Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/19/2017 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 DECEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 December 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, M. Lawrence, M. Provost, T. O’Leary, R. Brown, R. Jeffers 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 and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Ms. Keene announced that the January 16th DRB meeting will be held at the police station. Ms. Keene announced that the open position on the DRB is being re-advertised in order to solicit more applicants. 5. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-17-28 of JAM Golf, LLC, to subdivide a 47.00 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, Golf Course Road: Mr. Marshall reviewed the outstanding items from the previous hearing as follows: a. They have identified the access points in the proposed pump stations. b. The water main size at the entrance will be 8 inches. Instead of a mountable curb, there will be a 25-foot turn radius. c. The name for the public and private part of the road will be the same: Long Drive. The plan will be revised to show this. d. They received permission from the owner to narrow the road to 20 feet, but could not get the landscaping plan revised in time. It was turned in today. Mr. Lawrence noted the updates to the landscaping plan including rearranging proposed trees near where the new drive enters between the two houses, moving evergreens slightly because of utility lines, and revisions because of the hammerhead. Ms. Keene said that in looking at the new plan, it doesn’t seem to contain the same information as the previous L‐2 sheet. Mr. Lawrence said it was intended to replace L-2. He added they can identify the trees to be removed, if staff wants. They had wanted to more clearly show the trees being retained. He added that the numbers on the trees are keyed into Warren Spinner’s tree survey. Members suggested an additional plan showing trees to be removed. Mr. Lawrence showed the earlier plan indicating all the trees. Members agreed that if the new plan can be an addendum instead of a replacement, the new plan does not have to show the trees to be removed. Ms. Keene also noted that staff had a question with an area of the tree plan where there was a line for existing trees and an additional line for tree preservation. Members wanted this clearly shown on the plan. Mr. Lawrence showed a blown-up version of various new trees, identified by species. Species changed to address concerns of the City Arborist, but Mr. Lawrence said that he intended to confirm species selection with the City Arborist. Mr. Marshall noted that for pricing and bonding, they need to show street trees separate from other trees. Mr. Kochman asked why the diameter of the Oak trees is 1 inch less than that of the Maples. Mr. Lawrence did not remember why but thought it might have to do with cost and failure rate (which goes up with larger trees). A larger tree may take longer to start growing. Mr. Belair noted a minimum of 2.5 inches for street trees. Mr. Marshall requested a change to the wording for the tree preservation condition outside the development lots to accommodate air movement on the golf course and sun access to the greens. Members expressed concern with this request and concluded that they need to deliberate on it. Mr. Marshall also noted that trees not near utilities or building envelopes can be planted sooner. Mr. Wilking said he felt that if the applicant takes down a tree, they should replace that tree somewhere else. This is a rule elsewhere in the city. Mr. Belair felt the Board cannot enforce that condition on the golf course because those trees were not required to be planted; they were existing trees that were incorporated into the design of the golf course. Mr. Wilking expressed that he believes that if one comes down, they must replace it. Mr. Marshall said they are maintaining and supplementing an existing forest, and the regulations don’t speak to that. He felt it was not the same as building a building and having to put in a number of trees. Mr. Belair also stressed that this application must be reviewed under the regulations that were in effect at the time of the Court decision, and the “replacement” rule did not exist then. Mr Marshall said that in reducing the road width to 20 feet, they have also provided more buffering to the existing house. One of the homeowners has already consented to the width reduction. The City Attorney said that if all interested parties don’t agree, the road width can’t be changed. Mr. O’Leary, who lives in one of the 2 houses, said they are OK with the reduction in width and feel that is much better. Mr. Provost, who lives in the other house, said he is also OK with the 20-foot road width. Mr. Brown, representing the Highland Homeowners Association, said they have noticed fluctuation in water pressure lately. The pumps were checked and found to be working perfectly. Mr. Marshall said they are providing an 8-inch main, and there is an agreement to extend that main. He added that water supply might also be affecting the pumps. He also noted that CWD has confirmed there is capacity to add the proposed homes. Mr. Kochman said that the Board has to rely on the CWD’s representation of capacity, and that if the Homeowners Association wishes to contest it, that they must provide information to the contrary. Mr. Provost said he thought the Tree Preservation Plan was Court ordered. He felt the applicant has to decide if they’re building homes or running a golf course. He asked