Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/19/2017DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 SEPTEMBER 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 September 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, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; K. Cubino, J. Darling, P. O’Leary, B. Currier, C. Ruggiero, K. Braverman, M. Sperry, P. Judge, W. Woolfrey, K. & N. Van Woert, C. Chamberlain, T. Bissonette, L. Demaroney, D. & S. Mowat, E. S. Emery, T. Barritt, J. Goodwin, C. & E. Forcier, E. Milizia, L. Nadeau, S. Dopp, S. & J. Jewett, T. McKenzie, C. Snyder, E. Grover, B. Doucevicz 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. 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 two-family dwellings, 3) two three-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) two 12-unit multi-family dwellings, 1840 Spear Street: It was noted that the applicant has requested a continuance to 3 October. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-18 to 3 October 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Appeal #AO-17-03 of Century Partners, LP and Thirty-Three Mary Street, LLC, appealing the issuance of site plan application #SP-17-29 for the construction of a 58,551 sq. ft. fur-story mixed-use building which includes 39 residential units, 146 Market Street: Mr. Belair stepped down because the appellant is appealing his decision. Mr. Conner took his place during the hearing. Mr. Miller read the legal requirement and the list of “interested parties.” No other parties sought “interested party” status. Mr. Miller noted that there is now an order representing an agreement between the parties. The Board is being asked to approve that order. Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing and to approve the order as proposed. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-17-22 of Edward G. Hoehn, III, to subdivide a 10.29 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into three lots ranging in size from 1.01 acres to 7.98 acres, 1700 Dorset Street: Mr. Grover said they will honor the request to change the trees to a more salt-tolerant species. The pump station will be private and they will seek approval from the city. There is a slight discrepancy in lot sizes with the surveyor’s numbers. They will correct the plans to show the surveyor’s numbers. The applicant is requesting that there not be a condition that there be only single-family units. This is in a zone where there is supposed to be clustering. Ms. Keene said the request is that there not be more than single family lots without additional approvals. The other option is to continue to provide additional information. Mr. Grover said they will comply with the request to add 4 inches of topsoil during construction. They are requesting to waive the condition regarding water and waste water until the zoning permit is requested. Staff is OK with that. Staff is requesting that the 2 new buildings not be identical. The applicant agrees to this. The applicant also agrees not to use pesticides near the wetland areas. No issues were raised by the Board or the public. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-22. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-17-20 or JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 45 units to 154 units. The 154 units will consist of 70 single family lots, 54 two-family dwellings, and 30 three-unit multi-family dwellings, 1580 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Currier said this project was presented last November. The 6-month period to apply for preliminary plat has elapsed, so they are re-applying. Mr. Currier showed the original Phase I and Phase II plans and indicated the 5-acre adjacent Nadeau property which has been added to the original property. He indicated a wildlife corridor with more open space and also a loop road that was originally a cul-de-sac. There will be a secondary entrance through the wetland to the southwest. Mr. O’Leary then showed where the row of duplexes was added and also “blocks” of green area. He noted that they haven’t been able to reach an agreement for the Nadeau property, so that will be dropped from the plan. He did show where 13 other units would have been on the Nadeau land. Mr. O’Leary said the access road into the development will be a public road. The initial connection for the first 49 units will be from Hinesburg Road. After 50 units are built there will be an additional connection built to Sommerfield Ave. Ms. Keene showed the Master Plan originally approved and noted differences from this plan including open space areas. She also noted the gap in Cider Mill Road. Mr. O’Leary said they don’t intend to fill in that gap unless there is further development. Ms. Keene then showed the plan approved in November along with the current plan. She noted there are 4 units in what had been the middle open space and 8 units in what had been the upper open space. Ms. Keene reminded the Board that in 2002 there was a study of wildlife corridors which led to an Open Space Plan. She showed that plan and indicated priority conservation parcels. She noted that in the past, the Planning Commission has expressed an interest in connectivity of open spaces. She expected that the current connections will be OK. Regarding density, Ms. Keene indicated the density of various areas and noted what is possible with the use of TDRs. She also noted that the applicant has submitted legal documents regarding the purchase of TDRs. Mr. Kochman asked if Phase I and Phase II are combined for density. Mr. Belair said they are. Mr. O’Leary added that Cider Mill I used some of Cider Mill II’s land for development. Ms. Keene said the Master Plan was amended to show that. Mr. Kochman asked if it is OK to have all the roads in Cider Mill I being used as the access to Cider Mill II. Mr. Belair said that is how the plans were approved. Mr. Baer said he didn’t see people using this as a shortcut from Hinesburg Road to Dorset Street when people would probably prefer Cheesefactory Road. He stressed that he would like to see the “unconnected” road being connected. Ms. Keene said that is not in the current development area. Mr. Wilking noted that ultimately it is all one project. Mr. Behr asked about a plan for developed park land for recreation use. Mr. O’Leary said it is their intent to leave space as “lawn.” He showed those spaces including a community garden space. He said that the Parks & Recreation Department said they wanted it maintained as just open space. Mr. Behr suggested walking paths around those spaces so they don’t seem so much like people’s backyards. Mr. O’Leary said they will continue to have discussions with Parks & Recreation regarding open spaces. Mr. O’Leary then reviewed the history of wetland access that was given to John Belter. He indicated that stone that was placed in the wetland will be removed. Mr. Currier indicated a hedge which will be saved and one which can’t be saved. Mr. Miller referred to a letter received from Karen Cubino requesting that Cider Mill Road be extended before there is any further development. She also requested a left turn lane into the development and a 10-foot rec path to connect Cider Mill I and II. Mr. Currier said the plan is to build a rec path along Nadeau Crest Drive. There is no plan to continue it to Sommerfield. Mr. Goodwin of the Bike/Ped Committee said they want any connection to be able to handle bike traffic. They would prefer a rec path to a sidewalk. Mr. Wilking agreed. Mr. O’Leary showed the route of the current rec path. In order to connect to the south they would have to cross the wildlife corridor. Mr. Wilking said this is the only opportunity to make the connection. Mr. O’Leary said there are planned connections but not through this property (e.g., through Dorset Park). Mr. Kochman noted that Ms. Cubino did not indicate where she wanted the 10-foot rec path. Mr. O’Leary said there is an easement for a path. He showed where that is. Mr. Kochman asked if individual lots will be sold. Mr. O’Leary said that is possible. Mr. Kochman said he believes they must maintain a 5-foot side setback which is not waivable until the LDRs are amended otherwise. Mr. Miller also referred to a letter received from Ted Riehle asking for a berm between his property and the development property. He noted that the original owner had “nodded his head” about this and he now wanted confirmation this will happen. Mr. Currier indicated the location on the plan and said they will consider it. Mr. O’Leary said they are willing to do the work and build the berm on the Riehle property if Mr. Riehle will get the needed permits. Mr. O’Leary said they do not propose to extend Cider Mill Road at this time. It would go right through a wildlife corridor. The left turn into the property is already a requirement for Cider Mill I based on a traffic count which is required every two years. Mr. Belair said there is no provision to construct the road. The adjacent property owner would build it as part of any development. Mr. Behr said this was a strange approval compared to what the DRB normally does, but he felt the Board’s hands were tied. Mr. Wilking felt it was one property and they were adding on to the original development. Mr. Belair said the developer of Cider Mill I is not a party to this development. Mr. Wilking felt they are doing this wrong. Mr. Behr felt they need to get a legal opinion before making a decision. Mr. Belair said he will look into getting that. Mr. Behr felt they should give direction regarding a rec path connection. Mr. Wilking preferred to defer to the Bike/Ped Committee. Mr. Kochman said he preferred not to see bikes in the street. Mr. O’Leary noted there is no connection shown to Cider Mill I on the rec path plan. Regarding east-west connectivity, Ms. Cubino said she understood that a “highway” is not desired. Her concern for extending Cider Mill Road is that there are so many kids playing in the road on the side streets. There is no rec path that continues beyond Cider Mill Road, and kids ride their bikes in the road. She felt the extension of Cider Mill Road is important for kids’ safety especially as there are no parks in the development for kids to play in. Ms. Van Woert, a resident on Sommerfield, noted that wildlife is not confined to the open space areas. She showed where they appear to go and felt that they wildlife corridor is being pinched in too much. She said that from Wheeler Park to Shelburne Pond, this is the only “pinched off” area. She also noted that with trees coming down, there will be no canopy left. She felt the Natural Resources Committee should be consulted about this. She also understood the need for connectivity but wants to see more “zig zags” in the road. Mr. Darling felt the missing piece of Cider Mill Road should be constructed. He said the curve is not slowing people down; it is actually speeding them up. He suggested speed bumps for a quieter road. Mr. Woolfrey disagreed. He did not want to see a “straight shot” all the way through but wanted to slow traffic down. Ms. Altbee said that with more houses, traffic on Cider Mill Rd. has increased. People can’t bike in the street. She felt that with more units, cars will have a problem getting onto Dorset Street. She said this was too many people for the neighborhood to handle. Ms. DeMaroney said the speed of cars on Cider Mill Road is dangerous for people crossing the road. She noted that a 25 mph speed limit doesn’t slow people down. Ms. DeMaroney also asked whether a road could be built through a wetland. Ms. Keene said that if the wetlands people can find sufficient