Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/21/2017DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 February 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 February 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. Baer (via telephone) ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; S. Murray, M. Kane, D. Wheeler, J. Goodwin, W. Hayden, J. Leinwohl, E. Blackwood 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Meet with consulting team to discuss generalities of Master Plans and Planned Unit Developments: Ms. Murray reviewed the background of the project and noted that they are specifically addressing PUDs. They will be meeting with the Planning Commission but also want to meet with the DRB because it is the DRB that has to deal with the regulations on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Murray noted that currently developers use PUDs when they can’t meet regulations. The Planning Commission wants to give more of a framework to the PUD process and improve the regulations. She asked the Board what works for them and what does not. Mr. Kochman said he felt that all waivers are legally vulnerable because there are no standards for them. He would like to see criteria for each type of waiver. He also noted that types of waivers (e.g., height, parking, etc.) exist in separate sections of the LDRs. He also noted that you can grant a height waiver in association with increased setbacks, but there is nothing more specific than that. Mr. Parsons added that there is no guidance on height restrictions. Mr. Behr noted that as long as you’re not blocking a view, you can apply for a height waiver. In other states, however, height waivers require a variance. He felt they should be gotten rid of or have standards. Mr. Parsons commented that “codified trade‐offs” can be helpful. Ms. Murray noted that if you give out a lot, however, the regulations need to be changed. Mr. Kochman added that the Supreme Court might someday say there is no height limit because it isn’t enforced. Mr. Behr said he liked the PUD process and didn’t have any major issues with it. He felt the city has gotten some good developments from it over the years. Mr. Kochman said the line gets “wavy” for him. The accommodations you’re asked to make up front are premised on the assumption that the buildout will take place, but there is no assurance of that because of phasing. Mr. Behr said market conditions can change. He cited the South Village situation. He also noted that the PUD process can ask for more amenities earlier. That’s part of the negotiation process. Mr. Kochman said that is where they differ. He prefers conditions. Ms. Murray said it remains a negotiated process, but you have to indicate what the requirements are. Mr. Kochman said he would like to require amenities to be built up front. Mr. Behr said that when you negotiate. The applicant may be offering amenities that aren’t required. If you require them earlier, they can say “forget it,” and you get nothing. Ms. Murray said you can have incentives in addition to requirements. And you can also require minimums. Ms. Smith noted that it may actually be dangerous to have a park available with construction going on around it. Mr. Behr cited the difference between “shoulds” and “shalls.” Ms. Murray asked if there are enough “shalls.” She said they didn’t find a lot of standards in the PUD section as to what are “should” and “shalls.” Ms. Murray noted the section in the regulations that addresses consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. She said that is now a requirement. Mr. Kochman said it is one thing to say “complies with the Comprehensive Plan.” The regulations say “shall be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.” He felt those are very different things. Mr. Kochman then referred to the section on Affordable Housing and said there is a very tight definition in the LDRs and a very loose usage in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the Planning Commission might tighten up the language in the Comp Plan. Ms. Murray noted that traditionally the Comprehensive Plan language is less specific than the regulatory language. Ms. Murray then asked about issues with Master Plans. She noted the “vested rights” issue that is a benefit to the developer. She asked how the Board normally looks at them and whether they have enough information or too much information. Mr. Parsons questioned the benefit of a Master Plan as opposed to a specific plan. He felt it could give guidance. Ms. Murray said it can also provide assurances that the city won’t change the regulations. Mr. Parsons said he would like more distinct