant lot between lot 108 and multiplex “B”, and  adjustment to the shape of vacant lot 49.    No changes in FAR, coverage, number of units, or PM Peak hour vehicle trip ends are proposed. Therefore, an  amendment to the Master Plan is not required.    PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS    Roads, Sidewalks, Recreation Paths    The public works director has reviewed the provided recreation paths and sidewalks with the applicant and  provided recommendations to reduce the linear feet of sidewalk by providing a sidewalk only on one side of the  road in certain locations.  The director also requested that the recreational path have a continuous asphalt surface  in lieu of a concrete segment.  The applicant has agreed to these requests and will be submitting amended plans  showing the revised sidewalks.     The applicant has not provided demonstration of compliance with Section 12.03 of the Land Development  Regulations (stormwater) and has indicated they will be submitting supplemental information.    Based on preliminary feedback from staff, the applicant has agreed to provide narrowed intersections as provided  in Figure 9‐6 of the LDRs, pedestrian bump‐outs at mid‐block crossings and raised intersections to control speed on  Midland Avenue.      SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS  Parking    Single and two‐family homes in the proposed Phase III are not subject to parking standards. Although 3‐unit  structures are not exempt from the above standard, the Board has previously found that with the Master Plan  having granted a waiver for 3‐unit buildings to be approved without site plan approval, this standard related to  parking location requirements does apply here.     Parking for the 12 unit buildings is provided underneath the building.  Visitor parking for the 12 unit buildings is  located in front of the two 12 unit buildings.  Staff has requested that the applicant review whether visitor parking  in addition to the on‐street spaces is necessary, or if the additional visitor parking can be removed altogether.     SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT STANDARDS  Open Space and Resource Protection    As part of Phase III, there is a proposed wetland crossing to connect Midland Avenue as well as small  encroachments into Class II and Class III wetland buffer, primarily for the purposes of stormwater management.     To address this criterion for Phase I of the South Village development, the applicant provided split rail fence  delineating the boundary of the development area and the protected natural communities.  Staff recommends  3 the board evaluate the success of those measures to determine whether a similar program is appropriate for  this phase.    OTHER  Affordability    As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #MP‐05‐02, the applicant received approval for a density bonus of  65 units, 33 of which must meet affordability criteria in perpetuity.    As established in Section 18.02D(3), the units must be distributed among the housing types in the proposed  housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development, unless a different  proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being better related to the housing needs,  current or projected, of the City of South Burlington.    The applicant has indicated that they are developing a proposal for this mix, which they plan to submit as a  master plan amendment in the future.  Staff and the applicant have discussed how to assure that until and  unless the applicant receives approval for a modification under a Master Plan amendment, that the  requirements of 18.02(D)(3) are met. Staff and the applicant have agreed to include a condition in this Phase III  preliminary and final plat decision setting a cap for each of single family, duplexes, triplexes, and multiplex units  that can be built prior to a full affordability plan and mix being approved. Such a limit would be equal to the  maximum number of market‐rate units that can be built prior to triggering the affordability bonus, assuring  that the currently‐required mix of unit types amongst affordable units, as enumerated in 12.03D(3), can be  met. The applicant will provide these figures in advance of the next meeting on this application.    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the above items and any other big‐picture elements of the project  with applicant, to provide them with guidance for any modifications necessary to their plans in advance of the  next review meeting on this project.    Staff also recommends that following this initial discussion, the Board continue the preliminary & final plat  application to its September 19th meeting date.  CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane Phone:802-864-2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 E-Mail: dmarshall@cea-vt.com August 10, 2017 Ms.Marla Keene, PE Development Review Planner City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re:South Village Phase 3BPreliminary and Final Plat Application Response to Request for Additional Information Dear Ms. Keene: Thank you for preparing the summary of supplemental information that was generated from our technical review meeting with City Staff on August 3rd. We are currently in the process of generating the supplemental information and requested plan updates. In the meantime, we have summarized the applicant’s status on each item below in support of the project overview to be provided at the Development Review Board hearing on August 15th. As a follow-up to the continued public hearing before the Development Review Board, we wanted to offer the following supplemental information as it relates to the open issues before the board. 1.Revised sign plan –We have completed the revisions to the sign plan where we have removed the “Deer” crossing sign in favor of a “Turtle” crossing sign. We have removed the speed limit sign on Douglas Street.The private lanes will not be named and therefore do not need street signs.We have added reflectorized flashing beacons and their associated warning signs at the two mid- block crossing locations on Midland Avenue. The inclusion of the bump outs has better clarified the locations where parking is allowed which has enabled a reduction in the number of “no parking signs”. 