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 - 03/07/2017
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 March 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, M. Behr (via phone), J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota, D. Parsons, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Ladd, Human Resources; Sgt. Dubie, Police Department; L. Michaels, B. Snyder, M. Sperry, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt 1. Additions, deletions or changes to the order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #6 to follow #4. 2. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller announced that a communication had been received from Daniel Seff indicating that the two decisions on the Snyder group (Spear Meadows) applications have been appealed to the Environmental Court. 4. Sgt. Dubie from the South Burlington Police Department and Janice Ladd, HR Director, to discuss the City’s Crisis Plan: Sgt. Dubie advised that an emergency evacuation procedure will be added to the beginning of each city meeting agenda. He then explained the procedure for evacuating the Conference Room should a fire alarm go off or should there be a medical emergency. The meeting Chair will be responsible for assuring that everyone has left the building safely. 5. (formerly #6) Continued sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12-unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Messrs. Kochman and Parson and Ms. Smith recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. The applicant reminded the Board that they had initially proposed to develop a 12-unit (6 2-family dwellings). Following Board comments at the last hearing, they scaled down the development to two 4-unit buildings, for a total of 8 units. The buildings have also been pushed further back from the road. The applicant showed the proposed elevations. Members felt the revised scale and the elevations were a major improvement. They did feel there should be some space set aside for recreation No other issues were raised. 6. (formerly #5) Preliminary and final plat application #SD-17-03 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three lots ranging in size from 12,589 sq. ft. to 183,150 sq. ft., 6 Market Street: Messrs. Parsons and Kochman and Ms. Smith rejoined the Board. Mr. Miller noted that this project to come before the Board in the City Center Form Based Code District. Form Based Code applications typically receive administrative review and do not need to come before this Board; however, because there is a subdivision involved as well as an assignment of street type, the Board is asked to hear those issues. Mr. Snyder said that following the 2 February hearing, they agreed to provide the full 60-foot right-of-way for the future Mary Street. Mr. Miller noted that this will require a minor change to the Official City Map which currently shows Mary Street straddling this parcel (and adjacent parcels). Mr. Sperry, representing an abutting neighbor, asked how the road would comply with city standards. Mr. Belair said this road would be considered a “Neighborhood/Support Street” under the Form Based Code criteria, and the proposal meets the requirements for that type of street. Members felt it was necessary to continue the hearing to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to act on the change to the Official City Map. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-03 to 21 March 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-17-01 of Steven & Eileen Rosen to: 1) expand the footprint of an existing single family dwelling from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,550 sq. ft., 2) add a front entry porch, 3) extend the deck, and 4) reconstruct stairs to lake, 95 Central Avenue: The applicant indicated the location of the entry porch and showed how the deck would be expanded. Members discussed the proposed building materials and also the building height of the revised structure. Queen City Park neighbors were concerned that the proposal does not align with the historical nature of the QCP neighborhood. Mr. Miller advised that this was not a criteria which the Board could consider. Mr. Michaels suggested that changing the orientation of the roofline would be an improvement. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-17-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two-family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langfeldt and Mr. Gill presented a power point of the proposed project. Members then asked that they address staff notes relating to parking (specifically with regard to front yard setbacks), height and setback waivers, traffic and circulation, open space, details of landscaping and landscaping budget, wetland and wildlife habitat, affordable housing, rec paths, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. There was particular concern as to whether vehicles parked in driveways should be allowed to cross the right-of-way. Following discussion, Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-37 to 18 April 2017. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 21 February 2017: The Minutes were not presented for review. 10. Other Business: No other issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:27 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 6, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_14_150SwiftStreet_EasternDevelopment_PUD_sket ch DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 3, 2017 Application received: March 7, 2017 150 Swift Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-14 Meeting Date: March 7, 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 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 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 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 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 0SJHJOBM$PODFQUJODMVEFEVOJUT %FTJHOSFEVDFEUUPVOJUTJOCVJMEJOHT %FTJHOSFEVDFEUIFCVJMEJOHGPPUSQJOUTVCTUBODJBMMZ $VSSFOUEFTJHOJODVMEFTVOJUTPOBOFWFOTNBMMFSGPPUQSJOUEVFUPXFUMBOETBOETFUCBDLT 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 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Subdivision Application #SD-17-03, Snyder-Braverman LLC, 6 Market Street DATE: March 7, 2017 DRB Meeting Enclosed with this cover memo is a draft decision for the above-listed subdivision application at 6 Market Street. Staff recommends that the Board review the application, gather testimony, and pose any questions it may have. The project has changed in one way from what was presented to the Board at Sketch Plan last month: the applicant has offered to provide the City with a full 60’ Right-of-Way for the future Mary Street, rather than the previous proposal which had been for one-half of the required ROW, 30’, with the other half to potentially follow in the future from the adjcant property owner. With this change, the application before the Board is simplified in that a full street ROW is being proposed and not one-half of a street, which would have required temporary measures for access. One effect of this proposed change is that the applicant must request the Planning Commission and City Council for a “minor change” to the Official Map, which presently shows the Mary Street connection straddling the Snyder-Braverman and adjacent parcels. Pursuant to 24 VSA 5521(2), minor changes to an Official Map may be considered and approved by resolution of the City Council, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission. The state statutes further state that such a consideration and approval may take place concurrently with development review. Based on this, staff recommends that the Board discuss and review SD-17-03 at its March 7th meeting, and then CONTINUE the application to its March 21st meeting to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to undertake its concurrent review prior to the DRB closing the public hearing. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING SNYDER-BRAVERMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC—6 MARKET ST. PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-17-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Preliminary & final plat application #SD-17-03 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three (3) lots ranging in size from 12,589 sq. ft. to 183,150 sq. ft., 6 Market Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on March 7, 2017. The applicant was represented by ______________. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, seeks to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three (3) lots ranging in size from 12,589 sq. ft. to 183,180 sq. ft., 6 Market Street. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is South Burlington City Center, LLC. 3. The application was received on February 10, 2017. 4. The property lies within the City Center Form Based Codes Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of one (1) page titled “Subdivision Plat” prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 10/14/2016 and last revised on 2/10/2017. A. Form Based Codes District Dimensional Standards Subdivision of a property is one of the few instances in which the Board is involved in projects that are proposed to occur within the City Center Form Based Codes District. There are no dimensional standards for the Board to consider in the case of this project, because the Transect Zone 5 area of the FBC does not have minimum lot widths or lot sizes. The Board notes that it is the applicant’s responsibility to assure that the parcels resulting from the subdivision are able to be developed in full conformance with these Regulations. B. Parcels The proposed subdivision will create three (3) parcels: one (1) of 183,180 sq. ft. (noted as Lot B on the Subdivision Plat); one (1) of 28,793 sq. ft. (Lot A), and one (1) of 12,589 sq. ft. The 12,589 sq. ft. parcel is a 60 foot wide lot/right-of-way to be conveyed to the City of South Burlington for the purpose of the Mary Street right-of-way so that it can connect to Market Street. C. Access to parcels 2 Pursuant to Section 8.14(D)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, in Transect Zone 5, curb cuts are prohibited on Market Street and Garden Street and are required to be spaced a minimum of 100’ apart. Lot A is proposed to be accessed via the 60 foot right-of-way to which the City will receive an irrevocable offer of dedication. The Board finds that Lot A is sufficiently long along this right-of-way to meet the 100 foot minimum separation from Market Street. Lot B is proposed to be accessed via the existing right-of-way located to its east (to become Garden Street when completed). The Board finds that Lot B will have sufficient frontage along the Garden Street right- of-way in Transect Zone 4 (where curb cuts are permitted) to provide access. D. Official Map The South Burlington Official Map contains two planned streets on the original parcel. On the western side of the original parcel is a planned street connecting Market Street to Mary Street. The Official Map shows approximately half of this planned street on the applicant’s property, with the other half on the property to the west, listed as “Century Partners, LP” on the subdivision plat. The applicant proposes to dedicate a parcel of 60 feet in width, which could accommodate the entire planned street shown on the Official Map. Mary Street and its extension towards Market Street are listed as a “Support / Neighborhood Street” in the City Center Form Based Code – Primary & Secondary Streets & Block Standard Applicability map in the Land Development Regulations. A Support Street requires a 60 foot right-of-way. In the center of the original parcel is a planned street connecting Market Street to the property to the north and eventually to Williston Road. At this time, the applicant has not proposed to dedicate this planned road. The Board finds it is acceptable to not subdivide this second street right-of-way at this time as the proposed Lot B will have access to a street on its eastern side and because the applicant has indicated that they only intend to develop Lot A with a building at this time. This decision will, however, contain a condition that no approvals for buildings on any portion of Lot B be issued until the planned street shown on the Official Map is subdivided and offered to the City via an irrevocable offer of dedication. E. Determination of Street Types Pursuant Section 11.03(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the Development Review Board shall determine the applicable Street Type. Section 11.03(B)(2) states that “Any street type listed for a specific section of roadway on the Official Map shall be the applicable street type for the purposes of these regulations.” Pursuant to the City Center Form Based Code – Primary & Secondary Streets & Block Standard Applicability map, Market Street has its own specific “Market Street” designation, and Mary Street from Market Street to Williston Road is listed as “Neighborhood / Support Street.” As the Mary Street section includes two street types (Neighborhood and Support), the Board is responsible for determining the final street type. Pursuant to Section 8.14(D)(2), of these two options, only “Support Street” is eligible in the T5 District. The Board finds that for the section of road in question, from Market Street to the existing Mary Street, the street type will be “Support Street.” F. Street Construction 3 Section 8.04(B)(2) of the Land Development Regulations addresses street construction of planned streets shown on the Official Map; however, the Board finds no construction is being proposed as part of this application and so this section of the Regulations will be dealt with at future stages of review. G. Criteria for Review of Subdivisions Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations contains a list of criteria by which subdivisions should be reviewed. These criteria deal with such issues as utilities, open space, and wetlands. No wetlands or other natural resources have been identified by the applicant. There is no development (no new utilities, buildings, planned open spaces, etc.) proposed in conjunction with this application, only the subdivision of land into three (3) parcels. The Board finds that the proposed subdivision does not limit the ability of any of the parcels to meet the criteria of Section 15.18 once development is proposed at a future date. DECISION Motion by ___________, seconded by _____________, to approve preliminary and final plat application #SD-17-03 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plat must be revised to show the changes below and will require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the plat. a. The survey plat must be revised to include the signature and seal of the land surveyor. b. The survey plat must be revised to be at the scale listed on the plat. 4. Prior to recording the final plat plan, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication for the 12,589 sq. ft. parcel) will be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. 