how the Tree Preservation Plan gets monitored over time. Mr. Belair said there is an annual report to him required by the arborist. This will either be in compliance or not. Mr. Provost asked what happens if a buyer comes in and clear cuts a lot for a better view. Mr. Miller said new home owners will be bound by the same Court decision. Mr. Wilking said he felt there should be a homeowner’s association to help insure this. Mr. Marshall agreed this would be a good approach and could be a natural sub-association of the golf course. They would agree to make that a condition of approval. Mr. O’Leary was concerned with the loss of footprint on his lot and the lost ability for expansion of the house. He also felt that that house #1 of the proposed plan doesn’t serve the interest of preserving trees as it is in the most wooded section. It is also higher than his home and as close to his home as possible with no frontage there and no buffer. He felt that wasn’t well thought out. Mr. Miller said when this happens, the Board can usually help to mitigate the concerns; however, this one is Court approved. Mr. Belair said it can’t be changed for that reason. Mr. O’Leary asked if there is a way to get “human responses” here. Ms. Keene said if there is a mutual agreement to move the house closer to the road, it could happen. Mr. O’Leary also cited the amount of ledge requiring basting which he would prefer not to have. Mr. Cota showed a close up of Lot 1 relative to Mr. O’Leary’s home. Mr. O’Leary indicated that he will reach out to the developer to see if a compromise can be reached. Mr. Provost asked about the construction process noise. Mr. Belair said it can be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. He added that practically, they would have to build the road first to get equipment in to build the houses. Mr. O’Leary said his driveway will have to be regraded because of the change in the road. Mr. Marshall said the applicant will make the driveways as functional as possible with approval to work on the owners’ properties. Mr. Belair noted they typically get a landscaping budget and an estimate of the cost to construct utilities. He wasn’t sure if staff has the authority to require that. He will check to find out. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-17-28 to 2 January 2018. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 5. Request for reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Decision pertaining to preliminary and final plat approval SD-17-18 of South Village Communities: Ms. Jeffers said they are asked for reconsideration of Condition #25, to change “shall” to “if then.” She read the preferred language. Mr. Kochman felt the language was problematic and not clear cut. He felt the developer doesn’t want to be constrained: they don’t want to build the affordable units but still want the density bonus. Mr. Wilking said they can’t force the affordable units until they build 269 units. Mr. Kochman questioned what would happen if they got to unit 270 and hadn’t built affordable units. Where would they go? They would have to be spread around already built “regular” units. Mr. Wilking agreed that is the problem. Mr. Kochman suggested the developer not get the density bonus until it demonstrates they can meet the requirement for distribution of affordable units. Mr. Cota felt that is what the conditions now say. Ms. Jeffers also asked that all the waivers for Phase I and 2 be in Phase 3. She said one had been left out. Mr. Cota then moved to reopen reconsideration of #SD-127-18 on 16 January 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Kochman voting against. 6. Minutes of 5 December 2017: Mr. Cota noted a type at the top of p. 5 and asked to substitute “that” for “tat.” Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 December 2017 as amended. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Other Business: There was no other business. a. Requests for Extension: Mr. Belair noted the applicant for #SP-17-34, Harbor Freight, has requested a 1-year extension to that approval. Mr. Cota moved to grant a one-year extension to #SP-17-34 as requested. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Belair presented a request from Hannaford to grant a 3-month extension to approvals #SP-17-22 and #CU-17-05 for Lake Champlain Market Place. Mr. Cota moved to grant a 3-month extension to #SP-17-22 and #CU-17-05 as requested. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on __________. 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:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐17‐28 Golf Course Road – JAM Golf, LLC Final Plat    DATE:    December 19, 2017   Development Review Board meeting      JAM Golf, LLC has submitted an application for final plat to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf  course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres.  At the December 2, 2017 hearing,  the Board indicated that there were seven (7) topics that needed additional attention.  A summary of the status  of each of these seven (7) topics is as follows.    1. Revise & submit plans to show means of access for the private sewer pump stations in accordance with  DPW comments.     Applicant response:  Sheet C‐2 has been revised to indicate that the access to the pump station be via the  existing golf course cart path system. This language is on the updated Sheet P‐2 Easement Plan. The other  community pump station is located next to a driveway with supporting easements. The third pump station is  a private single family pump station located next to a driveway.    