2.E911 plan –We have developed a street address plan that shows the addresses for the lots and the two 12-plex buildings.There will be no street names included on this plan for the Alleys.The homes on the south end of Stafford Street have been numbered as if south property line extended to Stafford Street. Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 2 of 5 August 10, 2017 We have set up the Midland Avenue so as start at the west end (South Jefferson intersection) as this is the closest point where emergency responders will be arriving from (Homes Ave) rather than the east end (there are no homes using the Midland Ave address in Dorset Farms. 3.Revised speed control –bulb outs, raised intersections, flashing beacons, other?–We have called out on the plans the use of raised intersections/crossings at the crosswalk locations.A detail has been added to the detail sheets.Each of the intersections have been revised to include bulb- outs as depicted in the SBLDRs Figure 9-6.Midland Avenue will have two mid- block bump-outs that leave a 20-foot travel way opening.On the side streets, one bump-out has been added on the side where on-street parking is allowed. The openings at these bump-out has also been set at 20-feet.In addition to the flashing beacons at the two mid-block crossings, we will also introduce bump- outs to narrow the road down to 20-feet. 4.Landscape phasing and costs –The planting schedule in the application has already broken out the schedule for each of the twelve-plex buildings. We will be providing beak-outs of costs not only for each structure but also for each phaseofthe roadway construction. 5.Infrastructure phasing and cost –We are in the process of developing estimated costs for the public and private infrastructure for each of the proposed project phases. 6.Request for water/wastewater allocation (provide P&Z with allocation letters when received)-We will resubmit our earlier requests for the preliminary allocations to DPW in support of their issuance prior to approval of the project. 7.Demonstration of compliance with stormwater management standards-We previously submitted State Stormwater compliant stormwater design to Dave Wheeler at the City Stormwater Utility but we understand that this information does not address all of the requirements set forth in Article 12-3 of the SBLDRs. Andres Torizzo from Watershed Consulting Associates is in the process of developing that supplemental information for submittal to Dave Wheeler for his comments. 8.Home design guidelines (going to provide what was used for Phase II)- This information package is currently being reformatted for submittal for this phase of the project. Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 3 of 5 August 10, 2017 9.Floor plans with parking for multiplexes –Please find attached the floor plan of the proposed parking and storage layout with a supporting photo of the bicycle storage accommodations for each unit. 10.Zoning permit timeline request (1 year w/ 5 years for 2nd multiplex)-We will make this request in the next formal submittal package. 11.Adjust plans to address shallow culvert cover –We are in the process of providing corrective measures to address this concern and will include this update in the next formal plan package submittal. 12.Revise cul-de-sac -The new City design standard calls for a 96-foot diameter pavement area.The current design shows 88-feet.This has been revised to provide the requisite value.The total rights-of-way diameter is called out to be 118-feet while the previously submitted design provides 119-feet.No change has been made to this value.In addition, the originally proposed green space in the middle of the cul-de-sac has been removed. 13.Letter to planning commission asking for review of street names –This is in the process of being prepared. 14.Recommended Sidewalk Revisions -In support of consolidating future City sidewalk repair obligations, the following modifications to the originally submitted design were recommended. A.Change material from concrete to asphalt or dark colored concrete? The originally proposed concrete recreation path along Midland Avenue between the two Stafford Street intersections have been revised to be bituminous concrete. B.Eliminate sidewalk on east side of Lots 120 and 125.With the understanding that these two lots will not have a “front door”presence on this section of sidewalk, it has been removed from the project plans. C.Eliminate the sidewalk on the south side of open space Lot 49A.Lots 121-125 are proposed to be served by a walkway on the south side ofthose lots. It was felt that the sidewalk along the Stafford Street rights-of- way on the south side of Lot 49A was redundant and therefore should be removed.This has been removed from the updated plan set which will besubmittedin the near future as one full package. 1.With the elimination of this section of sidewalk, the proposed mid- block crossing has bene moved ot the north at the southeast corner of Lot 125 to tie back in with the remaining sidewalk in front of Lots 126-129. Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 4 of 5 August 10, 2017 2.The relocation of the midblock crossing will leave a “tail”of sidewalk in front of Lot 129.A connection to the quiet path is proposed at the end of the sidewalk to improve circulation. D.Eliminate sidewalk in front of Lots 100, 102,103 on Midland Avenue. This was requested to be removed with the understanding that the recreation path was on the opposite side of Midland Avenue with the retention of the mid- block crossing near Lot 103. The applicant is asking for a reconsideration of this request. The lot layout here is similar to that on the section of Midland Avenue to the east between the Stafford Street Intersections where there is the recreation path on one side and a sidewalk on the other side of this connector roadway.At the risk of creating additional maintenance for DPW, the applicant requests that this section be retained so as to provide consistency of servicing infrastructure within Phase IIIB and as well Phases I and II. 15.Bicycle parking stands -at the 12-plex buildings will be revised to comply with the new bicycle standards (inverted U and total number). 