5. Pursuant to Section 15.17 of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant must submit a Certificate of Title showing the ownership of all property and easements to be dedicated or acquired by the City to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording the mylars. 6. No approvals for land development on any portion of the parcel identified as Lot B on the Subdivision Plat may be issued until the planned street shown on the Official Map as crossing Lot B is subdivided and offered to the City via an irrevocable offer of dedication. 7. The applicant must submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in digital (PDF) format. 8. The final plat plan (Subdivision Plat) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant must submit a copy of the survey plat in digital 4 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 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. #CU-17-01 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING STEVEN AND EILEEN ROSEN—95 CENTRAL AVE. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-17-01 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-17-01 of Steven & Eileen Rosen to: 1) expand the footprint of an existing single family dwelling from 1,460 sq. ft. to 1,550 sq. ft., 2) add a front entry porch, 3) extend deck, and 4) reconstruct stairs to lake, 95 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on March 7, 2017. The applicants were represented by ______________. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicants, Steven and Eileen Rosen, seek a conditional use permit to: 1) expand the footprint of an existing single family dwelling from 1,460 sq. ft. to 1,700 sq. ft., 2) add a front entry porch, 3) extend deck, and 4) reconstruct stairs to lake, 95 Central Avenue. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Steven and Eileen Rosen. 3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District and the Surface Water Protection Overlay District. 4. The application was received on February 7, 2017. 5. The plans submitted consist of an eight (8) page set of plans with page one (1) entitled, “Site Plan”, prepared by Brown & Davis Design, and dated 2/3/2017. A. Section 12.01(D) Pre-Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park Section 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met (Section 12.01(D)(2)): a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. The Board finds this criteria to be met. #CU-17-01 2 b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. The applicant proposes to replace and enlarge the existing deck and add new wood steps; however, the deck and steps will not extend closer to the applicable high water elevation than the existing deck. The Board finds this criteria to be met. c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. The current structure has a footprint of 1,460 sq. ft. Additional deck space and an expansion of the house will increase the footprint to 1,700 sq. ft., which is 16.4% greater than the footprint of the existing structure. The Board finds this criteria to be met. d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. An erosion control plan prepared by an engineering firm has been submitted. The Board finds this criteria to be met. e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant shows additional plantings, including what is described as a rain garden on the west side (closest to Lake Champlain). The Board considers this criterion met. Section 12.01(D)(3) allows for water-oriented development to be approved by the Board if the improvement involves natural materials, does not increase the potential for erosion, does not have an adverse impact on the aesthetic integrity of the lakeshore, and the plans include landscaping designed to preserve, maintain and supplement existing landscaping. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing steps which lead to the lakeshore with another set of wood steps. This is a matter of maintenance and the proposed steps will occupy the same number of square feet (210 sq. ft.) as the existing steps. The Board finds these criteria to be met. B. Section 14.10 Conditional Use Review The proposed project must meet the standards for a conditional use included in Section 14.10(E). (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district #CU-17-01 3 within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The Queen City Park Zoning District encourages residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. The Board finds that the proposed project will not impact that goal. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. As noted above the Board finds that this projects conforms to Section 12.01(D). The Board finds this criterion to be met. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. The Board finds this criterion to be met. DECISION Motion by ____________, seconded by __________, to approve conditional use application #CU-17-01 of Steven & Eileen Rosen, 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 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. 4. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present #CU-17-01 4 Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2017, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. ROSEN KOZINbrown + davis design11 winding brook roadjericho, vermont 05465802.899.1155info@brownanddavis.comwww.brownanddavis.comc 2017 brown + davis design2. 0 3. 2 0 1 7EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLEXISTING STONE RETAINING WALLSEXISTING WOOD RETAINING WALLPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEXISTING WOOD FENCENEW CONCRETE RETAINING WALLEXISTING STORM SEWER CATCH BASINSET BACK LINESET BACK LINE 5'-0"5'-0"10'-0"SETBACK LINENEW WOOD STEPS DOWN TO LAKE TO REPLACE EXISTING STEPS EXISTING WOOD FENCEEXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALLEXISTING STORM SEWER CATCH BASINEXISTING TELEPHONE POLE AND OVERHEAD POWER LINENEW CRUSHED STONE DRIVEWAY LINE OF EXISTING CONCRETE PAVER DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTLINE OF EXISTING WOOD RETAINING WALL TO BE RELOCATEDNEW COVERED ENTRY PORCHNEW GARDEN (REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTING INFORMATION) LINE OF EXISTING HOUSELINE OF 12' ADDITIONC E N T R A L A V E N U ENEW PERFORATED PIPE PERIMETER DRAIN AROUND NEW ADDITION, TO DRAIN INTO NEW STONE SUMPNEW DRAIN LINE BELOW GARDEN TO COLLECT AND DIVERT WATER FROM DRIVEWAY, TO DRAIN INTO NEW STONE SUMPNEW GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT ON SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE TO DRAIN INTO NEW STONE SUMPPARCEL ID - 0330-00095ZONE - QCP - QUEEN CITY PARKEXISTING HOUSE AND ROOF COVERAGE (FOOTPRINT): 1,400 SQ. FT. EXISTING DECK, PATIO AND DRIVEWAY COVERAGE: 675 SQ. FT.EXISTING RETAINING WALLS: 635 SQ. FT.EXISTING STEPS TO LAKE: 210 SQ. FT.EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 2,920 SQ. FT.PROPOSED HOUSE AND ROOF COVERAGE (FOOTPRINT): 1,550 SQ. FT.PROPOSED DECK, PATIO AND DRIVEWAY COVERAGE: 1,695 SQ. FT.EXISTING RETAINING WALLS: 635 SQ. FT.NEW STEPS TO LAKE TO REPLACE EXISTING: 210 SQ. FT.PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 4,090 SQ. FT.LOT SIZE: 10,610 SQ. FT.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BUILDING COVERAGE: 20%EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE: 13%PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE: 14.6%MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 40%EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 27.5% PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 38.5%NEW DECK TO REPLACE EXISTINGDNN SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0' 5' 10' 15'NEW PERMEABLE STONE PATIONEW PERMEABLE STONE PATIONEW STONE STEPS AND WALKWAYNEW WOOD STEPS DOWN FROM DECK9 5 C E N T R A L A V E N U ENEW DECK ROOF PITCHA1NEW STONE STEPSNEW ROOF FOROUTDOOR STORAGELINE OF 100' SETBACK FROM 95.5 WATER LEVELLINE OF 100' SETBACK FROM 95.5 WATER LEVEL ROSEN KOZINbrown + davis design11 winding brook roadjericho, vermont 05465802.899.1155info@brownanddavis.comwww.brownanddavis.comc 2017 brown + davis design2. 0 3. 2 0 1 717'-1"23'-2"13'-8"22'-0"21'-8"22'-0"23'-8"23'-2"23'-2"ELEV. = 148.7TOP OF GRADE @ NORTHEAST CORNERELEV. = 140.7TOP OF GRADE @ SOUTHWEST CORNERELEV. = 141.0TOP OF GRADE @ SOUTHEASTCORNERELEV. = 140.0TOP OF GRADE @ NORTHEAST CORNERSOUTH ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATION EXISTING BRICKDRIVEWAYSTEPSPATIOSTEPEX. THRESHOLDEL.=141.2'THRESHOLDEL.=149.8'THRESHOLDEL.=149.2'EXISTING HOUSE1,050± SFDECKFUEL TANKEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING RIPRAPEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLPLANTER EX. CONC. RETAINING WALL STEPSQUEEN CITY PARK ZONING DISTRICTEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLLANDING (TYP.)EEEEEEEEEEEOHP&TOHP&TOHP&TOHP&TOHP&T1" IPF0.5' BG(CRIMPED)8" ASHFENCEEXISTING CATCH BASINRIM=152.7'INV. IN 8" (N)=150.4'INV. OUT 12" (S)=150.1'EXISTING CATCH BASINRIM=146.2'℄ INV.=144.4'EXISTING SMHRIM=147.2'EXISTING SMHRIM=153.5'112" IPF1' AG112" IPF0.5' BG(DISTURBED)T-BAR0.5' BG10'5'5'18" SPRUCE(2) SINK HOLE ARE THERESULT OF WATER MIGRATINGTHROUGH TOP OFDETERIORATING 12" CMPBETWEEN CATCH BASINSTRUCTURESFENCEPAVEMENTTOP OF HYDRANTEL.=154.9'STONEWALL148'±148'±53'±25'±66'±E. KIRSCHNER94 CENTRAL AVE.S. & E. ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.G. & I. BOURNE97 CENTRAL AVE.+ 142.7'+ 143.8'+ 144.6'+ 145.2'+ 143.7'+ 140.7'+ 140.3'140.7' ++ 140.3'+ 140.4'+ 141.5'+ 142.8'+ 143.6'+ 144.8'+ 144.6'+ 144.7'+ 141.9'+ 145.5'+ 142.7'+ 140.1'+ 139.2'+ 139.8'+ 140.5'+ 140.1'139.9' +139.9' +142.0' +141.2' ++ 141.9'141.8' +143.8' +141.1' +143.2' + 144.8' +143.6' +145.8' + 146.5' + 148.3' ++ 144.3'148.0' +148.6' ++ 148.7'+ 148.7'+ 148.8'+ 148.5'+ 148.6'+ 146.5'+ 148.7' + 146.7' 147.1' +146.2' +149.5' +149.6' +149.1' +147.8' +135.5' +136.0' +150' FROM 102' CONTOUR100' FROM 95.5' CONTOUR6" x 6" TIMBERSRETAINING WALL150' FROM 102' CONTOURSTOCKADE FENCE12" CMP12" CMP12" CMP (DETERIORATING)8" PVCBGJLMGAC1" = 8'08176C1.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'STEVEN ROSEN&EILEEN KOZEN-ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403ROSEN PROPERTYEXISTINGCONDITIONS SITEPLANACEPROGRESS PLANS95 CENTRAL AVE. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTNOTES1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALLUTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES.EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTORSHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BEREPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE(888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ASONE. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED UPON DEEDANGLES AND DISTANCES AS WELL AS EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE FIELD.3. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC DECEMBER 2016. CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONTCOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL) AND LAKE CHAMPLAIN LAKEELEVATION ESTABLISHED FROM THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEYGAUGING STATION 04294500 LOCATED IN BURLINGTON, VERMONT. (DATUMNGVD 29, VERTICAL)LEGENDOHP&TOHP&TSTSW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING OVERHEAD ELEC. & TEL.EXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING WATERPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDS. BURLINGTONBURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATION7- LOT COVERAGE TABLE -ZONE: QCP - QUEEN CITY PARK95 CENTRAL AVE. - PARCEL ID 0330-00095MINIMUMEXISTINGLOT SIZE7,500 SF 10,610 SF0.24 AC.MAXIMUMEXISTINGBUILDING COVERAGE20% 13%LOT COVERAGE40% 20%NOTE: THESE PROPERTIES LIE IN THE QUEEN CITY PARK ZONING DISTRICT.AREA CALCULATIONS FOR PARCEL ARE TO THE 95.5' CONTOURDRAFTfor ReviewDRAFTfor Review--2/6/2017P:\AutoCADD Projects\2008\08176\1-CADD Files-08176\Dwg\08176.dwg, 2/6/2017 11:03:59 AM, gcarter EXISTING BRICKXISDRIVEWAYEWCKDECECDECDDDFUEL TANKFUEL TANKFUEL TANKFUEL TANKRETTAININTTAININNG WANNG WAALLALAEXISEXISSSTING STING SCONCCONCCONCC. RETC. RETC. RETTAININTAININTAININNG WANG WANG WAALLALALLEXISTING RIPRAPEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLTAINING WAEPLANTER EX. CONC. RETAINING WALL STEPSQUEEN CITY PARK ZONING DISTRICTEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLLANDING (TYP.)AISGAAISISGGATRIPTINTPRPININXINGRARXIXIGGRARAIIRGRARARAGGRRRARASSSSRAPSSSRRPPPRRTRPPRIPRTINTPPTTRRPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHP&TOHP&&T&TOHP&TOHP&TOHP&TOOHOO1" IPF0.5' BG(CRIMPED)8" ASHFENCEENWWEXISTING CATCH BASINRIM=152.7'INV. IN 8" (N)=150.4'INV. OUT 12" (S)=150.1'EXISTING CATCH BASINRIM=146.2'℄ INV.=144.4'EXISTING SMHRIM=147.2'EXISTING SMHRIM=153.5'112" IPF1' AG112" IPF0.5' BG(DISTURBED)T-BAR0.5' BG10'5'5'18" SPRPRUCEPR(2) SINK HOLE ARE THERESULT OF WATER MIGRATINGTHROUGH TOP OFDETERIORATING 12" CMPBETWEEN CATCH BASINSTRUCTURESFENCEPAVEMENTTOP OF HYDRANTEL.=154.9'STONEWALL148'±148'±53'±25'±66'±E. KIRSCHNER94 CENTRAL AVE.S. & E. ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.G. & I. BOURNE97 CENTRAL AVE.150' FROM 102' CONTOUR100' FROM 95.5' CONTOUR6" x 6" TIMBERSRETAINING WALL150' FROM 102' CONTOURBUILDING FACE OF EXISTING HOUSEBUILDING FACE OF NEW 12' ADDITIONNEW BIO-SWALEGRADE TO DRAINFDFDNEW DECK TO REPLACE EXISTINGDNNEW DECKCONNECT GUTTER & DOWNSPOUTON SOUTH SIDE OF HOUSE TODRAIN INTO INFILTRATIONTRENCHSTOCKADE FENCENEW 4" PERFORATED SDR PIPEPERIMETER DRAIN AROUND NEWADDITION, TO DRAIN INTO NEWINFILTRATION TRENCHNEW PERMEABLECRUSHED STONEDRIVEWAYNEW STONESTEPS &WALKWAY(TYP.)NEW STONEPATIO W/PERVIOUSPAVERSNEW STONEPATIO W/PERVIOUSPAVERSEXISTING TREETO BE REMOVEDNEW SECOND FLOORCANTILEVERED DECKNEW WOODSTEPS DOWNFROM DECKNEW COVEREDENTRY PORCHNEW CONCRETERETAINING WALLEXISTING WOODRETAINING WALL TOBE RELOCATEDNEW EDGE OFOVERHANGRAIN GARDEN AREASEE LANDSCAPEPLAN FOR PLANTINGPLAN & DETAILSTO BE REMOVED& REPLACEDNEW GARDENGRADE TO DRAIN OVERFLOW FROMINFILTRATION TRENCH TO DAY LIGHT@ RAIN GARDEN AREA. (CORETHROUGH EXISTING CONCRETE)TO BE R E M OVE D TO BE REL O CATE D NEW INFILTRATION TRENCH FORROOF DRAIN, FOUNDATIONDRAIN & SURFACE WATER12" CMP12" CMP12" CMP (DETERIORATING)ROOFPITCHNEW BUILDING ADDITION8" PVCNEW YARD DRAINRIM=6"± ABOVEFINISH GRADECORE THROUGHEXISTING CONCRETEGRADE TO DAYLIGHTNEW ROOF(SHED)3%3%JLMJLMGAC1" = 8'08176C1.1LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'STEVEN ROSEN&EILEEN KOZEN-ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403ROSEN PROPERTYSTORMWATERPLANACEPROGRESS PLANS95 CENTRAL AVE. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTLEGENDOHP&TOHP&TSTSW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING OVERHEAD ELEC. & TEL.EXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING WATERPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDS. BURLINGTONBURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATION7SILT FENCESEE "BROWN & DAVIS DESIGN"ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FORPROPOSED CONDITIONS- LOT COVERAGE TABLE -ZONE: QCP - QUEEN CITY PARK95 CENTRAL AVE. - PARCEL ID 0330-00095MINIMUMEXISTINGPROPOSEDLOT SIZE7,500 SF 10,610 SF 10,610 SF0.24 AC. 0.24 AC.MAXIMUMEXISTINGPROPOSEDBUILDING COVERAGE20% 13% 20%LOT COVERAGE40% 20% 30%NOTE: THESE PROPERTIES LIE IN THE QUEEN CITY PARK ZONING DISTRICT.AREA CALCULATIONS FOR PARCEL ARE TO THE 95.5' CONTOURDRAFTfor Review--2/6/2017P:\AutoCADD Projects\2008\08176\1-CADD Files-08176\Dwg\08176.dwg, 2/6/2017 11:04:23 AM, gcarter EXISTING BRICKXISDRIVEWAYEWCKDECECDECDDDFUEL TANKFUEL TANKFUEL TANKFUEL TANKRETTAININTTAININNG WANNG WAALLALAEXISEXISSSTING STING SCONCCONCCONCC. RETC. RETC. RETTAININTAININTAININNG WANG WANG WAALLALALLEXISTING RIPRAPEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLEX. RETAINING WALLTAINING WAEPLANTER EX. CONC. RETAINING WALL STEPSQUEEN CITY PARK ZONING DISTRICTEXISTING CONC. RETAINING WALLLANDING (TYP.)AISGAAISISGGATRIPTINTPRPININXINGRARXIXIGGRARAIIRGRARARAGGRRRARASSSSRAPSSSRRPPPRRTRPPRIPRTINTPPTTRRPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOHP&TOHP&&T&TOHP&TOHP&TOHP&TOOHOO1" IPF0.5' BG(CRIMPED)8" ASHFENCEENWWEXISTING CATCH BASINRIM=152.7'INV. IN 8" (N)=150.4'INV. OUT 12" (S)=150.1'EXISTING CATCH BASINRIM=146.2'℄ INV.=144.4'EXISTING SMHRIM=147.2'EXISTING SMHRIM=153.5'112" IPF1' AG112" IPF0.5' BG(DISTURBED)T-BAR0.5' BG10'5'5'18" SPRPRUCEPR(2) SINK HOLE ARE THERESULT OF WATER MIGRATINGTHROUGH TOP OFDETERIORATING 12" CMPBETWEEN CATCH BASINSTRUCTURESFENCEPAVEMENTTOP OF HYDRANTEL.=154.9'STONEWALL148'±148'±53'±25'±66'±E. KIRSCHNER94 CENTRAL AVE.S. & E. ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.G. & I. BOURNE97 CENTRAL AVE.150' FROM 102' CONTOUR100' FROM 95.5' CONTOUR6" x 6" TIMBERSRETAINING WALL150' FROM 102' CONTOURBUILDING FACE OF EXISTING HOUSEBUILDING FACE OF NEW 12' ADDITIONNEW DECK TO REPLACE EXISTINGDNNEW DECKTEMPORARY STOCKPILELOCATIONSILT FENCE, SEE DETAIL,SHEET C2.0(TYPICAL)TEMPORARY STOCKPILELOCATIONCATCH BASIN INLETPROTECTION, SEEDETAIL THIS SHEET(TYP.)STOCKADE FENCESTABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE, SEE DETAIL,SHEET C2.0NEW PERMEABLECRUSHED STONEDRIVEWAYNEW STONESTEPS &WALKWAY(TYP.)NEW STONEPATIO W/PERVIOUSPAVERSNEW STONEPATIO W/PERVIOUSPAVERSEXISTING TREETO BE REMOVEDNEW SECOND FLOORCANTILEVERED DECKNEW WOODSTEPS DOWNFROM DECKNEW COVEREDENTRY PORCHNEW CONCRETERETAINING WALLEXISTING WOODRETAINING WALL TOBE RELOCATEDNEW EDGE OFOVERHANGNEW GARDENTO BE R E M OVE D TO BE REL O CATE D12" CMP12" CMP12" CMP (DETERIORATING)ROOFPITCH8" PVCJLMJLMGAC1" = 8'08176C1.2LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'STEVEN ROSEN&EILEEN KOZEN-ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403ROSEN PROPERTYEROSIONCONTROL PLANACEPROGRESS PLANS95 CENTRAL AVE. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTLEGENDOHP&TOHP&TSTSW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING OVERHEAD ELEC. & TEL.EXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING WATERPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDS. BURLINGTONBURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATION7SILT FENCEN.T.S.CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTIONREVISED 12/19/2014E-013GROUNDPLANCROSS-SECTION(W/ FABRIC)BURY FABRIC 12" MIN.FILTER FABRICWOODEN OR METALSTAKES PLACEDAROUND CATCH BASINWOODEN OR METALSTAKES PLACEDAROUND CATCHBASINFILTER FABRICSECURELY FASTENEDTO STAKES OVERLAPJOINTS TO THE NEXTSTAKESEE SHEET C2.0 FOREROSION CONTROLDETAILS & SPECIFICATIONSSEE "BROWN & DAVIS DESIGN"ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FORPROPOSED CONDITIONSDRAFTfor Review--2/6/2017P:\AutoCADD Projects\2008\08176\1-CADD Files-08176\Dwg\08176.dwg, 2/6/2017 11:13:39 AM, gcarter E-001 EC SheetIntroductionThis project is subject to the terms and conditions of the authorizationfrom the State of Vermont to discharge construction related storm waterrunoff.Coverage under the State Construction General Permit 3-9020 isrequired for any construction activity that disturbs 1 or more acres ofland, or is part of a larger development plan that will disturb 1 or moreacres.This project has been deemed to qualify as a Low Risk Site which issubject to the erosion prevention and sediment control (EPSC)standards set for in the State of Vermont'sLow Risk Site Handbook for Erosion Prevention and SedimentControlThe following narrative and implementation requirements represent theminimum standard for which this site is required to be maintained asregulated by the State of Vermont.Any best management practices (BMP's) depicted on the project's EPSCSite plan which go beyond the Handbook requirements are consideredto be integral to the management of the site and represent componentsof the municipal EPSC approval for the project which shall beimplemented.The EPSC plan depicts one snap shot in time of the site. Allconstruction sites are fluid in their day to day exposures and risks as itrelates to minimizing sediment loss from the site. It is theresponsibility of the Contractor to implement the necessary BMP'sto comply with the Low Risk Handbook standards outlined on thissheet based on the interim site disturbance conditions which may ormay not be shown on the EPSC Site Plan.Specific BMP's which are critical to allowing the project to be considereda Low risk site include the items checked below:xLimit the amount of disturbed earth to two acres or less at any onetime.xThere shall be a maximum of 7 consecutive days of disturbed earthexposure in any location before temporary or final stabilization isimplemented.1. Mark Site BoundariesPurpose:Mark the site boundaries to identify the limits of construction. Delineatingyour site will help to limit the area of disturbance, preserve existingvegetation and limit erosion potential on the site.How to comply:Before beginning construction, walk the site boundaries and flag trees,post signs, or install orange safety fence. Fence is required on anyboundary within 50 feet of a stream, lake, pond or wetland, unless thearea is already developed (existing roads, buildings, etc.)2. Limit Disturbance AreaPurpose:Limit the amount of soil exposed at one time to reduce the potentialerosion on site.Requirements:The permitted disturbance area is specified on the site's writtenauthorization to discharge. Only the acreage listed on the authorizationform may be exposed at any given time.How to comply:Plan ahead and phase the construction activities to ensure that no morethan the permitted acreage is disturbed at one time. Be sure to properlystabilize exposed soil with seed and mulch or erosion control mattingbefore beginning work in a new section of the site.3. Stabilize Construction EntrancePurpose:A stabilized construction entrance helps remove mud from vehiclewheels to prevent tracking onto streets.Requirements:If there will be any vehicle traffic off of the construction site, you mustinstall a stabilized construction entrance before construction begins.How to installRock Size: Use a mix of 1 to 4 inch stoneDepth: 8 inches minimumWidth: 12 feet minimumLength: 40 feet minimum (or length of driveway, if shorter)Geotextile: Place filter cloth under entire gravel bedMaintenance:Redress with clean stone as required to keep sediment from trackingonto the street.4. Install Silt FencePurpose:Silt fences intercept runoff and allow suspended sediment to settle out.Requirements:Silt fence must be installed:xon the downhill side of the construction activitiesxbetween any ditch, swale, storm sewer inlet, or waters of the Stateand the disturbed soil* Hay bales must not be used as sediment barriers due to theirtendency to degrade and fall apart.Where to place:xPlace silt fence on the downhill edge of bare soil. At the bottom ofslopes, place fence 10 feet downhill from the end of the slope (ifspace is available).xEnsure the silt fence catches all runoff from bare soil.xMaximum drainage area is ¼ acre for 100 feet of silt fence.xInstall silt fence across the slope (not up and down hills!)xInstall multiple rows of silt fence on long hills to break up flow.xDo not install silt fence across ditches, channels, or streams or instream buffers.How to install silt fence:xDig a trench 6 inches deep across the slopexUnroll silt fence along the trenchxEnsure stakes are on the downhill side of the fencexJoin fencing by rolling the end stakes togetherxDrive stakes in against downhill side of trenchxDrive stakes until 16 inches of fabric is in trenchxPush fabric into trench; spread along bottomxFill trench with soil and pack downMaintenance:xRemove accumulated sediment before it is halfway up the fence.xEnsure that silt fence is trenched in ground and there are no gaps.5. Divert Upland RunoffPurpose:Diversion berms intercept runoff from above the construction site anddirect it around the disturbed area. This prevents clean water frombecoming muddied with soil from the construction site.Requirements:If storm water runs onto your site from upslope areas and your sitemeets the following two conditions, you must install a diversion bermbefore disturbing any soil.1. You plan to have one or more acres of soil exposed at any one time(excluding roads).2. Average slope of the disturbed area is 20% or steeper.How to install:1. Compact the berm with a shovel or earth-moving equipment.2. Seed and mulch berm or cover with erosion control mattingimmediately after installation.3. Stabilize the flow channel with seed and straw mulch or erosioncontrol matting. Line the channel with 4 inch stone if the channelslope is greater than 20%.4. Ensure the berm drains to an outlet stabilized with riprap. Ensure thatthere is no erosion at the outlet.5. The diversion berm shall remain in place until the disturbed areas