Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/07/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 August 2018, 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 (by phone), B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; D. Shenk, B. Gerlack, J. Desautels, B. Bless, N. Hyman, P. O’Leary, R. Kay, J. Owens, L. Parker, B. Brinkerhoff, P. Kahn, D. Peters, C. & P. Bernhardt, L. Hammond, A. Chalnick, D. Solsky, M. Mittag, B. Servis, S. Dopp, R. Greco, G. Rounds, D. Partido, B. Chaind-Homey 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move items #10 and #11 to follow #4. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Minutes of 17 July 2018 Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 17 July 2018 as presented. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Other Business: There was no other business. 7. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-18-21 of Blackbay Ventures, VIII, LLC, to subdivide an existing 22.6 acre parcel into five lots, ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 21.6 acres, 451 to 495 Market Street: Mr. Shenk explained that each lot will be developed into triplexes with parking in the rear. He showed an area for a stormwater pond. He also noted that a Form Based Code application has been submitted to staff. A community meeting is scheduled for 13 August. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Gerlack, representing 16 and 18 Iby Street noted the wetland encroachment on lot #4 and expressed concern that when snow is plowed, it will would end up in the wetland and on his and his mom’s backyard. He also cited the rise on Market Street and asked how much fill is planned on lot #4 where he would be looking at walls instead of trees. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Gerlack should raise those concerns at the public meeting on the 13th. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-18-21. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-18-22 of Mitchwartz Properties, LLC, to combine two lots into one lot for the purpose of constructing a project on the combined parcel, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 321 and 325 Dorset Street: Ms. Desautels said the two lots would be combined into one for a future project which is a mixed commercial/residential building. Mr. Miller noted that the Fire Chief and Director of Public Works had no issues with this sketch plan. No Board of public issues were raised. 9. Miscellaneous application #MS-18-03 of Elizabeth Pierce to confirm the presence and salability of Transfer Development Rights on lots A, B and C, 1731 Hinesburg Road: The applicant’s representative showed the lots involved which will be reduced from their development potential and kept for agricultural use via a land trust easement. The applicant wants confirmation that the TDRs exist and can be used. There is also an area from which the city has taken TDRs and now has an easement. The applicant would like to have that easement combined with a Vermont Land Trust easement and is asking the DRB to recommend to the city to allow that to happen. It has been done before. Mr. Behr questioned why the DRB is getting involved in this as it is more like a market consideration. Mr. Conner said this dates back to the prior work the city and DRB did with the Leduc property. In order to be clear to funding partners, they wanted more of a formal acknowledgment of what the TDRs are because they will provide substantial funds. Mr. Sullivan questioned the DRB’s authority to take that action. Mr. Conner said that as stewards of the regulations, it is in line with the statement of the number of TDRs. Regarding a recommendation to the City Council, the City Attorney and Vermont Land Trust attorney felt that since the regulations are the purview of the DRB, it would be appropriate for the Board to make that recommendation. Mr. Sullivan said he was concerned that the Board would be issuing “an advisory opinion,” and he didn’t think the Board had the authority to do that. Ms. Keene said the DRB would be saying that the restrictions imposed by the Vermont Land Trust supersede existing restrictions. Mr. Sullivan suggested the City Attorney be specifically asked about the DRB’s authority to take the proposed action. Mr. Wilking asked that the City Attorney also be asked to look at the language presented. In answer to a question regarding timing, the applicant’s representative said this would be a multi‐year process, probably in a phased process. Section “A” on the map would probably happen first. Mr. Kay asked about a 200 foot setback along the stream on the east side of lot “A.” Mr. Conner said all of “A” is in the NPR. In addition, the city has buffers that apply. Mr. Kay asked about the proposed plan for a trail on lot “A.” Mr. Conner said the city has been in separate discussions regarding trail continuation. Mr. Cota moved to continue MS-18-03 to 21 August 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-18-18 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, to re-subdivide two lots of 2. Acres and 12.2 acres, 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesti Drive: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 4 December 2018 as they requesting a zoning change at the Planning Commission. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-18 to 4 December 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Sullivan recusing himself due to a potential conflict of interest. 11. Continued sketch plan application #SD-18-23 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately 126 lots for the purpose of a 164 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 113 single family homes, 18 units in 3-unit multi-family dwellings, 32 units in two-family dwellings, and one existing single family home, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking and Mr. Sullivan recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller explained the nature of a “sketch plan” and also the judicial nature of the DRB. He stressed that the DRB has to abide by the Land Development Regulations as they exist. Mr. O’Leary then noted that following the last sketch plan hearing they reworked the layout and opened up some of the space. They met with the Public Works Director, Fire Chief and Police Chief. The Fire Chief asked for 10-foot driving lanes. They also narrowed some roads and provided bump-outs to slow traffic. Public Works prefers gravity sewering. The project site is listed as 72 acres but actually 132 acres are involved because they will be purchasing the development rights from other properties. They are preserving a lot of open space which will contribute to the open space plan of the city. 94 acres will be left open. Mr. Behr disagreed with this calculation. He said that TDRs are a mechanism that allows an increase in density. Mr. O’Leary noted that the Environmental Board recognizes the “off‐site” land as “involved lands.” Mr. Miller said the DRB will not include that land as “open space.” Mr. Conner said it is simply a mechanism allowing density to be moved from one property to another. Mr. Ber said he likes the overall layout of the development but does not like the broken up open spaces. He would prefer connectivity, “a green connectivity.” Mr. O’Leary felt they could accommodate that. Mr. Cota asked about connection to Dorset St. Mr. O’Leary said they are talking with the State to get a wetland crossing approved, but there is no way at this time to get a connection to the south. Mr. Conner noted that the crossing in question is an existing driveway crossing, and that would be a logical place to do a crossing. Mr. Miller then highlighted comments from a letter from Daniel Seff representing some nearby residents. Mr. Seff asked the DRB to withhold a decision until there is a court decision in the Snyder case. He also opposes using acreage from which the TDRs are taken to calculate maximum density and also reducing some setbacks from 10 to 5 feet. There is also a concern with wildlife habitat and a belief that TDRs should not be used at all. Members agreed to continue the discussion of this application and not wait for a decision in the Snyder appeal. They also agreed to abide by the current rules in the LDRs. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Miller asked the public not to reiterate concerns that had already been stated. Mr. Chalnick: Said they moved here from New Jersey because there was “no room” in New Jersey. Felt the Board does not have to provide all the density the TDRs bring. Mr. Hyman: Asked who would buy a house in South Burlington when every house is the same. Felt houses won’t keep going up in value. Felt the DRB is pro-development, not meanly or maliciously. Ms. Peters: Noted the rules say the DRB “may” approve all or a portion of a developer’s request. But it doesn’t have to. There is discretion. The Board’s hands are not tied. Mr. Conner said the historical interpretation is that when everything is taken into consideration, the density left can be met with TDRs. In this case, the developer is not proposing the total possible density. Mr. Brinkerhoff: The city’s plan for 2016 is already exceeded. The city has supported having more affordable housing in the City Center. This is more expensive housing. Felt the developers are running the town, not the people. People want to preserve nature. Traffic is a big issue. There will be traffic from 300 homes pouring out of Nowland Farm Road and the side streets will become shortcuts. Mr. Wilking: When the project was initially brought forward, it was smaller, and the developer was encouraged to enlarge it. He would appreciate it being smaller. Mr. Bernhart: Noted 4 big structures on Nowland Farm Rd. Said that land is a flood plain. Those units will also cast shadows on the road. Ms. Hammond: Agreed with everything said before. Noted there are 442 homes for sale in Chittenden County, 140 in South Burlington. Only 2 of the properties in the O’Brien development have been