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 - 05/02/2017
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 MAY 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 May 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; A. Palmer, W. Irish, S. Homsted, M. O’Brien, T. Luther, J. Leinwohl, S. Buckley, J. Fayette, C. Farrell, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, K. Sturtevant 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move Agenda item #8 to #10. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller advised members of the VLCT Planning Forum on 14 June. DRB members are eligible to attend. 5. 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 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller noted there is a draft decision. The Board’s concerns are traffic and a stormwater easement which needs to be 20 feet instead of the proposed 10 feet. The Board is waiting to hear from Public Works regarding traffic, but will not hold up the preliminary plat decision on that account. Mr. Homsted said that at the lowest spot on the property they have to cut between units. To address Public Works concerns, they have pinched units closer together to allow for 20 feet between units in that low spot. They met with Mr. Rabidoux on this. There are some pipes that may remain private, if needed. Mr. Homsted indicated that all of those updates will be included at Final Plat. Two-thirds of the project flows toward the infiltration basin near Kennedy Drive, and there are no issues with that. The other third flows back to the south to an existing pond that the developer will expand. Stormwater people felt they hadn’t maximized infiltration potential, so they went out today and discovered that there are soils that are not suitable for infiltration. They have notified Public Works about this, and Dave Wheeler said he is satisfied. Mr. Belair said he spoke with Mr. Wheeler who said he would not require an infiltration basin there. Mr. Homsted said they will use other means that are not infiltration based to limit peak flows. They will not make the situation worse. He indicated the units in question on the plan and also the location of the low area and highlighted the 20-foot separation between buildings as requested by the Stormwater Department. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-37. Mr. Parsons seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-17-03 of Charles R. Farrell to alter a non-complying single family dwelling by: 1) expanding the third story by 427 sq. ft., and 2) constructing a 29 sq. ft. basement entry, 9 Pavilion Avenue: Mr. Irish said they are proposing a second floor addition to an existing house and extending the gambrel roof over that addition. The issue is that the addition extends into the setback, so they are asking for a variance to allow that. They are not expanding the footprint of the house. Mr. Belair said the regulations do not allow a setback closer than 3 feet, and this project would result in a 2.5 ft. setback. If the applicant applies for a variance, they would have to meet the criteria which they cannot do. Mr. Farrell said the building is already non-conforming. Mr. Belair said that what is proposed would increase the degree of non-compliance. Mr. Wilking suggested the applicant try to purchase 6 inches of property from the neighbor and move the boundary by that amount. Mr. Farrell noted they could change the design, but it would look “odd” and wouldn’t work functionally. Mr. Miller stressed that the Board has no authority to approve what is proposed. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-17-03. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-10 of Alan D. Palmer for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 39,375 sq. ft. building consisting of 38,418 sq. ft. of general office use and 957 sq. ft. of medical office use. The amendment consists of: 1) converting 10, 444 sq. ft. of general office use to 10 residential units, and 2) constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. penthouse addition to contain two dwelling un its, 20 Kimball Avenue: Mr. Wilking advised that he is the owner of the building next door. Mr. Palmer said he had no issue with Mr. Wilking remaining on the Board. Mr. Palmer said the building was built in 1981, and he wants to turn part of it to residences to make better use of the site. The remainder of the building will be office use. He noted that he agreed 100% with staff comments. Mr. Miller read comments from Mr. Behr who agrees with the conversion but would like to see a portion of the parking converted to green space. Mr. Palmer felt that makes sense. Mr. Palmer said the units would be 800-900 sq. ft., loft type. Ms. Smith suggested the possibility of a green roof or a patio. Mr. Palmer said he will put up solar panels and have space for a barbeque, etc. Mr. Belair suggested a shared parking arrangement with the offices and residences. Mr. Palmer was receptive to that idea. No other issues were raised. 