mitigation elsewhere, that can happen. There is also a city process. Mr. Jewett said that right-of-way at the south end of Sommerfield Avenue does not go through the wetland or the wetland buffer. It goes between the wetlands. He also said that since the Arrowwood study, the real wildlife corridor has been ignored. Ms. Milizia, Co-Chair of the Natural Resources Committee, asked the developer not to ignore that committee. Mr. Barritt echoed wildlife concerns. He noted there is no fencing on the solar installation to allow wildlife movement. He hoped the Board could get input as to how many units should be in the “squeeze” point. He also felt the Board has the opportunity to provide for a rec path that comes all the way into Cider Mill I. He cautioned the Board not to repeat previous mistakes. Mr. Barritt noted that when the solar operation is gone, that area will someday be residential and asked what connections are provided. He felt that “open space” should be park space, not “backyard” space. He said there is an opportunity to leave a large amount of open space and not have it broken up into “slivers.” Ms. Dopp of the South Burlington Land Trust said the Trust feels the wildlife piece is very important. It is a very narrow “squeeze.” She also said that when Cider Mill I was built, there was a different mindset regarding road widths. She felt the roads should be narrower so they don’t seem like boulevards. She thought this was a huge number of units. Mr. Miller said that up to 600 units are legally buildable here, and this will be only in the 300’s. Mr. Behr said this is Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) zoning, and phase 2 is actually in 2 zones. He felt they haven’t spent much time talking about density. He felt this is just “clumps of different housing types.” This is no mix among them, and this doesn’t speak to diverse development. He also felt Mr. Barritt raised a good point regarding connection to the solar installation piece. Mr. O’Leary showed a potential connection to the solar piece. Mr. Kochman noted that density turns on the feeling that Cider Mill I and II are all one project. Mr. Behr felt it met the density either way. Mr. Woolfrey cited a difference between the 2 developments. He felt there should be another connection between Cider Mill I and II. Ms. Keene stressed the city’s objective of east‐west connectivity. Residents asked why it had to be there. Mr. Behr said any east-west connector will break up the wildlife corridor. Mr. O’Leary said Cider Mill Road was to be 18 feet wide instead of 22. Ms. Cubino said narrower roads result in issues getting out when roads have snow on them. Mr. Belair noted that 18-foot roads are allowed when they cross a wetland. Mr. Kochman asked if would be in the Board’s discretion to weigh the advisability of connectivity or whether they are free to “balance” other concerns against the desire for connectivity. A resident asked what criteria the Board uses to approve a plan when something wasn’t in the original plan. Mr. Miller said they use the LDRs, wetland restrictions, traffic studies, etc. Mr. Kochman felt that almost every traffic study done by a developer says “it’s fine,” and that it’s a “losing proposition for the opposition.” Mr. Wilking said that was a very one-sided view as almost every study comes up with proposed solutions (e.g., turn lanes). Mr. Bissonette asked about the piece at the top of Royal Drive. Mr. Belair said that is rec path and emergency vehicle access because there isn’t a second access with more than 50 units. Mr. Bissonette said he would prefer a connector road to be the same thing, not a high velocity road. Mr. Behr said this project was approved as a 2-phase project. There are currently 109 units approved in Cider Mill II. If they weren’t changing the layout, they could build today. He added that he would not now approve the emergency connection between I and II. He also stressed that the city wants higher density housing. The Board has to look at the “planned character of an area.” He also noted this development includes added density from areas that will be preserved. A resident noted that years ago residents said they wanted the SEQ to remain rural but nobody listed to them. She didn’t trust developers or the Planning Commission anymore. Ms. Dopp noted that 15 years ago, there were “two red bars” across the top with very dense development and a large park in between. She said all that disappeared. Mr. Van Woert said he didn’t think there was anyone in Cider Mill I who didn’t know that Cider Mill II was coming in. The issue is the changes from when they were told would happen. Mr. Wilking said it was clear from the start that the area at the top was to be Village Residential Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: a. Reduction of width of Russet Road to 18 feet. Mr. Belair said this can be reduced with a recommendation from Public Works. Members were OK with 18 feet. b. Evaluation from the Agency of Transportation regarding acceleration lane is warranted. Mr. O’Leary said they haven’t heard yet from the AOT. c. Question of which side of the street for the sidewalk on Lindamac St. Mr. O’Leary said they felt their choice connected better with open space. They had no objection to moving it to the other side. Ms. Keene said the developer’s point is well taken. d. Regarding open space amenities, Mr. O’Leary noted that Parks and Recreation wanted more open space, a mowed area. Mr. Wilking felt there are a lot of small, barely usable spaces. He wanted to combine spaces to a valid park. Other members agreed. e. Regarding easements, Mr. O’Leary said they will discuss these with Parks and Rec as well. f. Regarding residential design requirements, Mr. O’Leary said they acknowledge these. They will also look at a mix of housing. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-20 until 3 October 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0 9. Minutes of 5 September 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 September as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: There was no other business discussed though Mr. Kochman said he had the same issue. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:28 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on October 3, 2017. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 1 Marla Keene From:Robin Jeffers <robin@SDIRELAND.COM> Sent:Wednesday, September 13, 2017 3:43 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:Paul Conner Subject:SVC LLC continuance request Dear Marla and South Burlington DRB Members,    South Village Communities LLC formally requests a continuance of our current application before the DRB from  September 19th, 2017 to October 3, 2017.  This will give us some extra time to iron out details we are working through  with our application with Staff with the goal of having a seamless (as possible) hearing on the 3rd.   Thank you for your  consideration.  Respectfully,  Robin Jeffers    Robin Jeffers S D Ireland PO Box 2286 S. Burlington, VT 05407 802‐863‐6222  Cell: 802‐316‐6004  robin@sdireland.com        575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Proposed Stipulated Agreement & Order, AO-17-03, 146 Market Street DATE: September 19, 2017 DRB meeting Enclosed for the Board’s review and possible action is a draft stipulated agreement and consent order for the above-listed project. The parties in this appeal are: - The Applicant, Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC - The Appellants, Century Partners, LP, and Thirty-Three Mary Street, LLC - The Property Owner, South Burlington City Center, LLC - The Appellee, Administrative Officer Raymond J. Belair The parties have come together and have tentatively reached an agreement that is both satisfactory to all and, by signature of the Administrative Officer, deemed to be in compliance with the City’s Land Development Regulations. The enclosed Findings of Fact, Decision, and Order have been signed by the Administrative Officer and we are anticipating signature by the remaining parties in advance of the meeting. Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions: 1. Open the continued hearting on Appeal #AO-17-03 2. Ask for any input from Interested Persons 3. Move to close the hearing 4. Move to approve the proposed Findings of Fact, Decision, and Order as presented APPLICANT: SNYDER-BRAVERMAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC— 146 MARKET STREET APPELLANTS: CENTURY PARTNERS, LP, AND THIRTY-THREE MARY STREET, LLC SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-17-29A FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 1 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Site plan application #SP-17-29A of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC to construct a 42,163 sq. ft. four (4) story mixed-use building which includes 39 residential units, 146 Market Street, based on Administrative Officer Appeal #AO-17-03 of Site Plan SP-17-29. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Parties agree to the following Findings: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. On July 6, 2017 the Clerk of the Development Review Board received an appeal of the issuance of Site Plan #SP-17-29 for the construction of a 42,163 sq. ft. four (4) story mixed-use building which includes 39 residential units, 146 Market Street by the City’s Administrative Officer. The owner of record of the subject property is South Burlington City Center, LLC. 2. Parties involved in this appeal are as follows: a. The Appellants are Century Partners, LP and Thirty-Three Mary Street, LLC, represented by Mark Sperry, Esq. b. The Applicant is Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, represented by Robert Rushford, Esq. c. The owner of record is South Burlington City Center, LLC, represented by Tim McKenzie d. Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer for the City of South Burlington issued Site Plan Approval #SP-17-29 on June 22, 2017 3. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 15, August 24, and September 19, 2017. 4. The subject property is located in the City Center Form Based Codes Transect 5 (T5) and Transect 4 (T4) Districts. 5. The plan submitted consists of a thirteen (13) page set of plans and supplemental information, including: • A ten (10)-page set of engineering plans, prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson, titled City Center - Lot A, 146 Market Street City of South Burlington  Sheet 1, Site Plan, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 9/14/2017  Sheet 2, Grading & Utility Plan, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 8/28/2017  Sheet 3, Landscaping Plan, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 9/14/2017  Sheet 4, Erosion prevention & sediment control plan, prepared 8/28/2017  Sheet 5, Lighting Plan, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 8/28/2017  Sheet 6, Details & Specifications Site & Stormwater, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 8/28/2017 2 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision  Sheet 7, Details & Specifications Storm, Water & Sewer, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 8/18/2017  Sheet 8, Details & Specifications EPSC & Retaining Wall, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 3/16/2017  Sheet 9, Details & Specifications Water, prepared 4/10/2017  Sheet PL-1, Subdivision Plan prepared 10/14/2017, last revised 2/10/2017 • A four ( 4)-page set of architectural plans, prepared by Innovative Design, Inc., Titled Cathedral Square, South Burlington, Vermont  Sheet A1.0, Parking Garage Plan, prepared 9/05/2017  Sheet A1.1 , First Floor Plan, prepared 9/05/2017  Sheet A2 , Proposed Elevations Opt. 1, prepared 9/05/2017  Sheet A2.1 , Proposed Elevations, prepared 9/05/2017 • Cover narrative from Lamoureux & Dickenson dated September 7, 2017 and supporting documentation:  Application for Site Plan Review, dated 4/20/2017  Landscape Cost estimate, dated 8/28/2017  Trip Generation Estimate, including modified SheetA1.1, First Floor Plan, prepared 9/5/2017 and marked with uses dated 8/28/2017 indicating Total Space to be Used as Basis For Determining Non- Residential PM Peak Hour Trip Ends.  