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 - 10/17/2017
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 October 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via phone), F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; S. McClellan, D. Sherman, J. P. Larkin, R. Jeffers. J. Anderson, J. Hodgson, P. O’Brien, D. Marshall, J. Soncrant, J. & A. Turosak, S. Mowat, P. Sheppard, P. Brogna, A. Connelly, J. Larkin, D. Roy, N. Andrews, M. Waite, S. Rendall 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-17-23 of Donald & Sandra Rendall to subdivide a 3.92-acre parcel developed with a single-family dwelling into two lots ranging in size from 0.93 acres to 2.99 acres, 51 Old Farm Road: Ms. Rendall said they want to divide off a part of their property to downsize to a smaller property. Staff comments were addressed as follows: a. The applicant agreed that the maximum height of the house on lot #2 would be 28 feet or less. Ms Rendall said they have no plan to build at this time. b. The applicant agreed not to use pesticides, etc. in the wetland or buffer. There will be no mowing, only brush hogging once or twice a year. c. The applicant agreed that the wetland buffer will not be turned into “lawn.” d. Staff requested a split rail fence or other demarcation for the wetland. Mr. Waite said they would like a row of trees. Board is OK with that as long as it is shown on the plan. Applicant would prefer to close the hearing and be non-specific about what type of demarcation measure will be installed. The Board concludes that a condition specifying a split rail fence along the wetland buffer must be included. e. The applicant agreed to comply with Article 16 of the LDRs. Mr. Waite said that will happen when there is a plan to build. Ms. Keene said a note on the plan would be sufficient. Mr. Waite agreed to include a note on the plan. f. The applicant agrees that the driveway will be off Old Farm Road. g. Staff has asked that the 30 ft. and 32 ft. maples on Old Farm Road not be cut. Mr. Waite said they were asked to have the driveway directly opposite the driveway across the road; if this is the case, one of those maples would have to go. If they can move the driveway, both trees can be saved. Members preferred to move the driveway to save the trees. The applicant will amend the plan to show the trees remaining. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-17-23. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-17-18 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four 2-family dwellings, 3) two 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) two 12-unit multi-family dwellings, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Miller noted receipt of letters from neighbors and from attorney Jon Anderson. Mr. Marshall then addressed the staff report on open items as follows: a. Applicant is OK with the modification to the use of herbicides. b. Regarding the sidewalks on both sides of the road, Public Works still wants the sidewalk on only one side even though the applicant has said they would maintain the sidewalk. Public Works Director Rabidoux explained there would be some legal issues with private maintenance of city infrastructure. He noted that only 30% of homes in the city have sidewalks in front of them. This proposed section of sidewalk is seen as unnecessary and would add to the cost of maintenance for the city. The less connected a sidewalk is, the more work it is to maintain it. Mr. Marshall responded that South Village was conceived with sidewalks on both sides of the street as in a traditional neighborhood. Mr. Kochman noted that these homes are almost a separate neighborhood. Mr. O’Brien said there are also safety concerns. He also noted that when they proposed sidewalks on only one side of the street in Phase II, it was appealed, and they had to put the sidewalks on both sides. Ms. Jeffers said these would be the only 3 homes in South Village without a sidewalk in front of them and would be set out as “odd.” After some discussion, a majority of members agreed to have the sidewalk on only one side. c. The applicant wants some clarifying language regarding traffic calming in the Dorset Farms neighborhood. Staff and members are OK with that. d. The applicant will provide costs on landscaping and screening of multi-family buildings. Staff agrees they comply with minimum landscaping requirements. e. The applicant is OK with staff’s conditions regarding affordability. Mr. Kochman asked to add the words “and development standards of…” to the second condition. Mr. O’Brien read a prepared statement on affordability and stressed that they are not near the threshold that would require them to build the affordable units. Mr. Behr said he has an issue with not discussing affordability until unit 270. Mr. Kochman did not believe the applicant should delay building affordable housing until the 270th units. Ms. Smith was concerned the applicant would get to the 270th unit and not be able to site the affordable units. The Board discussed that in future projects they would like to set a condition that if you get a density bonus you can’t wait until triggering it to determine where the affordable units must go. f. There is now an agreement on bike racks. g. Mr. Marshall noted they checked on the conditions of the consent decree and there are no issues with the limited and no development areas. Mr. Miller noted that the City Attorney has said the Board should not open up the discussion to Phases I and II. Ms. Keene noted that any changes to Phases I or II would have to come to the DRB. Mr. Mowat asked for clarification of affordable housing in phases I and II. Staff confirmed there will be a detailed plan for this. Mr. Behr said that the conditions require 4 affordable units in multi-family buildings. Mr. Wilking said that comes with the 270th unit. Mr. Andrews said that plowing a sidewalk in front of 3 units seems like such a minor thing and a little ridiculous not to do it. People who live there will be paying taxes the same as those who get a sidewalk plowed. He also wants to see affordable housing integrated in the neighborhood. If units are condos (which he defined as units that are occupant owned), they should remain condos and not be changed to apartments (which he defined as rental units) in order to be affordable. Ms. Turosak said she was surprised that no one has mentioned that where there will be no sidewalk is a conduit to a nature trail. She indicated this on the plan. Ms. Connolly noted that the existing multiplex buildings are mostly rental. He asked if they haven’t sold in the 2 existing phases, why should they continue to be built. Mr. Kochman said that is beyond the purview of the DRB. He also noted that the affordable housing requirement can be met with either owned or rented units. Attorney Anderson reported that the concerns he had mentioned in his correspondence have been resolved and they agree the path can be moved. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-17-18. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-24 of Milot Larkin partnership to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 60-unit multi-family building with 17,976 sq. ft. commercial space, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building(1000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office, a 3500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive- through services, and a bank with drive-through service. The amendment consists of constructing a four-story 48-unit residential building, 7 Fayette Road: Mr. Roy said the property is in the C-1-Auto District and is within a 40-acre PUD. They are proposing a 4-story structure with 48 residential units (33 studio, 12 1-bedroom, and 3 2-bedroom). The 8.5 foot setback from the property line will require a waiver as will the front yard coverage (8% above). They will also need a waiver for the 47-foot height. The site is behind the health care building, and the site is underutilized (mostly parking). There is a shared parking agreement. There will be 24 on-grade parking spaces below the units. They are also proposing an open space area to the north for recreation and a patio area to the west. There will be interior and exterior bike storage. Units will be “market rate affordable,” similar to the units in Larkin Terrace. The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows: a. Regarding building height, Mr. Roy showed a photo from Shelburne Road and a drawing of what would be seen from the intersection of Shelburne Rd/Fayette. Members were OK with the height waiver. b. Mr. Roy said the 8.5 foot setback from the property line is similar to other buildings in the area. They also feel that the 38% front yard coverage is more “progressive.” He showed a building rendering from Fayette Road. Members were OK with the setback and coverage. c. Regarding a safety concern at the entry, Mr. Roy said they will work with staff find a solution without “opening Pandora’s box” with regard to state permitting. d. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Roy noted there is a lot of vegetation on the site. They would like credit for that. There will be trees along the front of the building. They may ask to add landscaping in the greater PUD as part of this project. He showed areas where this could work. Mr. Kochman suggested using lower lighting as on O’Dell Parkway. Mr. Larkin said they would look at that. Board members expressed no concerns with putting landscaping elsewhere on the PUD. Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the very small units. Mr. Roy said they do not meet HUD requirements, but they feel there is a market demand for this style of “tiny home.” Size also lets it be more cost effective. Mr. Wilking said if the city wants affordability, they may have to get smaller square footage. Ms. Smith noted this is replacing something similar that was torn down. Mr. Roy acknowledged this is “not for everyone.” Mr. Behr noted the HUD standards are for “public housing.” These are marketable units. He felt it provides an affordable product to a market that needs this. Mr. Roy said the ceiling heights would be “comfortable,” and there will be a lot of glass. Mr. Cota expressed a desire to see a common space which would provide a “relief valve” for residents who want to get out of their small units. Mr. Roy indicated that they will possibly replace one unit with a common space for residents to get out of their small units. Mr. Wilking suggested a roof deck. Mr. Wilking expressed excitement about the infill nature of the project. Mr. Kochman asked about traffic and parking. Mr. Roy said they will update the traffic study and shared parking calculation for the next level of approval. No further issues were raised. 8. Minutes of February 7, March 7 and September 19, 2017: The minutes were not available for approval. 9. Other Business: Mr. Kochman advised that he believes the Planning Commission will be considering the amendment that was postponed at its next Tuesday meeting. Ms. Keene will follow up with the Board as to the schedule. Mr. Wilking noted that as trees mature, some projects are getting “strangled” with trees and are looking too dark. He felt that the requirement to replace every tree-inch that is removed is too much and suggested that the arborist be asked about the wisdom of replacing any trees that come down. He suggested this be brought to the Planning Commission as well. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:19 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on December 5, 2017. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 1 of 6 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_17_23_51OldFarmRd_Rendall_subdivision_final_2017‐ 10‐17.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 13, 2017 Plans received: September 14, 2017 51 Old Farm Road Final Plat Application #SD 17‐23 Agenda Item #5 Meeting date: October 17, 2017 Owner/Applicant Donald and Sandra Rendall 51 Old Farm Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1260‐00051 Residential 1 PRD 3.917 acres Location Map SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 2 of 6 PROJECT DESCRPTION Final plat application #SD‐17‐23 of Donald and Sandra Rendall to subdivide a 3.92 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two (2) lots ranging in size from 0.93 acres to 2.99 acres, 51 Old Farm Road. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A) Dimensional Standards Residential 1 PRD Required Existing Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft./single family 170,623 sq. ft. 130,089 sq. ft. 40,534 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage 15% 1.6% 2.3% 4.9% Max. Overall Coverage 25% 3.3% 4.3% <25% Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 22 ft. No change >50 ft. Min. Side Setback 25 ft. 52 ft. No change >25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change N/A 1 2Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. Unknown No change Unknown Proposed to be in compliance 1. Lot 2 is proposed to be a corner lot and as such will not have a rear lot line. 2. Details of buildings have not been provided. 1) Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that the future building on Lot 2 have a maximum height of 28 feet or less at the midpoint between the eaves and the highest point of the roof, or the highest point of the roof if the roof is flat or mansard. B) Section 4.01 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following standard for all development within the R‐1 district. (1) Multi‐family dwelling units shall be subject to site plan review, as per Article 14, and, except as stated in subsection 4.01(F) of these Regulations, shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per structure. The applicant has proposed two units, an existing single family and a new single‐family dwelling for the subdivided lot, which is within the allowable density for the parcel. The allowable density would allow for two‐ or multi‐family homes to be located on the proposed parcels if certain other criteria were met. Should a multi‐family home be proposed, the application would be subject to site plan review. C) Section 12.02E of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following standards for all site plan applications located along the City’s surface waters. (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 3 of 6 There is an existing pond located on proposed Lot 1 and an existing wetland located on the west side of proposed Lots 1 and 2. There is no wetland or buffer encroachment proposed as part of the subdivision or hypothetical home development. 2) Staff recommends that that the DRB include the following conditions: a. There shall be no use of herbicides, pesticides, and/or non‐organic fertilizers within either the wetlands or the associated buffers. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property, the applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney. b. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush‐hogging will be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the property, the applicant will be required to record a “Notice of Conditions” to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney. The Department of Public Works Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the application on October 12, 2017 and offers the following recommendation. Marla, The proposed building Lot 2 on the “Donald & Sandra Rendall – 51 Old Farm Road” subdivision plan, dated 2/6/17, shows a wetland and associated 50’ buffer. The DRB should include a condition that this buffer area not be turned into lawn. Thanks, Dave 3) Staff recommends the DRB adopt a condition that the wetland buffer area not be turned into lawn. 4) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to amend the plans to show a split rail fence, line of boulders, or other permanent demarcation measures along the wetland buffer lines to demarcate and prevent mowing within the buffer. D) Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general standards for all subdivisions. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The Applicant has indicated they have applied for a state water/wastewater permit. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, the Applicant must obtain final approval for water and wastewater allocation from the City. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 4 of 6 properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. No erosion control measures are shown on the provided plans. The applicant must comply with the minimum standards for erosion control, including stabilization timelines in Section 16.03B and topsoil requirements of Section 16.04A. 5) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to amend the plans to demonstrate compliance with Article 16 of the LDRs. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. The existing house on proposed Lot #1 is accessed by a driveway from Old Farm Road. Lot #2 would have access to Old Farm Road and also abuts Hinesburg Road; however, the Hinesburg Road side of the property is wetland and therefore would not be a likely source of access. 6) Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that any driveway for Lot #2 be located off Old Farm Road. (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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. See discussion of resource areas as it pertains to Article 12 above. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. The applicant is not proposing a specific home type at this time. However the density and general layout of the lot are consistent with the development patterns in the area. Staff considers this criterion to be met. (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 Project proposes a single‐family dwelling on an already cleared portion of the lot. Staff considers this criterion met. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 5 of 6 The assistant fire chief reviewed the project and on 9/28/2017 indicated via email that there are no issues. Staff considered this criterion met. (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 properties. There is an existing 30‐inch maple adjacent to the proposed driveway which may be within the City right of way (“ROW”). At this time the tree is not proposed to be removed, but the applicant indicated that they anticipate needing to remove the tree in order to align the driveway with the driveway for 50 Old Farm Road. Staff has consulted with the City Arborist and the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) Director, and considers that the value of retaining the tree is greater than the advantage of aligning the driveways. Therefore staff considers that the applicant should design the driveway to avoid impacting the 30‐inch maple and the adjacent 32‐inch maple. 7) Staff recommends the Board include a condition that neither the 30‐inch nor the 32‐inch maple along Old Farm Road shall be impacted by construction of the driveway for Lot #2. (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. The Department of Public Works (“DPW”) director reviewed the project and on 9/27/2017 indicated via email that there are no issues. The applicant obtained a preliminary wastewater allocation on June 8, 2017. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The existing parcel is planned for 2‐5 units according to the build out analysis included in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff considers this criterion met. (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. The Project proposes a single‐family dwelling on an already cleared portion of the lot. Staff considers this criterion met. E) Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 6 of 6 Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SD‐17‐18 1840 Spear Street—South Village Communities, LLC, Phase III Preliminary & Final Plat DATE: October 17, 2017 Development Review Board meeting South Village Communities, LLC, has submitted an application for preliminary and final plat for Phase IIIB, consisting of 60 dwelling units. At the October 3, 2017 hearing, the Board indicated that there were six (6) topics that needed additional attention. A summary of the status of each of these six (6) topics is as follows. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (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 recommended that the Board adopt condition #15 from Phase II of South Village to apply to Phase III as well. The condition reads as follows: “(i) n order to protect the wetland and associated buffer areas, the following conditions are attached to this approval, and shall be included in homeowner documents for owners of the lots and dwelling units: no pesticide nor herbicide application within wetlands and buffer areas; no mowing in wetlands and/or their buffers; disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to remediation activities; and no planting non‐native species in wetlands or their buffers.” The applicant has requested that the following language be appended to the end of the condition: “…save for implementation of the Land Management Plan and to meet conditions of the projects Individual Wetland Permit issued on September 10, 2014 by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources”. The applicant notes that this request is made as the Land Management Plan and Wetland Permit into which the Land Management Plan is embedded require remediation work which call specifically for mowing and/or herbicides as remediation work. Staff considers this change to be acceptable and recommends the Board adopt the condition as amended. (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. The DPW requested that the applicant remove the sidewalk from in front of units 100, 102 and 103. At the October 3, 2017 hearing, the applicant requested for that segment of sidewalk to remain as designed. They stated 2 that the reasons for including the sidewalk are as follows. 1. Experience in Phase II indicated that a sidewalk on both sides of the road is consistent with the vision approved for Phase 1. 2. Extending the sidewalk to Douglas Street would conflict with an archaeologically sensitive area. 3. All other homes in South Village front on a sidewalk. The DPW has indicated a desire to represent themselves to the Board regarding this issue. Master Plan Condition 18 states that the applicant shall provide $20k of off‐site intersection upgrades and traffic calming measures. In the October 3, 2017 staff comments, staff represented that the applicant requested the following condition be applied to this permit. “The applicant shall make a $20,000 payment to the City of South Burlington prior to the completion of the base course of asphalt paving on Midland Ave through the Phase III portions of the Project.” At the October 3, 2017 hearing, the applicant requested that the condition be modified as follows. “The applicant shall make the required $20,000 payment to the City of South Burlington associated with Master Plan Condition #18 prior to the completion of the base course of asphalt paving on Midland Ave through the Phase III portions of the Project.” Staff considers that the Board should include this condition as amended. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS (D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements 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 minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The cost of the street trees is above and beyond this requirement. The applicant provided a landscape budget for the single, two‐family buildings and three‐family buildings as well as each of the multi‐family buildings and the street trees. Approval of the landscape budgets for multi‐building lots is required for site plan review. Site plan review is an embedded element of subdivision review for multi‐building lots. The applicant estimates the total cost of the multi‐family buildings in the portion of the project seeking final plat approval to be $1,200,000 each. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $19,500 for each multi‐ family building and the applicant is proposing $17,473.95 of qualifying landscaping for multi‐family Building A and $24,365.90 of qualifying landscaping for multi‐family Building B, exclusive of street trees. 3 Table 13‐9: Landscaping Value Requirements Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost Minimum Landscaping Budget $0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Additional over $500,000 1% $7,000 Minimum Landscaping $ $19,500 Proposed Landscaping $17,473.95 Building A $24.365.90 Building B Staff considers this criterion met. OTHER Affordability As part of the Findings of Fact & Decision for #MP‐05‐02, the applicant received approval for a density bonus of 65 units, 33 of which must meet affordability criteria in perpetuity. Without the density bonus, the applicant has approval to construct 269 units. SD‐17‐18, if approved, would bring the number of approved units up to 264. At the October 3, 2017 hearing, the Board expressed an interest in amending the proposed condition to indicate that such a condition would not absolve the applicant from their obligations to meet the requirements of Section 18.02D(3) for the South Village Development as a whole. As established in Section 18.02D(3), the units must be physically integrated into the design of the development in a manner satisfactory to the Development Review Board and distributed among the housing types in the proposed housing development in the same proportion as all other units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Development Review Board as being better related to the housing needs, current or projected, of the City of South Burlington. Staff