language as to what the board can guarantee. Ms. Smith added she would like to know how far out the board can guarantee something. Mr. Miller noted that 10 years isn’t a lot of time in development. Mr. Miller said he would like to see the potential impact of less regulation and a more streamlined process. He would specifically like to see how to get more affordable housing with fewer regulations. Ms. Murray said they actually did that a few years ago but didn’t know how successful they were. They have found that incentives don’t work as well in Vermont which is why they are going for the more regulatory process. Mr. Kochman said that according to John Wilking affordable housing is not feasible, and the only way to get it is to subsidize it. Ms. Murray said that in Phase I of their research, developers told them that the requirements make things more expensive. They like the negotiated process, but there is not much guidance. Ms. Murray stressed that this is only an initial discussion and that the board will eventually be using whatever they finally come up with. 5. Miscellaneous Application #MS-17-01 of City of South Burlington for stormwater drainage improvements and installation of stormwater treatment gravel wetland, 17 Quail Run: Mr. Wheeler said the property is in the Bartlett Brook watershed which is an impaired watershed with much eroded streambanks. The goal is to reduce erosion and to reduce phosphorus going into the Lake. This is the #1 project which is funded by a state grant and is ready to go to bid. Mr. Wheeler described the location of the project. He noted it is at the bottom of a hill and is accepting water from above. The project will detain and treat the runoff from locations on city property. Mr. Miller asked if this project will help neighbors as well. He noted the Board has been hearing about issues for a number of years. Mr. Wheeler said it will help the neighbors as well. Mr. Goodwin asked about maintaining the path. Mr. Wheeler said they will redo the path and put down wood chips. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #MS-17-01. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-02 of Edward G. Hoehn, III, to subdivide a 10.2 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into 6 lots ranging in size from 6.0 acres to 0.46 acres, 1700 Dorset Street: Mr. Hayden said there is currently a single family residence on the property. The project will create 5 new lots. One lot will be kept open in perpetuity as open space. The lots will be on city water and sewer. There is a class 2 wetland on lot #6, and the wetland buffers have been indicated and accepted by the state (50-foot buffer). The lot will be given to the City. It is directly south of the rec path. Lots 2 and 3 have frontage on Dorset Street. Lots 4 & 5 access from Sadie Lane which is currently a private road but will become public. There will be only one crossing of the rec path by a shared driveway. There is an existing curb cut in from of 1700 Dorset Street which will continue to be used. All 4 new lots will be developed with single family homes. In addressing staff comments, Mr. Hayden noted that they are on the 20 March Recreation Committee agenda. Mr. Kochman felt the shared driveway was a good idea. Mr. Belair drew attention to a condition in a 1977 approval. What is now Autumn Hill Road was the access for four lots but not for this particular lot. The Planning Commission required a condition that any further subdivision would have to use the north/south right-of-way (Autumn Hill Road) which would have to be upgraded to city standards. No additional lots could access directly from Dorset Street. Mr. Belair said there is a question as to whether switching from Autumn Hill road is OK, and a further question as to whether the second house can access from the existing Dorset Street curb cut. Mr. Hayden said since they cannot go through Autumn Hill Road, they are using Sadie Lane (he provided members with a drawing). Ms. Smith said as there is already a Dorset Street access she did not feel they are creating a new access. Mr. Belair said the original aim was to funnel all traffic through the 60-foot right-0f-way, and there are several ways to do that. Ms. Smith said she was OK with access from the existing curb cut. Members questioned whether they have the power to override the 1977 stipulation. Mr. Behr felt there needs to be some research and an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Kochman suggested amending the existing permit. Mr. Belair noted that other property owners are also subject to this condition. Mr. Kochman said they should all be notified of the potential amendment, and anyone with an