arecompletely stabilized.6. Slow Down Channelized RunoffPurpose:Stone check dams reduce erosion in drainage channels by slowingdown the storm water flow.Requirements:If there is a concentrated flow (e.g. in a ditch or channel) of storm wateron your site, then you must install stone check dams. Hay bales mustnot be used as check dams.How to install:Height: No greater than 2 feet. Center of dam should be 9 inches lowerthan the side elevationSide slopes: 2:1 or flatterStone size: Use a mixture of 2 to 9 inch stoneWidth: Dams should span the width of the channel and extend up thesides of the banksSpacing: Space the dams so that the bottom (toe) of the upstream damis at the elevation of the top (crest) of the downstream dam. Thisspacing is equal to the height of the check dam divided by the channelslope.Spacing (in feet) = Height of check dam (in feet)/Slope in channel (ft/ft)Maintenance:Remove sediment accumulated behind the dam as needed to allowchannel to drain through the stone check dam and prevent large flowsfrom carrying sediment over the dam. If significant erosion occursbetween check dams, a liner of stone should be installed.7. Construct Permanent ControlsPurpose:Permanent storm water treatment practices are constructed to maintainwater quality, ensure groundwater flows, and prevent downstreamflooding. Practices include detention ponds and wetlands, infiltrationbasins, and storm water filters.Requirements:If the total impervious* area on your site, or within the common plan ofdevelopment, will be 1 or more acres, you must apply for a State Stormwater Discharge Permit and construct permanent storm water treatmentpractices on your site. These practices must be installed before theconstruction of any impervious surfaces.How to comply:Contact the Vermont Storm water Program and follow the requirementsin the Vermont Storm water Management Manual. The Storm waterManagement Manual is available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htm*An impervious surface is a manmade surface, including, butnot limited to, paved and unpaved roads, parking areas, roofs,driveways, and walkways, from which precipitation runs off ratherthan infiltrates.8. Stabilize Exposed SoilPurpose:Seeding and mulching, applying erosion control matting, andhydroseeding are all methods to stabilize exposed soil. Mulches andmatting protect the soil surface while grass is establishing.Requirements:All areas of disturbance must have temporary or permanent stabilizationwithin 7, 14, or 21 days of initial disturbance, as stated in the projectauthorization. After this time, any disturbance in the area must bestabilized at the end of each work day.The following exceptions apply:xStabilization is not required if earthwork is to continue in the areawithin the next 24 hours and there is no precipitation forecast forthe next 24 hours.xStabilization is not required if the work is occurring in aself-contained excavation (i.e. no outlet) with a depth of 2 feet orgreater (e.g. house foundation excavation, utility trenches).All areas of disturbance must have permanent stabilization within 48hours of reaching final grade.How to comply:Prepare bare soil for seeding by grading the top 3 to 6 inches of soil andremoving any large rocks or debris.Seeding Rates for Temporary StabilizationApril 15 - Sept. 15 --- Ryegrass (annual or perennial: 20 lbs/acre)Sept. 15 - April 15 --- Winter rye: 120 lbs/acreSeeding Rates for Final Stabilization:ChooseMulching RatesApril 15 - Sept.15 -- Hay or Straw: 1 inch deep (1-2 bales/1000 s.f.)Sept.15 - April 15 -- Hay or Straw: 2 in. deep (2-4 bales/1000 s.f.)Erosion Control MattingAs per manufacturer's instructionsHydroseedAs per manufacturer's instructions9. Winter StabilizationPurpose:Managing construction sites to minimize erosion and prevent sedimentloading of waters is a year-round challenge. In Vermont, this challengebecomes even greater during the late fall, winter, and early springmonths.'Winter construction' as discussed here, describes the period betweenOctober 15 and April 15, when erosion prevention and sediment controlis significantly more difficult.Rains in late fall, thaws throughout the winter, and spring melt and rainscan produce significant flows over frozen and saturated ground, greatlyincreasing the potential for erosion.Requirements for Winter Shutdown:For those projects that will complete earth disturbance activities prior tothe winter period (October 15), the following requirements must beadhered to:1. For areas to be stabilized by vegetation, seeding shall be completedno later than September 15 to ensure adequate growth and cover.2. If seeding is not completed by September 15, additionalnon-vegetative protection must be used to stabilize the site for thewinter period. This includes use of Erosion Control Matting or nettingof a heavy mulch layer. Seeding with winter rye is recommended toallow for early germination during wet spring conditions.3. Where mulch is specified, apply roughly 2 inches with an 80-90%cover. Mulch should be tracked in or stabilized with netting in openareas vulnerable to wind.Requirements for Winter ConstructionIf construction activities involving earth disturbance continue pastOctober 15 or begin before April 15, the following requirements must beadhered to:1. Enlarged access points, stabilized to provide for snow stockpiling.2. Limits of disturbance moved or replaced to reflect boundary of winterwork.3. A snow management plan prepared with adequate storage andcontrol of meltwater, requiring cleared snow to be stored down slopeof all areas of disturbance and out of storm water treatment structures.4. A minimum 25 foot buffer shall be maintained from perimeter controlssuch as silt fence.5. In areas of disturbance that drain to a water body within 100 feet, tworows of silt fence must be installed along the contour.6. Drainage structures must be kept open and free of snow and icedams.7. Silt fence and other practices requiring earth disturbance must beinstalled ahead of frozen ground.8. Mulch used for temporary stabilization must be applied at double thestandard rate, or a minimum of 3 inches with an 80-90% cover.9. To ensure cover of disturbed soil in advance of a melt event, areas ofdisturbed soil must be stabilized at the end of each work day, with thefollowing exceptions:x If no precipitation within 24 hours is forecast and work will resumein the same disturbed area within 24 hours, daily stabilization is notnecessary.x Disturbed areas that collect and retain runoff, such as housefoundations or open utility trenches.10. Prior to stabilization, snow or ice must be removed to less than 1inch thickness.11. Use stone to stabilize areas such as the perimeter of buildingsunder construction or where construction vehicle traffic is anticipated.Stone paths should be 10 to 20 feet wide to accommodate vehiculartraffic.10. Stabilize Soil at Final GradePurpose:Stabilizing the site with seed and mulch or erosion control matting whenit reaches final grade is the best way to prevent erosion whileconstruction continues.Requirements:Within 48 hours of final grading, the exposed soil must be seeded andmulched or covered with erosion control matting.How to comply:Bring the site or sections of the site to final grade as soon as possibleafter construction is completed. This will reduce the need for additionalsediment and erosion control measures and will reduce the totaldisturbed area.For seeding and mulching rates, follow the specifications under Rule 8,Stabilizing Exposed Soil.11. Dewatering ActivitiesPurpose:Treat water pumped from dewatering activities so that it is clear whenleaving the construction site.Requirements:Water from dewatering activities that flows off of the construction sitemust be clear. Water must not be pumped into storm sewers, lakes, orwetlands unless the water is clear.How to comply:Using sock filters or sediment filter bags on dewatering discharge hosesor pipes, discharge water into silt fence enclosures installed in vegetatedareas away from waterways. Remove accumulated sediment after thewater has dispersed and stabilize the area with seed and mulch.12. Inspect Your SitePurpose:Perform site inspections to ensure that all sediment and erosion controlpractices are functioning properly. Regular inspections and maintenanceof practices will help to reduce costs and protect water quality.Requirements:Inspect the site at least once every 7 days and after every rainfall orsnow melt that results in a discharge from the site. Perform maintenanceto ensure that practices are functioning according to the specificationsoutlined in this handbook.In the event of a noticeable sediment discharge from the constructionsite, you must take immediate action to inspect and maintain existingerosion prevention and sediment control practices. Any visiblydiscolored storm water runoff to waters of the State must be reported.Forms for reporting discharges are available at:www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater.htmN.T.S.CONSTRUCTION FENCE DETAILREVISED 08/01/2014E-002E-002 Constr FenceWOOD POST30"18"EXISTING GRADENATIVE MATERIALPLASTIC ORANGECONSTRUCTION FENCEREVISED 08/01/2014E-004E-004 Constr. Ent20' (6m) RROADWAYAASTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEN.T.S.12'. MIN.50' MIN.SECTION A-ADIVERSION RIDGE REQUIREDWHERE GRADE EXCEEDS 2%ROADWAY2% OR GREATERSPILLWAYFILTER FABRICSANDBAGS ORCONTINUOUS BERM OFEQUIVALENT HEIGHTDIVERSION RIDGESUPPLY WATER TO WASHWHEELS IF NECESSARY2"-3" (50-75mm) COURSEAGGREGATE MIN. 8"(150mm) THICKPLAN VIEWNOTES:1. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENTTRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS. THIS MAYREQUIRE TOP DRESSING, REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY MEASURES USED TOTRAP SEDIMENT.2. WHEN NECESSARY, WHEELS SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY.3. WHEN WASHING IS REQUIRED, IT SHALL BE DONE ON AN AREA STABILIZED WITHCRUSHED STONE THAT DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENTBASIN.NOTE:USE SANDBAGS OR OTHERAPPROVED METHODS TOCHANNELIZE RUNOFF TOBASIN AS REQUIREDREVISED 08/01/2014E-005E-005 StockpileTEMPORARY STOCKPILE DETAILN.T.S.TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHOR NETTINGSILT FENCE OR HAYBALES INSTALLED ONDOWN GRADIENT SIDEREVISED 08/01/2014E-007E-007 Infilt SectSILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION DETAILN.T.S.2. ATTACH SILT FENCEAND EXTEND IT TOTHE TRENCH.3. STAPLE THE SILTFENCING TO THEEND POSTS.BACKFILL TRENCH.1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE A 4"X8" TRENCH, SET POST DOWNSLOPE.ANGLE 10°UPSLOPE FORSTABILITY ANDSELF CLEANINGPOSTSSILTFENCE100°12"MIN.8"COMPACTEDBACKFILLREVISED 09/24/2014E-003E-003 Silt Fence - wireN.T.S.SILT FENCE DETAILNOTES:1. WOVEN WIRE FENCE TO BE FASTENED SECURELY TO FENCE POSTS WITH WIRE TIES.WIRE FENCE REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED WITHIN 100 FT UPSLOPE OF RECEIVINGWATERS.2. INSTALL MIRAFI ENVIROFENCE, OR APPROVED EQUAL OR AS DETAILED HEREIN.3. INSTALL SILT FENCES AT TOES OF ALL UNPROTECTED SLOPES AND AS PARALLEL TOCONTOURS AS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES ALL FILLED OR UNPROTECTED SLOPESCREATED DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTED ON THE FINALPLANS. CURVE THE ENDS OF THE FENCE UP INTO THE SLOPE. REMOVE SEDIMENTWHEN ACCUMULATED TO HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE. SILT FENCES ARE TO BEMAINTAINED UNTIL SLOPES ARE STABILIZED.4. WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF FILTER CLOTH ADJOIN EACH OTHER, THEY SHALL BEOVERLAPPED BY 6", FOLDED AND STAPLED.10'10'2.5'METAL POST4 x 4 WOODPOST SPACING212 X 212 WOOD36" MIN.12" MIN.POST2"8"FILTER FABRIC TO BEMIRAFI 100X OR APPROVEDEQUALFILTER FABRIC TO BECLIPPED, BACKFILLED ANDTAMPED 8" BELOW GRADESTEEL OR WOOD STAKES(SEE CHART AT RIGHT)WOVEN WIRE FENCE (MIN.14 GAUGE w/MAX. 6" MESHSPACING)ACEPROGRESS PLANSJLMJLMGACNONE08176C2.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'STEVEN ROSEN&EILEEN KOZEN-ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403ROSEN PROPERTYEROSIONCONTROL DETAILS& SPECIFICATIONS95 CENTRAL AVE. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTS. BURLINGTONBURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATION7DRAFTfor Review--2/6/2017P:\AutoCADD Projects\2008\08176\1-CADD Files-08176\Dwg\08176.dwg, 2/6/2017 11:05:32 AM, gcarter ACEPROGRESS PLANSJLMJLMGACNONE08176C2.1--LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'STEVEN ROSEN&EILEEN KOZEN-ROSEN95 CENTRAL AVE.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT 05403ROSEN PROPERTYSTORMWATERDETAILS95 CENTRAL AVE. SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTS. BURLINGTONBURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATION7N.T.S.FOUNDATION DRAINREVISED 11/10/2014ST-0204" SDR 35 PERF. PVC3/4" WASHED STONEWRAPPED W/ DRAINAGEFABRIC. COORDINATEDRAINAGE W/ ARCH.STRUCTURAL DETAIL±6"TOP OF FTG.ELEV. (SEE PLAN)GRANULAR BACKFILL(TYP.)GROUND LINE (SLOPEAWAY FROM BUILD.)FIN. SLAB EL.