Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 01/17/2017
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 January 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Desautels, D. Deslauriers, R. Neuer, E. & R. Aguila, J. Pidgeon, A. Gill, B. Frisbie, J. Leinwohl, S. Lidorson, E. Barfod, D. Marshall, J. Goodwin 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: No announcements were made. 4. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive : and 5. Continued Master Plan Application #MP‐16‐01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller advised that both of these items would be continued as the DRB is still reviewing the waiver requests and other pertinent data. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-16-03 and #MP-16-01 until 7 February. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-16-35 of Sterling Construction, Inc., to create three footprint lots, 69, 73 & 83, South Jefferson Road: Mr. Frisbie noted they have done this several times before. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-35. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Design Review Application #DR-16-05 OF University of Vermont Medical Center for a Master Signage Permit to install new signage, 6 San Remo Drive: Mr. Belair advised that the application was to be continued. Mr. Cota moved to continue #DR-16-05 until 7 February 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-31 of Synergy Development, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of three single family dwellings on three lots. The amendment consists of adding one single family dwelling to lot #3, 7 Chaplin Lane: Ms. Desautels said they are adding one dwelling unit to lot #3. They have spoken with the Champlain Housing Trust and with the developer of the Kirby Cottages and would like to do something similar to what they did regarding affordability covenants for the existing unit. The covenant would expire in 20 years. Mr. Belair noted that once the covenant expires, the “innovative” part of the development goes away. Ms. Desautels said there were other innovations that will not be going away. Mr. Kochman said he felt perpetual covenants are generally unenforceable. He thought the applicant made a “reasonable accommodation.” Ms. Barfod, a neighbor, expressed concern with possible additional stormwater coming down toward them. She said the city’s stormwater person said if things are done properly, she shouldn’t suffer from any more water. Ms. Desautels said they will not increase the flow of water onto Ms. Barfod’s property. Mr. Miller said the applicant will have the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim during preliminary and final plat review. No other issues were raised. 9. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12-unit planned unit development of 21.8 acres consisting of six two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 7 March 2017. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Continued Site Plan Review Application #SP-16-80 of Rye Associates, LLC, to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building consisting of: 1) 3000 sq. ft. of personal instruction use, 2) 1500 sq. ft. of personal service use, and 3) 1500 sq. ft. of undetermined use, 89 Rye Circle: Mr. Rabideau indicated the location of the property and noted it is being developed as a mixed use/mixed density. He indicated a small sliver of land which is the commercial piece. The proposed project would be the third of 4 commercial buildings, all single story. The first building is complete and occupied. The proposed building would be a wood-frame structure housing three businesses, each with a separate entrance. Catamount Physical Fitness will own the building. There will also be an outdoor yard where fitness activities can be held in nice weather. Mr. Rabideau then showed the building elevations and noted a porch that faces Rye Circle. He explained the lighting and windows and agreed to add more windows if the DRB requests. He also showed the location for signage. Mr. Miller noted the applicant still does not have Fire Department OK. Mr. Rabideau said they won’t build without that. He also indicated the location of fire hydrants, which are within the required distances. Mr. Cota asked about DPW comments. Mr. Rabideau said they will comply. He noted they have a stormwater permit for the whole subdivision. Mr. Miller noted staff’s requirement for screening of utility cabinets. Mr. Rabideau said they will comply. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SP-16-80. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-16-32 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing a 1800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance to 7 February. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-32 to 7 February 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 12. 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” & “H”, and 4) stormwater improvements, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Leinwohl explained that they are relocating a section of taxiway as the existing pavement doesn’t meet current standards. A holding bay will also be constructed as a place for aircraft to go while waiting for clearance to depart. Mr. Leinwohl showed the taxiways that will be reconfigured to address safety concerns. There is an existing stormwater pipe for Airport drainage. It goes into an open ditch down an embankment. This results in a lot of sediment and silting of the pond. This situation will be improved in coordination with the city as the area is South Burlington property. Mr. Leinwohl noted the new taxiway will be 100 feet further back from the neighborhood. Mr. Deslauriers expressed concern with the holding area where planes may be for a long period of time with engines running. He wanted an enclosure to protect the public and traffic from the noise. He acknowledged this would be expensive, but he said it would be worth it, especially if there are larger aircraft coming to the airport. Mr. Deslauriers also requested that as the taxiways are torn apart that heavy trafficking be done on airport property, not public roads and that the airport be liable for damage to public roads or vehicles. He also requested that the soil be tested for contaminants with proof that can be shared with the City. Mr. Belair noted that it was determined years ago that the City cannot regulate noise coming from the Airport. He cited a communication from the City Attorney Stitzel explaining that. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a plan to abate any of the noise. Mr. Leinwohl said they have done an analysis that when an aircraft is leaving the holding are the jet blast is not beyond allowable limits. Mr. Leinwohl explained how damage will be handled. He said they are aware of one area of contamination, and there is a remediation plan for that. Anything that is encountered on site is checked. He felt it was not unreasonable to include that as a stipulation. Mr. Wilking noted the Airport is moving soil to another site on their property, so no off-site contamination is threatened. Mr. Leinwohl said there is a very rigid protocol for testing and dealing with contaminated soil. He added that all work is under the supervision of a licensed engineer who has both professional and ethical responsibility as a professional engineer. Mr. Kochman noted that federal law does not pre-empt zoning regulations and felt these concerns should be carefully looked at. Mr. Cota said he didn’t know of an engineer who would risk disbarment by ignoring an issue. Mr. Wilking expressed concern with noise and noted that the neighborhood has had more than its share of noise issues. He said he would like to see the former City Attorney’s opinion on the noise issue. Mr. Belair said that can be reviewed in a deliberative session. He will try to locate that communication. Mr. Kochman asked the duration of the project. Mr. Leinwohl said it will start in 2017 and extend into 2018. Mr. Cota then moved to close #SP-16-82. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 13. Sketch Plan Review Application #SD-16-36 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to place 228,000 cubic yards of fill in the former quarry on the airport property, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Parsons asked about the comments from the Champlain Water District. Mr. Leinwohl said they are OK with the comments. He showed the location of the CWD water line along the perimeter of the Airport property. They wanted to be sure it wasn’t covered with fill material. The location of that line will be shown on the plan. Mr. Leinwohl noted that Air Guard is now doing a project and they have material they also want to put into the quarry. That is where some of the 228,000 yards is from. With regard to noise, Mr. Leinwohl said the can limit the use of compacting rollers. There would be trucks bringing material during the night, but no compacting. He didn’t know the Air Guard’s plans in this regard. Mr. Wilking said the Airport should do everything in its power to mitigate noise. He felt there are ways to plan to keep noise to a minimum. Mr. Belair noted that when this application comes back to the DRB, there may be some changes due to ongoing negotiations with the City of South Burlington. No other issues were raised. 14. Minutes of 2 August 2016: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 August 2016 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 15. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:02 p.m. ____________________________, Clerk ____________________________, Date 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: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Officer SUBJECT: MP-16-03 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: January 17, 2016 Master plan application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 square feet of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive. The Board has begun deliberating on this application and has chosen to keep the hearing open, which allows them to accept new information in a public meeting from the applicant and staff in the event that questions arise during the deliberation process. At this time there is no additional information (staff comments, updated plans, etc.) to share. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: MP-16-01 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: January 17, 2017 Development Review Board meeting Continued master plan application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,000 square feet of commercial space, 255 Kennedy Drive. The applicant has submitted a different and new application (#MP-16-03) for a project on the same parcel. #MP-16-01 is therefore on hold as the applicant is choosing at this time to pursue #MP-16-03 instead. 1. Staff recommends the Board continue #MP-16-01 to a future meeting date. #SD-16-35 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING STERLING CONSTRUCTION, INC.—69, 73 & 83 SOUTH JEFFERSON ROAD FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-35 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Final plat application #SD-16-35 of Sterling Construction, Inc. to create three (3) footprint lots, 69, 73 & 83 South Jefferson Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 17, 2017. The applicant was represented by Bart Frisbie. 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, Sterling Construction, Inc., seeks to create three (3) footprint lots, 69, 73 & 83 South Jefferson Road. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Sterling Construction, Inc. 3. The application was received on December 7, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page titled “Lot 39 Townhouses Plat” prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc. and dated 11/18/2016. Dimensional Standards: The applicant proposes to create three (3) footprint lot lines in between the individual dwelling units and including front and year yard areas with each dwelling unit previously approved in this subdivision. This action would create non-conforming lots (being of insufficient individual size, and having zero setbacks in between each unit on a lot) and therefore will not be considered individual lots for the LDRs. For purposes of the LDRs, the three (3) footprint lots included in this proposal will be considered one (1) lot (Lot 39) as approved previously. The applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by _____________, to approve final plat application #SD-16-35 of Sterling Construction, Inc., subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. #SD-16-35 2 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat plan must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plat must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. The plat plan must be revised to include the signature of the land surveyor. 4. For purposes of the LDRs, all lots included in this subdivision will be considered one (1) lot as approved previously. The applicants must record a “Notice of Condition” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the final plat plan. 5. The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of the project plan as approved in digital (PDF) format. 6. Any changes to the final plat plan will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board or Administrative Officer. 7. The final plat plan (survey plat) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plat plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit copies of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information will require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 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 #SD-16-35 3 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. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: DR-16-05 6 San Remo Drive—University of Vermont Medical Center DATE: January 17, 2017 Development Review Board meeting Design Review application #DR-16-05 of University of Vermont Medical Center for a Master Signage Permit to install new signage, 6 San Remo Drive. The applicant failed to display the notice placard within 7 days of the meeting, which has resulted in a defect in the statutory public notice requirement. When this happens, the DRB does not review the application but continues it to a future meeting so the proper notice requirement is met. 1. Staff recommends the Board continue the application to the February 7, 2017 meeting to allow for proper public notice. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Lindsey Britt, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SD-16-31 7 Chaplin Lane—Synergy Development, LLC DATE: January 17, 2017 Development Review Board meeting Continued sketch plan application #SD-16-31 of Synergy Development, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of three (3) single family dwellings on three (3) lots. The amendment consists of adding one (1) single family dwelling to lot #3, 7 Chaplin Lane. At the December 6, 2016 meeting the Board discussed with the applicant the concept of innovation as applied in the Planned Unit Development standards of the Land Development Regulations. The Board indicated that one way the project could be innovative would be to place restrictions on the income of purchasers, so, for example, that purchasers earning 80-120% of the Area Median Income could afford the house. The applicant has responded to the request by suggesting the following restrictions on the house: That it will not be sold for more than the price determined to be affordable to someone earning 80- 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Champlain Housing Trust will certify the sales price for each sale using their standard allocations for taxes, insurance, mortgage payment percentages, etc. The affordable housing covenant will expire in 20 years. Staff considers that formal affordability is a unique site feature that contributes to the PUDs innovation. Staff considers that preservation in perpetuity would be ideal; however, a 20 year period is also meaningful and will provide a benefit to the community during that period. At least one Board member suggested that both the proposed house and the existing house be designated as meeting affordability guidelines in order for the project to meet the PUD standards. 1. Staff recommends the Board support the applicant’s suggestions for restrictions on the existing house. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed project meets the standards for a PUD. Civil Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Environmental Services 478 Blair Park Road Williston, VT 05495 802 879 6331 www.tcevt.com TRUDELL Consulting Engineers January 4, 2017 South Burlington Development Review Board c/o Mr. Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer South Burlington Planning and Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-31, Chaplin Lane, South Burlington, VT Staff and Members of the Development Review Board, We have enclosed our updated submittal to amend the previously approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of three single family dwellings. The amendment consists of adding one single family dwelling to Lot #3 at 7 Chaplin Lane. A number of innovative measures were added to improve and/or preserve existing features on the site as part of the original PUD approval in 2015. However, we understand that the DRB would like to see additional innovation as part of this amendment. Synergy Development has been in contact with Champlain Housing Trust, who put them in contact with the developer of Kirby Cottages. In an arrangement similar to Kirby Cottages, our client would like to offer the following proposed covenants for the existing home on Lot #3: 1. The existing home will not be sold for more than the price determined to be affordable to someone earning 80-120% of the Area Median Income (AMI). 2. Champlain Housing Trust will certify the sales price for each sale using their standard allocations for taxes, insurance, mortgage payment percentages, etc. 3. The affordable housing covenant will expire in 20 years. We offer the following reasoning behind the expiration of the affordable housing covenant. The existing home was constructed sometime in the 1950’s or 60’s. The house will be approximately 80 years old when the covenant expires. At that time, it is likely that the cost of repairs needed to extend the life of the home may exceed the cost that the home could be sold at the 80-120% AMI sales price restriction. We would like to protect future buyers from the situation where the home could not be sold at a price to cover the cost of extensive repairs. It may even make sense at some point in the future after 20 years to replace the existing house using modern construction standards rather than continue to invest in improvements. Finally, there was some discussion at the last hearing regarding flipping the new house and driveway as a way to provide more of a buffer between the new home and the community open space. We investigated this option, and after further review, we feel like the current layout is best. The current layout avoids the removal of the most trees present along the driveway route and proposed house site, which we know is important to both the DRB and City arborist who we worked with on the prior approval. It should also be noted that a significant hedgerow already exists between the new house and community open space that screens the new house from the open space (please see attached photo). We believe that this evergreen screening is adequate to provide the privacy needed for the new home, while still encouraging use of the open space. We look forward to discussing this project further at the hearing, and appreciate your time and consideration of this amendment. Sincerely, Jennifer A. Desautels, P.E. Project Engineer 166.28'49.89'WWWWWWWWWWFMFMFMWWW FD156.66'150.12'FMWSSFMFMFMFMFMOHPOHPOHPOHP12" WATER MAINWWWWWEXISTING3BEDROOMDWELLINGRETAININGWALLWALKAPPROX.TREELINEEXISTING2"PVCFORCEMAIN+FFE=363.76+FFE=370.67FFE=370.32+FFE=372.23+CONSTRUCTIONBLOWOFF PERCWD STAFFAPPROX. LOC. 4" GAS MAINAPPROX. LOSPEAR STREETFMFMFMFMAPPROGGGGGSFMFMFMFMFMEXISTING ARBORVITAE HEDGEEXISTING ORCHARDWOODEDAREAWOODEDAREADD ELELECKECK20' DRAINAGEEASEMENT15' PEDESTRIANEASEMENT3723371370370370369369 369369369368 368368367367366366366365365364364363363363362362 362361361361361 361360360360 359359359358358358357357357357356 356356 355355 354354354 353 353 353352 352 351 351350350350349349349348348348347347347346346346 345345345344 344343 343342342342341341 340340 339339339339338338337337336336336335335334 334333333333 3323323313310330330330 329329329 329328 328327 327326 326325325324324323323322322321 321320 320319319318318318317 317317316 316316315315314314313313312312311 311310 310309 309308307306 EXISTING2" HDPE FORCEMAINEXISTING 2" SDR 21 PVC FORCEMAINCONCRETEWALKGARAGESTAIRSGGLOT 392,364 SQ. FT.2.12 AcresRESIDENTIAL 1RESIDENTIAL 2147.71'LOT 232,670 SQ. FT. 0.75 Acres125.11' 40.75'5.73'10.62'186.72'290.30'144.16'18.62'25.06'350.98'61.00'LOT 132,670 SQ. FT. 0.75 AcresON-SITE RUNOFFSTORMWATERPOND30' 30'25'15'50' 30'CONCRETEHEADWALL(TYPICAL)ECKDECKFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEXISTING 15' GRAVEL DRIVEW W WWWWWWWWWWWWWDD360370355342343353344338341345339340335335320340345 35036436336236135935735635234634734133233233333433933733934080.45'12'351351 350 FM CTV 211.51' 190.04'CHAPLIN LANEE-911 ADDRESS7 CHAPLIN LANEE-911 ADDRESS93 CHAPLIN LANEE-911 ADDRESS111 CHAPLIN LANEUP UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVCTVUP GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEXISTING 3/4" COPPER WATER SERVICEW90' SETBACKPROPOSED4 BEDROOMDWELLING(2700 SF FOOTPRINT)¬Sketch PlanLOT 3REDEVELOPMENTC2-019/23/20161" = 30'14-087RMPJMM0FeetGraphic Scale30 30 60 90 12015°±TrueMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYField Book:For Local Permitting Only1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL¬OPEN SPACE NOTES:CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE:(INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS)LOT 1 = 24,969 S.F.LOT 2 = 24,297 S.F.LOT 3 = 0 S.F.TOTAL CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE= 49,296 S.F. OR 1.1 AC.COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE:(INTENDED FOR RESIDENTS ONLY NOT PUBLIC USE)LOT 1 = 0 S.F.LOT 2 = 0 S.F.LOT 3 = 17,432 S.F.TOTAL COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE= 17,423 S.F. OR 0.4 AC.TOTAL CONSERVATION & COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE = 1.1 AC. + 0.4 AC. = 1.5 AC.