Staff considers the DPW comment to have been addressed.    2. Revise & submit plans to show water main size & mountable curb at entrance.    Applicant response:  We have added the water main size (8") to the plan sheet and have designed the road  to provide 25‐foot radii in lieu of the mountable curb option presented by the Fire Department.    Staff considers the DPW and Fire Department comments to have been addressed.    3. Submit plat showing entire subdivided parcel.    The applicant submitted a revised plat.  Staff considers this comment to have been addressed.    4. Provide letter to Planning Commission requesting street name review.     The applicant provided a letter as requested.  The Planning Commission reviewed the street names on  December 12, 2017 and approved the name “Long Drive” for the entire road, including both the public and  private segments.  The applicant has submitted several updated sheets reflecting the revised name, as well as  an addressing plan for E9‐1‐1 purposes.  2 Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the remainder of plans to be updated to reflect the  singular name “Long Drive”    5. Update landscape plans  a. Show current proposed hammerhead turn‐around and proposed driveway configurations  b. Update tree shading and legend to clarify which trees are proposed to be retained    Applicant response:  In process. Mike Lawrence will be providing the updated landscaping plans and  supplemental information under separate cover.    Staff has not yet received updated landscape plans.  This comment to remains to be addressed.  Staff considers  that this comment can be a condition of approval.    Staff has communicated with the applicant regarding preservation of trees outside of the 10 single‐family lots  but within the limits of the trees to be retained and removed on sheet L‐2 of the landscaping plan.  The extant  Tree Preservation Handbook addresses preservation of trees within the 10 single‐family lots, but does not  address what procedures should be followed for trees outside of those lots.  The applicant agrees that the  intent is to preserve the area within the detailed tree survey on sheet L‐2 as a densely wooded area.  In order  to clarify this intent, staff recommends the following condition.      The tree preservation plan referenced in the condition imposed by the September 11, 2009 V.R.C.P. 58  Judgement Order is supplemented for the areas outside of the individual lots by the following condition.   The Project is intended to remain densely wooded outside of the limits of clearing described in the Tree  Preservation Handbook.  Vegetation within the outer boundary as generally depicted on the detailed tree  survey shown on Sheet L‐2 of the landscaping plans must be managed to preserve the character of the area  in accordance with best management practices, which are acknowledged to evolve over time.  Trees subject  to this condition must not be removed except to meet the goal of maintaining a healthy and densely  wooded area overall, as determined by a qualified consulting arborist.  Trees exempt from this condition  include trees with a diameter of 4‐inches or less, trees listed as invasive species, trees that pose an  immediate danger due to structural integrity and potential impacts to a home, trees that are dead, and  trees that are diseased in a manner that threatens their continued viability.  Determination of whether a  tree is subject to this condition must be made by a qualified consulting arborist.  Trees that grow to a  diameter of 4‐inches after this approval shall become subject to this condition.  Failure to adhere to this  condition will require the applicant to re‐establish the dense woods to a similar quality as existed at the  time of this approval, in addition to other penalties the City is otherwise eligible to impose.    Staff has reviewed the proposed condition with the applicant. The applicant is requesting some modifications  allowing tree removal for the health of the surrounding golf turf, which staff recommends the Board discuss  with the applicant.    6. Clarification needed on the trees within the tree preservation area that have been cut down.    Staff considers that the condition proposed in response to item #5 above addresses protection of the trees  outside of the individual development lots.    7. Determine whether the applicant is interested in narrowing the roadway to 20‐ft to reduce costs, and if  so, provide a proposal.  If the applicant decides to pursue this, let me know and I will confirm the  3 conclusion we came to that it can be done if all parties agree, and confirm whether that includes the  “interested parties” to the court stipulation.    Applicant response:  Yes the applicant is interested in facilitating the reduction in the road width from 24' to  20' with the support of one of the interested parties. We are working on contacting the remaining interested  parties that still live in the City.    The applicant has provided a revised plan showing the roadway narrowed to 20‐feet from Golf Course Road to  the first horizontal curve, and then widening through the horizontal curve to 24‐feet.  Staff and the Department  of Public Works has reviewed this plan and see no issues with the revised layout.  The Applicant is attempting  to obtain approval of the change from interested parties.  City legal counsel advises that since the judgement  order represents a contract between the interested parties and does not have an associated expiration, if the  interested parties do not agree to the change that the road should not be narrowed.    Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the status of interested party approval of the proposed  change.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 DECEMBER 2017  PAGE 1    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5  December 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (by phone), F.  Kochman    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D.  Marshall, B. Doucevicz, A. Palmer, M. Lawrence, M. Capotrio    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 and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD‐17‐27 of Burlington International Airport to  subdivide a 16,596 sq. ft. lot developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of  9,500 sq. ft. (Lot #1) and 7,096 sq. ft. (Lot #2), and to join lot #2 with the 7,273 sq. ft.  lot located at 5 Maryland Street, 12 Ledoux Terrace:    Mr. Marshall showed the entire parcel and indicated the piece to be sold to the Airport.  He  also showed a photo indicating the absence of homes in the area and also the land in the area  owned by the Airport.    Mr. Kochman asked who owns the property now.  Mr. Marshall said Mr. & Mrs. Holmes, and  they will continue to live in the property closer to the street.    Mr. Wilking reminded the applicant that all the property is zoned residential.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 DECEMBER 2017  PAGE 2  6. Site Plan Application #SP‐17‐76 of Rye Associates, LLC, to construct a 4,970 sq. ft.  single story building for general office use, 41 Rye Circle:    Mr. Marshall noted this plan has appeared before the DRB before; however, the applicant did  not pull a permit within the required 6 months because the proposed tenant pulled out.  They  have a new tenant now.    Mr. Marshall showed a plan of the area, noting a number of commercial lots that have been  approved.  He indicated the rec path and an internal walkway.  This development will be in‐ filling as part of the Master Plan.    Mr. Kochman asked what will be seen from Route 116.  Mr. Marshall showed the landscaping  plan.  He indicated that the back side will not have a doorway to the street.  He also showed the  elevations of the front and rear of the building.  The distance from the traveled way to the  building is a bit less than 70 feet, and there are stormwater swales along that area.    Mr. Doucevicz said the building will have vinyl clapboard siding with stone work beneath.  He  cited the design differences between buildings in the development.  Mr. Behr noted that he  drives by there frequently and the two existing buildings are very nice and fit nicely together  despite their different design.  He had no issues with this plan.    Ms. Smith asked if there will be signage to direct people to parking areas.  Mr. Doucevicz said  there will.  They will put a place holder where the signage will be.  The north parking area will  be mostly used by employees.    Members then reviewed staff comments:     Mr. Marshall said they have no issue with the requirement for water permits.   They also  have adequate space for trash, recycling, and compost.  Mr. Doucevicz indicated the trash  enclosure at the stone house building, and said the one for this building will be the same  concept.     Ms. Keene said staff has received a supplemental plan showing lighting/poles.  Mr.  Belair noted the regulations allow poles to be up to 30 feet.  Mr. Marshall said these will be  lower.  Ms. Keene said the applicant is proposing between 12 and 18 feet.    With regard to spillage of light onto the Rye property, Mr. Marshall said the spillage  would be onto Rye Circle.  Mr. Wilking stressed the need for employees to have a lighted way  to the parking lot.  Mr. Miller said they are within the limit for spillage.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 DECEMBER 2017  PAGE 3    Mr. Marshall said they have updated the plan to show evergreen screening around the  utility cabinets.      With regard to bicycle parking, Mr. Marshall said there will be locked structure for  bicycles.  He showed the location on the plan.      Mr. Kochman asked about the surface for snow storage.  Mr. Marshall said it will be  grass.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Cota moved to close #SP‐17‐76.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    7. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐28 of JAM Golf, LLC, to subdivide a 47.99 acre  parcel developed with a golf course into eleven lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to  45.03 acres, Golf Course Road:    Mr. Marshall reviewed the long history of this project.  He said they are now back again with an  application with instructions from the Court, including waivers approved by the Court.  He  showed an overhead photo of the area and identified the piece for this development and the  piece of land acquired by the city as part of the legal settlement.      Mr. Marshall also noted revisions to the driveway due to the sale of property.  Mr. Wilking  asked the width of the road.  Mr. Marshall said it is 24 feet.  Mr. Wilking asked if it can be  narrower to be less intrusive as it is now only a driveway.  Mr. Marshall said the Fire  Department would want a minimum of 20 feet.  He felt a narrower road was an interesting  idea.  Ms. Keene noted in the past the DRB wanted 30 feet.  The Court allowed 24 feet.  She  didn’t feel there would be a problem going narrower if all parties agreed.    Mr. Marshall then showed a plan identifying all the trees on the property and infrastructure  along the roadway.  He showed the portion of the golf course that abuts the property and the  tree limits.  