8. (previously #9): Continued Appeal #AO-17-01 of Burlington International Airport (BIA)/City of Burlington (COB) appealing the issuance of Notice of Violation #NV-17-01 by the Administrative Officer alleging zoning violation at 3060 Williston Road: and 9. (previously #10): Continued appeal #AO-17-02 of Burlington International Airport (BIA)/City of Burlington (COB) appealing the issuance of Notice of Violation #NV-17-02 by the Administrative Officer alleging a zoning violation at Valley Road (quarry north of 3060 & 3064 Williston Road): It was noted that the appellant had requested a continuance to a future meeting. Mr. Kochman opposed the continuance and wanted to know why the appellant feels they are not in violation. Ms. Sturtevant, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Burlington, said the first appeal involves Airport tenants. The debris has been removed and the dumpsters have been moved to an approved location. There is still an issue with a change in tenants that needs to be resolved. Mr. Belair said a couple of the tenants have changed uses which have not yet been approved. Mr. Kochman moved to grant the continuance of #AO-17-01 to 6 June 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Regarding #AO-17-02, Ms. Sturtevant said the fill was placed in the quarry by the Air Guard, not the Airport. There has been a plan to add more fill, but the Air Guard “jumped the gun.” Mr. Belair noted that there is an “after the fact” fee when there is a violation, which doubles the application fee. Mr. Miller read into the record a letter from the Airport indicating the steps they have taken. Mr. Cota moved to continue #AO-17-02 until 6 June 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. (previously #8) Preliminary and final Plat Application #SD-17-09 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport for after-the-fact approval to place 328,000 cubic yards of fill in the former quarry o the Airport property, north of 3060 & 3064 Williston Road: Mr. Leinwohl showed the area where the fill is to be placed. The fill comes from the taxiway “G” and “B” projects and a project at the Air Guard facility. The grading plan accommodates 328,000 cu. yd. of material. Mr. Kochman asked if the character of the fill is relevant. Mr. Belair said not in the zoning regulations. Mr. Leinwohl said it is very sandy material, good to use at that site. It could be used later in another project on the airport site. Regarding traffic, Mr. Leinwohl said fill from the taxiway “B” project will by all internal across Airport property. That project will probably be deferred to next year. Fill from the taxiway “G” project (approximately 71,000 cu. yds.) will be part of a 2-year project. In 2017, 33,000 cu. yds. will require 5600 round trips. In 2018, 38,000 cu. yds. will require 6400 round trips. With 5-1/2 day shifts, this results in about 6 trips per hour. The Air Guard project will probably continue to the end of this year. Mr. Wilking noted that Airport traffic is compounded dramatically by what the Air Guard is doing without approval. He noted that today, he followed 5 Air Guard trucks on city roads. He stressed the weight load on those roads and the traffic impact. Mr. Leinwohl said he can’t speak for the Guard. Mr. Luther explained the traffic volume process. He noted that with the taxiway “G” project they know the schedule of when work will be done. He referred to a memo of 17 March which indicates a “worst case scenario” of peak volumes of traffic. He added that he does not know what the Air Guard will do. Mr. Wilking noted the huge amount of fill coming in as well and the traffic that also creates. He said he would be more comfortable is the Air Guard agreed to take the fill out via a different route in all commercial zones and stay out of residential areas. It would take more time, but it would be less impactful in residential zones. Mr. Wilking stressed that his issue is not with the Airport and that he was OK with the “B” and “G” projects. Mr. Kochman asked if the DRB can reduce the amount of fill allowed based on traffic. Mr. Belair said he didn’t know. Mr. Leinwohl said the Airport wants the Guard’s material in the quarry. He added that the Air Guard land belongs to the Airport, and what comes off that site should benefit the Airport. Mr. Wilking cited the impact on city streets, and said the Airport and the Air Guard benefit from this, but the City of South Burlington gets no benefit. There is also a potential for accidents in a residential zone. He stressed that 50,000 trips is a huge impact on a residential community. Mr. Parsons suggested the Air Guard use the same route as the route for taxiway “G” fill. Mr. Leinwohl said there could be a compromise if the Guard could stay on Airport Parkway beyond the runways. There would have to be coordination between contractors, and the Guard would have to have their own “corridors.” There might be enough room to fit everyone in. Mr. Leinwohl said there could be a stipulation requiring use of a specific traffic route. Mr. Kochman felt they should have to come back with fewer cu. yds. He suggested allowing up to 170,000 cu. yds. to be moved on public roads. With anything more they would have to come back to the DRB. Mr. Leinwohl proposed a condition enumerating the streets the city doesn’t want them to use. He noted the Guard will move the material regardless of what the DRB does, and it is good for the Airport to have that material back on Airport property. He was concerned that limiting fill could affect some very small projects. Mr. Kochman said they can come back for those projects as it isn’t a burden. Mr. Wilking said it can be a huge burden. He suggested letting Mr. Belair approve projects up to 1000 cu. yds. Mr. Kochman said he wouldn’t want that. Mr. Parsons did not want to be too prohibitive for the number of projects to be done. Mr. Wilking did not want to hold up current projects because the DRB is trying to solve what would happen 5 years from now. He agreed this is a public safety issue, but there are 2 sides to public safety, the Airport and the roads. Mr. Miller asked if limiting the streets that can be used to transport fill can get the project going. Mr. Leinwohl said it can. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-09. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Minutes of 18 April 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 18 April as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12. 