% OF TOTAL PARCEL = 157,704 S.F./66,719 S.F. = 42.3%6' WIDE BY 15' LONG LEVEL PAD FOR UTILITIES2:1 SLOPE INTHIS AREASynergyDevelopment, LLC7 Chaplin LaneSouth Burlington, VermontPROJECT LOCATION61.00'.06100666WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWUPUUPPUPUUPUUPUUPUPUPUUPUPUPCTVCTVCTTCTCCCCTVCCCTTTVVCTVCTVCCCTTVTVVVCTVCCTTTVVVCTVCCTCTVTVVVCCTCTVCCVTVTTVTVVCTV353353350350EXISTING ORCHARD357357357357356356RETAININGWALLWALKWALKW+++++++SFM369369368368363363363362362361361360360 359359358358354354STAIRSRRRRSSSSGPPLOT 3392,364 SQ. FT.64 S2.12 Acres230'30'FMFMMMMMMFMFFFMMMMFMFMMMFMFMFFMMMMGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG80.45'80.45351351 350350 211.51'11511.52E-911 ADDRESSDRES7 CHAPLIN LANECHAUPUPPUPUVCTVEXISTINGEXISTING++++UPCGGGGGGCOPPER WATER SWATESSSEXISTING 3/4" CSSSSSOOPCTVCTVXWCCCCCTCTCTT90' SETBACK0' SETBAC2261611161.00106166 28'EXISTING3SESESSESPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPROPROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROOOOOOOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOPOOOOOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSEOSEOSEOSESESESESESESESESESESEDSEDSEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD444444444444444444 4 4 4 4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 B BBBBBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEBEDBEDBEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDEDDDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRODROROROROROROROROROROROROROROROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWDWWWWWWWWWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWEWELWELWELELELELELELELELELELLELLELLELLELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLILLILLILLILLILINLINLINLINLINLINLINLINLINLINLINININININNNNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG(((((((2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(2(27(27(27(27(27(27(27(2727272727270270270270270270270270270707070707007007007007007007007007000000000000 00 00 00 00 00 00 S00 S00 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 S0 SF0 SF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF FSF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FOF FOF FOF FOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOFOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOTPOTPOTPOTPOTPOTPOTPOTPOTPOTPTPTPTPTPTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRPRIPRIPRIPRIPRIPRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINRINININTINTINTINTNTNTNTNTNTNTNTNT)NT)NT)NT)NT)NT)NT)NT)NT)NT)T)T)T)T)T)T)T)T)T)T)T)T)))))))EXISTING3BEDROOMDWELLINGFFE=363.76+F+F+FFE=370.67++FFE=370.322+2+FFE=372.23+++GARAGEWPFORPVFMPVC FORCEMAINPVC FORCEMPPCONCRETEWALKG370370UUURCRCRCRCCTVFM12'12'FMFFMEXISTING 2" SDR 21 PSTING 2 SDR 21 P 50'50'EXISTING 15' GRAVEL DRIVESTING 15' GRAVEL DRIVE36036035535535335336436436336336362362361361359359357357356356352352351351CHAPLIN LANECHAPLIN LANE352PEXISTING MATURE EVERGREEN SCREENING This photo shows the clearingwhere a home could sitbetween large maturescreening that now exists. This panorama shows the largeclearing where the home can go. Thepotential driveway location has anarrow drawn to it. Mature cedarhedges would remain for screening. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sket ch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 13, 2017 Application received: May 20, 2016 150 Swift Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 Meeting Date: January 17, 2017 Owner Martin Thieret 210 Maquam Shore Rd. Swanton, VT 05488 Contact Nathan Dagesse EIV Technical Services 55 Leroy Rd., Suite 15 Williston, VT 05495 Applicant Eastern Development Corp. 300 Swift St. South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1700-00150 Residential 1 with Planned Residential Development District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Jan_17_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12 unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six (6) two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements R1-PRD1 Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 217,800 SF 914,760 (21 acres) Max. Building Height 25 ft. (flat), 28 ft. (pitched) Unknown Max. Building Coverage 15% Unknown Max. Overall Coverage 25% Unknown Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 50 ft. Min. Side Setback 25 ft. >25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. 1Section 4.01(F)(1) states that for lots within the Residential 1 District that are five (5) acres in size or more and designated as R1-PRD a PUD may be permitted at a maximum of four (4) units per acre. The applicant is applying under this provision. Eighty-four (84) units are possible given the size of the property and the number of units allowed per acre. Eight (8) units are proposed. If the applicant were not applying as a PUD under R1-PRD and instead under R1 then one (1) unit per acre would be allowed for a total of 21 units. In both scenarios, the applicant is presenting a project which is less than the maximum density allowed. Zoning compliance Comments The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major land use regulations impacting this development and are, at this stage, intended to provide feedback on the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: lot configuration, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, open space planning, and building orientation. The current plans are an update from plans which were reviewed by the Board in October 2016. The applicant is now proposing two (2) four unit multi-family dwellings. Planned Unit Development Standards Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are intended “to encourage innovation in design and layout” and “efficient use of land.” Staff appreciates the efficient use of land that results from the shared parking and single driveway. Staff acknowledges that the property has certain restrictions, including topography, wetlands, and the need for onsite septic, that limit the development of the property. At the October 18, 2016 meeting some Board members indicated that townhouse/row-house development on this section of Swift Street was not their preference and suggested a pocket neighborhood would be a more innovative approach that would be more in keeping with the area. The applicant indicated that style of development was difficult on the site, because of the site limitations. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Jan_17_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 The current design reduces the number of buildings from three (3) to two (2) and pushes the buildings further back from the road, which the Board had also indicated a preference for when last reviewing the project. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the project is innovative and/or could be more innovative given the site limitations. A. Lot Configuration Lots are to be laid out in such a way as makes it possible for the lot to be developed in full compliance with the land development regulations and “giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions” (Section 15.10). There are no new lots proposed at this time. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking The development is accessed from Swift Street by a driveway which enters the property between the two (2) proposed buildings. Staff considers that the driveway between the two (2) buildings would be better placed at either end of the proposed buildings, rather than breaking up front yard. 2. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant move the driveway so it is not breaking up the front yard and putting traffic between the two buildings. A sidewalk is proposed in front of the housing units and along the driveway. At a future stage of the review process staff recommends the applicant discuss with the Bike/Ped Committee and/or Parks & Recreation Committee whether this area of Swift Street should have a sidewalk or a recreation path, which is typically 10 feet wide. Staff considers that extending the sidewalk along Swift Street to the west would provide the residents of the proposed development with easier, safer access to the adjacent University of Vermont property where there is a woodland trail system. Additionally or alternatively, a network of trails on the applicant’s site which could connect to the UVM trail system would also be positive. These types of pedestrian connections and recreation opportunities could help the project be more innovative in its design, which is a component of being a PUD. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the property could best be used to meet the recreation needs of the residents. The applicant is proposing surface parking as well as garages on the backside of the units, which will be at basement level. C. Wetlands Impact Section 12.02(E) of the Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedure reads E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Jan_17_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan which shows the location on the property of Class II wetlands. The applicant stated in the submitted Project Narrative dated May 19, 2016 that the project would have no wetland impacts and no permanent impacts on the wetland buffers. D. Parks and Open Space Planning The project shows an area to the rear of the buildings and parking which is labeled as “community recreation area” and contains garden plots. At this stage details about the recreation area and design of the gardening area are unknown. As mentioned earlier in these comments, staff would consider it positive if there were an onsite network of trails, especially if they connected to the UVM property to the west. 4. Staff recommends the Board provide guidance to the applicant as to what types of onsite recreation amenities the Board would view as positive and discuss with the applicant how the gardening area would be designed (for example: would these be raised beds with a tap for watering?). E. Building Orientation The buildings will be oriented towards Swift Street with parking to the rear through a single access point. Given the topography of the site and presence of wetlands, staff considers this layout to be an efficient use of the space. Orienting the buildings in a row along the street will allow the applicant to take advantage of a steep drop-off to the rear and place parking below the height of the street. F. Stormwater Comments CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sketch_Jan_17_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 Staff received an email June 13, 2016 from the Stormwater Section: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Overall Property Plan with Proposed Development – 150 Swift Street” prepared by EIB Technical Services, dated 5/12/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The overall lot coverage proposed is currently below 0.5 acres of impervious surface. Should future site plan submissions evolve to include 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of 12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations. 2. Section 12.02(E)(2) of the City’s Land Development Regulations indicates that encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a CUD by the Vermont DEC. The applicant is encouraged to confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State. Since receiving these comments the applicant’s plans have changed; however, the comments of the Stormwater Division remain relevant. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant confirm the Class II Wetland Boundary as delineated by S. Hance of EIV, December 2015 with the State prior to the next stage of the review process. G. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. H. Other Staff notes that the applicant is proposing onsite wastewater treatment. Requirements for such systems should be reviewed with the Public Works Department by the applicant prior to the next stage of the review process. RECOMMENDATION The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 20' - 0"54' - 0"74' - 0"20' - 0"8' - 4 1/2"2' - 0"30' - 0"4' - 0"20' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"74' - 0"36' - 0"24' - 0"10' - 4 1/2"24' - 0"8' - 4 1/2"24' - 0"10' - 4 1/2"GARAGEGARAGEGARAGEGARAGEOFFICE/STORAGEOFFICE/STORAGEOFFICE/STORAGEOFFICE/STORAGEUPUPUPUP2' - 0"SCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:10 PMA-1.0LOWERLEVEL PLANSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1LOWER LEVEL PLAN REF.REF.REF.REF.UPUPUPUP30' - 0"74' - 0"19' - 6 1/2"16' - 5 1/2"18' - 0"16' - 9 1/2"36' - 0"20' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"18' - 0"LIVING/DININGKITCHENBATHDECKPORCHLIVING/DININGKITCHENKITCHENKITCHENLIVING/DININGLIVING/DININGBATHBATHBATHDECKDECKDECKDNDNDNDNSCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:10 PMA-2.0FIRSTFLOOR PLANSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR PLAN BED #2BED #1BED #2BED #2BED #2BED #1BED #1BED #1DNDNDNDNSCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:11 PMA-2.1SECONDFLOOR PLANSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1SECOND FLOOR PLAN First Floor5' - 0"First Floor TP14' - 1 1/8"Grade2' - 0"Second Floor15' - 1 1/8"Second Floor TP24' - 2 1/4"Top of Foundation3' - 10 1/2"SCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:19 PMA-3.0SOUTHELEVATIONSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATION First Floor5' - 0"First Floor TP14' - 1 1/8"Grade2' - 0"Second Floor15' - 1 1/8"Second Floor TP24' - 2 1/4"Basement Slab-3' - 11 1/2"Top of Foundation3' - 10 1/2"SCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:25 PMA-3.1NORTHELEVATIONSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION First Floor5' - 0"First Floor TP14' - 1 1/8"Grade2' - 0"Second Floor15' - 1 1/8"Second Floor TP24' - 2 1/4"Basement Slab-3' - 11 1/2"Top of Foundation3' - 10 1/2"SCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:40 PMA-3.2EASTELEVATIONSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION First Floor5' - 0"First Floor TP14' - 1 1/8"Grade2' - 0"Second Floor15' - 1 1/8"Second Floor TP24' - 2 1/4"Basement Slab-3' - 11 1/2"Top of Foundation3' - 10 1/2"SCALE:PROJECT:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SHEET TITLE:THIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OF G4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND IS NOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED, OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/8" = 1'-0"11/23/2016 12:27:43 PMA-3.3WESTELEVATIONSWIFTEIVApartment Quad11/23/16BHSG/WGI150 Swift St, South Burlington, VT 1/8" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATION #SP-16-80 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RYE ASSOCIATES, LLC—89 RYE CIRCLE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #SP-16-80 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Site plan review application #SP-16-80 of Rye Associates, LLC to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building consisting of: 1) 3,000 sq. ft. of personal instruction use, 2) 1,500 sq. ft. of personal service use, and 3) 1,500 sq. ft. of undetermined use, 89 Rye Circle. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 3, 2017. The applicant was represented by David Marshall. 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, Rye Associates, LLC, seeks to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. building consisting of: 1) 3,000 sq. ft. of personal instruction use, 2) 1,500 sq. ft. of personal service use, and 3) 1,500 sq. ft. of undetermined use, 89 Rye Circle. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Rye Associates, LLC. 3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Village Commercial Zoning District. 4. The application was received on December 2, 2016. 5. The plan submitted consists of 20 pages with the first page labeled “Proposed Overall Site Plan,” dated September 2016, and prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. A. Planned Unit Development Standards Pursuant to Section 9.13 of the Land Development Regulations, all development in the Southeast Quadrant (except single family residences and two-family residences on a single existing lot) must be reviewed using the Planned Unit Development standards in Section 15: (A)(1)Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. A condition of approval will be that the applicant receive any necessary permits related to water and wastewater supply from the appropriate permitting agencies. (A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil #SP-16-80 2 erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. An erosion control plan has been submitted. The Board finds that this requirement is met. (A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Board finds this criterion met. (A)(4)The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. The Board finds there are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy nor unique natural features on the area of the airport’s taxiways and runways that would be affected by this project. (A)(5)The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The applicant has provided renderings of the buildings indicating they will be similar, but not identical, to the existing adjacent commercial buildings. The Board finds this criterion met. (A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. The Board finds there are no open space areas on this portion of the property that would be affected by this project. (A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. Waiting for Fire Department comments. (A)(8)Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners. The Board finds the project to be compatible with the extension of such services. (A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Comprehensive Plan states that priority should be given to the preservation of open space areas within the quadrant “outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.” The SEQ-VC is an area specifically designated for development and therefore the proposed commercial building is consistent with the Plan. #SP-16-80 3 B. Site Plan Review Standards A) Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board considers this criterion is met. B) Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The site is proposed to be landscaped with a variety of evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees, which the Board finds will create a desirable transition from the building to the parking areas. Sidewalks on the north and south sides of the building which connect to the parking areas will allow for safe pedestrian movement that will not disrupt the landscaping. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. The proposed parking area located to the south of the building is to the side of the building. Section 9.10(D)(4) requires three off-street parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of non-residential use and the DRB may allow on-street parking within 500 lineal feet to count towards the requirement. The applicant’s materials state that the development of two (2) other commercial lots in the PUD set up a shared parking approach and the proposed building and its parking needs will be part of that shared approach. The applicant has provided the following table to explain their parking allotments for commercial Lots 1-3: Lot Bldg. SF (one story) Req’d Parking Off-street Parking Individual Lot Review 1 5,100 15 13 2 4,726 14 21 3 6,000* 18 22 Consolidated Review 1, 2, & 3 15,826* 48 55 *Applicant’s table lists 6,087 as the square footage for Building 3 resulting in total square footage of 15,913 for all three (3) buildings; however, the project application lists 6,000 sq. ft. and hence that is the number represented in the table. The Board finds this criterion met. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. #SP-16-80 4 The height of the proposed building is within the permissible limits of the zoning district and is similar to the existing adjacent commercial buildings. The Board finds this criterion met. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The Board finds this criterion met. C) Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed building is similar, but not identical to, the adjacent commercial buildings. Common landscaping materials, architectural styles, and building materials unite the site. The Board finds this criterion met. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications must meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A) Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board does not consider that the reservation of land is necessary. B) Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. C) Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). The project will be served by a new dumpster enclosure. The Board considers this criterion met. D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) #SP-16-80 5 The applicant has indicated the estimated construction cost for the proposed building is $567,000. This results in a minimum landscaping budget requirement of $13,170, which is illustrated in the table below. The applicant has proposed a budget of $13,290. Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Remainder over $500,000 ($67,000) 1% $670 Total: $13,170 A condition of this decision will be for the applicant to meet the requirements of Section 13.18(B) by effectively screening with evergreens the utility cabinet shown on the west side of the building along Rye Circle and to update the plans to properly identify the existing utility cabinet. C. Southeast Quadrant Standards Section 9.10 (D) Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District 1. Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. 2. Building Facades a. Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. b. Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. c. Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. d. All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. e. Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. f. Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. The proposed building will have entrances facing both Hinesburg Road and Rye Circle. The Board finds the building complies with the design standards above, for the following reasons. Windows are numerous and no “blank walls” are shown. The building includes doors on all sides and its roofs comply with the #SP-16-80 6 standards. The building employs a “four-sided” design principle and incorporates varied architectural features throughout. D. Lighting Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations discusses exterior lighting and states that: A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. There are proposed to be two (2) pole lights with one (1) on the north side and one (1) on the south side of the proposed building. These light the parking areas. Poles are shown to be 16 feet and 20 feet tall and to have light fixtures which are downcast and shielded. Components are made of aluminum. The Board finds these criteria met. 6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher than the roof of the structure. #SP-16-80 7 Three (3) gooseneck fixtures are proposed to be mounted to the building with one (1) each at the north, south, and west entrances. Seven (7) lighting fixtures are proposed to be recessed in the ceilings of the entryways with three (3) at the west entrance, two (2) at the east entrance, and one (1) each at the north and south entrances. All of these light sources will mounted at a height of less than 30 feet. The Board finds this criterion met. E. Stormwater Comments The Board received the following comments from the Stormwater Section in an email dated December 29, 2016: 1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 2. The final decision should require that updated final hydrologic modeling be submitted to the Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated into the City’s watershed model for Potash Brook. The Board supports the comments of the Stormwater Section and the conditions of the decision will reflect the Section’s comments. F. Fire No comments were received from the Fire Department. G. Energy Standards The Board 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. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by ____________, to approve preliminary & final plat application #SP-16-80 of Rye Associates, LLC 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. The plans must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. Plans must show evergreen shrub or tree screening around the HVAC/utility cabinet structure on the west side of the property. b. The “Sign” notations on the building elevations must be removed. #SP-16-80 8 4. The applicant must receive final water and wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit for building on Lot 2. 5. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 6. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 7. Prior to permit issuance the applicant must post a $13,170 landscaping bond. This bond must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 8. The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 9. Final hydrologic modelling must be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to permit issuance. 10. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months to construct the building on Lot 3 pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 11. All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be illuminated. 12. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the structures. 13. Any change to the site plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2017, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair #SP-16-80 9 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. SEQ-VCDISTRICT200'CURRENT VCDISTRICTLINETI &I &XXXXTEXISTINGPAVEMENTNEW DMHRIM=404.0± ADJUSTTO FINISH GRADEINV. IN=399.8INV. OUT=399.715" HDPERYE CIRCLELANDON RD.HINESBURG RD.41 RYE CIRCLELOT 227 RYE CIRCLELOT 1EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGSIDEWALKEXISTINGPAVEMENT89 RYE CIRCLELOT 391 RYE CIRCLELOT 4PROPOSEDCONC. CURBEXIST. HVACCABINETSEXISTINGELECTRICALCABINET (TYP.)126' WIDECONC.SIDEWALKPROPOSEDCONC. CURBPROPOSEDPAVEMENTDUMPSTERENCLOSURE ONCONC. PADPROPOSEDBIKE RACKPROPOSEDLIGHT POLETURN-AROUNDSPACE w/ NOPARKING SIGNPROPOSED HVAC ANDUTILITY CABINETSBIOSWALEEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGBIOSWALEEXISTINGSIDEWALKPROPOSEDLIGHT POLECONC. PATIO FOROUTDOOREXERCISING(32.10' x 20')DSMDSMSAL1" = 30'11202C1.0SEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDOVERALL SITEPLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATEDUPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALLDISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED ORABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THEPROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS ADIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE ANDOPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALSINCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOPDRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS ANDANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE0.1 FEET.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDEREDAS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWNAUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES INACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT ANAPPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ONTHE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAP INFORMATION.THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE.17. IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BE PROVIDED INACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT THE WATER LINE TOTWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICESINDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FORCOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILEWHERE APPLICABLE.20. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALL SAFETY FENCES ORRAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNER SHALL VERIFY LOCAL, STATE ANDINSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALLPERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.GENERAL NOTESLEGENDFMEGSTSTW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERFMGSTSTWPROPOSED CONTOUR100PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED FENCEPROPOSED GRAVELPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED GUARD RAILPROPOSED SWALEPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED FORCEMAINPROPOSED GASPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED TELEPHONEPROPOSED WATERSTREAMEXISTING WELLPROPOSED WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINESPROPOSED SEWER MANHOLEDPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDREBAR SETCONCRETE MONUMENT SETPROPOSED HYDRANTPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED UTILITY POLEPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSPROPOSED SETBACK LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINECOMMERCIAL LOT 1, 2 & 3 COVERAGES:ZONE: SEQ - VC DISTRCTMAXIMUM LOT #3 COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 63%MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 26%LOTLOTSIZELOTCOVERAGEBUILDINGCOVERAGELOT 1LOT 226137 SF24859 SF51.03%50.0%21.17%20.50%SEQ-NR DISTRICTSEQ-VC DISTRICTLOT 3 25260 SF 55.19% 24.90%LOT 4 41093 SF 00.06% 00.00%P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 1:45:38 PM UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD406 ST407ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTST404EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN89 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 3PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGTOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE = 6,298 S.F.MAIN BUILDING COVERAGE = 5,989 S.F.F.F. EL. = 407.7407407407407406EX. 12" STORM 406405405MIPFPoMast3-CostHymaERhACoal4-MideRhRIlveSHypaGBumGMToWoMideToWoMideBumGMHypaGIlveBNMastMIPFHymaE3-HypaGBumGM3-CostToTe3-IlveRBumGMToTe3-HypaG2-CostCoalBumGVIlveS3-RhPJM3-IlveBN5-Cost7-ToTe3-HyaE3-IlveRAcfSPoPoPoAcfSAcfSAcfS6-BumGV6-BumGV6-BumGMSNOWSTORAGEDSMDSMSAL11202L1.0SEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDLANDSCAPINGPLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'DET-L-004N.T.S.SHRUB PLANTING DETAILREVISED 03/02/2015DET-L-004 SHRUB PLANTINGPLANTING NOTES:1. EXCAVATE A PIT WHICH IS AT LEAST TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL ANDSAME DEPTH - NO DEEPER.2. REMOVE ALL STRING AND/OR WIRE WRAPPED AROUND TRUCK.3. REMOVE ALL STRAPS, ROPES, WIRE, AND/OR STRINGS USED TO LIFT THE ROOTBALL.4. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND/OR WIRE FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOTBALL.5. TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE SET FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE.DO NOT TOUCH THE ROOTFLARE OF THE TREEMULCH 3" DEPTHTILLED AND LOOSENEDNATIVE SOIL BACKFILLUNDISTURBED SOILCREATE A SOIL SAUCERWITH TOPSOILROOTBALLTILLED AND LOOSENEDNATIVE SOIL BACKFILL2 TIMES THE WIDTHOF THE ROOTBALLDET-L005N.T.S.TREE PLANTING DETAILREVISED 02/18/2015DET-L005 Tree PlaningPLANTING NOTES:1. EXCAVATE A PIT WHICH IS AT LEAST TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL ANDSAME DEPTH - NO DEEPER.2. REMOVE ALL STRING &/OR WIRE WRAPPED AROUND TRUNK.3. 3. REMOVE ALL STRAPS, ROPES, WIRE, &/OR STRINGS USED TO LIFT THE ROOTBALL.4. REMOVE ALL BURLAP &/OR WIRE FROM THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL.5. TOP OF ROOTBALL TO BE SET FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE.2 - 2"x4" STAKE W/LONG TAPER MIN.18" INTOUNDISTURBED SOILUNDISTURBED SOILTILLED AND LOOSENEDNATIVE SOIL BACKFILLMULCH 3" DEPTHDO NOT TOUCH THE ROOTFLARE OF THE TREECREATE A SOIL SAUCERWITH TOPSOILROOTBALLTILLED AND LOOSENEDNATIVE SOIL BACKFILLSTAKE2 TIMES THE WIDTH OF THE ROOTBALLP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 2:47:09 PM, pmead UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD ST WWWWWWETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC ETCETC SSSSSSWWWWWWWWWWWWWETC ETCETCETCWETCETCETCETCETCETC ETC ETC ETCGGGGGGGGGG STSSSSSSSSSSSSSG G G G G G G G G G G G G SSSSSSSSSSST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STW W W W W W W W W W W W W W ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTSTEX. 2" HDPE GAS MAINEX. 8" PVC SEWEREX. 18" STORMEX. 8" D.I. WATER MAINEX. 5" PRIMARYEX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. OUT=400.9 (15")EX. SMH #2RIM=406.8INV. IN=399.9INV. OUT=399.8EX. GAS SERVICEEX. 6" WATER SERVICEEX. 6" UNDERDRAIN89 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 3PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGTOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE = 6,298 S.F.MAIN BUILDING COVERAGE = 5,989 S.F.F.F. EL. = 407.7EX. 6" SEWER SERVICEEX. 12" STORM EX. 6" WATER SERVICE1210(2) 3" CONDUITS FOR ELEC.,TEL. & CABLE SERVICESEXTEND 6 " SDR 35 PVCSEWER SERVICE TO BLDGCLEANOUTE E ETCETCEXTEND CONDUIT TOSOUTH SIDE OF LOTACCESS PARKINGGAS SERVICEG 24'18'9.0'NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK5.0'NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALKCROSS HATCHINGPAVEMENT MARKING(TYP.)NO PARKING SIGN (TYP.)5.0'6.9'2'X2'NEW CBRIM=403.0INV. IN =399.9INV. OUT=399.88INV. IN (W)=400.06" SDR 35 PVCNEW YD #1 LOT 3RIM=405.7INV. OUT=403.0EX. CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8INV. IN=402.1INV. OUT=402.38" HDPEDMH LOT 2RIM = 406.4INV. OUT = 400.7NEW BIKE RACKRELOCATE HANDICAP PARKINGTO SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDINGETCETCETCSNOWSTORAGEDSMDSMSAL1" = 10'11202C2.0SEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSED SITE& UTILITYPLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT11689P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 1:45:42 PM UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UD STST407 406406STSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STST ST ST ST ST ST407ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTST404HINESBURG RD.EX. 18" STORMEX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. OUT=400.9 (15")EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN89 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 3PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGTOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE = 6,298 S.F.MAIN BUILDING COVERAGE = 5,989 S.F.F.F. EL. = 407.7+BC407.4+406.5407+407.7+407.440740740840407406406.3+++406.5405.5EX. 12" STORM +405.4+405.7+406.2+405.7+406.7+406.7+403.3+403.5+407.0+HIGH POINT+407.5+407.6+407.0+407.1+406.0+406.1+403.5+407.7+407.6+407.1+406.7+407.3+407.7+406.9406.8+2'X2'NEW CBRIM=403.0INV. IN =399.9INV. OUT=399.88INV. IN (W)=400.06" SDR 35 PVC406405405NEW YD #1 LOT 3RIM=405.7INV. OUT=403.0EX. CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8INV. IN=402.1INV. OUT=402.38" HDPE+409.6+405.5S=0.56%DMH LOT 2RIM = 406.4INV. OUT = 400.7+403.4SNOWSTORAGEDSMDSMSAL11202C2.1SEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDGRADING &DRAINAGE PLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 1:45:47 PM UD UD UD UD UD UD UD UDUDTN/F EASTMOUNTAINVIEW, LLCN/FSPHINXDEVELOPMENT,LLCN/FSPANIEL PROPERTIES,LLCANDAVALANCHEDEVELOPMENT, LLCFF=401.2400 407 407408400408406F.F. 411.7407405F.F. 410.5B-401.5 F.F. 409.5B-400.5F.F. 409.7B-400.7F.F. 410.0B-401.0407 406 403404405406405405 404 403405 407 407 406404403403 13TYPE "C2"19TYPE "E"15TYPE"D"UDUDUD408408408399F.F. 406.3F.F. 405.0F.F. 408.8 F.F. 407.5 27TYPE "C1"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPROPERTIES, 1st-404.0117TYPE "A"4.0"C"1st-405.5127TYPE "A"03.73"A"1st-405.0115TYPE "B"1st-403.3119TYPE "C"1st-404.0B-395.0FF=402.01st-403.6B-394.6STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST410408407408EXISTINGPAVEMENT E E ST ST ST ST ST STSTSTST404RYE CIRCLE HINESBURG RD.EX. 18" STORMEX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. O U T = 4 0 0 . 9 ( 1 5 " )EX. 6" UNDERDRAIN409409 409407409 407407 408408 407408408406EX. 12" STORM 406405405DSMDSMSAL11202C2.1ASEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'OVERALLPROPOSEDGRADING &DRAINAGE PLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 30'91 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 441 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 289 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 327 RYE CIRCLECOMMERCIAL LOT 1P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 1:45:52 PM 89 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 3PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGTOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE = 6,298 S.F.MAIN BUILDING COVERAGE = 5,989 S.F.F.F. EL. = 407.7EDSMDSMSAL11202C2.2SEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDLIGHTING PLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'LIGHTING LEVEL LEGENDLIGHTING CALCULATION SUMMARYP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 2:18:40 PM, pmead HINESBURG RD.EX. CB #12RIM=405.9INV. IN=402.9 (6" UD)INV. OUT=400.9 (15")89 RYE CIRCLE - LOT 3PROPOSED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGTOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE = 6,298 S.F.MAIN BUILDING COVERAGE = 5,989 S.F.F.F. EL. = 407.74074074074074062'X2'NEW CBRIM=403.0INV. IN =399.9INV. OUT=399.88INV. IN (W)=400.06" SDR 35 PVC406405405NEW YD #1 LOT 3RIM=405.7INV. OUT=403.0EX. CB #2 LOT2RIM=406.8INV. IN=402.1INV. OUT=402.38" HDPEDMH LOT 2RIM = 406.4INV. OUT = 400.7EROSION CONTROL MATTINGBETWEEN CURB AND SIDEWALKCATCH BASININLET PROTECTION(TYP.)INSTALL STABILIZEDCONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE TO NEWCONSTRUCTION AREAINSTALL SILT FENCEINSTALL SILT FENCEEROSION CONTROLMATTING BETWEENPAVEMENT AND SWALESNOWSTORAGEDSMDSMSAL11202C3.0SEPT., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSED EPSCPLANACERYEASSOCIATES, LLC21 CARMICHAEL STESSEX, VERMONT 0545289 RYE CIRCLESOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.LOT #3RYE MEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891" = 10'P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\Commercial Lot 3\11202 - Commercial Lot3 - Site.dwg, 12/29/2016 1:45:57 PM #SP-16-82 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CITY OF BURLINGTON/BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT—1200 AIRPORT DRIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION #SP-16-82 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 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” & “H”, and 4) stormwater improvements, 1200 Airport Drive. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on January 17, 2017. The applicant was represented by Jon Leinwohl. 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 Burlington/Burlington International Airport, seeks 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” & “H”, and 4) stormwater improvements, 1200 Airport Drive. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport. 3. The application was received on December 14, 2016. 4. The property lies within the Airport Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of 16 pages with the first page titled “Location Plan” prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. and dated 12/9/16. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A) (6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Board finds that this criterion is being met. #SP-16-82 2 B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. The Board finds these criteria to not be applicable. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The Board does not consider that the reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) The Board finds these criteria to not be applicable. Stormwater The Board received the following comments from the Stormwater Section in an email dated January 13, 2017: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Parallel Taxiway ‘G’, Phase 2 Permitting” site plan prepared by Stantec, dated 12/01/16 and most recently revised on 1/12/17, as well as the additional materials submitted by the engineer. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 2. The applicant is proposing “Restoration of North Outflow Channel” work on City property. Prior to commencing this work, approval from the City will be required, separate from this application. The Board supports the comments of the Stormwater Section and a condition will be included in this decision reflecting the requirement to maintain stormwater treatment and conveyance structures. #SP-16-82 3 DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by __________, to approve site plan review application #SP-16-82 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 4. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 5. The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 6. 