He also noted that some trees were lost in the recent windstorm.    Mr. Lawrence said they are attempting to save as many trees as possible.  Houses will have  smaller footprints than usual to help make this possible.  Mr. Lawrence noted that 3 of the  trees that went down in the storm were proposed to be saved.  They will be providing street  trees and planting evergreens around the project.    Ms. Keene reminded the Board that they can review only those things that are different form  the Court’s decision, and the standards are those for 1999 and 2001.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 DECEMBER 2017  PAGE 4    Mr. Wilking said he would like to hear from an attorney about reducing the road with and also  possibly changing the access road location.  Mr. Kochman said any change to the Court order  would have to be approved by all interested parties, and those will have to be identified. Mr.  Marshall felt the change Mr. Wilking wants would put one house too close the road.    Mr. Marshall indicated that the pump station will be private.  They are OK with the comments  of the Public Works Director. All water mains will be 8 inches.  They are also OK with the Fire  Chief’s comments.    Staff requested the landscaping plan to be revised to show the turnaround.  Mr. Marshall had  no issue with that.  They will also provide a plan showing the July 19, 2017 subdivision.    Mr. Miller noted receipt of letters from two “interested parties” which will become part of the  record.  Mr. Kochman suggested writing to interested parties from the court stipulation to ask  them to approve narrowing the road.  Mr. Belair suggested continuing the hearing to see what  they can legally do.    Mr. Miller also noted receipt of letter regarding trees taken down.  Mr. Marshall said some of  those trees had died; others were taken down to accommodate air movement in the area by  the golf course.    Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant complied with Court ordered tree preservation.  Ms. Keene  said the only question involves a few trees within the tree preservation area.  Mr. Miller read  from the Court document.  Mr. Lawrence said it is his belief that they did not take down any  trees that were on the tree preservation plan.  He will verify that.  Ms. Keene said staff agrees  that the trees removed were not in the tree preservation plan but the question is whether  those trees were subject to the “Tree Preservation Handbook.”  Mr. Lawrence said the stumps  he saw were not recently cut.  Mr. Marshall also noted that things that were not stipulated in  2001 may have grown up in the ensuing years.    Street names will go to the Planning Commission for approval.    Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD‐17‐28 to 19 December 2017.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion  passed unanimously.    8. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐26 of Alan Palmer for a  planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 39,375 sq. ft.  medical and general office building.  The amendment consists of converting 10,444 sq.  ft. of general office use to nine two‐bedroom dwelling units, and redistributing the  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 DECEMBER 2017  PAGE 5  uses in the south section of the building such tat 11,400 sq. ft. are medical offices and  the remaining 17,531 sq. ft. are general office, 20 Kimball Avenue:    Mr. Wilking noted that he is a neighbor of this property.  Mr. Palmer had no issue with Mr.  Wilking serving on the board for the hearing.    Mr. Palmer then reviewed the history of the building.  He now feels so much office space is not  needed and that this is a good place for some residential use.  They have reduced the original  request to 9 units.    Ms. Keene noted that the applicant is requesting some hardscape elements be attributed to the  landscaping requirement.  Mr. Palmer showed pictures of what they are proposing, including  $11,000 worth of sculpture.  Members were OK with the request.    Ms. Keene also noted staff is requesting stabilization time‐lines indicating how long earth will  be exposed without being stabilized be included as conditions of the approval.  Mr. Palmer had  no issue with that.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Cota moved to close #SD‐17‐26.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    9. Minutes of 3 October, 17 October, 7 November, 21 November 2017:    Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 3 October, 17 October, 7 November, and 21  November as written.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    10. Other Business:    a. Request for Extension:    Mr. Belair noted the applicant for #SD‐16‐30, Ms. Capotrio, has requested a 6‐month extension  to that approval.  He noted that the original approval was extended for 6 months even though  12 months would have been allowed; however, regulations allow for only one extension.    After a brief discussion, Mr. Wilking moved to amend the extension to #SD‐16‐30 from the  original 6 months to 12 months, so that the total extension is 12 months.    Mr. Cota seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    b. Meeting Scheduling:  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 DECEMBER 2017  PAGE 6    Members were asked if they can attend the scheduled 2 January 2018 meeting.  Members said  they can.    Members agreed to have their summer break on 3 July instead of in August.    c. Joint Meeting:    Members agreed to a joint meeting with the Planning Commission on 30 January 2018 (a 5th  Tuesday).    