objection can be heard. The question was raised as to whether lots 4 & 5 can’t have access as proposed. Mr. Belair said Sadie Lane didn’t exist in 1977 when the stipulation was written. Mr. Cota didn’t think they could amend the Dorset St. stipulation. He felt Sadie Lane is a possibility. Mr. Kochman suggested the applicant re-apply with an amended plan. In the absence of that, there is vulnerability. Mr. Belair stressed that they are trying to funnel all new traffic through the existing right-of-way which eventually goes out to Dorset Street. Mr. Kochman said the question is how to override something from 40 years ago. Mr. Behr said he wasn’t sure they had the power to override it just because something didn’t happen that the board through would happen. He stressed the need to have the City Attorney weigh in on it. Ms. Smith said the 1977 board could not have foreseen that the right-of-way from the north would be broken off. Mr. Belair said they need to understand the process. The law says you have to send letters to the abutters in the beginning of the process, and the process has already begun. Mr. Kochman felt that where there are “changed circumstances” the board would have the power to amend. Mr. Miller noted that staff also recommends that houses on lots 4 & 5 be oriented to Sadie Lane. The applicant said that north of this site plan all the buildings face westward, and they are trying to be consistent with that. Mr. Belair said the houses have to face the street. The applicant said if they do that, the house on lot 5 will be looking at the back door of the house on lot 4. Mr. Behr said he agrees with the applicant. Mr. Belair said the regulations require the house to face the street. Mr. Parsons questioned whether the house has to “directly” face Sadie Lane. The applicant suggested both houses could face the bend of Sadie Lane. He gave members a sketch of that. Mr. Behr asked if it meets the code. Mr. Belair said basically, yes. The house on lot #5 would have to move slightly to the north to meet the 25 feet. The question of Sadie Lane becoming a city street was raised. Mr. Belair said it has to be a city street because there will be 9 homes on it. The city can force that issue. The final staff comment asks the applicant to provide the calculation regarding the width to length ratio. No other issues were raised. 7. Consider reopening site plan review application #SP-16-82 of City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) relocation of taxiway “G,” 2) new aircraft holding bay, relocation of taxiway “A,” 3) reconstruction of taxiways “M” and “H,” and 4) stormwater improvements, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Kochman moved to reopen #SP-16-82. Mr. Cota seconded. Mr. Belair said he has no further information other than what is in staff’s memo. Mr. Kochman said he thinks that important issues are raised. He added that he knows there is not a complete exemption from local zoning for the airport. Federal law does not supersede local zoning law. He agrees with staff in this case that local law applies. Ms. Blackwood, attorney for the City of Burlington, said that new evidence would have to happen within the 45 days that are already running in order for the hearing to be reopened. She also said the delay would put the airport at a disadvantage. She felt that nothing in staff’s memo couldn’t have been known when the application was heard, and the issue of trucks was raised at the original hearing. Mr. Miller said the new thing is that the snow being kicked onto Airport Drive will get worse because of the relocation of the taxiway. Ms. Blackwood said the relocation of the taxiways is a preemption of federal law, not an issue for local control. She added they would try to be cooperative, but they have to follow the FAA. She cited a case where this was heard. Mr. Kochman then cited another case where there was a different decision. He cited the conditions that allowed to be reviewed by local law. He felt this was a “fair contest over this issue.” Mr. Miller said the holding area has moved closer to Airport Drive, and there will be more snow blown onto the city street from that new location. He did not want snow being blown onto a cleared street. He said if there is a way to work together to prevent this from happening, he wanted to see the problem solved. Mr. Leinwohl said he would have to discuss this with the Airport before they can comment on anything, but he felt there are ways to address the issue that are “sensible.” Mr. Kochman stressed that this hearing is just about reopening, and the 45 days are not yet up. Ms. Smith asked if there can be a commitment regarding mitigation, would they have to reopen the hearing. Mr. Kochman said they would have to reopen to get the commitment. Mr. Belair agreed that any changes would require reopening. Ms. Blackwood asked to limit what the board is going to take evidence on, so they can be clear about it. Mr. Kochman said they will be addressing the “performance standards” and read the list of those. In the vote that followed, the motion to reopen passed unanimously. Members and the applicant agreed to 21 March 2017 for the hearing date. No other issues were raised. 