16.Project Phasing –We are developing a plan that shows the proposed phasing of construction of the roadway and utility infrastructure.We need your input on the project phasing. 17.Gravel Wetland Level Spreader Detailing –We will be adding spot grades at level spreader locations for two of the gravel wetlands to provide additional guidance on how these are to be constructed and operated. 18.12-Plex Surface Parking –“we note that the overflow parking is not really located to the side or behind the buildings (LDR Section 14.06B(2)). One alternative would be to move it, but we’re wondering if you really need it?In order for assigned spaces to be utilized in the garage areas (Table 13-1, Note 1), one additional parking space is required for each four (4)units. In this case a 12-plex building would require 24 assigned spaces and three (3) unassigned “visitor”parking spaces.I believe you mentioned that parking for residents is under the building, and it looks like there is near-by on-street parking. The Development Review Board is precluded from considering on-street parking as fully satisfying this requirement (without a waiver) as overnight parking is not permitting on public streets during the winter.Wanted to get this comment to you before you finalized the revised cul-de-sac.The cul-de-sac revisions were fairly manor in the context of the adjustment of parking near the proposed buildings. The parking requirements for each building are 24 + 3 = 27 parking spaces.Each Building has 26 spaces in the garage and additional surface parking spaces that host the Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 5 of 5 August 10, 2017 required accessible spaces.The accessible spaces are not located inside the garage since there is no elevator or common space in the upper floor for an elevator to land because these units are set up as townhouses.Since there are more than 25 spaces required for each building, at least two accessible paces are required for each building. It is the applicant’s experience that these facilities can experience a shortfall of accessible spaces even when two (2)accessible spaces are provided for each building. The surface parking spaces on the south side of the south building will be moved easterly to place the parking lots behind the front face of the building.This will include two accessible spaces and one regular space. The accessible parking spaces shown on the south side of the north building have been located so as to accommodate the ADA access requirements as it restricted by topography.This is an allowable under the SBLDRs. There are no regular spaces located there.The dumpster enclosure for the north building has bene moved north to accommodate two (2)regular spaces located near the intersection of the two garage access/egress ways. This completes our summary of the broad view action items for the application.If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 864-2323 x310. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosures: 3 Sets of Garage Floor Plans with Storage Photo E-mail of enclosures cc:(all with 11x17 enclosures)R. Jeffers,CEA File 01243.14 P:\autocadd projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\3-Permitting-PHASE 3B\1-Local Applications\3-Final\Keene Status Letter.doc     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD    1 AUGUST 2017  The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1  August 2017, 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. Behr (via telephone)    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M.  Keene, Development Planner; K. Dorn, City Manager; C. Snyder, J. Painter, C. Bady, A. Kestner,  P. Judge, K. Braverman, B. Rushford, L. O’Brien, Jr., M. O’Brien, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, S. Homsted,  J. Goodwin, J. Fayette, T. Chittenden, L. Clavelle    1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:     Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    Mr. Conner introduced Marla Keene, the new Development Planner    5. Discuss and possibly decide request to continue hearing on Appeal #AO‐17‐03 of  Century Partners, LP, and Thirty Three Mary Street, LLC, appealing site plan  approval #SP‐17‐29 from the August 15, 2017 meeting to a future meeting:    Mr. Conner indicated that he will serve as the Board’s resource in this matter as it is an appeal  of Mr. Belair’s decision.    Mr. Conner explained that the appeal had been scheduled pursuant to state law.  The appellant  has asked for the appeal hearing to be continued.  The developer opposes this.  The DRB is now  being asked whether to grant the continuance.            DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  1 AUGUST 2017  PAGE 2    Mr. Kestner, representing the appellant, said that Mark Sperry, the attorney who has been  handling this matter, is on vacation through the week of 14 August.  He would be able to be  present for the following 2 DRB meetings.     Mr. Rushford, representing the developers, said they are not trying to be difficult.  They have  been working with Mr. Judge regarding his requests, and they oppose the delay.  It is their  feeling that the appeal could be handled by another attorney in the firm.  He added that they  were close to settling with Mr. Sperry before he left for vacation.  The hope is to resolve the  issues so there would be no need for a hearing.  He also added that if this keeps on being  delayed, there will be no motivation to settle.    Mr. Rushford enumerated the concessions made to the appellant to date including moving  entirely onto city property, increasing the width of the road, moving the building and building  the road all at the developers’ expense.    Mr. Kestner said he didn’t know any other attorneys in the firm working on this case.    Mr. Dorn noted that it is unusual for a City Manager to appear before the DRB; however, the  city has a significant interest in this development including a Community Development Block  Grant ($600,000) and the support of low income tax credits.  