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 9:10 p.m.          _____________________________________       Clerk                                                          _____________________________________       Date    1 Marla Keene From:ray Sent:Friday, December 15, 2017 11:13 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:FW: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight Marla,    Please include this request on the agenda, thanks.     Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.   From: Justin Dextradeur [mailto:jdextradeur@redstonevt.com]   Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 10:34 AM  To: ray <ray@sburl.com>; dmarshall@cea‐vt.com  Cc: sleppert@cea‐vt.com  Subject: RE: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight    Ray – Per our discussion this morning I’d like to formally request our one‐time extension of the site plan approval for the  1775 Shelburne Road project (for 1 year just to be safe), though we do still expect the Harbor Freight developer to be  following through with their zoning/building permit application in the very near future.  Thanks again ‐ Justin    Justin Dextradeur Development Manager Redstone 210 College Street, Ste 201 Burlington, VT 05401 C: (802) 734-9217 F: (802) 860-3594 justin@redstonevt.com www.redstonevt.com   From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:06 AM To: dmarshall@cea-vt.com Cc: sleppert@cea-vt.com; Justin Dextradeur Subject: RE: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight   2 Thanks Dave.    Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.   From: David Marshall [mailto:dmarshall@cea‐vt.com]   Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 7:51 AM  To: ray <ray@sburl.com>  Cc: sleppert@cea‐vt.com; 'Justin Dextradeur' <jdextradeur@redstonevt.com>  Subject: RE: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight    Hi Ray‐    Here is the cover letter that addresses the changes in the site plans that we dropped off late Thursday afternoon.    Best Regards    David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271  From: David Marshall [mailto:dmarshall@cea-vt.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 4:02 PM To: 'ray' Cc: 'sleppert@cea-vt.com'; 'Justin Dextradeur' Subject: RE: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight   Hi Ray‐    Sorry Just go back to the office.    Here is the updated full set of plans.    I will drop off hard copies shortly.    I will prepare a summary of the revisions for you tonight (headed to graduation right now) to assist in your reconciliation  tomorrow AM.    Thank You!    David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271  3 From: ray [mailto:ray@sburl.com] Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2017 2:42 PM To: dmarshall@cea-vt.com Cc: sleppert@cea-vt.com; 'Justin Dextradeur' Subject: RE: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight   Please drop off the plans by the end of today with or without the stairs.     Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.   From: David Marshall [mailto:dmarshall@cea‐vt.com]   Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:17 PM  To: ray <ray@sburl.com>  Cc: sleppert@cea‐vt.com; 'Justin Dextradeur' <jdextradeur@redstonevt.com>  Subject: 1775 Shelburne Road, LLC _ Harbor Freight    Hi Ray‐    We have completed all of the site plan and landscaping plan updates except for the connector stairway between the  switchback access to the Route 7 sidewalk which are awaiting word back from Harbor Freight on.    We will keep you apprised.    We will bring the site plans over to you if you like to allow you to catch up on the changes that we have implemented.    Best Regards    David S. Marshall, P.E. Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 P 802-864-2323 x310 F 864-2271  1 Marla Keene From:ray Sent:Friday, December 15, 2017 11:57 AM To:Marla Keene Subject:FW: Lake Champlain Marketplace - Request for Extension of Zoning Permit Deadline ( SP-17-22, CU-17-05) Marla,    Please add this request to the agenda, thanks.     Ray Belair Administrative Officer City of So. Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05403 802-846-4106 www.sburl.com www.sbpathtosustainability.com Notice - Under Vermont’s Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation.   From: Smiar, Peter [mailto:PSmiar@VHB.com]   Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:32 AM  To: ray <ray@sburl.com>  Cc: 'Dandreta, Avery' <Avery.Dandreta@RetailBusinessServices.com>; J M Lord <jmlord560@gmail.com>; Wyman,  Stephanie <swyman@VHB.com>  Subject: Lake Champlain Marketplace ‐ Request for Extension of Zoning Permit Deadline ( SP‐17‐22, CU‐17‐05)    Hi Ray, Thank you for the call today. We hereby request a three month extension of the deadline for obtaining a zoning permit for this project. As discussed we intend to keep this application moving along but this will give us some breathing room to provide the supporting costs calculations related to the project. Thank you, Peter Peter Smiar, P.E. Director of Land Development - Vermont 40 IDX Drive 2 Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6165 | F 802.495.5130 psmiar@vhb.com Engineers | Scientists | Planners | Designers www.vhb.com     This communication and any attachments to this are confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use, dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, virus, transmission error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transmission or attachments to this transmission. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. | info@vhb.com