8. Minutes of 7 February 2017: The minutes of 7 February 2017 were not presented for approval. 9. Other Business: No other issues were presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:05 p.m. , Clerk _________3/21/2017____________________________ Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #MS-17-01 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON—17 QUAIL RUN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-17-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS-17-01 of City of South Burlington for stormwater drainage improvements and installation of stormwater treatment gravel wetland, 17 Quail Run. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on February 21, 2017. The applicant was represented by _______________. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, City of South Burlington, seeks to make stormwater drainage improvements and install a stormwater treatment gravel wetland, 17 Quail Run. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is City of South Burlington. 3. The application was received on January 19, 2017. 4. The property lies within the Residential 2 Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of seven (7) pages prepared by Hoyle, Tanner & Associates with the second page titled “General Notes, Legend and Drawing Index” and dated January 2017. Alteration of Existing Grade The applicant is proposing to make stormwater improvements by creating gravel wetlands. A permit is needed for the placing of fill on land when the amount is equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. The applicant has indicated 1,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from the site and 760 cubic yards of gravel and wetland soil will brought onto the site. When the grade is being altered site plans must show the area to be filled or removed and the existing grade and the proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted the document “Proposed Site Plan,” which shows the grade of the land before work is begun and after the project is complete. The Board finds this criterion to be met. DECISION #MS-17-01 2 Motion by ___________, seconded by ___________, to approve miscellaneous application #MS-17-01 of City of South Burlington, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Any change to the plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or Administrative Officer. 4. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 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 to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. PROJECTLOCATIONJANUARY 2017FINAL DESIGN REVIEWPREPARED BY:125 COLLEGE STREET - 4TH FLOORBURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTBARTLETT BROOK CENTRALSTORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTFOR REVIEW ONLY 107865 C-1.13EXISTING SITE PLAN13107865c13107865c PHEASANT WAYPHEASANT WAY” NOTES:13107865c107865 C-1.46PHEASANT WAYPLAN AND PROFILESTA. 4+00 TO STA. 6+96PLANPROFILE5+00 6+002352352252252157+002452458+00SEE DRAWING NO. C-1.3MATCHLINE STA. 4+00SEE DRAWING NO. C-1.34+00 KEARI LANE13107865c107865 C-1.57KEARI LANEPLAN AND PROFILESTA. 0+00 TO STA. 4+50PROFILE0+001+00 2+00 3+00 4+00SEE DRAWING NO. C-1.6MATCHLINE STA. 4+50PLANNOTES:240240230230220250250SEE DR A WI N G N O. C- 1. 6 MATCH LI N E S T A. 4 + 5 0 BAY CT.BAYCREST DR.BKEARI LANE13107865c107865 C-1.68BAY COURTPLAN AND PROFILESTA. 4+50 TO STA. 9+28PROFILEPLANNOTES:5+00 6+00 7+00 8+002502502402402302602609+00SEE DRAWING NO. C-1.5MATCHLINE STA. 4+50SEE DRAWING NO. C-1.5 GRAVEL WETLANDCELL #2DO NOT USE GRANULARBACKFILL IN BERMDO NOT USE GRANULARBACKFILL IN BERMGRAVEL WETLANDCELL #1DO NOT USE GRANULARBACKFILL IN BERMNOTES:13107865c107865 C-2.19WETLAND PLAN DETAILSGRAVEL WETLAND DETAILGRAVEL WETLAND DETAIL TYPICAL CATCH BASIN ANDDRAINAGE BASIN DETAILAASECTION A-AParts ListSIZEDESCRIPTIONITEM96 inPRECAST MANHOLE (BY HYDRO VIAPRECASTER, OR APPROVED EQUAL)124 inFRAME AND COVER224 inFRAME AND COVER2A24 inINLET PIPE (BY OTHERS)²324 inOUTLET PIPE (BY OTHERS) ¹4PIPE COUPLING (BY OTHERS)5LEDGER ANGLE6SUPPORT FRAME7DIP PLATE8CENTER SHAFT AND CONE9BENCHING SKIRT1010945237143657182ANOTES:PLAN VIEWDS #A STORMWATER SEPARATOR DETAIL5DETAIL-ANOTES:PIPE CONNECTION TO CATCH BASIN DETAILSCAST-IN-PLACE FLEXIBLE BOOTFOR NEW STRUCTURESKOR-N-SEAL JOINT SLEEVE FOR PIPE CONNECTIONTO EXISITNG CATCH BASINSWALL SLEEVE DETAIL FOR PIPE CONNECTION TO EXISITNG CATCH BASINSEMERGENCY SPILLWAY AT CENTER BERM DETAILANTI-SEEP COLLAR CATCH BASIN #2 W/OVERFLOW WEIR DETAILSECTIONPLAN-A-A13107865c107865 C-3.110MISCELLANEOUS DETAILSREMOVABLE TRASH RACK DETAIL TYPICAL STORM DRAIN & SEWER TRENCH DETAILSEWER/STORM PIPE CROSSING DETAILSTYPICAL PIPE CROSSINGSWATER MAIN INSULATION DETAILWATER/SEWER LINE CROSSING DETAILSEWER OR CULVERT CROSSING/WATER MAINRELOCATION DETAILWATER MAIN/SERVICE PIPE TRENCH DETAILWATER MAIN THRUST BLOCK DETAILUTILITY CASING DETAIL FOR RELOCATED WATER MAIN13107865c107865 C-3.211MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROFILETYPICAL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PLANGENERAL NOTES:APPLICATION NOTES:CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAILSEDIMENTATION CONTROLAT CATCH BASINSTONE CHECK DAM DETAILSCONSTRUCTION DEWATERING NOTES:xxEROSION CONTROL NOTES:FILTER BAG DISCHARGE DETAILPLAN VIEWELEVATION VIEWSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION DETAILPumped Water Filter BagSILT FENCE DETAILEROSION CONTROL MATTING SLOPE DETAIL13107865c107865 C-3.413EROSION CONTROLDETAILS 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_02_1700DorsetStreet_Hoehn_subdivision_sketch_F eb_21_2017 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 17, 2017 Plans received: January 6, 2017 1700 Dorset Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-02 Meeting date: February 21, 2017 Owner/Applicant Edward G. Hoehn III 600 Sea Oak Dr. Vero Beach, FL 32963 Engineer Dean A. Grover Grover Engineering PC 2044 Main Rd. Huntington, VT 04562 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570-01700 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 10.2 acres Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-17-02 of Edward G. Hoehn III to subdivide a 10.2 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into six (6) lots ranging in size from 6.0 acres to 0.46 acres, 1700 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A. Density and Dimensional Requirements The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre and the minimum lot size for a single family unit is 12,000 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed four (4) lots (Lots #2-5) as developable for single family houses and all four (4) lots are greater in size than the minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. Lot #6 is proposed to be offered to the City as a location for public open space or natural area. Staff received comments from Maggie Leugers, Recreation & Parks Director, indicating the applicant should make a presentation to the Recreation & Parks Committee. The applicant has stated that the existing single family house will remain on a lot (Lot #1) of six (6) acres. 1. Staff recommends the applicant contact Maggie Leugers, Recreation & Parks Director, to get on a future Recreation & Parks Committee agenda to present their project and discuss the possibility of offering Lot #6 to the City. B. Access The existing house on proposed Lot #1 is accessed by a driveway from Dorset Street. This driveway is proposed to become a shared driveway with the proposed single family dwellings on Lots #2 and #3. Lots #4 and #5 are proposed to be accessed via one (1) shared driveway from Sadie Lane, which is currently a private street that is intended to be granted to the City in the future. There is no access proposed to Lot #6 and the applicant has stated the intent for this lot to be permanently undeveloped. 2. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that the status of Lot #6 as permanently undevelopable will need to be established prior to the next stage of the development review process, because the Board is not able to create a lot without access (Section 3.05 of the Land Development Regulations). Access to the proposed lots is complicated by a Planning Commission decision from 1977 that stated “any subdivision of lot 1 shall have access only from the 60’ right-of-way, from the north or south, and not directly from Dorset Street.” The applicant is requesting that the accesses described above be considered acceptable in place of the stipulation from the 1977 decision. The applicant contends that at the time of the 1977 decision it was believed Autumn Hill Road would become a public street; however, that has not occurred and the road has not been made available to adjacent property owners for access when they have developed their own properties. This is best exemplified by the development of Windswept Lane, which is very close and parallel to Autumn Hill Road, but which had to be built because Autumn Hill Road was not an access option. Staff considers that the access arrangement proposed by the applicant is suitable and would limit curb cuts on Dorset Street, just as the 1977 Planning Commission decision would have done. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the access arrangement proposed by the applicant is acceptable. C. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.08 of the SBLDR lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the proposed housing units on Lots #2 and #3 will have entrances facing a public street—a requirement of the regulations—and garages set back from the front 3 of the house by at least eight (8) feet, which is also a requirement of the regulations. The proposed houses on Lots #4 and #5 do not appear to staff to be oriented towards Sadie Lane, which would be a public street in the future. 4. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant of the building orientation standards in Section 9.08(C) and discuss the need for the houses on Lots #4 and #5 to be oriented towards Sadie Lane. The proposed houses on Lots #2 and #3 are set back from Dorset Street more than 140 feet. The regulations state that buildings “should be set back a maximum of” 25 feet from the sidewalk and that a “close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.” Staff considers the proposed houses to be set back too far from the street and that each house should be placed closer to the front lot line. Staff notes that the existing house on Lot #1 is set back less than 40 feet from Dorset Street and less than 20 feet from the front lot line. 5. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant place each proposed house a maximum of 25 feet from their respective front lot lines, which would place them in a similar position to the existing house and more in alignment with the Land Development Regulations. D. Lot Ratios Section 9.08.A.4 states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” The applicant has stated that all of the proposed lots fall within the lot width to depth ratio. 6. Staff requests the applicant provide those calculations at the next stage of the development review process. E. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Hoehn Subdivision Sketch Plan Narrative January 6, 2017 Page 1 1 | P a g e Sketch Plan Review Hoehn Parcel 1700 Dorset Street January 6, 2017 Description of Project: This project consists of a proposed 6-lot subdivision of the 10.2 acre parcel located at 1700 Dorset Street. The parent parcel is located within the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) and the Village Residential Sub-district (SEQ-VR). Currently the parcel contains one existing building; a single-family residence. This existing building will remain, on a separate lot (Lot 1) which will retain 6 acres. Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 are proposed as developable lots for single-family residences. Therefore, per Article 15.02(B) this project will not require review as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Given its proximity to the existing recreational path, the remaining land (Lot 6) will be offered to the City of South Burlington as a location for public open space or natural area. All 5 developable lots adhere to the recommended width to depth ratio of between 1:2.5 and 1:5. The proposed changes in land use are summarized in the following table: Existing Parcel: Lot # Acreage Land Use 1 10.2 Single-family residence Proposed Subdivision: Lot # Acreage Land Use 1 6.0 Single-family residence 2 1.0 Single-family residence 3 1.2 Single-family residence 4 0.54 Single-family residence 5 0.46 Single-family residence 6 1.0 Undeveloped, open space, natural area, future public park Municipal wastewater and water supply services are available both along Dorset Street and Sadie Lane. The City-owned water and sewer mains along Dorset Street will serve Lots 2 and 3. Lots 4 and 5 will access the wastewater and water utilities along Sadie Lane. Electric utilities are also readily accessible from both access points. Hoehn Subdivision Sketch Plan Narrative January 6, 2017 Page 2 2 | P a g e All five developable lots will be served by private shared driveways. These private driveways are permissible per Article 3.05(B)(2)(b)(i), as each drive serves 3 or fewer dwellings. Based on the distance from public roadways, some of the proposed homes may require sprinkler systems to the satisfaction of the South Burlington Fire Chief. Within the proposed subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3 