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 9:10 p.m. , Clerk _________5/16/2017____________________________ Date Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: SD-16-37 255 Kennedy Drive—O’Brien Farm Road, LLC DATE: May 2, 2017 Development Review Board meeting 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. The stormwater section has submitted the following comments which could be discussed at the meeting with the applicant if they so choose. The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “O’Brien Home Farm” site plan prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, dated 12/16/16 and last updated on 2/20/17. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in both the Potash Brook and watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting construction. 2. The project proposes impacts to class 2 wetland buffer. These impacts are only allowed in conjunction with issuance of a wetlands permit by the Vermont DEC. 3. As the project proposes to create more than one-half acre or more of impervious surface, the project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs. a. The City’s Land Development Requirements (LDRs) require infiltration of the Water Quality Volume (WQv), unless it is not feasible due to site conditions outlined in Section 12.03(C)(1)(a). The applicant has indicated that “The only area with soil depths suitable for infiltration occur near the end of Road "C". However, this area is located in an approximately 4' cut.” Following a discussion with the applicant discussing how a proposed road does not qualify as a site constraint and does not relieve the applicant from meeting requirements of the LDRs, the applicant has proposed conducted further soil test pits near the end of Road C. 4. The applicant should confirm that requirements in Section 12.03(C)(1) are met and that the Water Quality Volume is infiltrated using Low Impact Development (LID). a. In accordance with the VSMM §2.7.5.B, open channels shall be designed to safely convey the 10-year storm with a minimum of 6 inches of freeboard. It is requested that the applicant provide information on the water levels in the proposed grass channels during the 10-year storm to ensure flooding of units does not occurs. b. Provide modeling showing that “Grass Channels 1-3 have been designed between the units for water 2 quality treatment” as indicated in email dated 4/20/17. The peak velocity for the 1-year storm must be non- erosive (see Appendix D7 of the VSMM). 5. The applicant should confirm that requirements in Section 12.03(C)(2) are met and that peak runoff rates are not increased during the 1 year storm event. 6. The applicant is required to submit the additional information outlined in Section 12.03(D), so that compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Standards can be evaluated. 7. Storm drains proposed to be taken over by the City will require a 20’ easement, centered on pipe, free of structures or obstructions. As shown, some of the storm drains are less than 10’ from building foundations. 8. Tress should not be planted within easements for storm drains proposed to be taken over by the City. 9. The Vermont Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) indicates that a 12’ wide maintenance access should be provided in order to facilitate equipment access for maintenance of stormwater ponds (section 2.7.1.F). 10. Stormwater Management “C” shows outlet structure near forebay berm. The riser should be located so that short-circuiting between inflow points and the riser does not occur. Section 2.7.1.D of the VSMM recommends maintaining a long flow path through the system. Additionally, it is not recommend to place the Emergency Spill way over the outlet pipe, as depicted on the Sheet C-9. 11. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave 1. Staff recommends that, if the Board decides at the close of the hearing on April 18th that it is ready to enter deliberations, the hearing be left open and continued to a future date, so that if new questions arise during deliberations the Board is able to receive new information without having to re-open the hearing. 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: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #CU-17-03, Charles R. Farrell, 9 Pavilion Avenue DATE: May 2, 2017 DRB Meeting Continued conditional use application #CU-17-03 of Charles R. Farrell to alter a non-complying single family dwelling by: 1) expanding the third story by 427 sq. ft. and 2) constructing a 29 sq. ft. basement entry, 9 Pavilion Avenue. The proposed project is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District where the minimum side yard setback is five (5) feet. The applicant is proposing to add an additional story to the home which currently sits 2.5 feet from the side property line such that the addition would also be setback only 2.5 feet from the side property line. Section 3.06(J) (3) of the LDRs would allow, with certain stipulations and as a conditional use, for a structure to encroach three (3) feet from a side property line. There is no provision in the LDRs to allow a setback of less than three (3) feet and the applicant has been informed of this limitation. Nevertheless, the applicant wishes to discuss this project with the Board. 