and the Applicant have met to discuss the provision of affordable units in Phase III and in the development as a whole and to discuss the feedback provided by the Board to date. The Board has expressed that they’re interested in a condition which ensures that the provisions of Section 18.02 are met. Staff therefore recommends a condition which (i) Sets a requirement for six (6) affordable units in Phase IIIB with no more than four (4) units in the multi‐ family buildings; (ii) States that the condition does not alleviate the overall responsibility of the applicant to meet the affordability mix of section 18.02 of the Land Development Regulations; and (iii) States that prior to or coincident with submittal for a site plan or final plat application for any unassigned lots within the South Village PUD that is the subject of master plan approval #MP‐04‐01 and #MP‐05‐02, as amended, the applicant/property owner shall submit an overall affordability plan consistent with Section 18.02. For the purposes of this condition, an unassigned lot is one for which no unexpired site plan or final plat approval has yet been granted. Six (6) affordable units represents the proportionate number of affordable units in the 60‐unit Phase IIIB when considered as a fraction of the total 334 developable units. 4 Bicycle Parking and Storage The applicant indicated at the October 3, 2017 hearing that they are proposing to include two clusters of four (4) short‐term bicycle parking spaces, one outside each of the two multi‐unit buildings, and twelve long‐term bicycle racks in the subsurface garages under each multi‐unit building. The applicant has since provided manufacturers’ details to demonstrate that both the short‐ and long‐term bicycle parking spaces meet the criteria of Section 13.14. Consent Decree Staff has reviewed the no development area and limited development area shown in Exhibit A of the February 12, 2007 Consent Decree. The lot currently designated as Lot 103 was previously located farther to the east. The applicant has made the lots smaller on the north side of the road to get all portions of Lot 103 out of the no development area. The no development and limited development areas have not changed. DRDR +366.0 +365.7 +358.2 +365.5+358.5 +365.5 +368.00+365.5 +365.5 +366.0 +367.84 +365.5 +367.50 +361.6 366.4+366.4+ +367.6 367.4+361.6+366.1+ +368.4 +368.4 +368.4+368.4 +366.5 368.4+367.9+ +368.4 370.4+ 370.0+ +370.3 369.3+ 368.5+368.9+367.8+367.3+366.7+366.0+ 370.4+ +368.4 +367.00 +365.4 +366.50 +367.77 +367.31 2.7%3% 2.5% 2.0%366.80+ +366.50 3.0%2.6%366.5+8.3% 8.3%+366.5 +366.0 2.9% 3.6%2.7%2.6%1.7%2.9%2.7%1.7%4.8% 2.7%2.9%0.8%1.5%2.7%4.0%3.3%3.3%2.8%1.4% 1.3%DEWEY PLACEFLANDERS LANEFLANDERS LANEALLEN ROAD EASTAIKEN ST. SOUTH JEFFERSON RO A D STREETSLADE STREET ALLEN ROAD EASTNORTH J E F F E R S O N R D . SO U T H J E F F E R S O N R O A D ALLEN RD.W. FISHER LANECATKIN DR.MADISON LANEE. FISHER LANEMADISON LANECHIPMAN STREET SOUTH J E F F E R S O N R O A D SOUTH JEFFERSON ROADFROST STREET SPEAR STREETCHIPMAND D QUIET PATH (TYP.)BIKE PA T H BIKE PA T H BIKE PA T H MIDLA N D A V E N U EDSMDSMACL 1" = 150'01243.14C1.0LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495OVERALLPROPOSEDCONDITIONS SITEPLANACESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIBNO DEVELOPMENT AREALIMITED DEVELOPMENT AREAENVIRONMENTAL COURT DECISIONREQUIREMENTS 2-27-0703/13/201703/13/17 DSM WATER SUPPLY PERMIT SET09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 9/1/2017 10:16:01 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3 370.4+1.5%PLUT.O.TIMBER=368.3T.O.TIMBER=368.718" HDPE W/FESW/ STONE PADINV.=368.748W W WW W W WWWWWWWWWWWINSTALL TYPE ISTONEFILL UNDERBRIDGE/BOXINSTALL 4" MINUSSTONEUNDER BRIDGENEW BRIDGE WITH30' CLEAR SPANNEW BRIDGE ABUTMENTSNEW GUARDRAIL SYSTEM4" WIDE, WHITE FOG LINE(10' FROM CENTERLINE)STSTNEW CB#4RIM=364.4INV. IN=360.5INV. OUT=360.415" HDPE W/FESW/ STONE PADINV.=357.5NEW CB#3RIM=364.4INV.=360.6NEW CB#5RIM=367.8INV. OUT=364.93' WIDE GRASS LINED DRAINAGE SWALE AT LESSTHAN 1% SLOPENEW BRIDGE WITH30' SPANNEW 26' WIDE PAVED ROADWITH CONC. CURBROAD TAPERS FROM 20' WIDE,AT STA. 4+40, TO 26' WIDE,AT STA. 4+90STNEW CB#1RIM=361.3INV.=358.1STORMWATERPOND PERMITTEDUNDER PHASE 3AUDUDUDUDUD15" HDPE15" HDPE15" HDPERECESSED CURB (TYP.)PARALLEL PARKING SPACESUD CONTINUE ANDTERMINATE ATBRIDGE WING WALLUD C.O.FENCE PERDETAIL @SHEET C7.6STPARALLEL PARKING SPACES+358.3 +358.3 +354.8±BIKE P AT H 10+009+008+73.108+007+006+005+00 4+00 3+00 PHASE 3APHASE 3BPHASE 3BPHASE 3AMATCH LINE C2.1MATCH LINE C2.0502+00 BIKE P AT H D AVEN U E SEE SHFOR ADDETAILPON100102104105106x370.2368.0X 368.0XDSMDSMACL 1" = 30'01243.14C2.0ALOCATION MAP1" = 2000'S.D. IRELANDCOMPANIES193 INDUSTRIAL AVENUEWILIISTON, VERMONT 05495GRADING &DRAINAGEPLAN-SOUTHWEST-ACEDorset StreetSpear StreetAllen RoadNowlandFarm RoadU.V.M.FarmsSOUTH BURLINGTONSHELBURNESITESPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTSOUTH VILLAGECOMMUNITIES,LLCPHASE IIIB03/13/201707/13/17 DSM SUBMITTAL TO CITY09/01/17 DSM REV. PER STAFF COMMENTSP:\AutoCADD Projects\2001\01243.14 Phase 3\1-CADD Files-01243.14\Dwg\PHASE III-2016\01243-Phase 3- 2016.dwg, 10/3/2017 10:09:33 AM SCALE 1" = 10'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 10'L-202Landscape Plan - 12 Plex ANO DEVELOPMENTNO DEVELOPMENTP:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:48:45 PM SCALE 1" = 10'(at 24" x 36" ONLY)revisionsdate301 college street burlington vermont 05401 802 658 3555landscape architects planning consultantshttp://www.tjboyle.comnorthscaledrawn bydatesheet no:South Village Phase IIIT. J. Boyle Associates, LLCdesign byjbo/ebchecked byjbo/eb06/29/2017ISSUED FORPERMITTING APPROVAL08/30/2017jboRevised per Staff comments 08/30/20171" = 10'L-203Landscape Plan - 12 Plex BNO DEVELOPMENT4P:\Active Projects\South Village 1628\Dwg\Plans\SV-Plans Landscape and Lighting PHASE III.DWG, 8/30/2017 4:48:55 PM South Village Phase III Planting PlanPrepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC August 2017TreesQty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes Unit PriceInstalled1 ASL ACER saccharum 'Legacy' Legacy Sugar Maple 3.5" cal. B&B 400.00$ 1,040.00$ 3 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage' Heritage River Birch 10-12' Ht. B&B multistem, 3-4 stems 250.00$ 1,950.00$ 5 CO CELTIS occidentalis Common Hackberry 1-3/4" B&B native 144.00$ 1,872.00$ 9 PG PICEA glauca White Spruce 10' Ht. B&B 276.00$ 6,458.40$ Sub-Total 