(SEE PLAN)ST-020 Foundation DrainREVISED 02/27/15ST-031ST-031 BioswaleN.T.S.TYPICAL BIOSWALE DETAIL6" OF 4" MINUS ROUNDED RIVERSTONE12" PLANTING MIX50% SCREENED COMPOST50% CONCRETE SAND (ASTM 33)18" OF CONCRETE SAND (ASTM 33)4" OF 38" PEASTONE20" OF 34" DRAINAGE STONE6" PERFORATED PVC(SLOPE TO YARDDRAIN)12"FILTER FABRIC4" MIN. TOPSOIL31313" AVERAGE PONDING(0" AT UPHILL END,6" AT YARD DRAIN)SOIL NOTES:1. PLANTING MIX SHALL HAVE A PHBETWEEN 5.2 AND 7.0.2. CONCRETE SAND AND PLANTING MIXSHALL BE "BUCKET TAMPED" ONLY.DO NOT OVER COMPACTSEE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURALPLAN FOR PLANTING PLAN ANDDETAILSN.T.S.YARD DRAIN DETAILSGRATEINLINE DRAIN SECTIONINLINE DRAINSIZE: AS SHOWN ON PLANSTORM DRAINGRATE COVER IS REVERSIBLE; ONESIDE STICKS OUT AS IS SHOWN ONTHE RIGHT. ONE SIDE IS FLUSH AS ISSHOWN ON THE LEFT.HEAVY DUTYPVC GRATE"X" ADAPTOR90° ELBOWTEERISERADAPTORS AVAILABLE4" THRU 18"HEAVY DUTY PVC GRATEOR APPROVED EQUALDRAIN BASIN AND INLINEDRAIN BY NYLOPLAST USA,INC. OR APPROVED EQUAL4" - 18"4"-9"12"N.T.S.RAIN GARDENREVISED 2/03/2017ST-031ST-031 RAIN GARDENWIDTH (5' MIN.)3:1 SIDE SLOPE MAX. TYP.NATIVE PLANTS PER LANDSCAPEARCHOTECT/DESIGNERBERM AS NEEDEDCOMPACTSTRUCTURAL FILLEXISTING GRADE2-3" MULCHUNDISTURED NATIVESUBGRADE6"-12" TYP.PONDINGDEPTHInfiltration Rain Garden NotesDesign Notes:1. Plant with plants per landscape architect drawings. Native plants are preferred, becausenon-native and invasive species can reproduce downstream to damage habitat andchange hydrology. If non-natives are chosen, be sure that they will not damagedownstream waterways.Construction Notes:2.Build and vegetate rain garden as early as possible to establish plantings before directingstormwater runoff to it or divert stormwater around facility. Preferably, this period wouldlast a minimum of 3 months or per landscape architect/designer guidelines.3.Infiltration areas (the area of the rain garden as defined by the top elevation of the facility)shall be fenced off from the first day of earth moving until project completion to preventcompaction of the subgrade, dirt tracking onto any layer of the facility, and stockpiling ofconstruction materials that may clog the surface.4.During excavation of native soils to the bottom of the facility, rainfall may cause fines toclog the surface of the facility. If this occurs during construction, hand rake the surface toa depth of 3” to restore infiltration capacity.N.T.S.EXISTING GRADE112" MINUS ROUND STONECONSTRUCT DIVERSION BERMFROM EXCAVATED TOP SOIL34" DRAINAGE STONEPERFORATEDPVC PIPE (SEE PLAN)DRAINAGE GEOTEXTILEINFILTRATION TRENCH24" MIN. FORUNDERDRAIN6"±4' (SEE PLAN)DRAFTfor Review2/6/2017P:\AutoCADD Projects\2008\08176\1-CADD Files-08176\Dwg\08176.dwg, 2/6/2017 11:05:55 AM, gcarter 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_O'BrienFamily_prelim_Marc h_7_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 3, 2017 Application received: December 23, 2016 255 KENNEDY DRIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-16-37 Meeting date: March 7, 2017 Owners/Applicants O’Brien Family Limited Partnership & O’Brien Home Farm, LLC 1855 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Andrew Gill, Project Coordinator (802) 658-5000 Project Engineer Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Property Information Tax Parcels 1260-0200 and 0970-00255 R-12 and C1-LR Zoning Districts ~39 acres total Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC for a planned unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two (2) family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans and offer the following comments. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Staff will review coverages and setbacks for a future meeting, but anticipates the applicant’s proposed coverages to be acceptable within the limits placed on the project in the Master Plan decision (#MP-16-03) B) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with the following standards and conditions: (A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project. A condition of final plat 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 erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. This criterion will be addressed in the comments for a future meeting. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. The Public Works Department provided the following comments in an email to staff dated February 2, 2017, which addresses issues related to this criteria: In addition to numerous internal staff meetings on the project, a few with the developer present, I have also met independently with the developer’s team four times during this project’s process. Many design topics have been covered, the main ones listed below. 1. Roadway geometry – standard road profile and cross-sections, turning radii, both horizontal and vertical road curvature, on-street parking, driver sight and stop distances and possible future maintenance issues CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 3 2. Pedestrian issues – sidewalk locations/design, crosswalk locations and level of protection, bike facilities, lighting levels for peds and overall road interconnectivity plans both internally and connecting to the existing external road network 3. Traffic – discussion and final agreement on appropriate ITE land use codes for the traffic study, overall transportation land use with an eye toward maximizing ingress/egress points, final PM peak hour trips and geometry and layout of the proposed new signal at the project’s eastern Kennedy Drive access point 4. Phasing of construction – from a constructability and maintenance prospective all the way to the process of transferring ownership of infrastructure to the City There remain many detailed items to be fleshed out as the project transitions from its master plan process to the submission of specific phases. Those include: 5. VTrans’ response to the proposed crosswalk connecting Eldridge to Hayes, including their required advanced signage and level of protection 6. Specific design of the proposed signal referenced in 3. above including method of detection (video, radar, infrared, etc.); timing plan, coordination with the adjacent Kennedy Drive signals at Kimball, Williston and Hinesburg, be it via offset progression timing or a fully interconnected system; and once these details are determined a LOS for the intersection can be arrived at and evaluated I find it may be appropriate to eventually ask for and conduct an independent technical review of the traffic study as allowed by the development review process, I cannot provide a recommendation on whether or not this would be worthwhile until more details are made available as the project progresses, specifically as related to items 5. and 6. Having spent countless hours reviewing the plans and traffic study, as well as in meetings with other city staff and the developer’s design team, there are likely small items inadvertently absent from my above list. If you think of anything of import that I haven’t touched on, please let me know. Thanks, Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works (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. Staff notes that during the Master Plan phase of this project the Board granted the applicant the ability to encroach on Class III wetlands. The project does propose to incorporate a few areas of open space, one (1) approximately four (4) acres in size and another of approximately three (3) acres, which may serve as habitat; however, staff considers these less than optimal for wildlife habitat due to being surrounded completely by houses and/or roads. No unique natural features have been identified on the site, though staff notes that as South Burlington becomes increasingly developed the forested and open nature of this parcel becomes less common in the City and, therefore, more unique. The applicant has not indicated whether during the clearing of trees from the property (outside of the open space areas) there will be attempts to retain any of the existing mature trees or stands of trees, whose size, maturity, and/or clustering may make them unique site features, especially after other vegetation is removed. (Staff does note that some trees are indicated as being retained in the area of the stormwater management sites, but not in the areas immediately adjacent to the proposed housing.) Preservation CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 4 of such trees could also contribute to meeting the standard below regarding minimizing site runoff both during and after construction. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether, outside of the open space areas, any trees will be preserved on the site and encourage the applicant to update plans to reflect preservation. (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 purpose of the Residential 12 Zoning District is to encourage high-density residential use. The proposed project included in this preliminary plat is not high-density. The Master Plan for this site, however, contemplates as many as 458 housing units, which would bring the density of the site to nearly 12 units per acre. Staff considers the proposed project as meeting the purpose of the R12 Zoning District when viewed as part of the larger Master Plan vision for the site. (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 proposed project provides for an open space area in the middle of the site (Lot #6 and open space easements associated with Lots #7 and #9) and another open space area as part of Lot #8. Two (2) 30 foot wide easements connect the open spaces of Lot #6 with undeveloped land to the east. This creates the opportunity for contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels. (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. The Fire Marshall shared with staff on 3/2/2017 that the Fire Department found the plans acceptable and reiterated a comment they had previously shared with the applicant: that no parking signs be required on new streets “C,” “D,” and “F,” which are only proposed to be 20 feet wide. (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. Staff considers that the proposed plans meet this criterion, with the notes above from the Director of Public Works. (A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. See the discussion above regarding comments from the Public Works Department. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 5 (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). A concern in the Northwest Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan is the “spotty” presence of neighborhood parks and open space. The applicant has proposed a formal park space as well as mostly undeveloped (except for walking paths) open space areas. Staff considers that these features are supportive of the goals of the Plan; however, staff also notes that the Official Map contains a notation pertaining to this project: Blue circle #5 refers to creation of an appropriate internal roadway network for development of the O’Brien farm property and provision of between five and ten acres of public parkland within the property or an immediately adjacent area. Staff considers that the applicant is providing three (3) acres of park area and is currently proposing to develop 118 housing units on approximately 30 acres of the more than 50 acres that are part of the O’Brien farm property. The applicant’s Master Plan indicates an additional 340 housing units may be built on another eight (8) acres of the farm property. The three (3) acre park is the primary open space for the entire master planned area and the only open space whose ownership will be transferred to the City. Staff considers that the amount of parkland proposed by the applicant may not be sufficient to meet the intention of notation #5 on the Official Map, because it is unknown when or whether the applicant will provide additional public parkland space on the property or immediately adjacent. 2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the proposed parkland meets the objective of notation #5 on the Official Map and, if not, discuss with the applicant how they plan to meet the objective of notation #5 in this and/or future phases of the larger O’Brien farm property being developed. The portion of notation #5 regarding the internal road network of the site and its relationship to planned streets on the Official Map is currently being discussed by staff and the applicant. Staff will update the Board when more information is available. The Plan also notes that housing which is affordable is a valuable and scarce resource within the City. The applicant has indicated that some of the housing being built could be considered affordable to households earning the Area Median Income as defined in Section 2 of the Land Development Regulations; however, the applicant has not provided the necessary calculations for the Board to determine whether that would indeed be the case and has not suggested that any of the housing will be preserved in perpetuity as affordable. The applicant is requesting several waivers from the Board (discussed in more detail below) that will allow for the unit density, house styles, and house sizes that the applicant desires. Staff considers that the Board should understand how the applicant’s project with the waivers will advance the affordable housing goals and objectives of the City before making a decision on the requested waivers. 3. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide additional information on whether any of the proposed housing will advance the City’s goal to provide affordable housing. (A)(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 6 The proposed project is on a parcel of land that is mostly forested. The applicant has indicated there will be significant clearing of trees to make way for the proposed 118 units of housing. Removing fewer trees would result in less site disturbance. The applicant is requesting the Board consider the cost of perennials and ornamental grasses as counting towards the required landscape budget for the project, which has not typically been the practice of the Board. Staff considers that the Board should understand how the project’s design will minimize site disturbance (such as by preservation of existing mature trees throughout the site) and integrate landscaping techniques to generate less runoff before making a decision regarding the use of perennials and ornamental grasses as part of the landscaping budget. Additionally staff considers that the Board should know whether the use of perennials and ornamental grasses will be as beneficial in meeting this criterion as trees and shrubs. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide information from a landscape architect or other similarly qualified individual on whether the use of perennials and ornamental grasses will be as beneficial in meeting this criterion as trees and shrubs. C) 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. This criterion has been discussed above. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The Board previously discussed and were supportive of the architecture of the proposed housing units. Comments from the City Arborist regarding plantings will be available at a future meeting and comments from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee are discussed below. Staff considers that a trail connecting new streets “C,” “D,” and “F” would improve connectivity between those dead ends and staff has shared this suggestion with the applicant. 5. Staff recommends the applicant update the plans to provide a trail connecting new streets “C,” “D,” and “F.” (2) Parking: (a) … (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 7 (i.) … (ii.) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home Parking is proposed in the driveways in front of the single and two-family houses. Staff considers parking in front of the proposed houses to be acceptable; however, notes that vehicles may be in the right-of-way if the Board approves the front setback waiver request of the applicant. Materials submitted by the applicant indicate that vehicles could be parked in a driveway and though those vehicles may be in the ROW they would not be across sidewalks or into the street. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether vehicles parked in driveways should be allowed to cross into the ROW. The applicant is also proposing integrated sidewalks on new streets “C,” “D,” and “F” and the Board previously requested additional information and examples of that concept. Staff received an email from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee dated 2/28/2017 which stated that the Committee endorses the integrated/grade level sidewalks without barriers along one (1) side of new streets “C,” “D,” and “F,” but that they would like to see delineation between the street and sidewalk. The Committee would like the delineation to be in the form of the sidewalk portion being a different color from the road part and they would prefer the color be built into the paving material rather than using paint that would need continued maintenance. 7. The applicant has indicated they will provide additional information on this concept at a future meeting date. 8. Staff recommends the Board support the comments of the Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee and request the applicant delineate the sidewalk portion of the road with the use of paving material that is a different color from the road portion and that this color differentiation be built into the paving material. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The proposed single and two-family houses come in a variety of styles, footprint sizes, and number of stories; however, staff considers that they have similarities and no one style is so different in height or scale as to be incompatible with any other style. The applicant is requesting height and story waivers, which will be discussed elsewhere in these comments. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be 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. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 8 The Board previously discussed the architecture of the houses with the applicant and indicated their approval for the overall designs as well as the relationship of the designs to each other. Some of the proposed houses will be on the uphill side of the new streets and therefore pushed into the hillside. The applicant is requesting height and story waivers for buildings in those locations, which is discussed in greater detail elsewhere in these comments. 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: 1. 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 applicant is proposing an easement at the north end of new city street “A,” which would allow that street to connect to the existing Old Farm Road. Additionally the applicant has included two (2) pedestrian easements connecting the site area under current review with other parcels also held by the applicant (or associates) on which development is not presently proposed, but will likely be proposed in the future. 2. 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. 3. 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 applicant is not proposing any dumpsters or other facilities. 4. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06) Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the buildings in the project is estimated at $33,040,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $337,900 and the applicant is proposing $377,569.60, which includes perennials and grasses that are not typically part of landscaping budgets (see discussion above). Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Cost of proposed project $0 - $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $325,400 Minimum Landscaping $ $337,900 Proposed Landscaping $377,569.60 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 9 Comments from the City Arborist will be available at a future meeting date. D) RECREATION & BIKE/PEDESTRIAN The applicant is preparing to go before the Recreation and Parks Committee later in March. In addition to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee comments already discussed above, the Committee also stated in their email to staff dated 2/28/2017 that the Committee asked the applicant to ensure that the pedestrian path connecting the development to Old Farm Road be constructed in an early phase of the project. (The Committee based their comments on the proposal they were shown by the applicant at their meeting on January 11, 2017, which have been included as part of the packet of materials for the Board.) The pedestrian path referenced by the Committee which would connect to Old Farm Road is shown in part on plan sheet C-6; however, the plan sheet is cutoff before the connection is shown. Staff considers that the Committee expressed a strong desire to see the development connected to Old Farm Road and the official site plans submitted by the applicant do not show such a connection. 9. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant explain the difference between what was shown to the Committee and what the applicant is actually proposing at this time. 10. Staff recommends that, if the applicant is not currently proposing a connection to Old Farm Road as shown to the Committee, the applicant return to the Committee to receive revised feedback. E) PHASING/BONDING The applicant has suggested the following phasing guidelines: 1. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be the first phases on which construction will begin and they may begin at the same time or separately. 2. Park amenities will be installed and constructed once 59 housing units are sold; however, the applicant may limit access for safety purposes if needed while construction of other units is ongoing. 3. Park amenities will be limited to the play structure and lower park area shown on Landscape Plan Sheet L1.4 until Phase 3, Phase 4, and Phase 5 are constructed in full and all homes located on the outside edge of the park are constructed. If all of the houses on the outside edge of the park are constructed before Phases 3, 4, and 5 are complete then the additional park amenities, including trails, will be constructed at that time. 11. The applicant has not yet met with the Recreation and Parks Committee and therefore staff considers the Board should wait until it has comments from that Committee before considering the phasing of the amenities and what those amenities will be beyond the pedestrian paths shown on the already approved Master Plan. Staff notes that the Master Plan (#MP-16-03) states that the applicant is granted a waiver from the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) regarding pedestrian access easements only if the off-road pedestrian paths are constructed during the first phase of the project. The applicant’s suggested phasing appears to contradict this waiver unless the applicant is proposing to comply with Section 15.12(M)(5), which does not appear to be the case, and therefore is not in need of this waiver. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 10 12. Staff recommends the Board relate to the applicant the need for the phasing of the off-road pedestrian paths to comply with the Master Plan decision in order to receive a waiver from the pedestrian access easement requirements. 4. Trails surrounding the stormwater pond on Lot #6 will be constructed following the completion of all homes in Phases 2 and 4. As above, staff notes the applicant’s waiver to the requirements of Section 15.12(M)(5) are contingent on the construction of the pedestrian paths during the first phase of the project. 13. See note above. 5. Phase 6 will be constructed simultaneously with a building on Lot #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, or #15 and will not be constructed unless a building on one of those lots is approved. 6. Phase 7 will be constructed simultaneously with a building on Lot #11 or #13. 7. Prior to the construction of the 50th unit accessed on new city street “E” the remaining street phases will be constructed so that no more than 49 units are ever located on a dead end street. The applicant would decide whether to construct the street to Kennedy Drive or only to connect with new city street “A.” Staff notes that this phasing of street construction could result in as many as 46 housing units being located on three (3) dead end streets. New streets “D” and “F” are intended to be dead end and new street “E” could remain a dead end if the applicant does not proceed with Phase 5. Additionally, if Phase 2 is constructed, but not Phase 4, then an additional dead end street (new street “A”) with as many as 24 housing units could also be part of the development. With this phasing plan there could possibly be 81 housing units on dead end streets (46 + 24=70 plus an additional 11 housing units on new street “C,” which is intended to be dead end). Staff considers the possibility of 81 housing units all located on dead end streets to not be in alignment with the City’s goal to limit dead end streets and create connected street networks. 14. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant revise the phasing plan to reduce the number of housing units that could occur on dead end streets. In addition to the phasing items above, the applicant also proposes the following related item: 8. The applicant will be able to install any haul roads, construction staging areas, or other construction related facilities in any location at any time on the project site. In a phone call with the Public Works Department on 3/2/2017 staff was told the Department did not have an issue with this item. The applicant has not addressed the issue of bonding for roads and related improvements. Staff considers this issue should be addressed during final plat review. F) STORMWATER This criterion will be addressed in the comments for a future meeting. G) WAIVERS CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 11 The applicant has requested the following waivers: (a) Height and number of stories facing the street to be greater than 28 feet and three (3) stories Pursuant to Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) the Board may grant a waiver to building heights in the R-12 and C1- LR Districts as follows: For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. Staff does not consider that the full requirements stated above have been met, because pre- construction and post-construction grades have not been provided. Staff considers a height waiver as discussed by the applicant of approximately four (4) feet to be reasonable, but that the requirements of Section 3.07(D) (2) (b) must be met for the Board to grant such a waiver. Staff considers that the applicant could choose the largest possible footprint from the proposed housing types and, for each building needing a height waiver, calculate the pre- and post-construction grade based on that footprint and provide the height of each structure. 15. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide pre-construction and post-construction grade information and the height of each structure using the method discussed above for the buildings needing height waivers. (b) Front yard setbacks (i.) Six (6) foot front setback on new street “B” At the Master Plan stage of the review process the applicant received a waiver for six (6) foot front setbacks for any building equal to or greater than five (5) stories tall on any street. The applicant has not suggested in their materials that any of the buildings on new street “B” will be less than five (5) stories, so the waiver granted at Master Plan seems sufficient. Additionally no buildings are currently proposed on new street “B” and therefore staff considers the request to be premature. (ii.) Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street A and 11 foot front setback for garages on Street A (iii.) Six (6) foot front setback for houses on Street E and 11 ½ foot front setback for garages on Street E (iv.) Five (5) foot front setback for houses and 10 foot front setback for garages on streets C, D, and F As discussed above, these waiver requests (as well as the height waiver) will allow for the unit density, house styles, and house sizes that the applicant desires. Staff considers that the Board should understand how the applicant’s project with the waivers will advance the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 12 affordable housing goals and objectives of the City before making a decision on the requested waivers. Parking is proposed in the driveways in front of the single and two-family houses. Staff considers parking in front of the proposed houses to be acceptable; however, notes that vehicles may be in the right-of-way if the Board approves the front setback waiver request of the applicant. Materials submitted by the applicant indicate that one (1) vehicle could be parked in a driveway and though it may be in the ROW it would not be across sidewalks or into the street. (c) Rear yard setbacks The applicant has provided a chart showing the setbacks for each footprint lot they are proposing. 30 of the 118 footprint lots show a need for a rear yard setback waiver. Since footprint lots do not exist for the purposes of zoning, staff will instead refer to requests for rear yard setbacks for buildings. 16. Staff recommends the Board grant rear yard setbacks of 25 feet on Buildings 1-5, 27-30, 44-45, 48, 63, 73, and 95-96. A 25 foot rear yard setback on these buildings is greater than or equal to the applicant’s requested setback on those buildings and having one setback amount for all these buildings will be simpler than a different setback for each. 17. Staff recommends the Board permit a rear yard setback of 27 feet on Building 22, which abuts a property not owned by the applicant. For the remaining buildings at which rear yard setbacks are requested staff considers that the applicant should propose mitigating factors to reduce the impact of the smaller setbacks on the proposed public parkland and/or possible development on adjacent properties. This applies to buildings 46-47, 63-68, 73-76, 95-96. In particular staff is concerned people may feel awkward being so close to private residences, which could make areas of the park less useable. 18. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant propose measures for mitigating the impact of the close proximity of housing to the parkland and possible future development. (d) Side yard setbacks The applicant is requesting side setbacks of five (5) feet for Lot #11 and six (6) feet for Lot #13. These are lots where the applicant has indicated larger, higher density mixed use buildings will be constructed. The required setback is 10 feet. Without knowing more about the potential buildings and landscaping on those lots staff considers the reduction of side setbacks to be a premature request. Staff also notes that those lots will, according to the applicant, likely have buildings over five (5) stories tall, which would mean a front setback requirement of only six (6) feet. Staff considers the side setback waiver request could be reasonable, but would need to know more about what is proposed on site to make that determination. 19. Staff recommends the Board not grant these side yard setback waiver requests at this time, but wait until projects are proposed on those lots. (e) Front setbacks for non-residential uses CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING SD_16_37_255KennedyDrive_OBrien_PUD_prelim_March_7_2017.doc 13 Section 3.06(H) states that in the case of nonresidential uses, not more than 30% of the area of the required front setback may be used for driveways and parking and that a landscaped strip 15 feet in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks must be maintained between the street right-of-way and the balance of the lot. As above in the side setback waiver request discussion, staff considers this request could be reasonable, but would need to know more about what is proposed to make that determination. (f) Impact fees The applicant has requested that a portion of the impact fees which would be assessed for the project be waived in light of in-kind contributions, i.e. parks development which will be done by the applicant instead of the City. There are a number of steps to follow for seeking an impact fee credit for in-kind contributions, which are described in Section 7 of the Impact Fee Ordinance. Staff considers it would be useful for the applicant to work with staff on this request and seek it at the final plat stage of review. 20. Staff recommends the applicant meet with staff to discuss the process for seeking a credit for in- kind contributions and that this issue be reviewed at final plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer VIA HAND-DELIVERY February 21, 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: Preliminary Plat Application SD-16-37 Dear Board Members, Enclosed please find amended exhibits and plan sheets pertaining to Preliminary Plat Application SD-16-37 (the “Application”). Minor changes have been made to all of the site plans, and landscaping plans. Mostly, these consist of alterations to the spacing between units, tree locations, and slight changes to trail and path geometry. The Applicant does not believe that the majority of these changes are worth a detailed discussion, as again, they represent non-material changes to the plan. Below please find a discussion outlining changes to the landscape plan and estimates originally submitted, as well as the phasing plan. Also below, per the request of City Staff, please find a consolidated list of current waiver requests, which are listed with explicit citations to the provisions of the zoning regulations allowing such waivers. Included is a setback waiver request, which Applicant had thought would be included in the Master Plan decision based upon extensive discussions related to it during the Master Plan hearings, and was therefore not included in the original Application submission. However, this waiver request is absolutely critical to the project as conceived and proposed both in the Master Plan and now in this Preliminary Plat application. Explanation of the reasoning for the waiver requests is omitted here, as it is contained in our original application (save the setback waiver request, which is explained). Lastly, a brief description of cut and fill projections for the site is provided, and a narrative regarding stormwater treatment is attached; both were requested by Staff. Applicant intends to submit additional information pertaining to specific feedback received by Staff and the Board at hearings in the near term, but Applicant felt it would be best to get consolidated comments on the majority of the Application and updated plans, prior to supplementing the Application in response to specific questions raised. I. Landscape Plan: The Landscape Plans enclosed with the updated plan set, and attached to this letter at Exhibit A, have been amended after detailed discussions with staff, regarding the bonding, warrantee, and supervisory requirements of the initial submission. Specifically, the plans now indicate what the Applicant is calling “Required Plantings,” and “Optional Upgrades.” As discussed in detail in the original Application, the landscape budget requirement for the Project is $337,900.00. To be clear, City Staff have indicated that Street Trees are not to be counted toward satisfying this budget. Given this, Applicant has prepared an estimate for the proposed landscaping that enumerates street trees separately. The Board will also note that the budget now enumerates landscape investments that are for Required Plantings, and Optional Upgrades. As shown in the landscape budget, attached at Exhibit B, the value of the proposed Required Plantings is $377,569.60. This meets the minimum requirement outlined above. The value for Required Plantings, and Optional Upgrades, combined is $496,681.00. The Board will note that in the attached landscape plans, the Optional Upgrades are shown using gray shading on the “Typical Unit Plans.” Essentially, the Optional Upgrades are ornamental trees and planting beds located in the back of the units. The site trees and street front plantings originally proposed have not changed. The Optional Upgrade plantings have no real impact on the street-scape, or the public realm. Given this, Applicant believes that planting these items should be a choice by homeowners or Applicant. Similarly, maintaining these items in perpetuity should be a choice by homeowners. Our understanding – which has been informed by discussions with Staff - is that required landscape elements must be bonded for, warrantied for three years, and subsequently, cannot be removed without approval from the City. We feel that by proposing these plantings as optional, we can enable homeowners to elect to have these gardens, and maintain them or alter them as they see fit, without needing permits to swap out plants in the future.. Lastly, the landscape plans also now include provisions for protecting existing trees, in the few locations where the Applicant is proposing such. Specifically, around the two stormwater ponds, where such existing trees to be preserved are indicated on the attached site plans. II. Phasing Plans: At Staff’s request we have amended and consolidated the phasing plan provided. We are also providing an updated bullet-point list of the commitments Applicant is willing to make with regard to phasing. 1. Phase 1 and Phase 2 will commence immediately after full permits are issued. They may commence in tandem, or separately, but they will be the first two phases that Applicant begins construction upon. 2. Park amenities will be constructed once 59 units are sold, provided that Applicant reserves the right to limit access to certain areas of the park for safety purposes temporarily if needed to facilitate construction. 3. Park amenities will be limited to the play structure and lower park area shown on Landscape Plan Sheet L1.4 until Phase 3, Phase 4 and Phase 5 are constructed in full and all homes located on the outside edge of the park are constructed. Should all of the homes surrounding the park be constructed prior to completion of all homes in Phase 3, 4, and 5, park trails will be constructed at that time, or sooner if Applicant determines it can be done safely, without risk to residents and park- goers. 4. Trails surrounding the stormwater pond will be constructed following the completion of all homes in Phase 2 and Phase 4. 5. Phase 6 will be constructed simultaneous with a building on Lot 10, Lot 11, Lot 12, Lot 13, Lot 14 or Lot 15. This will require issuance of an additional permit for site plan review on one of these lots. Phase 6will not occur unless a future site plan for one of these lots is approved and a building on one of these lots is built. 6. Phase 7 will be constructed simultaneous with the construction of a building on Lot 11 or Lot 13. 7. Prior to the construction of the 50th unit accessed on New City Road E, remaining phases will be constructed such that no more than 49 units are located on a dead-end street as required by the Regulations. This would include the connection to either Kennedy Drive, or New City Road A/Eldredge Street. It would be up to the Applicant which connection to create, based on market conditions and the status of the Project at that time. 8. Applicant reserves the right to install any and all haul roads, construction staging areas, or other construction related facilities in any location at any time on the Project site, in order to facilitate construction. 