1. Section 3.06(J) does not allow the applicant to complete the project as proposed and therefore staff recommends the Board request the applicant update the plans to comply with the Land Development Regulations. C-1PROPOSEDSITE PLANSANKEY RESIDENCESECOND FLOOR ADDITIONTHIS DRAWING IS THE PROPERTY OFG4 DESIGN STUDIOS, LLC AND ISNOT TO BE COPIED, REPRODUCED,OR THE CONTENT THEREOF USED, INWHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THEPRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STEVEGUILD DWDNUPDNW/DSTACKEDDNUP26685' - 0"EXISTINGWALLNEW WALLEXISTING WALLS REMOVEDKITCHENLIVING8' - 0"NEW WINDOWSMATCH EXISTING1st FLOORDOUBLE HUNGSEXISTING DECKEXISTING GARAGE6' - 5"NEW DH WINDOWS3'-0" WIDE EACHMATCH HEIGHT OF OTHERSEXISTING DININGNEW ROOFABOVE BASEMENTSTAIRSEXISTINGDOOREXISTING DUCTEXISTING DUCTNEW STRUCTURAL BEAM3' - 6"NEW DUCT& CHASESIZE BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEEREXISTING DOOREXISTING WINDOWEXISTING WINDOWEXISTING WINDOWEXISTING WINDOW15' - 9"22' - 3 1/2"EXISTING STAIR TOBE REPLACED, CONTRACTORTO VERIFY SIZE/LOCATIONDURING CONSTRUCTIONNEW COUNTER& CABINETSVERIFY WALL CAN BE REMOVED DUE TO STRUCTURAL HEADER SUPPORTEXISTING COVERED PORCHNEW MUDROOMNEW PLAYROOM0' - 2"2x4 STUD WALL @16" O/C W/ MIN.R-15 INSUL. (TYP.)EXISTING WALLSTORAGEEXISTINGWINDOWEXISTINGWINDOWEXISTINGWINDOWEXISTING GARAGEEXISTINGWINDOWEXISTING DECK ABOVEEXISTING STAIREXISTING PORCH ABOVEUPEXISTINGWINDOWCLBENCHBUILT-INS306811' - 10"8' - 9 1/2"2' - 1"3' - 11 3/4"2' - 9"5' - 0"6' - 8"3' - 10"0' - 2"14' - 6"10' - 0"7' - 3"4' - 0"BUILT-INSUNDER STAIREXISTING HOUSE ABOVEINFILL EXISTINGOPENINGNEW BASEMENTENTRANCE, VERIFYNEW DOOR CLEARSEXISTING KITCHENPLUMBINGNEW CABINETS &SHELVINGBETWEEN WINDOWSOIL TANKFURNACEH.W.H.NEW COUNTER &SERVICE SINK5' - 6"2' - 3"NEW COLUMN AND FOOTING TOSUPPORT NEW 2ND FLOORFLOOR BEAM, VERIFYLOCATION ON SITE,SIZE BY CONTRACTORSEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSFOR COLUMN/FOOTING SIZE5068BIFOLD2668SEE SITE PLAN FORPROPOSED DRIVEWAYEXISTING STAIR TOBE REPLACED, CONTRACTORTO VERIFY SIZE/LOCATIONDURING CONSTRUCTION6' - 0"OIL TANK MOVEDTO NEW LOCATION28684' - 4"NEW WINDOWTO MATCHEXISTINGNEW OFFICE3068ADDITIONW.I.C.MASTER BEDROOMCLST2668PKT4' - 2"5' - 4"4' - 5 1/4"BEDROOM #1BEDROOM #26' - 3 1/4"13' - 11 1/4"CHIMNEYCHASENEW DORMERMATCH DH264810' - 2"2' - 6"LINENLINEN9' - 3"3' - 6"9' - 6 1/2"2' - 10"3' - 0"4' - 1"3' - 1"2' - 4"5' - 6"2' - 1"3' - 1"4068BiFold2668286826682068POCKET36"x48"SHOWERNEW WALLEXISTING WALL3' - 4 1/2"2' - 6"3' - 4 1/2"NEW DORMERMATCH DH26485' - 0"NEW DUCTCHASEDN 90°NEW DORMERMATCH DH2648EXISTINGDORMEREXISTING DORMERNEW DH26502668BiFold4' - 0"8' - 0"NEW BALCONY CNTROVER EXIST. DOOR BELOW60681668PKT*BEDROOM CEILING @9'-0" AFFEQEQ4' - 2"ALIGN NEW WALLW/ EXISTINGSCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT: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 WRITTENCONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/4" = 1'-0"2/15/2017 10:24:49 AMA-1PROPOSEDFLOORPLANSSANKEY RESIDENCESECOND FLOOR ADDITIONG4WGI2/15/2017SANKEYPAVILION AVE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 1/4" = 1'-0"2First Floor 1/4" = 1'-0"1Basement 1/4" = 1'-0"3Second Floor*NOTE*NEW WALLS SHOWN HATCHEDEXISTING WALLS SHOWN SOLID*NOTE*NEW WALLS SHOWN HATCHEDEXISTING WALLS SHOWN SOLID*NOTE*NEW WALLS SHOWN HATCHEDEXISTING WALLS SHOWN SOLID First Floor5' - 9"Second Floor14' - 4"Attic22' - 6"Basement-2' - 3"Dormer wall21' - 0"Garage0' - 0"ADDITIONNEW DORMER TOMATCH EXISTING+/-18' - 6"NEW DORMER TOMATCH EXISTINGNEW WINDOWSNEW COLUMNSIZE BY STRUCT. ENG.NEW 2ND FLOOR BALCONYDESIGN BY ENGINEERFirst Floor5' - 9"Second Floor14' - 4"Attic22' - 6"Basement-2' - 3"Dormer wall21' - 0"Garage0' - 0"EXISTING WINDOWEXISTING DOORNEW ROOF OVERBASEMENT ENTRANCEEXISTING COVEREDPORCHFirst Floor5' - 9"Second Floor14' - 4"Attic22' - 6"Basement-2' - 3"Dormer wall21' - 0"Garage0' - 0"NEW GAMBRELEND TO MATCHEXISTINGNEW WINDOWSEXISTING DOORNEW BALCONY CNTROVER DOOR BELOWFirst Floor5' - 9"Second Floor14' - 4"Attic22' - 6"Basement-2' - 3"Dormer wall21' - 0"Garage0' - 0"ADDITIONNEW DORMER TO MATCH EXISTING+/-18' - 6"NEW BASEMENTENTRANCENEW 2ND FLOOR BALCONYDESIGN BY ENGINEERSCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT: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 WRITTENCONSENT OF STEVE GUILDFOR REVIEW ONLY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 3/16" = 1'-0"2/15/2017 10:24:50 AMA-2EXTERIORELEVATIONSSANKEY RESIDENCESECOND FLOOR ADDITIONG4WGI2/15/2017SANKEYPAVILION AVE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 3/16" = 1'-0"1East 3/16" = 1'-0"2North 3/16" = 1'-0"3South 3/16" = 1'-0"4West 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_10_20KimballAve_AlanPalmer_PUD_conversion_re sidential_sketch_May_2_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 28, 2017 Application received: March 27, 2017 20 Kimball Avenue Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-10 Meeting Date: May 2, 2017 Owner/Applicant Alan D. Palmer 5576 Dorset St. Shelburne, VT 05482 Property Information Tax Parcel 0980-00020 Commercial 1-Limited Retail Zoning District Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_10_20KimballAve_AlanPalmer_PUD_conversion_residential_sketch_ May_2_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-17-10 of Alan D. Palmer for a planned unit development to amend a previously approved plan for a 39,375 sq. ft. building consisting of 38,418 sq. ft. of general office use and 957 sq. ft. of medical office use. The amendment consists of: 1) converting 10,444 sq. ft. of general office use to 10 residential units, and 2) constructing a 1,800 sq. ft. penthouse addition to contain two (2) dwelling units, 20 Kimball Avenue. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements The applicant has indicated that site coverage will not change and no new buildings are proposed. 