Mary Street Construction cost estimate  Marked-up Sheet 3, Landscaping Plan, prepared 1/6/2017, last revised 8/28/2017, indicating qualifying Open Space Areas in Hatched Red  T-5 Building Envelope Standards Checklist, dated 8/28/2017 6. Process Elements: a. The applicant provided a certificate of service indicating notice to abutting property owners dated May 3, 2017. b. The applicant held a pre-application meeting with staff on January 18, 2017 c. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 17, 2017 at 6:30 pm at the South Burlington Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive, and provided a set of summary notes. d. The Administrative Officer deemed the application complete on June 6, 2017, following receipt of final comments from the Director of Public Works (June 5, 2017) and Fire Department (May 4, 2017) e. The Administrative Officer issued a Findings of Fact and Decision approving Site Plan # SP- 17-29 on June 22, 2017. CITY CENTER FORM BASED CODES STANDARDS Section 8.02 Land Development and Building Placement A. Land Development. No land development shall be permitted except in full compliance with the applicable Building Envelope Standards (BES) and this Article. See below under Building Envelope Standards. 3 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision B. Building Placement. All new buildings, and all additions to buildings, except as permitted in a T3 Cottage Court or as permitted under Section 8.11, Nonconformities, shall include at least one building façade located entirely within a Build-to-Zone. The proposed building includes building façades located entirely within the Markey Street and Mary Street build-to-zones. C. Special Requirements, Prohibitions & Exceptions. Not applicable. Section 8.04 Blocks, Streets, and Alleys A. General Standards (1) Purpose… (2) Construction of streets (a) Where a building is proposed to be located on a lot that is adjacent to a new or extended street, such street shall be constructed by the applicant pursuant to Article 15 and in accordance with the requirements of Article 11, Street Typologies. (b) Where a building is proposed to be located on a lot that is adjacent to existing street, such street shall be upgraded pursuant to Article 15 and in accordance with requirements of Article 11, Street Typologies. The applicant has proposed to construct the section of Mary Street from Market Street to the north end of the subject property. The Development Review Board approved this street to be a “Support Street.” The proposed Mary Street section complies with the street type standards for a Support Street in Article 11, with the exception of the required sidewalk on the west side of the Street. Pursuant to the stipulation agreed upon by the Appellants and Applicant, dated August 24, 2017, “If and when Appellant Century1 redevelops its property in the future with one or more buildings adjacent to the westerly side of the sixty (60) foot strip depicted on Sheet PL-1 of the Plans, Century2 shall be responsible for constructing at its expense a six (6) foot wide sidewalk and five (5) foot wide green strip along the westerly side of the sixty (60) foot strip (which green strip may occupy a portion of the sixty (60) foot strip not occupied by Mary Street Extension and the parking on the westerly side thereof). Century3 may cross and re-cross the areas of any such sidewalk and green space with one or more access roads to Mary Street Extension, subject to obtaining applicable approvals from the City, as necessary.” Century Partners, LP, shall be responsible for construction of the sidewalk and green strip on the western side of Mary Street, as described above, in accordance with the requirements and thresholds established in Section 11.04(B) of the Land Development Regulations. The applicant has proposed to construct a temporary, paved sidewalk along Market Street to be replaced when the City’s Market Street project is completed. With the conditions listed herein, this criterion is met. 1 Appellant Century as referred to within the Stipulation is referred to as Century Partners, LP within this appeal and decision. 2 Century as referred to within the Stipulation is referred to as Century Partners, LP within this appeal and decision. 3 Century as referred to within the Stipulation is referred to as Century Partners, LP within this appeal and decision. 4 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision (3) Perimeter and Length of Blocks. Not applicable. (4) Frontage Buildout. See below under Building Envelope Standards. (5) Connectivity. All existing or proposed streets shall connect directly at each end to another existing public street, or planned or proposed street listed as a qualifying street type in the applicable BES. The applicant has proposed to construct the planned Mary Street connection to Market Street. (6) Build-to-Zones. See below under Building Envelope Standards. B. Location of blocks and streets. (1) Applicability of block lengths and perimeters. The subject property is located within an exempt area. (2) Public Facilities on the Official Map. The applicant created a 12,589 s.f. lot for the planned Mary Street connection as part of Subdivision application #SD-17-03, to be conveyed to the City. The applicant has proposed to construct this Mary Street connection. The applicant shall provide the City with an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for this 12,589 s.f. lot. C. Primary and Secondary Streets. Market Street is a Primary Street; Mary Street is a Secondary Street. D. Primary and Secondary Building Façade determination. The building side facing Market Street is the Primary Building Façade; the building side facing Mary Street is the Secondary Building Façade. E. Corner Radii; Clear zones. The proposed site plan includes a 25-foot clear zone free of all vertical obstructions as required. F. Alleys. None proposed at this time. Section 8.05 Parking A. On Street Parking. Parallel on street parking is proposed on both sides of Mary Street and has been reviewed by the Director of Public Works. Project parking on Mary Street extension shall be limited to temporary parking only, not to exceed two hours. Without limitation, Project employees shall park within designated Project onsite parking spaces. The term “Project” means the building and improvements on “Lot A” depicted on Sheet 1 of the Plans. B. Off-Street Parking placement. (1) Where all Frontage Buildout requirements have been met, off-street surface parking shall be permitted, but shall be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the closest street line. Proposed off-street surface parking is located at a distance greater than 25’ from Market Street. (2) …(n/a) (3) Notwithstanding (1) above, no parking shall be permitted within one hundred and forty feet (140’) of an existing, planned or proposed qualifying street unless the Frontage Buildout 5 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision requirements for all areas between the street right-of-way and proposed parking have been met, regardless of whether such areas are on one or multiple lots with one or multi ownerships. a. This figure shall be reduced to eighty feet (80’) where the applicant demonstrates that this area has a shared parking agreement that would allow for the development of the area without parking within this eighty-foot (80’) area. The proposed development does not meet the frontage buildout along Mary Street. Proposed off- street parking is located greater than 80 feet from Mary Street, however. Parking for any future development along Mary Street on the subject shall be permitted to use the proposed off-street parking on the site. C. Structured Parking Lot Placement. Not applicable D. Access to Off Street Parking. Off-street parking is accessed via Mary Street. Section 8.06 Special Standards A. Civic Sites. Not applicable. B. Places of Worship. Not applicable. C. Drive Throughs. Not applicable. D. Service Stations. Not applicable. E. Buffer Strip. Not applicable. F. Required Minimum Stories, Combined Stories. Not applicable. G. Rooftop Elements and Uses; utilities. (1) Conceal rooftop devices. The project will include mini-split type air conditioning units on the roof. The applicant has indicated that these will be approximately 4 feet tall and located in the center of the building. This will be combined with a 2-foot tall parapet around the building. This criterion to is met. (2) Flat Roof Designs. The applicant has proposed a 2-foot parapet and overhang around the around the building. This criterion is met. (3) Rooftop Use and structures. Not applicable (4) Utility features. Utility features, such as generators, gas lines or meters, or electrical meters, shall not be located on any façade parallel to and adjacent to a street and shall be screened from view of any such street. The applicant has indicated that any such lines or meters shall be located on the north side of the building and/or in the basement and will be screened from view. H. Alternate Compliance for Entrances in T4. Not applicable. Section 8.07 Prohibited Materials No prohibited materials have been proposed. Section 8.08 Open Space Requirements The applicant has proposed 39 housing units and 10,039 square feet of non-residential space. Minimum Open Space is calculated as follows: Required Amount: 39 housing units x 60 s.f. min per unit = 2,340 s.f. 6 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision 10,039 s.f. of non-residential space (all first floor building area) x 0.05 = 502 s.f. Total required: 2,842 s.f. The applicant has proposed 3,150 s.f. of qualifying open space on-site. Type: The applicant has selected pocket / mini-park. The size and type of Open Space are met in accordance with Section 8.08, and the proposed open space design complies with the guidelines established in Appendix G – Open Space. Section 8.09 Uses Allowed and Changes of Use. No prohibited uses have been proposed. The proposed building consists of non-residential uses on the first floor as required in the T5 District. Section 8.14 T-5 Building Envelope Standards See attached completed Building Envelope Standards checklist SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is located in the Central District as enumerated in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Objective 41 of the Plan states: “Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and ‘sense of place’ that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” This criterion is met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. Building features are addressed above. Walkways are provided between structures, parking areas, and open spaces. Landscaping is addressed below. This criterion is met. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. 7 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision This criterion is met. (b) …Not applicable (3) The height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. Building features are addressed above. This criterion is met. C. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. Building features are addressed above. This criterion is met. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. Building features are addressed above. Only one building is proposed. This criterion is met. Section 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to abutting properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The property located to the north-east of the subject may at some future time be developed. A connection between that property and the subject property over to Mary Street would improve general access and circulation in the area. A notice of conditions indicating that the applicant will provide the owner of the adjacent property an access easement across the northerly portion of the property to Mary Street if deemed necessary by the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer in connection with a plan for development of the adjacent property shall be provided. . B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plan indicates utilities will be underground. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. 8 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Waste disposal is proposed to be handled under the building. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Building construction cost is estimated at $5,600,000. Required minimum landscaping is calculated as follows: Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Remainder over $500,000 ($5,100,000) 1% $51,000 Total: $63,500 The applicant has proposed $63,500 in landscaping and qualifying features (see above under Open Space for qualifying uses of these funds under the T5 District). Of this, $ 27,810, or 43.8% , is proposed to be landscaping. In an email dated September 12, 2017, the City Arborist indicated that the landscaping and cost estimate was reasonable. The remainder, $35,690, is proposed to be wall mounted artwork. Table 8-3 of the Land Development Regulations allow up to 60% of a project’s minimum landscaping budget to be used for items to include commissioned sculptures. The value of the artwork is 55.2% of the minimum landscaping requirement. The applicant has proposed that a commissioned artwork be designed and installed on the building façade facing Market Street. This criterion is met with the condition that the applicant demonstrate that the artwork was an original commissioned work, that the artwork be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, and that the applicant post a separate bond in the amount of $ 35, 690 to be released upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building. The applicant has proposed landscaping that meets requirements for screening of parking areas, distribution throughout parking areas, canopy over open space, and screening of generators. The landscaping criteria are met. E. Modification of Standards No modifications have been requested. F. Low Impact Development The plans were reviewed using the Stormwater Management Standards found in Section 12.03 of the LDRs. In an email dated September 13, 2017, the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent provided the following: 9 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “City Center - Lot A” site plan prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson, dated 1/6/17 and last updated on 8/28/17. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. A condition should be included requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The applicant should be required to maintain an infiltration rate of 20” per hour for the proposed Dry Swales. The stormwater standards are met, with the conditions recommended by the Stormwater Section. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation See above for parking. The applicant indicated in a letter dated August 28, 2017 that Projected Peak Hour Trips for the site would be twenty-one ( 21), based on 39 units of senior housing (Code 251); 3,184 s.f. of recreational community center (Code 495) and 1,421 s.f. of general office (Code 710) in the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. This criterion is met. OTHER Fire Department In an email dated September 12, 2017, the City’s Fire Marshal indicated that he had no additional comments resulting in changes to the plans submitted for this application. Section 3.15 Energy Standards All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. Section 11.02 Street Types / Mary Street The proposed Mary Street extension was approved by the Development Review Board as a support street. See noted above under Section 8.04 concern Mary Street cross-section compliance. In an email dated September 12, 2017, the City Arborist indicated that he was satisfied with the plans. The applicant has provided a construction estimate of $179,256.00 for Mary Street. In an email dated September 12, 2017, the City Engineer / Director of Public Works indicated that the costs were appropriate. The proposed development meets the minimum requirements for each of the required streetscape elements for a support street. 10 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Mary Street Bond Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the building, the Applicant shall provide a performance bond, letter of credit, or escrow account (any of the foregoing herein a “surety”) in favor of the City with a four (4) year term from issuance of the zoning permit for the building, in the amount of $179,256.00, less any Road Improvement Impact Fee credits approved by the City Council, for the construction of Mary Street extension, and related improvements depicted on Sheets 1 and 2 of the Plans, including sidewalks, parking, stormwater facilities, and landscaping (herein “Related Improvements”), which also includes the value of the street trees. Such surety shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney as provided in Section 15.15(D) of the Land Development Regulations. Mary Street Irrevocable Offer of Dedication Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. certificate of title, irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for the proposed public road, and utility, sewer, drainage, and water, etc.) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. [These documents have been submitted and approved. As such, this provision has been satisfied] Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards The applicant received approval for wetlands impacts by the Development Review Board on May 17, 2017, under Miscellaneous Application #MS-17-02. The Administrative Officer finds the proposed site plan to comply with these approved wetland impacts. Section 13.07 Exterior Lighting The proposed project complies with the lighting standards. One light pole and one building-mounted light are proposed on the north side of the site. Section 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning C(1) Inclusionary Units. For covered development, at least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units offered for rent or sale, including units offered for sale in fee simple, shared, condominium or cooperative ownership, shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 80% of the area median income (AMI) adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 100% of the AMI adjusted for household size. An additional five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units shall be affordable to households having incomes no greater than 120% of the AMI adjusted for household size. The applicant is proposing 39 total housing units. Minimum Requirement Proposed < 80% of Median Income 5% (2 units) 79% (31 units) < 100% of Median Income 5% (2 units) 7.7% (3 units) < 120% of Median Income 5% (2 units) 12.8% (5 units) 11 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision This criterion is met. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the existence of these affordable units in the legal documents required under condition #12 below. D(2) Continued Affordability. An inclusionary unit shall remain affordable in perpetuity commencing from the date of initial occupancy, through a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency, to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Manager prior to recording in the City of South Burlington Land Records. The applicant shall provide the City Attorney with a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency. D(3) Reporting Requirements. Annually, the owner of a project that includes inclusionary rental units shall prepare and submit a report to the City Manager that lists the gross rents charged for inclusionary units and the household incomes of unit tenants, and certifies that unit affordability has been maintained as required. E(1)(b) Off-Site Construction. The developer of a covered development may comply with the requirements of this section by constructing, within two years of receiving a permit for the covered development, the required number of inclusionary units on another site within the City Center Form Based Codes District, or contracting with another entity to construct the required number of units in the City Center Form Based Codes District. The applicant may seek to have units within this proposed building serve as off-site construction of affordable units. This is permissible. Compliance with all requirements of this Section 18.01 including but not limited to affordability, size, and architectural style will be evaluated at the time of request. Vehicle Trip Generation PM Peak Hour Trips for the proposed development are calculated as follows for the purposes of overall Vehicle Trip Generation: 39 senior adult housing [Land Use Code 252] = 10 VTEs 1,421 s.f. of general office [Land Use Code 710] = 2 VTEs 3,184 s.f. of recreation / community center [Land Use Code 495] = 9 VTEs Total = 21 VTEs. Traffic Impact Fee Calculation and Credit Request Pursuant to the City’s Impact Fee Ordinance, traffic for multi-family residential development is calculated on a per-unit basis and non-residential development is calculated in accordance with their respective ITE Trip Generation Manual Land Uses code. Based on a 2018 occupancy, Traffic Impact Fees, after credits included within the Impact Fee Ordinance for the Proposed Development are as follows: 39 multi-family housing units = $23,196.81 12 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision 11 Non-residential PM Peak Hour Trips = $10,315.27 The applicant has requested an in-kind credit of PM Peak Hour Trips in accordance with Section 8 of the Impact Fee Ordinance. Based on a 2017-2018 construction year, the Administrative Officer estimates the building to have a traffic impact fee value of $33,512.08. The applicant has provided an estimate for the cost of construction of Mary Street extension to be $179,256.00. Mary Street extension is a planned street in the City Center Road Network. The City Council is recommended to issue a credit of $33,512.08 pursuant to Section 8 of the Impact Fee Ordinance. 