11,320.40$ ShrubsQty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed3CVCHIONANTHUS virginicus White Fringetree 4' Ht #5 Cont. 55.00$ 429.00$ 7CAIH CORNUS alba ' Ivory Halo' Ivory Halo Dogwood 24" Ht. B&B25.00$ 455.00$ 8 HAIR HYDRANGEA arborescens 'Invinciball Ruby' Invinciball Rugy Hydrangea 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 25.00$ 520.00$ 13 JCSG JUNIPERUS chinensis 'Sea Green' Sean GreenJuniper 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 16.25$ 549.25$ 34 PTN POTENTILLA tridentata 'Nuuk' Nuuk Potentilla Clump 8" Squat Cont. 12" o.c. 5.25$ 464.10$ 7 RA RIBES alpinum Alpine Currant 18" Ht. B&B 20.00$ 364.00$ 40 RAGM RIBES alpinum 'Green Mound' Green Mound Alpine Currant 15" Ht. #3 Cont. 21.00$ 2,184.00$ 6 SBT SPIRAEA betulifolia 'Tor' Tor Spiraea 18" #3 Cont. 21.00$ 327.60$ 3SASYMPHORICARPOS albus Common Snowberry 30" Ht. B&B 25.00$ 195.00$ 13 SxCH SYMPHORICARPOS x Chenaultii 'Hancock' Prostrate Chenault Coralberry Clump #1 Cont. 8.00$ 270.40$ 4 TMG TAXUS media 'Greenwave' Greenwave Spreading Yew 18" Ht. B&B 38.00$ 395.20$ Sub-Total 6,153.55$ Perennials & FernsQty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec RemarksNoteswholesale installed18 HH HOSTA 'Halcyon' Halcyon Hosa Clump #1 Cont. 15" o.c. 6.15$ 276.75$ 25 HMAB Heuchera macroorhiza 'Autumn Bride' Autumn Bride Coral Bells Clump #1 Cont. 18" o.c. 8.00$ 500.00$ 21 ISM IRIS sibirica 'Blue Moon' Blue Moon Iris Clump #1 Cont. 18" o.c. 6.15$ 322.88$ Sub-Total 1,099.63$ Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size SpecRemarks Noteswholesale installed5 SS SCHIZACHYRIUM scoparium Little Bluestem Clump #2 Cont. no cultivars, 24" O.C. 7.50$ 93.75$ Sub-Total 93.75$ TOTAL (NOT INCLUDING PERENNIALS AND GRASSES):17,474$ 12 Plex A Plant ScheduleOrnamental Grasses(Page 1 of 1) South Village Phase III Planting PlanPrepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC August 2017TreesQty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes Unit PriceInstalled1 ASL ACER saccharum 'Legacy' Legacy Sugar Maple 3.5" cal. B&B 400.00$ 1,040.00$ 1 MLM MAGNOLIA loebneri 'Merrill' Merrill Magnolia 7' Ht. B&B 110.00$ 286.00$ 17 PG PICEA glauca White Spruce 10' Ht. B&B 276.00$ 12,199.20$ 4 PSP PRUNUS sargentii 'Pink Flair' Pink Flair Sargent Cherry 3.5" Cal. B&B 375.00$ 3,900.00$ Sub-Total 17,425.20$ ShrubsQty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed3CVCHIONANTHUS virginicus White Fringetree 4' Ht #5 Cont. 55.00$ 429.00$ 4CAIH CORNUS alba ' Ivory Halo' Ivory Halo Dogwood 24" Ht. B&B25.00$ 260.00$ 23 HAIR HYDRANGEA arborescens 'Invinciball Ruby' Invinciball Rugy Hydrangea 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 25.00$ 1,495.00$ 22 JCSG JUNIPERUS chinensis 'Sea Green' Sean GreenJuniper 18" Ht. #3 Cont. 16.25$ 929.50$ 48 PTN POTENTILLA tridentata 'Nuuk' Nuuk Potentilla Clump 8" Squat Cont. 12" o.c. 5.25$ 655.20$ 2 RA RIBES alpinum Alpine Currant 18" Ht. B&B 20.00$ 104.00$ 24 RAGM RIBES alpinum 'Green Mound' Green Mound Alpine Currant 15" Ht. #3 Cont. 21.00$ 1,310.40$ 9 SBT SPIRAEA betulifolia 'Tor' Tor Spiraea 18" #3 Cont. 21.00$ 491.40$ 7SASYMPHORICARPOS albus Common Snowberry 30" Ht. B&B 25.00$ 455.00$ 20 SxCH SYMPHORICARPOS x Chenaultii 'Hancock' Prostrate Chenault Coralberry Clump #1 Cont. 8.00$ 416.00$ 4 TMG TAXUS media 'Greenwave' Greenwave Spreading Yew 18" Ht. B&B 38.00$ 395.20$ Sub-Total 6,940.70$ Perennials & FernsQty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec RemarksNoteswholesale installed20 HH HOSTA 'Halcyon' Halcyon Hosa Clump #1 Cont. 15" o.c. 6.15$ 307.50$ 17 HMAB Heuchera macroorhiza 'Autumn Bride' Autumn Bride Coral Bells Clump #1 Cont. 18" o.c. 8.00$ 340.00$ 29 ISM IRIS sibirica 'Blue Moon' Blue Moon Iris Clump #1 Cont. 18" o.c. 6.15$ 445.88$ Sub-Total 1,093.38$ Qty. Code Scientific Name Common Name Size SpecRemarks Noteswholesale installed18 SS SCHIZACHYRIUM scoparium Little Bluestem Clump #2 Cont. no cultivars, 24" 7.50$ 337.50$ Sub-Total 337.50$ TOTAL (NOT INCLUDING PERENNIALS AND GRASSES):24,366$ 12 Plex B Plant ScheduleOrnamental Grasses(Page 1 of 1) 1 Marla Keene From:Robin Jeffers <robin@SDIRELAND.COM> Sent:Wednesday, October 4, 2017 2:47 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Dave Marshall (dmarshall@cea-vt.com); Patrick O'Brien Subject:outdoor bike storage Marla, Please confirm the example below, (anchored) will meet the conditions for exterior bike storage. Thanks. Robin Robin Jeffers S D Ireland PO Box 2286 S. Burlington, VT 05407 802‐863‐6222 Cell: 802‐316‐6004 robin@sdireland.com SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 1 1 of 4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: October 13, 2017 Plans received: September 15, 2017 MILOT LARKIN PARTNERSHIP, LLP SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD‐17‐24 Agenda Item #7 Meeting Date: October 17, 2017 Location Map SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 2 2 of 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD‐17‐24 of Milot Larkin Partnership, LLP to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 60 unit multi‐family building with 17,976 sq. ft. commercial space, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building (1,000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office, a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive through services, and a bank with drive‐ through service. The amendment consists of constructing a four‐story 48‐unit residential building, 7 Fayette Road. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Commercial 1 – Automobile district. It is part of a 40.7 acre planned unit development (“PUD”) which includes the existing McDonalds restaurant, the commercial building at 7 Fayette, six apartment buildings at Old Orchard Park, the movie theater, the Citizens Bank, and the recently‐approved 4‐story mixed‐use building on the site of the former Larkin Terrace. On December 1, 2015, the Board has seen a sketch plan for a potential four‐building development south of the subject parcel, of which the first building is currently approved and under construction. Topics discussed at that sketch plan hearing included alignment of the driveways, open space, parking, and massing of the buildings. CONTEXT The current application is to construct a new four‐story 48‐unit multi‐family dwelling in the footprint of an existing underutilized parking lot. The building will be supported over a ground floor consisting principally of parking spaces. There is an existing Act 250 permit associated with the PUD, project number 4C0877, which was issued in 1991 and most recently amended in September 2017 to reflect the new Larkin Terrace building. There is also an existing operational stormwater permit associated with the PUD, 4855‐9010.A, most recently issued August 2017. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on July 12, 2017 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The project will require a waiver for front yard setbacks, front yard coverage and maximum building height. Density The C1‐Auto district has a maximum density of 12 units per acre, which for the 40.8 acre PUD results in an allowable density of 489 units. The applicant has approval for 270 residential density units. With the proposed 48‐unit building, there remain 171 units available for future development. SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 3 3 of 4 Front Yard Setback and Front Yard Coverage The building will have a primary façade along Fayette Road with a flat roof structure. The building is proposed to be set back eight (8) feet from the front property line, and is located on the footprint of an existing underutilized parking lot which is also set back eight (8) feet from the front property line. In July of 2017, the Board granted a waiver for SD‐17‐12, the 60‐unit residential building within the PUD, to allow a 6.5‐foot setback from Fayette Road, which is located just south of the currently proposed building. The subject building and associated improvements are not intended to increase the amount of impervious coverage on the lot; necessary pathways and pads will be constructed with pervious materials and as such, the development will not increase lot coverage. Staff considers that the re‐use of the existing parking lot has merits which justify the setback waiver. Section 3.06H allows no greater than thirty percent (30%) of the front setback to be covered. The existing and proposed front setback coverage is 38.6%. Similar to the setback waiver, staff considers that the re‐use of the existing parking lot has merits which justify the coverage waiver. Building Height The maximum allowable height in the C1‐Auto district is 35‐feet for flat roofs. The applicant is proposing a four‐story building with a height of 47‐feet. he elevation of the proposed roof will be 234 feet, which is approximately 32‐feet above the elevation of Shelburne Road at the intersection of Shelburne Road and Fayette Road. The applicant has provided a rendering to illustrate the way the proposed building will look from the intersection of Shelburne Road and Fayette Road. The applicant has indicated that this will be the most visible location as other locations will be more obscured. The Board has the authority to waive height requirements as long as the general objectives of the zoning district are met. Staff considers that the proposed building height will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways or other public rights‐of‐way as it is largely screened from Shelburne Road by other development and therefore has no concerns. 1. The Board should review the waiver requests and provide feedback to the applicant prior to the close of the Sketch Plan PUD STANDARDS Open Space The open space standard for PUD’s pertains to maximizing opportunities for contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. In a meeting with the applicant on October 4, 2017, the applicant indicated their intent to create useable open spaces north and west of the proposed building in areas that are currently vegetated, while preserving existing vegetation within the wetland buffer. The building and parking are proposed to not increase lot coverages. The overall PUD has an existing lot coverage of 21.3% and a building coverage of 7.3%. The proposed Project will increase PUD building coverage to 7.4% but will not affect lot coverage. The parcel containing the building has an existing lot coverage of 61.4% and building coverage of 14.5%. The proposed Project will increase lot building coverage to 15.2% but will not affect lot coverage. These coverages are within the allowable range for the district. SD‐17‐24 Staff Comments 4 4 of 4 SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Parking & Circulation The applicant is proposing to retain the majority of the existing parking spaces. The PUD has an overall shared parking calculation. The applicant has indicated their intent to update the shared parking calculation to demonstrate adequate parking as part of subsequent applications. The existing driveway access is via a 75‐foot wide curb cut which provides shared access to the existing subsurface parking lot at the 7 Fayette commercial building. Staff has discussed with the applicant whether it would be possible to reconfigure the driveway access as part of this application to provide separate access for each location. The applicant indicated that this would require amending the state Operational Stormwater Management permit, which they are reluctant to do at this time. Staff has communicated with the applicant that the City has an interest in this driveway being reconfigured for safety reasons while work is being done within the PUD, even if it is not done as part of this Project, and are working towards finding a mutually agreeable mechanism to doing so. 2. Staff offers the Board the opportunity to ask questions of the applicant and/or staff on the driveway configuration, and otherwise will continue to work to resolve of this issue prior to Preliminary Plat. Landscaping and Screening 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 minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The cost of the street trees is above and beyond this requirement. The applicant has indicated that they are having difficulty finding impactful places within the Project’s parcel to locate the required plantings due to the density on developed portions of the parcel and the existing vegetation on undeveloped portions of the parcel. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss where in the PUD the required landscape plantings would be most beneficial to enhancing the PUD. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner Planning and Zoning InformationArea: 40.7 acres (P.U.D. includes Farrell parcel)4.15 acres (Parcel C)Zoned: Commercial 1 - Residential 15Commercial 1 - Automobile Project Description: Construction of 48 unit residential structure above existing pavedparking lot. At grade portions of the structure will connect to existing municipal utilities and providetwo access points for structure above. Parking spaces to be re-striped with handicap access andto accommodate required support columnsLot Coverage: Existing Proposed(includes McDs new GMP box)L&M P.U.D. Total Area: 40.7 acres (includes L&M, all Larkin and Fayette ROW)Buildings 130,260 sf 7.3% 131,560 sf 7.4%Total lot coverage 378,165 sf 21.3% 378,165 sf 21.3%Parcel "C" Total Area: 4.15 acresBuildings 26,180 sf 14.5% 27,480 sf 15.2%Total lot coverage 111,060 sf 61.4% 111,060 sf 61.4%Front yard (Fayette Drive):Parcel "C" Total Area: 22,659 s.f. 8,738 s.f. 38.6% 8,738 s.f. 38.6%Front yard (Shelburne Road):Parcel "C" Total Area: 7,599 s.f. 163 s.f. 2.2% 163 s.f. 2.2%Front yard (Total Both Streets):Parcel "C" Total Area: 30,258 s.f. 8,901 s.f. 29.4% 8,901 s.f. 29.4%Fayette RoadKL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSK-19/15/17SLMRoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300.11" = 100' OVERALL SKETCHandP.U.D. PLANZone line from City of South Burlington Official mappingCommercial 1-Residential 15Commercial 1-AutomobileCommercial 1-Residential 15Commercial 1-AutomobileParcel L&MN/F Olde Orchard Realty Partnership, LPParcel DN/F Larkin110792 sf2.54 acresParcel EN/F L&M PartnershipROW928.33'60.00'49.74'579.64'672.41'Existing City of South Burlington utility easement60' wide right-of-way subject to irrevocable offer of dedication1195 Shelburne Rd.David M. Farrell Trust(Parcel B)4.11 acresN/F LowesN/F FarrellN/F Farrell Distributing CorporationN/F MagniHoldings.LTDN/F Sisters andBrothers InvestmentGroup, LLCN/F WilsonN/FGrandviewFarms, Inc.N/F NorthfieldSavings BankN/F SpillaneN/F JolleyAssociates, LLCN/F KAPSHAProperties, Inc.N/F SouthlandEnterprises, Inc.N/F CRE JV MixedFifteen NE BranchHoldingsParcel CN/F Larkin MilotPartnershipN/F7 Fayette, LLCN/F 1233 Shelburne Road AssociationParcel L&M BN/F OldeOrchard RealtyPartnership, LP1195 Shelburne Rd.N/F Larkin(Parcel A)2.56 acresShelburne Road455.40'S85°13'58"ES04°47'44"W226.18'N85°19'01"WS04°45'13"W 245.46'N04°47'44"E 209.38'260.51'60.13'209.01'N00°16'59"W 51.08'N86°22'54"W264.89'N86°22'54"W175.25'S04°47'44"WN81°05'59"WS85°13'58"E 5.76'S41°24'23"W 23.89'R=15.00' L=9.61'N40°19'48"W 37.24'R=348.58' L=195.84'639.51'195.95'S 04°47'44"W125.00'S 04°50'29"WS 85°09'16"E188.85'188.75'N 85°09'15"W513.77'S 84°34'47"E213.18'46.09'S 04°47'44"W171.59'N 63°11'12"E238.98'N 85°19'03"W228.67'N42°15'11"W711.28N82°03'29"WN09°30'54"W497.31'S85°12'09"ER=270.00' L=88.60'R=270.00' L=202.94'CONCEPT DRAWINGSSEVENFAYETTE DRIVENew residential buildingLOCUSNTSExisting drainage easementExisting lease lineExisting GMP easementExisting VT Gas easementSite x188.13188.37x x187.92KL&Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc.164 Main Street, Suite 201Colchester, VT 05446T: (802) 878-0375F: (802) 878-9618email@krebsandlansing.comSCALE:REVISED:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:DATE:CONTENT:Project PhaseSK-29/15/17SLMRoute 7, Shelburne Road, SouthBurlington, VTNO. DESCRIPTION DATEKL=15300.11" = 20' SKETCH PLANCONCEPT DRAWINGSParcel EN/F L&M PartnershipN/F KAPSHAProperties, Inc.Parcel CN/F Larkin MilotPartnershipN/FLarkinParcel BN/F OldeOrchard RealtyPartnership, LPSEVENFAYETTE DRIVENew curbExisting edge of parkingExisting edge of parkingExisting edge of parkingExisting edge of parkingNew pervious paver sidewalkNew stormwater treatment practice50' Buff er 5(81,77<3()5(81,77<3(*5(81,77<3(&5(81,77<3(&5(81,77<3($ 5(81,77<3((5(81,77<3((5(81,77<3(+5(81,77<3('5(67$,55(/$81'5<5(67$,55(6725$*(81,76(;,67,1*%8,/',1*(;,67,1*3$5.,1*5(/2%%<5(81,77<3($5(81,77<3(%5(81,77<3(%5(81,77<3($5(81,77<3(%5(81,77<3(%5(81,77<3($(/(9&/26(7Ownership of Instruments of ServiceAll reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the Consultant as instruments of service shall remain the property of the Consultant. The Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto. $0 & ?8VHUV?$6WROW]H?'RFXPHQWV?B)D\DWWH'ULYHB5BDVWROW]HUYW )$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9(3URMHFW1XPEHU_3ULQWHG 7<3,&$//(9(/3/$16RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 727$/81,76 6WXGLR8QLWV $5($727$/ IW ² 8QLW$² 6WXGLR 29(5$//+(,*+7 8QLW% 6WXGLR ² 8QLW&² 6WXGLR ² 8QLW'² $'$6WXGLR FRUQHUXQLW %HGURRP8QLWV ² 8QLW(² EHGURRP ² 8QLW)² EHGURRP FRUQHUXQLW 8QLW* $'$EHGURRP FRUQHUXQLW %HGURRP8QLWV 8QLW+EHGURRP FRUQHUXQLW 6&$/( 3$5.,1*63$&(6(;,67,1*3$5.,1*(;,67,1*%8,/',1*)$<(77('5,9($3352;,0$7(3523(57</,1($3352;,0$7(6(7%$&./,1((/(95(0(&+5(/2%%<5(67$,55(67$,55((05+& +&+& 6,'(:$/.Ownership of Instruments of ServiceAll reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the Consultant as instruments of service shall remain the property of the Consultant. The Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto. $0 & ?8VHUV?$6WROW]H?'RFXPHQWV?B)D\DWWH'ULYHB5BDVWROW]HUYW )$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9(3URMHFW1XPEHU_3ULQWHG 3$5.,1*/(9(/6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 Ownership of Instruments of ServiceAll reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the Consultant as instruments of service shall remain the property of the Consultant. The Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto. $0 & ?8VHUV?-%DUUHWW?'RFXPHQWV?B)D\DWWH'ULYHB5BMEDUUHWWUYW )$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9(3URMHFW1XPEHU_3ULQWHG 6:9,(:6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 Ownership of Instruments of ServiceAll reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the Consultant as instruments of service shall remain the property of the Consultant. The Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto. $0 & ?8VHUV?-%DUUHWW?'RFXPHQWV?B)D\DWWH'ULYHB5BMEDUUHWWUYW )$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9(3URMHFW1XPEHU_3ULQWHG :(67675((79,(:6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 Ownership of Instruments of ServiceAll reports, drawings, specifications, computer files, field data, notes and other documents and instruments prepared by the Consultant as instruments of service shall remain the property of the Consultant. The Consultant shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright thereto. $0 & ?8VHUV?$6WROW]H?'RFXPHQWV?B)D\DWWH'ULYHB5BDVWROW]HUYW )$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9()$<(77('5,9(3URMHFW1XPEHU_3ULQWHG 6+(/%851(5'9,(:678'<6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97