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: building use, open space planning, and waivers. A. Planned Unit Development Standards Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are intended “to encourage innovation in design and layout” and “efficient use of land.” Staff appreciates that the applicant is seeking to re-purpose an existing building so it continues to be functional and an already developed parcel does not go unused or underused. Staff considers it innovative that the applicant is proposing to repurpose office space into a residential use. B. Building Use Multi-family residential uses are permitted in the C1-LR Zoning District as part of a PUD. Staff considers this particular conversion from office use to residential use to be reasonable, because there are other residential uses nearby and proposed plans to develop more housing nearby, such as at 255 Kennedy Drive. C. Parks and Open Space Planning The applicant has stated they intend to provide an area for the residential tenants to have picnics, gardens, etc. and these amenities would be located on existing green space at the site. Staff considers existing green space on the site to have limited recreational value, because it tends to be narrow strips alongside parking and is separated from the proposed residential area by parking. In light of the applicant’s request for a height waiver to allow the construction of a new penthouse addition, staff considers it reasonable that the Board request useable open space for the new residential tenants. While the existing green space may be sufficient for office tenants, staff considers it likely that residential tenants may desire more outdoor space. The addition of green space would simultaneously be an opportunity to reduce the amount of impervious surface, namely parking spaces. Since the site will be used both commercially and residentially staff considers that the applicant is now presented with the opportunity to create a shared parking situation, because office and residential tenants will likely use the parking at different times of the day. Furthermore, the applicant CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_10_20KimballAve_AlanPalmer_PUD_conversion_residential_sketch_ May_2_2017_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 could request a parking waiver to reduce the number of required spaces, which could open up additional green space possibilities. 1. Staff recommends the Board provide guidance to the applicant as to what types of onsite recreation amenities the Board would view as positive. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the benefits of reducing parking and creating more green space for residents, including where on the property the Board would like to see such green space. D. Waivers The applicant is requesting a height waiver to allow for the addition of a penthouse level and a height of 43.2 feet. Staff considers the height waiver to be reasonable if residential tenants are provided with meaningful green space on site. In addition, the applicant has received a determination from the FAA that the height of the penthouse will not be a hazard to air navigation. RECOMMENDATION The Board should discuss the issues identified above with the applicant. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_09_1200AirportDrive_CityOfBurlington_Burlington Airport_prelin-final_quarry DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 14, 2016 Application received: September 6, 2016 CITY OF BURLINGTON/BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT—1200 AIRPORT DRIVE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-17-09 Meeting date: May 2, 2017 Owner City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Burlington International Airport 1200 Airport Drive, #1 South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 2000-0000C Airport Zoning District & Airport Industrial Zoning District Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary and Final Plat application #SD-17-09 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport for after-the-fact approval to place 328,000 cubic yards of fill in the former quarry on the Airport property, north of 3060 and 3064 Williston Road. COMMENTS Planning & Zoning Director Paul Conner and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A) Zoning District Dimensional Standards Given the very large size of the parcel with much of it undeveloped, staff considers the parcel to be in compliance with the dimensional standards. 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. No change. (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. The Stormwater section had no comments on this proposal. (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. Staff has requested that the applicant provide the City with the following information related to the fill proposal: 1. Please detail the means, and routes, and anticipated frequency schedule by which the fill will arrive to the quarry site. 2. Please detail what, if any, proposed traffic control measures are being proposed at public street intersections. (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. 3 (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. (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 site is already developed as an airport and the proposed project supports the development already present and does not impact open space on the site or any wetlands. (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. (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. (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. The unique nature of the site—an airport—makes these criteria inapplicable to the site. (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The proposed project supports the airport development already present, which is acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan as an existing and growing use within the Northeast Quadrant of the City. OTHER – PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Staff recommends that the Board have the applicant confirm that they will be reamin in compliance with the Performance Standards of the Land Development Regulations, including noise and dust. Specifically, staff recommends that the applicant detail procedures that will be deployed to avoid dust leaving trucks and/or the quarry site periods. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer 33,6471,709.3BTV Quarry Location - orthoVermont Agency of Natural Resources23,553© Vermont Agency of Natural Resources1,196.01:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_SphereMeters1,196.00NOTESMap created using ANR's Natural Resources AtlasLEGEND598.00vermont.govDISCLAIMER: This map is for general reference only. Data layers that appearon this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. ANR andthe State of Vermont make no representations of any kind, including but notlimited to, the warranties of merchantability, or fitness for a particular use, norare any such warranties to be implied with respect to the data on this map.December 1, 2016THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION1" = 1963 1cm = 236Ft. MetersTown BoundaryVTANG ProjectsTaxiway B ProjectTaxiway G ProjectQuarryProject ISSUED FORPERMITFEBRUARY 7, 2017MIXED INDUSTRIAL -COMMERCIALZONING DISTRICTAIRPORTZONINGDISTRICTAIRPORT INDUSTRIALZONING DISTRICTMIXED INDUSTRIAL ANDCOMMERCIAL DISTRICTRESIDENTIAL 4DISTRICTV:\1953\active\195311069\transportation\permitting\So. Burlington Quarry\Locationplan.dwg, Quarry, 3/21/2017 5:10:41 AM, hharrington, DWG To PDF (600 dpi).pc3 Estimated Loaded Trucks Trips w/ Waste Leaving Site Estimated Unloaded (empty) Trucks Trips 2017 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 33,200 CY 2767 2767 2018 Taxiway G Phase 2 38,300 CY 3192 3192 Estimated Loaded Trucks Trips Estimated Unloaded (empty) Trucks Trips Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 24,850 CY 2080 2080 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 14,750 CY 1230 1230 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 39,000 Tons 1630 1630 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 43 EA 10 10 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 1,700 LF 3 3 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 5780 LF 12 12 Taxiway G Phase 1A & 1B 11,700 LF 8 8 Taxiway G Phase 2 3,467 CY 290 290 5263 5263 6" Perforated Underdrain Pipe Crushed Stone for Underdrain 2017 EST TRUCKS w/ MATERIAL to SITE 5263 HDPE Pipe Pre Cast Drainage Structures Concrete Pipe P-209 P-401 Construction materials expected to be brought onto the Taxiway G project site 2017 P-154 Excess material to be transported from the BTV Taxiway G project to the Quarry Waste Material Estimated Loaded Trucks Trips Estimated Unloaded (empty) Trucks Trips Taxiway G Phase 2 30,000 CY 2500 2500 CY 2500 2500 Taxiway G Phase 2 18,000 CY 1500 1500 CY 1500 1500 Taxiway G Phase 2 45,000 TONS 1880 1880 TONS 1880 1880 Taxiway G Phase 2 22 EA 44 EA 4 4 Taxiway G Phase 2 3,500 LF 7 7 LF 7 7 Taxiway G Phase 2 1,750 LF 1 1 LF 2 2 Taxiway G Phase 2 519 CY 50 50 CY 50 50 59432018 EST TRUCKS w/ MATERIAL to SITE 5943 6" Perforated Underdrain Pipe 2018 TOTAL 1,750 Crushed Stone for Underdrain 2018 TOTAL 518 Pre Cast Drainage Structures 2018 TOTAL 22 HDPE Pipe 2018 TOTAL 3,500 2018 TOTAL 18,000 P-401 2018 TOTAL 45,000 2018 P-154 2018 TOTAL 30,000 P-209 Contractor Access GateContractor Access GateAirport QuarryProject AreaAirport Dr WIlliston RdKennedy DrWhite StWilliston Rd£¤2£¤2Airport RdAviation AveValley Rd Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community0600FeetmBTV Taxiway G ConstructionTruck RoutesAll TrucksMaterial In: AllMaterial In: From/To I-89 Exit 14Material In: From/To WillistonMaterial OutAirport Property White Str e et Ai rpo r t D r ive Ai rpo r t D r ive 2 (0) 2 (0) 13 (0)(0) 5 (0) 1 (5) 248 9 (0) 16 (0 )453 (14) (0 ) 0 (0 ) 14 (0 ) 9 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 050Feet m Airport Drive & White Street Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes & Added Trucks During Construction NOTES: Numbers in parenthesis indicate existing amount of trucks. Numbers in RED indicate additional trucks during peak construction.1111 Ai rpo r t D r ive 1150 Airport Drive Contractor Access Gate Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 050Feet m Airport Drive at Contractor Access Gate Added Trucks for Outgoing Material During Construction 33 (3) 152(4) 169(0) 34 (5) 152(7) 169(0) 34 185 ( 2 ) 590 ( 6 ) 239 ( 2 )(0) 285(0) 297(4) 174(1) 2 3 (34) 4 2 2 (4) 9 0 Airport DriveKennedy DriveWillis t o n R o a d Willi s t o n R o a d Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 050Feet m Airport Drive & Williston Road Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes & Added Trucks During Construction NOTES: Numbers in parenthesis indicate existing amount of trucks. Numbers in RED indicate additional trucks during peak construction.3535 024681012141618123456789101112131415161718192021Avg Trucks per HourWeekAverage Truck Round Trips per Hour (Incoming Material)2017 Day2017 Night2018 Day Memo hp \\us1286-f01\workgroup\1953\active\195311195\transportation\traffic\20170316 vtang truck trip generation.docx To: Jon Leinwohl From: Thad Luther South Burlington, VT South Burlington, VT File: Vermont Air National Guard Construction. Date: March 16, 2017 Reference: Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) Project – Truck Trip Generation for ACT 250 Permit Application Stantec completed the following analysis to estimate additional truck trips on the South Burlington road network resulting from construction activities for the VTANG Project. Construction is anticipated to occur during the 2017 and 2018 construction seasons. This memo documents the assumptions used to estimate truck trips. 