13 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision BUILDING ENVELOPE STANDARDS Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements Applicant Information Criteria Satisfied (B) Lot Standards (1)Lot Dimensions (a)Lot size n/a (b)Lot Width n/a (2)Lot Occupation (a)Percentage of Lot Coverage n/a (b)Units per acre n/a (C) Building Standards (1) Building Types (a)All Types n/a (2)Building Stories (a)Principal 4 √ (b)Accessory n/a (3)Floor-to-Floor Height (a)First story 14'√ (b)Upper Stories ≤14'√ (4)Build-to-Zone (a)Primary Build-to-Zone 0' Min., 6' Max.0' Min., 9' Max.0-6'√ (b)Secondary Build-to-Zone 0' Min., 24' Max.0'. Min., 36' Max.6'-11.7'√ (5)Frontage (a)Frontage Buildout 85% Min.85% Min. (Note 1)90%√ (b)Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Primary Build-to-Zone 75% Min.50% Min.75.3% (Market)√ (c )Percentage of Frontage Buildout within the Secondary Build-to-Zone 0% Min., 25% Max.50% Max.25% (Market)√ (6)Entrances (a)Average frequency of Public Entrances, non-residential first story use 30' Max.45' Max.Market 28' Mary 34'√ (b)Maximum distance between Public Entrances, non-residential first story use 40' Max.60' Max.Market 38' Mary 38'√ (c )Average Frequency of Operable Entrances, residential first story use n/a (d)Maximum distance between Operable Entrances, residential first story use n/a (7)Glazing (a)First Story Min. 80% of the Width of the Building, and Min. 7.5' in Height Min. 40% of the Width of the Building, and Min 7.5' in Height Market 80% Mary 58%√ (b)First Story, percent of glazing required to be transparent 75% Min.75% Min.75% Min Mary & Market Street √ (c )Upper Stories 30% Market; 20% Mary √ (d)Upper Stories, percent of glazing required to be transparent 100%√ (8)Building Breaks (a)Building Horizontal Façade Min. 3 every 80'Min. 3 every 80'Satisfied √ (b)Single Span of Horizontal Facade Without a Break Recommend every 24-48 feet; 60' Max. Recommend every 24-48 feet; 60' Max.46' Max √ (9)Supplemental Building Standards (a)Awnings, Stoops, Vestibules Canopy √ None Staff ReviewDevelopment Standards T-5 Building Envelope Standards T-5 BES (South Burlington Land Development Regulations, 8.14) 10' Min., 14' Max. None None None Permitted 2 Min., 6 Max. 1 Max. 14' Min., 20' Max. not applicable not applicable See Note 2 See Note 2 Encouraged 14 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Primary Building Façade Requirements Secondary Building Façade Requirements Applicant Information Criteria Satisfied (D) Block and Street Standards (1)Blocks (a)Perimeter n/a (b)Length n/a (2)Street and Connection types (a)Destination Street (b)Support Street Mary Street √ (c )Neighborhood Street Narrow (d)Market Street & Garden Street (e) Path (f) Alley (b) Mew (h) All other street types (3)Curb Cuts (a)On Market Street √ (b) On Garden Street (c)All other streets Mary Street >100'√ (E ) Parking Standards (1)Parking Amount Requirements (a)Per Residential Unit 39 units = 78 spaces Max √ (b)Per 1,000 gross s.f. Non-Residential (2) Location & Screening (a)√ (b)√ (c )n/a (d)√ (e)Garage proposed √ (f)√ (g)√ (3) Off-Site Parking n/a (F) Supplemental District Standards (1)Upper Story setbacks n/a (G) Streetscape Standards (1)General Standards (a)All streetscape features must be consistent within a project. √ (b)√ (c )√ (d)Proposed development shall comply with all requirement of Article 11 √ (2)Streetscape requirements (a)Benches √ (b)Bicycle Parking or Rack Spaces √ (c )Street Tree Spacing, on center √ Staff ReviewDevelopment Standards T-5 Building Envelope Standards T-5 BES (South Burlington Land Development Regulations, 8.14) Permitted Connection, Not a Street 1,600' Max. 400' Max. Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted, Qualifies as a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Permitted Connection, Not a Street Parking spaces may be leased from the city or a private landowner Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited 100' Min. distance between curb cuts 2 spaces Max. 2 spaces Min. New construction resulting in additional non-residential gross floor area or residential units shall meet T-5 Parking Standards New surface parking shall be set back from the primary street a minimum of 25' Non-hardscape, pervious areas within the front yard shall be predominantly planted with groundcover or flowering vegetation. All features proposed within an existing, proposed, or planned public ROW shall comply with requirements of the Department of Public Works. 20 Min. per 100' frontage 30' Max. average 1 Min. per 50' frontage New parking spaces shall be screened from all streets and the public realm, a minimum of four (4) feet in height Parking under structures is encouraged Parking shall only be permitted in compliance with applicable BES standards for building frontage No parking spaces required for ground floor tenants/ uses less than 5,000 sq. ft. 15 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact, Site Plan Application SP-17-29A is upheld and approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. This project, including the Mary Street extension and Related Improvements, must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, as further identified in paragraph 5 of the above Findings of Fact, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant must post a $27,810 landscaping bond. This bond must remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 4. Prior to permit issuance, the applicant must post a $35,690 bond for the proposed artwork. This bond must remain in effect until the issuance of the permanent Certificate of Occupancy. 5. Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the building, the Applicant shall provide a Surety in favor of the City with a four (4) year term from issuance of the zoning permit for the building, in the amount of $179,256.00, less any road improvement impact fee credit approved by the City Council, for the construction of Mary Street extension, and Related Improvements, which also includes the street trees. Such surety shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney as provided in Section 15.15(D) of the Land Development Regulations. 6. The applicant must receive final water and wastewater allocation prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 7. The applicant will be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site. 8. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit, all appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. certificate of title, irrevocable offer of dedication and warranty deed for the proposed public road, and utility, sewer, drainage, and water, etc.) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington Land Records. [These documents have been submitted and approved. As such, this provision has been satisfied] 9. Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit, the applicant must record a “Notice of Conditions” in the South Burlington Land Records, which has been approved by the City Attorney, indicating that the applicant will provide the owner of the adjacent property an access easement across the northerly portion of the property to Mary Street if deemed necessary by the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer in connection with a plan for development of the adjacent property. Such access easement shall become effective only at such time as a reciprocal easement is granted to this property through the adjacent property to its nearest roadway. The cost of site modifications to allow for the physical connection shall be borne by 16 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision the adjacent property. 10. The applicant shall regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. The applicant shall be required to maintain an infiltration rate of 20” per hour for the proposed Dry Swales. 11. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 12. Prior to issuance of the permanent Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must provide the City Attorney with a deed restriction, restrictive covenant, or through purchase by or a contractual agreement with a local, state or federal housing authority or nonprofit housing agency. 13. Prior to the issuance of the permanent Certificate of Occupancy, the artwork must be installed and the applicant must demonstrate that the artwork was an original commissioned work. 14. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the non-residential portion of the building will generate 11 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 15. The Applicant shall obtain a zoning permit for the building no later than 12/31/17 or this approval is null and void. The Mary Street Extension and Related Improvements depicted on the Plans shall be completed within two (2) years after issuance of the Zoning Permit for the building. In the event Mary Street Extension and Related Improvements depicted on the Plans are not completed within two (2) years after issuance of the Zoning Permit for the building, the City may obtain and use the Surety funds to complete the then incomplete construction of Mary Street Extension and Related Improvements. 16. All exterior lighting must be installed or shielded in such a manner as to conceal light sources and reflector surfaces from view beyond the perimeter of the area to be illuminated. 17. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the building. 18. All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. 19. Any change to the approved plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. 20. Project parking on Mary Street extension shall be limited to temporary parking only, not to exceed two hours. Without limitation, Project employees shall park within designated Project onsite parking spaces. The term “Project” means the building and improvements on “Lot A” depicted on Sheet 1 of the Plans. 21. If and when Century Partners, LP redevelops its property in the future with one or more buildings adjacent to the westerly side of the sixty (60) foot strip depicted on Sheet PL-1 of the Plans, Century Partners, LP shall be responsible for constructing at its expense a six (6) foot wide sidewalk and five (5) foot wide green strip along the westerly side of the sixty (60) foot strip (which green strip may 17 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision occupy a portion of the sixty (60) foot strip not occupied by Mary Street Extension and the parking on the westerly side thereof). Century Partners, LP, may cross and re-cross the areas of any such sidewalk and green space with one or more access roads to Mary Street Extension, subject to obtaining applicable approvals from the City, as necessary. SIGNATURE PAGES TO FOLLOW 18 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Signature page to SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision DATED at _____________, Vermont, this _____ day of ________________, 2017 GRAVEL & SHEA, P.C., attorneys for Snyder-Braverman Development, LLC _____________________________________________ Robert H. Rushford, Esq. 76 St. Paul Street PO Box 369 Burlington, VT 05402-0369 (802) 658-0220 19 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Signature page to SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision DATED at _____________, Vermont, this _____ day of ________________, 2017 LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, P.C., attorneys Appellants _____________________________________________ Mark L. Sperry, Esq. PO Box 721 Burlington, VT 05402 (802) 864-0217 20 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision Signature page to SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision DATED at _____________, Vermont, this _____ day of ________________, 2017 SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CENTER, LLC _____________________________________________ Timothy McKenzie, Duly Authorized Agent 22 SP-17-29A Findings of Fact and Decision SO ORDERED: Motion by _____________, seconded by ________________________, to approve Order: Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion ___________ by a vote of – _____ – ___________. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2017, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to 24 VSA §4465, an interested person may appeal this decision by filing a Notice of Appeal with the secretary of the Development Review Board. This Notice of Appeal must be accompanied with a $233 filing fee and be filed within 15 days of the date of this decision. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. #SD‐17‐22  1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD_17_##_1700DorsetSt_Hoehn_subdiv_final_2017‐09‐ 19.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: September 14, 2017   Plans received: August 18, 2017       1700 Dorset Street  Final Plat Application #SD‐17‐22  Meeting date: September 19, 2017  Owner/Applicant  Edward G. Hoehn III   600 Sea Oak Drive,   Vero Beach FL 32963   Engineer  Grover Engineering PC   2044 Main Road  Huntington VT 05462   Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐01700    SEQ Zoning District ‐ Village Residential  10.29 acres       Location Map      #SD‐17‐22  2     PROJECT DESCRPTION     Final plat application #SD‐17‐22 of Edward G. Hoehn, III to subdivide a 10.29 acre parcel developed with  a single family dwelling into three (3) lots ranging in size from 1.04 acres to 7.98 acres, 1700 Dorset  Street.      COMMENTS     Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene, hereafter referred to  as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments.        A) Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations stablishes the following general  review standards for all site plan applications located within the Southeast Quadrant.    A. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements     SEQ‐Village Residential Required Existing Proposed  Lot 1  Proposed  Lot 2  Proposed  Lot 3  Min. Lot Size* 12,000 sq.  ft./single  family  448,138 sq.  ft.  347,608 sq.  ft.  45,254 sq.  ft.  55,276 sq.  ft.  Max. Building Coverage 15%  0.6%  <15%  <15%  <15%  Max. Overall Coverage 30%  1.6%  <30%  <30%  <30%  Min. Front Setback 50 ft.  25 ft.  No change  >50 ft.  >50 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  >10 ft.  No change  >10 ft.  >10 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  >30 ft.  >30 ft.  >30 ft.  >30 ft.  *Building Height (pitched  roof)  28 ft.  Unknown    No change     27.5  27.5   Density    8 units/acre    0.10  units/acre  0.13  units/acre  0.96  units/acre  0.79  units/acre   Proposed to be in compliance    *The  site  plan  provides  a  different  square  footage  than  the  plat plan.  The areas presented here  represent the numbers from the plat plan, which are presumed to be correct.    1) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an updated Site Plan showing the  corrected lot sizes.    B. Maximum Assigned Density:  The maximum assigned density of any parcel or portion of a  parcel in any SEQ sub‐district shall be one point two (1.2) dwelling units and/or lots per gross  acre.    The SEQ‐VR district allows 1.2 units per acre or eight (8) units  per  acre  with  Transfer  of  Development Rights (TDRs).  The existing parcel is not proposing to utilize TDRs. Without TDRs,  this parcel allows for a maximum density of 12 units (10.29 x 1.2 = 12.3 rounded down to the  #SD‐17‐22  3 nearest whole unit). The applicant has proposed three (3) units (one existing single family and  two (2) new single family), which is within the density calculation for this 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.    2) Staff recommends that the Board include a condition that the lots are approved for single family  use only without additional approval from the Development Review Board.    C. Open Space and Resource Protection    (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities  for  creating  usable,  contiguous  open  spaces  between  adjoining  parcels,  creating  or  enhancing stream buffer areas, or creating or enhancing buffers for primary or secondary  natural communities.  (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the  Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district, allowing carefully planned development at  the average densities provided in this bylaw.  (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management  shall be established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe the intended use and  maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife  habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. Existing natural  resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including (but  not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation  areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and special natural and/or geologic features such  as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. In making this finding the  Development Review Board shall use the provisions of Article 12 of this bylaw related to  wetlands and stream buffers.    The proposed subdivision has been laid out in a manner that maximizes the connectivity of  existing open spaces on the existing parcel and avoids wetland or buffer impacts.  The  proposed subdivision is generally graded towards the wetland buffer, and incorporates a  wide vegetated area with slopes generally 6% or less to slow runoff from impervious areas  prior to discharge.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after  construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous  conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the  Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under  the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental  Conservation.    The applicant has indicated on the Site Plan their intent to comply with the erosion control  standards in Article 16 of the LDRs and to obtain a state construction general permit should  disturbance be anticipated to exceed one (1) acre.  Staff notes that the applicant has not  indicated the proposed topsoil thickness on the erosion prevention plan.      #SD‐17‐22  4 3) Staff  recommends  that  the  Board  include  a  condition  to  amend  the  plan  to  specify  a  minimum of 4‐inches topsoil thickness in areas regraded for construction of improvements as  required in Section 16.04.    (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream,  or  primary  or  natural  community  areas and buffers in a manner that  is  aesthetically  compatible with the surrounding landscape. The use of split rail or other fencing made of  natural materials is encouraged.    The site plans show a split rail fence delineating the wetland buffer boundaries, to ensure  that wetlands and associated buffers will not be disturbed by mowing or other activities.    D. Agriculture (not applicable)    E. Public Services and Facilities  (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be 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.    4) The applicant must obtain final allocation determination from the South Burlington Water  Department and from the South Burlington Wastewater Department prior to obtaining a  zoning permit for the proposed buildings. Staff recommends the Board adopt this as a  condition of approval.      (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting  shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.  (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement  with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.    In an email dated August 28, 2017 the Director of the Department of Public Works (“DPW  Director”) provided comments on the subdivision.  The applicant provided an amended  planset and responded to these comments on September 1, 2017.  DPW comments are in  blue, while applicant responses are in green.        1. We are planning on repaving this section of Dorset Street likely in the summer of 2018. If  their work is to occur after paving, an open cut for the water connections would not be  allowed. Either way, we strongly encourage the trenchless methods, as their plan sheet  calls for.    We have revised the note to require that HDD (trenchless) techniques be used.    2. There is no pavement/surface restoration detail. Any repaving of a city street/bike path  would require pavement to be put back in two lifts of 2.5” of type 2 base and 1.5” of type  4 top.    #SD‐17‐22  5 We have added the requirement that all removed/disturbed pavement be replaced with  two courses, as described.     3. The proposed sewer pump station shall be privately‐owned. The City would not accept a  station of this size that only serves a discrete, small area. Even though it will be private,  we would need to review the pump station’s design to ensure conformance with  minimum standards.    We have added a note on the pump station requiring city DPW review of its design, and  indicating that this will be a private pump station.    4. Water and wastewater allocations would be required for these new demands.    These city allocations will be obtained when applying for the state WW permit.    5. Proper sight distance for cars exiting the driveway needs to be verified by the design  engineer. If any trees or other landscaping (I noticed adjacent trees and cedar hedges on  the plans) are to be removed for sight distance purposes, they would need to be flagged  on a plan and in the field and would be subject to the approval of Public Works.    Site distances have been measured and are noted on the plans.  They are excellent for  the existing driveway cut.    6. Would a driveway culvert, or even an upgraded one, be needed for the site’s main  access? We require 18” minimum pipe. Minimum cover would be determined by  proposed pipe material and size.       We have evaluated existing and proposed drainage at the site and have determined that  there is no appreciable flow of stormwater parallel to the road at this location.  No  culvert is necessary.     5) In general, Section 15.13D of the LDRs requires that any public wastewater infrastructure be  approved as part of the subdivision review. However given that the Project consists solely of  a subdivision without specific building development plans, staff considers that it is  acceptable to move forward without an approved pump station design.  Staff recommends  the Board include a condition that before the issuance of the first zoning permit, the  applicant must provide details of the pump station and must receive approval for the pump  station.     The DPW Director indicated other responses are satisfactory.    (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire  protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not 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.    #SD‐17‐22  6 In an email dated September 6, 2017, the Fire Department indicated that they have no  comment regarding this project as there is no significant impact to fire service.    F. Circulation: The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies  sufficient  to  prevent  unsafe  conditions  on  of  adjacent  roads  and  sufficient  to  create  connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service  vehicles between neighborhoods.  In making this finding the Development Review Board 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.     Access to Lots 1‐3 will be provided from Dorset Street by an existing driveway, which will be  shared. In 1977, the Planning Commission approved the subdivision that created the 10.29 acre  lot. Planning Commission Decision #10177, dated 3/21/77, states:     “Any subdivision of Lot 1 shall have access from the 60’ right‐of‐way, from the north or  south, and not directly from Dorset Street.”      In its Preliminary approval, the Board found it desirable and appropriate to allow direct access  to the two (2) new lots from Dorset Street via a shared curb cut with the existing house.      (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such  services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.  (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and  maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to  maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.    See above for discussion regarding comments from the Public Works Department.       (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets  and neighborhoods shall apply.    Staff  considers  that  a  connection  to  an  adjacent  property  is  unlikely  and  therefore  considers this criterion to be met.    B) Section 9.09 South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following specific  review standards for development within the village residential sub‐district.    A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern  (1) Development Blocks ‐ (not applicable)    (2) Interconnection of Streets – (not applicable)    (3) Lot Ratios – Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of  1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.    Lot 1 is proposed to have a ratio of 1:2.61, Lot 2 of 1:4.93 and Lot 3 of 1:4.85. These ratios  are satisfy the requirements of Section 9.09.A (3).     #SD‐17‐22  7 (4) Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards – (not applicable)    (5) Residential Design  (1) Building Orientation: Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries  for  single  family  and  multi‐family  buildings  must  face  the  street.  Secondary  building  entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to  arterial streets).    The  building  layouts  shown  on  the  site  plan  and  the  front  elevations  shown  in  the  application materials are examples of possible homes, and subject to change. Given these  examples, it appears that the applicant plans to have the two new homes oriented to the  street, plans to have garages set back a minimum of eight (8) feet from the front building  line, and plans to have maximum heights of 27.5 feet. Additionally, the two new homes will  share a driveway and the garages will be located on the sides of the houses.             The proposed houses are set back from the front lot line by approximately 60 feet.  The  regulations state that buildings shall be fifty (50) feet from the right of way on Dorset Street,  south of Swift Street.     Staff considers this criterion met.    (2) Building  Façades:  Building  facades  are  encouraged  to  employ  a  theme  and  variation  approach.    Buildings  should  include  common  elements  to  appear  unified,  but  façades  should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops,  and  balconies  that  create  semi‐private  space  and  are  oriented  to  the  street  are  encouraged.    The applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine if the proposed homes  meet the criteria for a mix of housing styles described in Sections 9.09C(2) and 9.09C(5).     6) Staff  recommends  that  the  Board  include  a  condition  requiring  that  the  facades  of  the  proposed buildings differ from each other and from the existing building in at least one  fundamental element that is readily apparent to the naked eye from the street.      (3) Front Building Setbacks – (not applicable)    (4) Placement of Garages and Parking: For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front  lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a  minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two‐family dwelling.    (a) (not applicable)    (b) The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot line,  provided  that  (i)  the  garage  is visually  integrated  into  the  single  or  two‐family  dwelling; and (ii) the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more  than eight feet (8’) in front of the façade of the house that is oriented to the street.    #SD‐17‐22  8 The  applicant  provided  a  sample  single  family  lot  plan  demonstrating  a  possible  configuration for the proposed homes.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (5) Mix of Housing Styles: A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,  and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be  mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than  compartmentalized into sections of near identical units.    See discussion under Section 9.09C (2) above.    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.    The Project parcel includes a portion of an existing large Class 2 wetland complex.  The project  has been designed to avoid encroachment into the wetland and buffer areas.  The applicant is  proposing to install split rail fence to discourage future wetland buffer encroachment.      The Stormwater Section indicated by email on September 7, 2017 that they have no comment  on this application.   7) 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.    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.    See discussion of water supply and wastewater capacity as it pertains to Article 9 above.    (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 properties. In making this finding, the DRB  #SD‐17‐22  9 may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for  Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.    See discussion of grading and erosion controls as it pertains to Article 9 above.    (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.    See discussion of access, circulation and traffic management strategies as it pertains to Article 9  above.    (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 wetland protection as it pertains to Article 9 and 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.    Staff considers this criterion 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.    See discussion of open space areas as it pertains to Article 9 above.    (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.    See discussion of fire protection as it pertains to Article 9 above.    (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.    (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  #SD‐17‐22  10 agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City  Council.    See discussion of roads and other facilities as it pertains to Article 9 above.    (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for  the affected district(s).    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.    See discussion of stormwater as it pertains to Article 12 above.    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 the Development Review Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the  hearing.       Respectfully submitted,     ___________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  X:\Active\16022-Hoehn\Site Plan\Hoehn Site Plan2.dwg 24X36 Sht 1 Site Plan 9/1/2017 10:59:05 X:\Active\16022-Hoehn\Site Plan\Hoehn Site Plan2.dwg 24X36 Sht 2 Landscaping & Grading 9/1/2017 11:01:12 X:\Active\16022-Hoehn\Site Plan\Hoehn Site Plan2.dwg 24X36 Sht 3 Utilities 9/1/2017 11:02:23 X:\Active\16022-Hoehn\Site Plan\Hoehn Site Plan2.dwg 24X36 Sht 4 Details 9/1/2017 11:03:51 lLOTS 2 AND 3 Estimated total height of residence - 27-1/2-feet above highest final grade in front of house min. 8-foot garage setback   1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD_17_20_1580DorsetStreet_JJJ_Cider Mill II Sketch_2017‐ 09‐19.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: September 15, 2017  Plans received: August 15, 2017  1699 Hinesburg Road & 1580 Dorset Street  Sketch Plan Application #SD‐17‐21  Meeting date: September 19, 2017  Owner/Applicant  JJJ South Burlington, LLC  21 Carmichael St., Suite 201  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Engineer  O’Leary Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Dr.  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐R1580, 0860‐01731, 0860‐01625_R  SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential,  SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection  65.49 acres      Location Map        2   PROJECT DESCRPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐17‐21 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit  planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project  and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 45 units to 154 units. The 154 units will  consist of 70 single family lots, 54 two (2) family dwellings, and 30 three (3) unit multi‐family dwellings,  1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road.    COMMENTS    Applicant has previously been approved for 109 housing units in Phase II.  In this application, they are  proposing to develop on the northernmost portion of the Cider Mill property, which had previously been  left aside for future phases.    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 Requirements:  This development (Cider Mill I and II) received the following dimensional standards waivers from the  Board as part of the Master Plan (#MP‐07‐01):   Single family minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft.   Single family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%   Single family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%   Multi‐family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%   Multi‐family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%   Multi‐family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet   Multi‐family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet    B. Master Plan  The property is presently subject to a Master Plan and this project will require an amendment to that  plan.  At least one reason for the change to the Master Plan is the increase in the total number of units,  but there are other possible reasons that could also necessitate the change.    C. Density  The SEQ‐NR and the SEQ‐VR districts allow 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of  Development Rights (TDRs).  The acreage involved in the entire Cider Mill Development (Cider Mill I and  II)  is  161.59  acres,  therefore  the  development  has  193  units  of  inherent  density  and  646  units  of  maximum density.  Cider Mill I included 149 units, therefore 44 units of inherent density remain.  As part  of the Master Plan approval, the applicant submitted the legal documents pertaining to the option to  purchase development rights for Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II for review by the City Attorney, up to a  maximum of 326 units.  The development rights must be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of  zoning permits for any units beyond the 44 remaining of the property’s inherent density.  Therefore as  presented in this application, the Cider Mill II Project will need 110 TDRs.           3 D. Access & Circulation  Staff  has  reviewed  the  proposed  street  layout  in  relation  to  Article 9 of the Land Development  Regulations (LDRs), which states that the     intention of the street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian‐oriented streets  that  encourage  slower  speeds,  maximize  connections  between  and within  neighborhoods,  and  contribute to neighborhood livability.    And further states    Dead end streets are strongly discouraged (e.g. cul de sacs).  Dead end streets shall not exceed 200  feet in length.  Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street  connections  and/or  bicycle  and  pedestrian  connections  to  open  space  and  future  housing  on  adjoining parcels…    Staff  considers  the  proposed  network  of  streets  to  be  well‐connected  and  pedestrian‐friendly  with  sidewalks throughout that lead to Hinesburg Road and into Cider Mill I.  Based on feedback provided by  the Board at sketch plan application SD‐16‐27, the applicant has removed a cu‐de‐sac and replaced it  with a loop road and neighborhood park.      