The project is in the city’s TIF  district, and under the rules, the city has 20 years in which to accumulate funds for  infrastructure.  The TIF has been activated, and the city now has 5 years in which to accumulate  debt.  Every day that goes by the city loses money.  The city’s position is to expedite this appeal.   The city is also aiming for a vote at the March annual meeting, and every day that delays an RFP  delays the ability to present information to the public about what is to be built in City Center.   That information needs to go to the public before January.    Mr. Snyder said they had been assured of a speedy review process, and the appeal was made  on the last day possible.  They did submit a settlement outline 2 weeks ago, but they have had  no response.  He felt that the remaining issues are “small minutia” involving Mary Street, not  the building.  Mr. Kestner said they would be open to a special meeting at an earlier date after Mr. Sperry’s  return.  Mr. Judge said Mr. Sperry has been on the site and at other proceedings involving       DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  1 AUGUST 2017  PAGE 3    access to the site.  He said that City Center was premised on Mary Street being a connector,  and they have a question as to whether the Form Based Code precludes that.  He felt it would  be unfair to have to bring in new counsel.  He felt a continuance of a few days would be  reasonable.    Board members and the developer were willing to consider a special meeting and agreed on 24  August as an acceptable date.  Formal action on this date will take place at the meeting of 15  August.    6. Director of Planning & Zoning review of new LCR Amendments:    Mr. Conner said the most obvious amendments relate to bicycle parking standards.  The  regulations now provide specific types of acceptable bike racks (to meet the national standard).   Pictures were show of what is and is not allowable.  There are also standards for the number of  bike parking spaces.  In certain cases, long‐terms bicycle parking spaces and indoor showers are  required (new construction or if more than 50% of building verticals are taken down in a  rebuild).  Mr. Conner noted that work on these amendments was done by the Bike/Ped  Committee and Planning Commission.    Mr. Conner then reviewed setback changes on Williston Road to 100 feet.    In another amendment, affordable housing is now allowed in the “swap piece” in the J. M. Golf  settlement.  In addition, market rate units in the Southeast Quadrant must have affordable  units; those using TDRs do not have to.    Regarding the discrepancy in the regulations regarding the 200‐foot road limitation and the  requirement to build to the property line, there are now review criteria for when it is  reasonable that future development will take place on the adjacent property so that a road can  be longer than 200 feet.  Ms. Smith asked if it is reasonable to limit the development to the first  200 feet.  Mr. Conner said the Wildflower Lane development was designed to connect to the  property line.  It would have been difficult for the first developer to build only to the first 200  feet.  Mr. Wilking wasn’t sure this solves all the issues.  Mr. Conner noted there will be a joint  meeting of the Planning Commission and DRB later in the year, and this will be a good topic for         DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  1 AUGUST 2017  PAGE 4    discussion.  Mr. Wilking suggested allowing development only on the first 200 feet, and then if  there is a later connection, to allow more development.    Other amendments include:  allowing front porches in the R‐4 district (per a request from the  Chamberlin Neighborhood Committee), following state law regarding deliberative sessions,  following state law regarding advisory committee feedback, removing agricultural standards  that did not fall under local regulatory power, allowing for “food hubs,” amending the official  map to allow for a rec path connection between San Remo Drive and Barrett Street instead of a  road, and minor technical corrections.    Mr. Conner said a time will be set to discuss footprint lots.    7. Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐17 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit  development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two‐ family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive:    Mr. Langfeldt said they appreciate staff working with them on some complex issues.  They have  met with City department who (e.g., Public Works, Stormwater) have signed off on everything.    Mr. Gill said the roads and layout haven’t changed in any substantial way.  All roads have been  named.  They have also provided an easement (20 feet) to the city over the stormwater pipe,  and have added and/or removed trees.  Mr. Langfeldt added that they have added connection  to Old Farm Road as requested by staff.    Members were OK with the housing mix and phasing plan.  They also had no issues with the  proposed waivers.    Members were OK with granting a credit for impact fees because of the proposed  improvements.  Mr. Gill explained that the proposed park on Old Farm Road is on the list of  what impact fees can be used for, and the city feels their proposed park meets the requirement  for recreation on that road.            DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  1 AUGUST 2017  PAGE 5    Regarding the Fire Department comment, Mr. Gill clarified the issue on Laurentide Lane where  there is an existing hydrant.  Members were OK with this, and Mr. Belair will check with Deputy  Chief Francis to determine the exact language.    No other Board or public issues were raised.    Mr. Wilking moved to close #SD‐17‐17.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    8. Minutes of 18 July 2017:    Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 18 July 2017 as written.  Ms. Smith seconded.   Motion passed 5‐0.    9. Other Business:    There was no other business.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:00 p.m.            _____________________________________      Clerk                                                        _____________________________________      Date