will share a driveway with access onto Dorset Street. In a previous South Burlington Planning Commission approval dated April 12, 1977 for the subdivision from which this lot was initially created, stipulation #3 states: any subdivision of lot 1 shall have access only from the 60 right-of-way, from the north or south, and not directly from Dorset Street. For reference, a copy of this decision, with the stipulation in question highlighted, is attached to this application. We request that this stipulation be rescinded for the following reasons:  The assumption from this 1977 language was that Autumn Hill Road would eventually become a public road serving adjacent developments. Instead, it is only a private driveway which serves three residences. Previous attempts to utilize Autumn Hill Road have been unsuccessful, leading to a separate curb cut for Windswept Lane about 100 feet away.  We believe our proposal to access Dorset Street from a shared driveway is the most effective method of providing access to Lot 2 and Lot 3. The concept is in line with the City s vision of consolidating curb cuts, as well as avoiding impacts to wetland ecosystems. The proposal for access to Lots 4 and 5 is a shared driveway with access onto Sadie Lane, with no wetland or wetland buffer impacts. Sadie Lane is currently a private road, but will be granted to the City upon completion of the development project. Attached to this narrative is email correspondence dated 12/27/2016 with Larry Williams, a co-owner of the lane, confirming that he grants access from Sadie Lane while it is still under private ownership. Submission Elements: Attached Documents: 1. Application for Subdivision Sketch Plan Review Southeast Quadrant 2. Tabulated List of Abutting Property Owners 3. Email Correspondence with Larry Williams RE: Access from Sadie Lane 4. Copy of Planning Commission Decision dated April 12, 1977 Attached Plans: Title Sheet # Date Site Plan Sketch Plan Review, Hoehn Subdivision 1 of 1 1/5/17 Note: First submission of this project, therefore no changes from previous submittals. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12. 1977/ preliminary approval tonight. At this point Mr. Page said that tj and the city seem to be one step out of rjj*&i The developers are clearly doing their best to get everything in to the. ci^y^T but the city has not had time to do all the administrative work jern the project. Mr. Babcock said that the plot was the same, but the finairman pointed out that changes should have been put on the plot as tke project was revised. Mr. Babcock said that he thought that the plot^rfet the requirements for preliminary approval. Mr. Horency agreed wj^n Mr. Vessel that the plot should be more complete, but some of the-^points brought up in Steve Page's nieiEO of April 8, 1977 were discussed arfyway. Fir. Morency brought up the question of phasing and asked abouXthe minimum .number of; units that could be built and have the project feasible economically. Mr. Babcock said that each unit not built in>fie first phase would cause the final rent figures to increase until^^ne reached a point where the people the units vere designed for could^not afford to live in them. He said that they would not decrease>ne figure of 90 units in the first phase but that if the Planning Cojjjaission set a lower figure they would see if it was still feasible. Kr. Ewing^xtfien moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the Twin Oaks subdivision in two weeks at City Hall^ The motion was seconded by Mr. Korency and passed unanimously. Public Hearing on final -plat application of Dr. & Mrs. Marshall McBean for a 5 lot subdivision off Dorset Street, Messrs. McBean and Farnham Mr. Farnham reviewed the request. After a brief discussion, Mr. Morency moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the final_ plat application of Dr. & Mrs. Marshall McBean, as depicted on a plan- entitled, "Subdivision of Property of Dr. & Mrs. Rarshall McBean. . .'". dated February, 1977, project 101177. revised 3/2/77 and 3/21/77. by Richard Farnham Associates, and Surveyor's Inc.t< subject to the following Stipulations; 1) culvert sizing shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2) sales agreements for lots 1 & 2 shall notify purchaser of noa- • gonforming status of existing structures. 3) \any subdivision of lot 1 shall have access only from the 60* ^right-of-way, from the north or south, and not directly from Dorset Street^ 4) _building permits will be issued only after submission of adequate, test, pit and percolation data,, 5) in the event of future subdivision (such as lot 1 or 5) the right- of-way to Dorset Street serving any resulting lots shall be fully up- graded to city standards. The agreement and waiver covering this stipulation, must be approved by the City Attorney. 