The applicant has requested that the Board consider whether they would approve of replacing the  segment of Russett Road between Liberty Lane and Lindamac Street with a 10‐foot wide recreation and  emergency vehicle path.  The purpose of this replacement would be to reduce wetland impacts.  Staff  considers that this change would not meet the standards of Section 15.12J, but also acknowledges that  the referenced segment of Russett Road would not be the preferred route for vehicular egress.  Planning  and Zoning, the Department of Public Works, and the Fire Department are amenable to the applicant‐ proposed option with the caveat that additional details are needed during Preliminary Plat review.      1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether reducing the width of Russett  Road to 18‐feet for its entire length would achieve the same goal.    2. Staff recommends that the Board discuss whether the applicant has received an evaluation from  the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) on whether either or both of a northbound left  turn lane or southbound deceleration lane is warranted.  Further Staff recommends that the  Board discuss whether a traffic study has been prepared and if it evaluates whether turn lanes  out of Nadeaucrest Drive are warranted.    3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the sidewalk would better serve  residents on Lindamac Street if it were located on the other side of the proposed roadway.    E. Natural Resource Protection  Section 12.02 provides standards for new encroachment into Class II wetland buffers and Section 15.18A  provides  standards  for  connectivity  of  open  spaces  and  natural resource areas.  The applicant is  encouraged to consider the connectivity of the resource area labeled “mid site undeveloped space” with  the remainder of the wetland complex when selecting cross‐road conveyances.          4 F. Public Facilities, Parks and Open Space  Section 9.07 provides specific standards relating to park design in the Southeast Quadrant, which the  proposed project must meet.  Of particular note is that “Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres  of developed parked parkland per 1,000 population.”  It appears to staff that there are some open areas  in the development which may meet the design and size guidelines of Section 9.07.  Staff notes that  when the existing Cider Mill I was permitted the design and size guidelines in Section 9.07 were not in  place and therefore Cider Mill I residents may be underserved in terms of parkland, which makes the  establishment of adequate park space especially important in Cider Mill II.   Furthermore, the additional  housing  units  proposed  in  this  application  were  not  contemplated  at  that  time  and  this  impacts  whatever parks and open space currently exist in the surrounding area.      The  applicant  met  with  the  Recreation  &  Parks  Committee  on  December  19,  2016  to  discuss  the  project.  The plan presented to the committee was the prior version of the sketch plan layout that  included the Nadeau parcel and 167 units.  The applicant indicates the sketch plan reviewed by the  Committee included 3.41 acres of useable open space.  The Committee voted to endorse the Cider Mill II  development.  The applicant indicates the revised preliminary plan proposes 2.90 acres of useable open  space.  No open space was provided within the now eliminated Nadeau parcel.  The only change in the  proposed recreation space from the prior to the current sketch plan layout is the reduction of the  community garden area labeled open space ‘E’.  The area has been limited in order to create space for 8  duplex units along Nadeaucrest Drive and has been designated as a community garden.  In order to  obtain preliminary plat approval, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the proposed park  land meet the standards of Section 9.07.    4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their intended open space amenities (e.g.  playgrounds, sports apparatus, benches).    The applicant is proposing two  pedestrian path  easements, one  connecting  to  Cider  Mill  I and the  second connecting to the parcel owned by the City of South Burlington.      5. Staff recommends the Board review with the applicant their proposed management strategy for  making these easements useable as pedestrian paths.    Staff has included for Board consideration a sketch of existing and planned trails and paths which could  potentially connect to Cider Mill II.  Of note are the Scott Property to the southwest and it’s planned  connections to Shelburne Pond and the current Clair Solar farm to the north with potential connections  to Hinesburg Road.    6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the Application providing at least one pedestrian path  easement to the Clair Solar farm.    The  applicant  is  providing  a  recreation  path  consistent  with  the  comprehensive  plan  to  connect  Hinesburg Road to the existing portion of the Cider Mill development.  Between sketch and preliminary,  Staff proposes to present the current plan to the bicycle and pedestrian committee for discussion of  how the proposed recreation path shall connect to Somerfield Ave.    G. Building Orientation and Design  Sections 9.08 and 9.09 of the LDRs lay out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix  of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages.  Staff inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the    5 proposed housing units will have entrances facing a public road—a requirement of the regulations.  The  materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate  the other Residential Design standards of the LDRs.  The current proposal shows a variety of housing  types (single family, carriage home, and duplex) and the materials required for sketch do not require an  applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate whether there will also be a mix of housing styles  (ex: ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.).      7. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant to review the Residential Design requirements  and recommendations of Section 9.08(C) and 9.09(C) prior to future stages of the review process.    8. Staff  recommends  the  Board  discuss  with  the  applicant  their  intended mix of housing  types  throughout the development.    H. Lot Ratios  Section 9.08(A)(4) states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio  of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.”  The materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit  sufficient information to evaluate dimensional information on the proposed single‐family house lots.  In  the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD‐16‐01) similarly sized and proportioned single‐family lots in a  near identical layout were approved by the Board in the southernmost section of the project.  In the  present proposal, the south portion gains four single family lots.  The homes within the north portion of  the project are significantly reconfigured compared to the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD‐16‐01),  though the  units on  the northern portion of the  project are  not proposed to be on individual lots  therefore section 9.08A (4) does not apply. The four new lots on the south portion of the project are of  similar proportion to the previously approved lots.  Staff considers that the proposed single‐family lots  do not all meet the ratio requirement of Section 9.08A(4); however, given that the Board has previously  permitted  similarly  sized  and  proportioned  lots  in  the  south  section of the project, staff does not  consider it appropriate to re‐open a discussion on those lot proportions.    I. Parking  The applicant is proposing parking along one side of the road throughout much of the development.   South Burlington prohibits overnight parking on public streets during the winter, thus the applicant is  encouraged to provide sufficient parking for residents and overnight guests within the individual lots,  and consider whether there may be excessive daytime guest parking.  Staff notes that parking is not  required on local streets within the SEQ‐VR or SEQ‐NR zones.  Staff considers that a degree of on‐street  parking may be warranted in the vicinity of the multi‐family and duplexes, as well as in the vicinity of the  neighborhood parks.    J. Fire and Public Works  The  City  Engineer  reviewed  the  application  and  offers  the  following  comments  for  the  applicant’s  consideration in preparing their preliminary plat application.  1. A  lighting  plan  will  be  required  to  show  lighting  levels  at  intersections  and  mid‐block  crossings, Details of the proposed light fixtures will also be required.  2. A signage and marking plan will be required for preliminary approval.  3. All pavement markings must comply with the prevailing Vermont Agency of Transportation  (“VTrans”) specification for Pavement Marking Tape, Type I. Final material selection shall be  approved by the Department of Public Works.  4. For sight distance purposes, parking will need to be prohibited on Pippin Lane near the mid‐ block crossing on the curve,  approximately station 11+68.    6   The Fire Chief provided the following comments on the application.  1. Each phase of the Cider Mill project shall have fire hydrants installed and tested before  construction of combustible buildings are started pursuant to NFPA 1 Chapter 18. Minimum  hydrant flow shall be based on NFA‐ NFF formula plus a safety margin of not less than 10%.   2. Fire Department access to these phases including temporary turn around shall be installed when  construction begins to each phase.   3. All roads shall comply with Fire Department apparatus turning radii (includes mutual aid  apparatus).  4. Parking of construction vehicles shall be restricted to one side of the road to maintain Fire  Department access during construction.    5. The Project shall comply with NFPA 241 – Safe Guarding buildings under construction, alteration  or demolition.     K. 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.    L. Phasing  The applicant has submitted a phasing plan showing four phases of development.  The phasing plan  takes into consideration the LDR’s prohibition on greater than 50 units accessed via a single access  point.  Staff does wonder if units 143 and 144 should be included in Phase II rather than Phase I, or  whether additional infrastructure to support units 143 and 144 should be included in Phase I.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and close the  hearing.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner      SHELBU R N E WILLISTONSCHEMATICPlanne d Path s and TrailsVicinity of Cid e r Mill II City of South Burlington, VTSe pte m be r 14, 2017 LEGEND Docum e nt Path : \\pw se rve r\GISd ata\Planning&Zoning\Planning\Site sMap\Cid e rMillPath sTrails.m xd ³0 0.50.25 MilesMaps and GPS data (“m ate rial”) m ad e available by th eCity of South Burlington are for re fe re nce purpose s only.Th e City d oe s not guarante e accuracy. U se rs re le ase th e City from all liability re late d to th e m ate rial and its use . Th e City sh all not be liable for any d ire ct, ind ire ct, incid e ntal, conse que ntial, or oth e r d am age s. Contact GIS@sburl.com w ith que stions Paths and Lanes Existing Bik e Lane Existing Re c Path Propose d Bik e Lane Propose d Re c Path Existing Sid e w alk Existing Trail Future Trail Ope n Space Parce ls (City Ow ne d ) Propose d City Park City Park s Cid e r Mill II Are a