sold since March, though there are deposits on some others. The populations guidelines are way off. Prices are being reduced on houses for sale in this range. Ms. Bernhardt: Would prefer 40 or 50 quality homes. Noted that the larger units have separate garages. Was concerned with views of Camel’s Hump. Ms. Chalnick: Felt it was disheartening to have this development next to them. Was concerned with the safety of kids waiting for school buses. Ms. Solsky: No one wants what happened in Bucks County to happen here. Asked why wetlands are included in density calculations. Mr. Conner replied that the same rules apply city-wide. Ms. Solsky asked who pays for a traffic study. If the developer does, the study will say what the developer wants it to day. Mr. Conner said the DRB has the right to require an independent study. Mr. Miller reviewed the process for traffic studies. Mr. Mittag: Said residents would be happier with no TDRs. Ms. Sirvis: Walked this property recently. It is a paradise. Cited the “mess” of the O’Brien property and asked not to let it happen here. She suggested a dog park here. Ms. Dopp: Would be helpful to see an overlay to show which portions are 4 units/acre, which are 8 per acre, where the NPR portion is and where the stream runs and where the flood plain is. She noted the spread of water across this area during the spring. Mr. O’Leary outlined the flood plain area behind the houses. Ms. Greco: Read from the LDR purpose statement regarding the Southeast Quadrant and said the rest of that chapter goes on to say how to destroy it. She felt the board has latitude and doesn’t have to approve the maximum. Mr. O’Leary noted that the maximum allowable density is 267 units. They are asking for only 161, not the maximum. Ms. Partido: Felt it was sad to have to hire a lawyer to prevent what the people don’t want. Mr. Rounds: Asked if all the streets will be city streets. Mr. O’Leary said they would except for one little street that will remain private until there is a connection to the adjoining property. Mr. Kay: Noted it is possible to make changes to sketch plans and encouraged the Board to make use of technical review. Asked the developer to develop “smartly.” Mr. O’Leary noted the smallest development they had planned was 100‐130 units, mostly larger houses. The city encouraged them to change the mix. A member of the public: Did not envy the Board’s position or the neighbors’ position. Appealed to people’s sensibilities and not have regrets when it “is gone.” As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on August 21, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD              17 JULY 2018    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 July    2018, 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, B.  Sullivan    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; D. Shenk, L.  Hammond, R. Brunckerhoff, C. Gottfried, A. & A. Chalnick, R. Kay, M. Meyer, K. & W. Hays, A.  Dery, S. Savell, J. Antoniotti, B. Tolmic, P. Simpson, B. Bartlett, B. Currier, C. Montgomery, D. &  S. Partilo, D. Zeller, D. Ruppel, J. Anderson, S. Valle, C. Gallipeau, D. Murdoch, C. Miller, C.  Teese, T. Perrapato, W. Cleaver, L. Richer, G. Porter, S. Donnelly, C. Pawlowski, J. Fuller, P.  Vaughan, M. E. Baldwin, C. Bergeron, M. Webster, D. Seff, W. Gerlack, D. Jaffe, D. Peters, A.  Safar, D. Bartlett, A. Lamonda, M. Simpson, S. Dopp, R. Greco, B. Servis, J. Bard, L. Getz, J.  Goodwin, J. & W. Wilking, N. Hyihan, D. Blodgett, A. Shields, M. Janswold, C. & P. Bernhardt, D.  Anfuso, B. & A. Kakalec      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:    Mr. Miller noted that this is Mr. Belair’s last meeting as he will be retiring at the end of the  month.  He praised Mr. Belair’s support to the DRB for many years.    Mr. Wilking noted that he sold his business last week.  He also noted that at a recent meeting  with community members there was talk of graft of the DRB and of people making money from  their positions on the Board.  He felt there needs to be clarity from the City Council to assure  the public.  Mr. Wilking said he was personally offended by reference to “real estate people”  making money from their knowledge of this Board.     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 2  5. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐20 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC, to subdivide an  existing 22.6 acre parcel into five lots ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 21.6 acres, 415  to 495 Market Street:    Mr. Shenk said they plan to subdivide an existing parcel owned by South Burlington Realty.   They will retain the 4 smaller parcels (he indicated these on the plan) and will develop the fifth  parcel under Form Based Code standards.  Mr. Shenk noted they had developed the project on  the Hinesburg Rd. end of Market Street, and the proposed project will be a continuation of  that.    Mr. Gerlack, representing 16 and 18 Iby Street, said they are used to having trees in back and  asked if there will be trees in the buffer.  