1. Method a. Total material to be removed from site will be approximately 60,000 cy b. Assumed 12 cy loads c. Assumed 7,000 round-trips between April 1st and Dec 31st 2017. d. Assumed 3,000 round-trips will occur between Jan 1st and Dec 31st 2018. e. Assumed 10 hour days and 5 work days per week. f. The Airport Drive & White Street intersection turning movement diagram shows additional truck trips for the following construction activities: i. Hauling existing material away from the construction site with returning empty trucks g. The Airport Drive & Williston Road intersection turning movement diagram shows additional truck trips for the following construction activities: i. Hauling existing material away from the construction site with returning empty trucks h. No night work is anticipated. i. Existing turning movements shown on the attached diagrams are from 2015 and 2016 traffic counts. Attachment B: VTANG Construction Vehicle Traffic Analysis March 16, 2017 Jon Leinwohl Page 2 of 2 Reference: Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) Project – Truck Trip Generation for ACT 250 Permit Application 2. Attached Graphics a. Truck haul route b. Airport Drive & White Street Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes & added Trucks During Construction. c. Airport Drive & Williston Road Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes & Added Truck During Construction 3. Results a. While the seasonal total number of truck trips generated may be significant, these trips are distributed over two construction seasons making the hourly volumes low compared to the overall traffic volume at the affected intersections. b. As shown on the attached turning movement diagrams, the truck trips are low enough that they will have a negligible impact to intersection performance during the PM Peak hour volumes. c. Consideration could be given to alternative truck routes to further reduce any impact to intersection function. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Thad Luther, PE Project Manager Phone: (802) 497-6412 Fax: (802) 864-0165 thad.luther@stantec.com Attachment: c. Airport QuarryAirport Dr WIlliston RdKennedy DrWhite StWilliston Rd£¤2£¤2Airport RdAviation AveValley RdAirport PkwyAirport PkwyNational Guard AveAirport Pkw y §¨¦89 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community01,000FeetmVTANG ConstructionTruck RouteAll TrucksAirport Property White Str e et Ai rpo r t D r ive Ai rpo r t D r ive 2 (0) 2 (0) 13 (0)(0) 5 (0) 1 (5) 248 9 (0) 16 (0 )453 (14)(0 ) 0 (0 ) 14 (0 ) 9 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 050Feet m Airport Drive & White Street Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes & Added Trucks During VTANG Construction NOTES: Numbers in parenthesis indicate existing amount of trucks. Numbers in RED indicate additional trucks during peak construction. 2 2 (3) 152(4) 169(0) 34 (5) 152(7) 169(0) 34 185 ( 2 ) 590 ( 6 ) 239 ( 2 )(0) 285(0) 297(4) 174(1) 2 3 (34) 4 2 2 (4) 9 0 Airport DriveKennedy DriveWillis t o n R o a d Willi s t o n R o a d Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community 050Feet m Airport Drive & Williston Road Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes & Added Trucks During VTANG Construction NOTES: Numbers in parenthesis indicate existing amount of trucks. Numbers in RED indicate additional trucks during peak construction.22 LOADED OUT UNLOADED IN LOADED OUT UNLOADED IN 3500 3500 1500 1500 3500 3500 1500 1500 hourly 2 2 1 1 1. 2017 construction between April 1st and Dec 31st (39 weeks) 2. 2018 construction between Jan 1st and Dec 31st (52 weeks) 3. 5 day weeks 4. 10 hr shifts (days) TOTAL # TRIPS OF MATERIAL VTANG 2017 2018 ITEM WASTE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 APRIL 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 April 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman, ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Development Review Planner; B. McKenney, K. & K. Boudreau, J. Painter, S. Ticehurst, P. Wells, M. O’Brien, D. Marshall, D. Cummings, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Item #6 was moved to item #5. 3. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-17-04 and Site Plan Review Application #SP-17-15 of Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington – Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of constructing a brick walkway to the adjacent property, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Wells explained that the Diocese moved into new quarters in 2011 and noticed a lot of foot traffic (including mothers with strollers) between Rice H.S. and the Lund Home. There was concern because of the rough terrain. The Bishop suggested the walkway. It will be maintained in winter time. No issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 APRIL 2017 PAGE 2 Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-17-04 and #SP-17-15. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5- 0. 6. 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 noted that at the February meeting the DRB had asked for additional information which they have now provided as follows: Re: Proposed Street Types: Mr. Langfeldt showed an image of the “new urban design street type.” There would be material and color change to distinguish the road from the pedestrian way. He showed photos of where this has been done. The streets are essentially “glorified driveways,” not through streets. Mr. Langfeldt said this will be safer because they are narrower and are all dead end streets. The target speed is 15 mph. Mr. Kochman asked if this is authorized under form based code. Mr. Belair said it is. Mr. Kochman said he can see a dangerous potential. Mr. Gill then showed a chart indicating the average projected time between vehicles. Mr. Wilking asked if this design is recommended other than in form based code. Mr. Belair said it is not. Ms. Britt noted that both staff and Public Works support this. Phasing/Construction of Road “B”: Mr. Gill said the existing Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg Road access will serve until Road “B” is constructed (when the large new building is built). He showed maps indicating that level of service remains unchanged and there is no increase in queueing. Mr. Kochman felt the DRB shouldn’t rely on level of service, and they are not obliged to have a “D” level of service get a little bit worse but not enough to get to “E.” He added that this is desirable development with rotten traffic conditions, but people need a place to live. Phasing Plan Update: Mr. Langfeldt showed the phasing plan and noted it is tied to bonding requirements. He also showed the constructing schedule. He expressed concern with differing interpretations of Master Plan language. Mr. Miller said unambiguous language is needed and advised the applicant to work with staff to achieve that. Mr. Wilking said he had no issue with phasing the trails. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 APRIL 2017 PAGE 3 Ms. Britt said the Master Plan can be amended or the waiver request can be removed from the Master Plan. Mr. Gill asked if they can join Final Plat with revision of the Master Plan. Mr. Belair said they can. Height Waivers: Mr. Gill said they calculated grades on all lots and the height waiver request. He showed a table of heights per unit. They are requesting waivers of 2 feet above those numbers. Mr. Miller asked if the DRB can grant that request. Mr. Belair said they can. He suggested revising the table to include the 2 feet so the DRB can see the maximum heights. Neighbor Concerns: Mr. Langfeldt noted there are 2 neighbors concerned with the development, and there was a meeting with them. As a result of that meeting, some additional screening is proposed. Mr. Kochman asked if the city requested an increase in density. Mr. Langfeldt said that is not what they said. They are trying to reach the underlying density. Mr. Cota said if the city didn’t want that density, it wouldn’t be in the regulations. Mr. Kochman asked if there are criteria for preserving wildlife. Ms. Britt said she has seen references to connections and preserving habitat. She didn’t know if “wildlife corridors” are specifically mentioned. Mr. Miller asked if an existing wildlife area precludes development. Mr. Belair said it does not. Mr. Gill said that is dealt with at Act 250. Mr. Kochman noted there is a priority for development here, but he didn’t want to violate a requirement, if there is one. Ms. Britt said staff doesn’t yet have comments from Public Works or the Arborist, but if the applicant has done everything asked for, it should be OK. Mr. Gill showed a plan indicating the additional plantings. Trail Connection to Old Farm Road: Mr. Gill said the Bike/Ped Committee wants a woodchip path. They will put it in, if the DRB feels it is necessary. Board members said they want the path. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 APRIL 2017 PAGE 4 Mr. Gill then raised the question of permit duration. He noted the project will take at least 5-6 years to complete. Mr. Belair said in the past, the board has given 5 years with a one-year extension option. Mr. Langfeldt said they would like 5+1+1. Mr. Wilking said he had no issue with multiple one-year extensions. Mr. Gill suggested 7 years with 2 one-year extensions. Members then discussed whether to close the application tonight. Mr. Belair said staff can prepare a decision without closing. He felt that the 45-day requirement put staff in a tight box. Ms. Britt felt there could be a draft of the decision for discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Miller pledged to get it done as quickly as possible. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-37 to 2 May 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-17-06 of Donald R. Cummings for a planned unit development consisting of two lots, each developed with a single family dwelling. The project consists of: 1) subdividing the 1.16 acre parcel into two parcels of 0.6 acres (lot #1) and 0.56 acres (lot #2), and 2) relocating the zoning district boundary between the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts in conjunction with the planned unit development, 1811 Spear Street & 25 Harbor Ridge Road: Mr. Marshall noted they are combining 2 properties to allow for redistribution of density. He showed a plan with the 2 parcels of interest. The applicant worked with staff to transfer development density from one lot to the other. Mr. Marshall indicated where the densities would go. The applicant met with the Fire Chief and Marshall regarding access. They also have discussed stormwater management and drainage improvements with the Stormwater staff. Mr. Marshall showed the utility plan with the stormwater mitigation plan. Parts of the drainage way in the right-of-way will be paved as requested by Public Works. Roof runoff from the house on lot #2 would be directed to the retention area. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 APRIL 2017 PAGE 5 Ms. Smith asked about deed restrictions regarding heights. Mr. Cummings said there are no restrictions in this area. His intention was to enhance views and he took down some trees to improve neighbors’ views. The plan is for the new house to be 5 feet taller than the existing house. There will be deed restrictions, but they prefer these not be part of the DRB review. The Board was OK with this. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-06. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Minutes of 21 March and 4 April 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 21 March and 4 April 2017 as presented. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: Mr. Belair presented a request for a 6-month extension to #SD-16-30 of Mary Jo Capotrio. Mr. Cota moved to grant the 6-month extension to #SD-16-30 as presented. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:36 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date