6) power or other easements shall be added to the final plat. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Consideration of re-opening of Site Plan application #SP-16-82 of the City of Burlington DATE: February 21, 2017 DRB Meeting Last Month the Development Review Board held a public hearing on SP-16-82 in regards to the proposed relocation of taxiway “G”, new aircraft holding bay, relocation of taxiway “A”, reconstruction of taxiways “M” and “H”, and stormwater improvements. Following closure of the hearing, it has come to staff’s attention that there may be items of significance worthy of gathering additional evidence and testimony prior to the issuance of a decision. The process for the DRB to gather additional evidence is for the Board to take the action to re-open the hearing. Performance Standards: Staff performed a site visit to the Airport Parkway adjacent to the area presently used as a form of “holding area” (a portion of taxiway “G” that is perpendicular to the runway). A mid-sized commercial aircraft was in in that location on a day with light snow on the ground. When the aircraft powered up to move onto the runway, snow was seen being kicked all the way to Airport Parkway. That’s an existing condition, of course. However, under the proposed site plan, the “holding bay” would be located immediately adjacent to the fence line, adjacent to City of South Burlington-owned land, and just a short distance from Airport Parkway. Staff estimates that the new holding bays will be approximately 300’ closer to the fence line than the present conditions. Section 3.13 of the Land Development Regulations include performance standards for all applicable projects: 3.13 General Performance and Maintenance Standards A. Purpose of Performance Standards. Consistent with the general purposes of these regulations, performance standards (see Appendix A) shall set specific controls on potentially objectionable external aspects of such non-residential uses so as to: 2 (1) Reduce to a reasonable minimum the dissemination of smoke, gas, dust, odor, or other atmospheric pollutant outside the structure or beyond the property boundaries in which the use is conducted. (2) Control noise and light trespass beyond the boundaries of the site of the use. (3) Prevent the discharge of untreated wastes into any watercourse or waterbody. (4) Prevent the dissemination of vibration, heat, or electromagnetic interference beyond the immediate site on which the site is located. (5) Prevent physical hazard by reason of biohazard, fire, explosion, radiation, or any similar cause. (6) Regulate and control the generation and flow of vehicular traffic so as to prevent hazardous conditions, traffic congestion, and excessive noise in the streets. B. Hazardous Conditions Prohibited. No land or structure in any district shall be used or occupied in any manner so as to cause hazardous or objectionable conditions to exist or to in any way endanger users of the site or the surrounding area. Such hazardous or objectionable conditions include but are not limited to dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable biohazard, fire, explosive, or other hazard; or to create any noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odor, air pollution, heat, cold, dampness, electromagnetic or radioactive radiation, glare, toxicity or other hazardous or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area. C. Performance Standards. The use of any substance or process so as to create any hazardous or objectionable condition on the site or in the surrounding area shall be prohibited except at levels in conformance with the requirements of this section and the performance standards listed in Appendix A, Performance Standards. Traffic & Fill removal / placement In addition to the performance standards described above, staff recommends that additional evidence and testimony be provided related to traffic. Specifically:  How much material is being removed from the existing taxiways, where is it going, and by what means? What options for disposal of fill have been examined?  How much material is being transported to the site for the new / relocated taxiways and holding areas, how it is arriving on site, and by what means? Recommendation: Based on the above, staff recommends that the Development Review Board Re-open its hearing on #SP-16-82. If the DRB elects to re-open the hearing, staff would issue a fresh notice for the hearing and schedule it for an upcoming meeting as quickly as possible.