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. 7. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 8. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer at completion of the project. 9. Any change to the approved plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2017 by #SP-16-82 4 ____________________________________ 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. 26,0001,320.8Natural Resources AtlasVermont Agency of Natural Resources18,200© Vermont Agency of Natural Resources925.01:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereMeters925.00NOTESMap created using ANR's Natural Resources AtlasLEGEND462.00vermont.govDISCLAIMER: This map is for general reference only. Data layers that appearon this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. ANR andthe State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but notlimited to, the warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular use, norare any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data on this map.November 18, 2016THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION1" = 1517 1cm = 182Ft. MetersRoadsPrincipal ArterialMinor ArterialRural Major CollectorRural Minor CollectorUrban CollectorLocalNot part of the Functional ClassificaWaterbodyStreamTown BoundaryProject Location- Taxiway 'G'Project Location Map ISSUED FORPERMITDECEMBER 9, 2016MIXED INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIALZONING DISTRICTAIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTMIXED INDUSTRIAL ANDCOMMERCIAL DISTRICTRESIDENTIAL 4DISTRICTV:\1953\active\195311195\transportation\Permits\South Burlington\Locationplan.dwg, G Relocation, 12/8/2016 1:03:04 PM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_36_1200AirportDrive_CityOfBurlington_Burlington Airport_sketch_fill_Jan_17_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 13,2017 Application received: December 23, 2016 CITY OF BURLINGTON/BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT—1200 AIRPORT DRIVE SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-16-36 Meeting date: January 17, 2017 Owner City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 2000-0000C Airport Zoning District & Airport Industrial Zoning District Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-16-36 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to place 228,000 cubic yards of fill in the former quarry on the airport property, 1200 Airport Drive. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. Alteration of Existing Grade 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. 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 Grading Plan,” which shows the grade of the land before and after the application of 228,000 cubic yards of fill. Staff considers this criterion to be met. Staff received the following comment from Public Works in an email dated January 3, 2017: As long as there are no easements or utility lines under this proposed area (perhaps the applicant could stipulate as much) I am ok with these plans. Staff received confirmation from the applicant in an email dated January 3, 2017 that there are no known easements or utilities within the area where the fill is to be placed. Staff also received the following comment from the Champlain Water District in an email dated January 9, 2017: CWD’s High Service 2 (HS2) transmission main runs along the east side of the quarry as shown on the attached plan. We contacted Jon Leinwohl of Stantec and confirmed that our transmission main is most likely outside the quarry fill work area. Given the proximity of the work to our main, we have the following comments: 1. CWD’s HS2 transmission main should be shown on the quarry fill plans to document its location relative to the proposed work. 2. BTV should request CWD mark out the transmission main in the field prior the start of the filling operation. 3. BTV notify CWD when the filling operation begins and when it is completed. 1. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Champlain Water District by requesting the applicant include the HS2 transmission main on future plan submittals. Other Issues 3 The applicant is proposing to move 228,000 cubic yards of fill. Staff considers that it will take thousands of truck trips to move that amount of fill. It appears those trips will all be made on site; however, staff considers that this should be confirmed with the applicant, because if the trips will occur on and off site then this would represent a considerable impact on South Burlington roads. 2. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that the truck trips needed for placing the fill will occur on the applicant’s site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 33,6471,709.3BTV Quarry Location - orthoVermont Agency of Natural Resources23,553© Vermont Agency of Natural Resources1,196.01:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereMeters1,196.00NOTESMap created using ANR's Natural Resources AtlasLEGEND598.00vermont.govDISCLAIMER: This map is for general reference only. Data layers that appearon this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. ANR andthe State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but notlimited to, the warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular use, norare any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data on this map.December 1, 2016THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION1" = 1963 1cm = 236Ft. MetersTown BoundaryQuarry Location ISSUED FORPERMIT, 2016MIXED INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIALZONING DISTRICTAIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTMIXED INDUSTRIAL ANDCOMMERCIAL DISTRICTRESIDENTIAL 4DISTRICTV:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\So. Burlington Quarry\Locationplan.dwg, Quarry, 12/7/2016 12:22:04 PM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3December 22, 2016 2of2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 August 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: L. Britt, Development Review Planner; J. Kraft, D. Burke, B. Gardner, T. Hergenrother, D. Lewis, J. Larkin, G. Rabideau, K. Wagner, S. McClellan 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. Reorganization: a. Elect Chair, Vice Chair & Clerk b. Set Regular Meeting Dates and Times Members agreed to delay the reorganization until there is a full Board present. 5. Continued Site Plat Application #SP-16-38 of Moveable Peaks, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 23,620 sq. ft. equipment rental use building. The amendment consists of: 1) approval to construct a 4,820 sq. ft. addition, and 2) after-the-fact approval for 12 detached accessory structures (storage containers) of 324 sq. ft. each, 14 Berard Drive: Ms. Britt noted the comments from the Stormwater Department directing the applicant to meet the requirements of the LDRs. The applicant must also maintain the porous concrete driveway. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 August 2016 PAGE 2 Mr. Kraft said that regarding traffic impact they will go with what staff says. Mr. Kraft also explained that the storage units are shipping containers for things that are used once a year or so. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Belair recommends that the Board approve them. Mr. Wilking then moved to close #SP-15-38. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-16-19 of Veronica Lambert to subdivide a 4.11 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling and a 2-family dwelling into two lots of 1.44 acres (lot #1) and 2.67 acres (lot #2), 1405 Hinesburg Road: It was noted that the applicant had requested a continuance. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-19 to 6 September 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-16-15 of Gardner & Sons Development Corporation for a planned unit development to further develop a 2.16 acre parcel developed with a 2-family dwelling. The proposal consists of 1) constructing a single family dwelling, and 2) constructing a 3-unit multi-family dwelling, O’Brien Drive: Mr. Parsons recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Burke indicated the location of the duplex on the site and also the proposed location of the single family and triplex buildings. He noted that they have moved unit #3 as far forward as possible. They will relocate a stockade fence to the property line. Mr. Burke also showed the location of other proposed stockade fencing. There are no waiver requests. Both the Fire Department and Public Works are satisfied with the plan. Staff is also satisfied with the exception of the parking space in front of unit #3. There are 2 drainage ways (Mr. Burke indicated these on the plan) which eventually connect. A shallow ravine somewhat separates 2 of the units. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 3 Mr. Burke noted that the regulations recommend redevelopment and reuse of properties in the city’s core. This project meets that recommendation. Mr. Burke explained why the parking space in front of unit #3 can’t work behind the unit. Staff had recommended placing it next to the garage, but the applicant felt this can’t work with the winter parking ban. They feel the one space in front meets the regulations. Ms. Britt said staff’s concern was that it would become a “persistent” parking space, not just one used for guests. Mr. Miller said he saw no reason to move the parking space. Other members voiced no objections to it remaining in front of unit #3. Mr. Burke indicated the location of “No Parking” signs as requested by staff. With regard to landscaping, Mr. Burke said that $12,100.00 is required. They are asking for a credit of $5850. The split rail fencing, which can be counted toward the requirement, is costing $10,500, and an acre of trees is being preserved. They felt there is no other place to put landscaping. Members agreed the site was densely landscaped. Ms. Britt said Mr. Belair was OK with the split rail fencing counting toward the landscape budget. The applicant was reminded to get a street name approved by the Planning Commission. Members then viewed the elevations and the cut sheet for the garage door. No other issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-15. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-16-21 of Hergenrother Construction, LLC, to subdivide a 1.55 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three lots consisting of: 1) a 37,832 sq. ft. lot with the existing house (lot #1), 2) a 14,602 sq. ft. lot (lot #2), and 3) a 14,369 sq. ft. lot (lot #3), 1410 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Parsons recused himself during this application due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Burke showed the location of the property across the road from Dubois Drive. He noted DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 4 that the existing single family home has an access on Hinesburg Road. It utilizes on-site water and septic. Lots 2 and 3 would access off Highland Terrace and would have city sewer and water. The existing house will be on the city sewer system but will continue to use on-site water. The trees on the existing house lot will remain. Mr. Burke said the lots meet the lot size requirement and the garage setback requirements. The existing lot won’t meet the 2 to 1 ratio (it would be 1.6 to 1). In order to meet that, it would require a PUD. Mr. Burke said they don’t feel the parcel is conducive to a PUD and are suggesting a 4th lot instead. He showed how this configuration would work. All the lots would then meet the requirements. It would result in a lower resale value for the existing home. There would be a shared easement along the drive to serve the existing lot and the new lot. Staff had suggested moving the houses forward and having only a 25 foot setback. Mr. Burke said they prefer not to do this and noted that many of the existing houses are set back up to 60 feet. Mr. Wilking said only 3 of the existing houses have a 25-foot setback; all the others are about 60 feet on both sides of the road. Mr. Burke added that the homes with 25-foot setbacks are on very narrow lots. Mr. Wilking had no issue with the 60-foot setbacks. Other members voiced no objections as well. An abutting neighbor expressed concern with the trees adjacent to his property. Mr. Burke indicated the trees that would have to go. He said no trees on the property line would be taken down. Another neighbor asked that the dead trees be removed. No other issues were raised. Mr. Parsons rejoined the Board. 9. (#10 on the agenda) Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-20 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of 6 commercial buildings with a total of 27,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing an 1800 sq. ft. building for retail use, 1233 Shelburne Road: Mr. Lewis identified the property as Lakewood Commons. He noted this is the last lot in the development. The proposed business would be a cell phone store with few employees. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 5 The condo association wants the new building to “look into” the development, and they have OK’d this plan. Mr. Lewis said according to their engineer, the parking is in compliance. Ms. Britt said staff is concerned with the parking between the 2 buildings. Mr. Lewis said all parking in the development is “shared.” The Eagles Club has light use during the day and more at night when the retail building would be closed. Ms. Smith asked if the store would have a conference room like the one across the road. Mr. Lewis said it would not. Regarding building orientation, Ms. Britt said staff is looking for an “on-street presence” in that part of the city, and new projects are being oriented toward the street. She noted that Mr. Conner feels strongly about a presence on the street. Mr. Wilking felt that made no sense as it would be blocking a view of an historic building. Mr. Parsons agreed and suggested the new building could be made to look like it has a Shelburne Rd. presence. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t feel that blocking the view of the historic building was a compelling argument as it was only blocked significantly from one direction. Members agreed to keep this issue open. Staff is recommending implementation of a street connection and location of a future street. Ms. Britt indicated the street that appears on the Official City Map. Mr. Lewis said they are working on that connection with Mr. Larkin. The condo association board is OK with it. The location will depend on what happens on the next door property. Regarding trees, Mr. Lewis said one large tree will be removed. They will meet the dollar requirement for landscaping. Mr. Miller noted that staff was OK with a 21 foot front setback and a 10 foot side setback is the building is reoriented. Mr. Wilking suggested the building have a pitched roof to match other buildings in the development and also the Acura building. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Lewis said they would consider that. No other issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 6 10. (#9 on the Agenda) Continued sketch plan application #SD-15-40 of John P. Larkin for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 54 unit hotel (Larkin Terrace), 2) a 100 room hotel; 3) 20,000 sq. ft. of leasable commercial/retail space; 4) 200 residential units; 5) 5,000 sq. ft. of leasable recreation/fitness space, 1185 & 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Parsons recused himself during this application due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Rabideau said they feel it is important to have a Master Plan process. This is a long-term vision of 4 phases. Mr. Rabideau indicated there would be 2 north/south roads parallel to Shelburne Road and a third road that would connect through the Lewis property and eventually to Holmes Road. Mr. Rabideau said they feel this is a place for a more urban development. They would like to apply some Form Based Code principles as well. He also noted that phase 4 is very speculative, and they have no plans for it now as there is a long-term lease for the movie theatre. The theatre will continue to have all the parking it needs. Mr. Wagner said they have been looking at urban character consisting of mixed use, walkability, and location on a mass transit line. They also are committed to an architectural richness that makes the spaces more meaningful. Buildings are sited 15-feet from the right-of-way. This allows creation of south-facing outdoor spaces and terraces. It also reinforces the urban character. Pedestrian links are 10-12 feet wide. Road A would have on-street parking (which would calm traffic). All streets will be tree-lined. There would be parking under all buildings. Mr. Rabideau said Phase 1 would be a mixed use residential building with retail on the first floor. Phase 2 would be a mixed use building with apartments and a gym. Phase 3 would be the hotel. Phase 4 (speculative) could have commercial on the first floor with residential above or it could be all commercial. Mr. Wagner said other amenities would include special paving, a planting belt with street trees, the potential for outdoor dining, awnings, pedestrian scale lighting along the walks, possible roof decks to capture lake views, sidewalks that interact with store fronts, etc. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 7 Mr. Rabideau said they anticipate more than one building height, and they might ask for a waiver to allow for that variety. He then showed some images of building concepts. Mr. Kochman said he liked the variety of facades. Mr. Cota agreed. (Mr. Cota left the meeting at this point to meet a family obligation.) Mr. Kochman asked if there are plans for roof solar. Mr. Larkin said they will certainly look at that. The rooftops are flat. Mr. Rabideau said they will at least be solar ready. They are also looking at other technologies. Mr. Kochman had no issue with the setbacks but was concerned with the proliferation of waivers. Ms. Britt noted that when the regulations were put in place there were different ideas on what the street should look like. Zoning hasn’t yet caught up with the new concepts. Mr. Wilking said his concern was getting traffic up and down Shelburne Road. He noted that the existing car dealers have problems getting in and out of their lots at certain times of day. Ms. Smith liked this iteration better than the previous one but was concerned with the little space between the road and the sidewalk. Mr. Rabideau said that staff told them to “put aside the rule book and come in with what you think is best.” He added that there is a trade-off for better design. He felt the answer to traffic management is to look at the secondary and tertiary connections to get traffic off Shelburne Road. He did feel the planting strip could be made a little wider between Shelburne Road and the sidewalk. Mr. Miller liked the plan and felt the trees along the sidewalk can help reduce the speed of traffic. Ms. Smith asked if there is a percentage of the housing that needs to be affordable. Members noted the number of people being displaced from Larkin Terrace. Mr. Rabideau said they are going to try to find a place for those people, either here or in L&M Park. He noted that one building of Larkin Terrace has been condemned due to water issues. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 8 Mr. Rabideau said the next thing the Board will see is Phase 1 with the corner concept along with the Master Plan. Staff has suggested the applicant consider ways for an innovative PUD application. Mr. Larkin said they will have that dialog with Eric Farrell and the movie theatre people. He didn’t see huge barriers. Staff also recommends considering building envelope standards for a T-4 zone. Mr. Rabideau said “absolutely.” It was noted that staff recommends support of the reduced setbacks and also asks that landscaping be allowed on rooftops. Mr. Kochman said he shares the concern regarding the displacement of existing Larkin Terrace residents. Mr. Larkin said they are meeting with them regularly. Ms. Britt noted that issue is not within the purview of the DRB in judging the application. It was noted that a letter from C. H. Partners was received indicating their interest in the project and possible future comments. An audience member said it was nice to see “some quality development” in South Burlington. 11. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corporation to develop a 12-unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six 2- family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: This item could not be heard as Mr. Kochman would have to recuse himself, resulting in there not being a quorum present. Mr. Wilking moved to continue #SD-16-14 to 23 August 2016. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2016 PAGE 9 12. Minutes of 19 July 2016: The Minutes could not be considered as there was not a quorum present. 13. Other Business: No other business was discussed. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date