9. Applicant reserves the right to work directly with Public Works, to determine optimal timing for finalization of infrastructure prior to take-over by the City. And requests that these timing decisions have no bearing on issuance of zoning permits or occupancy certificates for individual units, even if they conflict with the above phasing plan in some way that we cannot now determine. This may include such compromises as: A. Delay of final coat of pavement until all roads are installed and all home construction is done. B. Delay of sidewalk construction until the majority of homes in each phase are constructed to avoid damage. C. Street tree planting in large phases after majority of homes are built in one or more phases. D. Other construction process and timing decisions that may arise during the construction process, provided there is consensus between Applicant and the Director of Public Works. III. Waivers and Authorization: 1. Height Waiver: Applicant has requested height waivers for a number of the single family and duplex structures proposed. This includes a waiver allowing for three stories facing a public street along New City Road A. A. Authority 1: Section 15.02 A. of the Regulations gives the DRB authority to modify the regulations in conjunction with PUD review. This authority is only restricted in four instances: i. Side yard setbacks for lots cannot be less than 5’; ii. Site coverage may not exceed the allowable limit; iii. Parking must comply with Section 14.06. iv. Density allowed in a zoning district (units per acre) may not be changed. This authority is clear, and allows the board to modify any regulations not included in the above-list. B. Authority 2: Section 3.07(D)(2)(b) states: “For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section, as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met.”1 This section goes on to state that elevations, grades, etc., are needed. Applicant has provided elevations for the proposed structures, and the height increases are very nominal; several feet at most. Height waiver requests are described in detail in the original application. 2. Rear and Side Setback Waivers: This would be authorized by Authority 1, cited above. 3. Permit Duration Request: Applicant is only requesting that whatever permit is issued be of duration sufficient to allow for project completion. If this is a waiver from normal precedent or Regulation requirements, it would be authorized per Authority 1, cited above. 4. Waiver of Section 3.06H: Authority 1, cited above. 5. Waiver of a Portion of Impact Fees: Applicant believes that in certain circumstances the Impact Fee Ordinance of the City allows for such waivers. 6. Waiver of front yard setback requirements: Applicant is requesting that front yard setback requirements be amended as follows: A. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road B 1 Applicant would point out that in Table C-2; the table explicitly authorized for waivers of “Height” the number of stories is included under a broader heading/block title label of “Maximum Building Height.” Given this, it is logical to believe that these provisions related to height waiver also allow for the provision of additional stories. It is somewhat incongruous to allow for more height, but not more stories as they are tied together. Applicant does not believe the intent of the regulation was to treat these separately, and that is why stories are listed underneath height. Given this, Applicant sees not only the broad authority of Section 15.02 for such height waiver, but also a specific authority at Section 3.07. are reduced to be 6’. B. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road A are reduced to be 6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11’ from the garage door to the ROW. C. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks on New City Road E are reduced to be 6’ from the structure to the ROW and 11.5’ from the garage door to the ROW. D. Applicant requests that the minimum front yard setbacks along planned residential access roads C, D and F be reduced to be 5’ from the structure to the ROW and 10’ from the garage to the ROW. The specific authority to grant these waivers is Authority 1, cited above. The Applicant is requesting these waivers for a number of reasons. Applicant has designed the overall neighborhood and neighborhood streets to create a residential, pedestrian-scaled, community feel. This design is reflected throughout the project materials and is a cohesive and deliberate design choice being made, which Applicant feels is in line with current best-practices for new residential development. This deliberate approach has impacted street types. Applicant has introduced new combined street-types that allow for diminished vehicular authority, prioritizing pedestrians and calming traffic. These streets have been influenced by the New Urban Design Manual, and the Applicant believes they are a model for new development, facilitating pedestrian centered design, and safe emergency access. Applicant believes this will help to build and foster community and create a safer and more livable neighborhood. This deliberate approach has influenced architecture. Applicant has committed to investing well beyond the base level exterior architecture typical of the residential housing market to ensure that homes close to the street impact the street in a beneficial and attractive way. Applicant has developed numerous forms of architecture that interact positively with one another, enabling a pleasant and organic streetscape to develop. This deliberate approach has influenced landscape architecture. Applicant is investing well beyond what is required for landscaping. For instance, Applicant is investing over $125,000 in street trees as shown in the estimate, planting at tight intervals in neighborhood green belts, to help develop an attractive streetscape. Applicant is also investing heavily in front yard landscaping, landscaping adjacent to driveways, and heavy screening around power and infrastructure pedestals. Landscaping has been designed with intent, to break up and diminish impacts of driveways and parking areas. All with the goal of enhancing the street, and creating a pleasant and beautiful environment for pedestrians. The result is a neighborhood that residents and visitors will enjoy walking through. The deliberate approach to community is reflected in the park space created, where Applicant is proposing to develop play structures for community members to gather around and for children to enjoy. Applicant has proposed a sitting wall for conversations with neighbors to occur and pleasant landscaping to define and enrich the outdoor space. This deliberate approach has influenced pedestrian infrastructure. The Applicant is proposing paths, sidewalks, recreation paths all of which wind through the streets and neighborhoods being created. This deliberate approach to community is, lastly, reflected in this waiver request, which is necessary to keep the homes, landscaping, architecture, and pedestrian amenities close to one another, allowing for the character we are seeking to take shape. Additional setbacks will have the impact that they always have, which is to make developments feel stark and expansive, to make street trees seem small, and to make roads seem like thoroughfares, where cars can dominate, and kids and pedestrians must be weary. We are attempting to create a neighborhood where children and adults feel safe and welcome whether on foot or bicycle. The Plans attached at Exhibit C detail the setbacks requested on each road, and show where homes, porches, and stairs will be located. The plans demonstrate that as designed cars parked in driveways may be in the ROW, but they are not across sidewalks or paths, allowing ample room for plows to do their job. The Director of Public Works has expressed no issue with the waiver requests presented, and has supported us in meetings we have had. Finally, as discussed at the Master Plan, where the board expressed preliminary support for these waivers, the home footprints are designed to a certain minimum depth. Increasing front yard setbacks will reduce rear yards and infringe on park space and open space. This will have consequences that impact the location of land planned for public parks, and dramatically shift the overall composition of the neighborhood’s greenspace and public areas. As outlined above, we believe these setback requests are integral to the entire project, and without them will necessitate changes that will result in a plan much different than was anticipated or proposed at the Master Plan hearings, and in the current Application. We hope the Board will again support this waiver, as it is perhaps the most consequential thread in the fabric of this entire project. IV. Site Cut and Fill: Applicant has discussed this at length with its engineers and with site work contractors. It is our belief, after a careful analysis, that the site should be net neutral, or very close to net neutral in terms of cut and fill. Attached is a rough calculation of the total cut and fill anticipated at Exhibit D. As you will see, the site is fairly well balanced. However, with a project of this scale, it is very difficult to warrant this 100%. At this point in time, our best guess is that the project should be net-neutral in terms of cut and fill. We are hoping to avoid importing or exporting any material from the site. V. Site Stormwater: City staff has requested “supporting design data and copies of computations used as a basis for the design capacities and performance of stormwater management facilities.” Applicant is providing the memorandum attached at Exhibit E, which addresses this question. While all supporting design data is not yet included, we hope this information is sufficient for the current level of review. The design data will be a very large spreadsheet with incredible amounts of detail, and Applicant proposes to furnish that detail at Final Plat, once the number, location, size of all impervious proposed is somewhat finalized. Doing this work in advance of that, would result in all the work needing to be done again, once the site design was finalized. We appreciate the Board’s continued attention to our Application, and we look forward to the coming review. Sincerely, Andrew Gill, Director of Development Enclosures O'BRIEN HOME FARMSOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONTELDREDGE STREET, KENNEDY DRIVE, & OLD FARM ROADFEBRUARY 15, 2017Rye ApartmentsHayes ApartmentsKennedy Drive Hinesburg RoadEldredge StreetHayes AvenueSITEOld Farm RoadKimball AvenueWilliston RoadProposedRoad "B"ProposedRoad "A"ProposedRoad "E"Proposed Roads"C", "D", & "F" AABB Kennedy DriveLeft-Turn Lane Planat New City Road 'B'21" = 30'DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey Project No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.com11-4-16RDBHRDOthers14145O'Brien Home FarmKennedy Drive South Burlington, VT1 inch = 30 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE30 0 15 30 60 120PAVEMENT MARKING LEGENDNEW DOUBLE 4" SOLID YELLOW LINEDC B NEW CROSSWALK MARKINGNEW 4" SOLID WHITE LINENEW 24" SOLID WHITE STOPBARA E NEW LETTER OR SYMBOLFNEW 4" DOTTED WHITE LINEGNEW 4" DASHED WHITE LINEHINEW 6" SOLID YELLOW LINENEW 4" SOLID YELLOW LINE3 ???GZJ?.HQQHG\'UGZJ 30 Kennedy Drive &New City Road 'B'Traffic Signal Plan31" = 20'DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey Project No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.com11-4-16RDBHRDOthers14145O'Brien Home FarmKennedy Drive South Burlington, VT9SIGNAL HEADS682RYGLED1RYGLEDTRAFFIC SIGNAL LEGEND4DZ - 1VIDEO DETECTION ZONE TRAFFIC SIGNAL HEADJUNCTION BOXWIRED CONDUITSIGNAL CONTROLLERMAST ARM POLECONDUIT SLEEVECAMERA FOR VIDEODETECTION101 inch = 20 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE20 0 10 20 40 803 ???GZJ?6LJQDO3ODQGZJ 30 41" = 20'DateSheet numberScaleCheckedDrawnDesignSurvey Project No.Lamoureux & DickinsonConsulting Engineers, Inc.14 Morse Drive, Essex, VT 05452802-878-4450 www.LDengineering.com11-29-2016RDBHRDOthers14145O'Brien Home FarmKennedy Drive South Burlington, VTNew Crosswalk PlanHinesburg Rd//Eldredge St/Hayes AvePUSH BUTTON ASSEMBLY &9" X 12" R10-25 PEDESTRIAN SIGNRECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON DETAIL12" X 24" FYG W16-7PARROW PLAQUES (B-B)PEDESTAL SIGNAL POLE(2.5" SQUARE STEELGALVANIZED SIGN POST)FRONT VIEWSIDE VIEW3' - 6"7' - 0"NTS24" PAINTED WHITE STRIPE EDGE OF ROADWAYPAVEMENTEDGE OF ROADWAYPAVEMENTLCPAINTED BLOCK PATTERN CROSSWALK DETAIL8'SIDEWALKBIKE PATH15' - 0" POLE HEIGHTSLEEVE AND ANCHORSEE DETAIL ON STANDARD T-45NEW CROSSWALK PLANDETECTABLE WARNING SURFACEON CROSSWALK RAMP, TYPICALBOTH SIDESBI-DIRECTIONAL RAPID FLASHINGBAR WITH AMBER LEDS, BOTH SIDESCONDUIT1 inch = 20 ft.(in feet)GRAPHIC SCALE20 0 10 20 40 80 ,ZZ&^z^d D^,>>KE^/^dK&d, &K>>Kt/E'͗•^ >&ͲKEd/E ^K>ZWE >͕dd Z/ ^E E Z'zDE' D Ed^z^d D͘•KEͲKZh^ Z/Ed Z& ͬKEdZK>> ZE/^W>zW> K&/EͲd, Ͳ&/ >^ dhWK&&>^,hZd/KE͕D/ Ed^ dd/E'^EE/',d/Ed E^/dz͘•E/Ed 'Zd t/Z > ^^Ͳ^ KDDhE/d/KE^z^d D͘•d, ^K>ZWE >͕dd Z/ ^͕KDDhE/d/KE^z^d DEKEͲKZh^ Z/Ed Z& ͬKEdZK>> Z^,>> E>K^ /EKE KDWd͕t d, ZWZKK&͕s Ed E DϯZ^/ WK^dDKhEd E>K^hZ ͘•>/',dZ^t/d,^/ D/dd/E'W ^dZ/EKE&/ZDd/KE>/',d^/E/Ͳ/Z d/KE>KE&/'hZd/KE͘• ^^/> Wh^,hddKE^^ D>/ ^t/d,/E^dZhd/KE>^/'E^Eh/> dKE ED ^^' ͘•>>ZZ&^z^d DKDWKE Ed^^,>> W/Ed ><͘d, ZZ&Ζ^^,>> DEh&dhZ z ZDE,d ,EK>K'/ ^KZW͕͘DK >ZϵϮϬKZ Yh>͘3 ???GZJ?55)%GZJ 30