Mr. Shenk said Form Based Code requires a planted  buffer.  They will provide a mix of cedar hedges and shade trees.  He also noted, that as part of  the project they will be meeting with all the neighbors.    Another neighbor noted a drainage issue with water seeping into his mother’s house.  He didn’t  want that situation to worsen or affect his house.  Mr. Shenk showed the area where there will  be stormwater ponds.  It will all be gravity flow, no pumps.  They will not be changing the sub‐ soil.  They will have to meet the required standards and will be inspected.  Mr. Hyinau asked  who pays for the ponds.  Mr. Shenk identified the pond that he will pay for as part of the  project.  The other pond is part of the Market Street project.    Ms. Dopp asked whether any trees will be saved.  Ms. Keene said the City arborist has identified  trees that are valuable enough to save.    No other issues were raised.    6. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐23 of Dorset Meadows Association, LLC, to subdivide  two existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with one single family dwelling  into approximately 126 lots for the purpose of a 164 unit residential planned unit  development.  The planned unit development is to consist of 113 single family homes,  18 units in 3 unit multi‐family dwellings, 32 units in two‐family dwellings, and one  existing single family home, 1505 Dorset Street:    Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Wilking recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest.    Mr. Boucher said they have refined the plan based on zoning in the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ).   He identified the areas that the City zoning indicates will remain green.  The basic density is 1.2  per acre, concentrated in the developable acreage.  This respects the existing neighborhoods.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 3  Mr. Boucher then identified the site on the map and noted the 3 sub‐districts of the SEQ as  NRP, NR and VR which allows for a total density of 4 to 8 units per acre on developable land.   He also identified the existing developed areas and preserved areas.    On an aerial photo, Mr. Boucher identified geographic features including the stream.  He  showed the areas that will be developed and indicated that the vegetated area would mostly  remain.  He also indicated locations with views toward Camel’s Hump and noted that the  proposed “boulevard” is oriented toward those views.    The proposed design interconnects green spaces and connection to the NRP (non‐developable).   There will be a diversity of residential types including duplexes and town houses.    Mr. Boucher then identified the “exterior lots” (outside the ring road around the project) which  will have a 20‐foot setback from the road.  On the “interior lots” they will reduce the side yard  setback to 5 feet and the front yard setback to 15 feet.  Those lots will be about 1/8 of an acre.   They will be made to seem larger by moving the garages further back.  Most of those lots will  back onto a common green space.    Along Nolan Farm Road, there will be a series of town homes with optional detached garages.   There will also be a series of duplexes.    There will be a single wetland crossing which Mr. Boucher indicated on the plan.  He also  indicated one area for future development due to access issues.    Mr. Boucher then identified different street types planned for the development:     The major street will have a 60‐foot right‐of‐way with 10‐foot driving lanes and parking  on one side of the street.  There will be a 10‐foot rec path on one side and a sidewalk on  the other side.    The “ring road” will have a 50‐foot right‐of‐way with 9‐foot driving lanes and bumpouts  at the intersections.    The central access road with have a 60‐foot right‐of‐way with 8‐foot parking lanes on  either side, 9‐foot driving lanes, and sidewalks on both sides.    Mr. O’Leary noted they have met with the Army Corps of Engineers and with State wetland  people who have indicated they want only one crossing of the wetland.  The City would like a  connection to Dorset Street where there is a driveway easement at this time.  There are  potential developments to the south that could also use the Dorset Street connection  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 4    The Board then reviewed staff notes with the applicant as follows:    1. Staff asked the applicant to consider periodic bumpouts on the roads.  Mr. O’Leary  said they are amenable to discussing this.  2. Mr. O’Leary said they will comply.  3. They will look into constructing the road at the exiting crossing of the wetland and  discuss the crossing with the Army Corps.  4. The applicant agreed to design access to the green spaces so they don’t become  “yards” for individual residents.  Mr. Boucher noted they were encouraged to have  smaller pieces of green space to utilize the NPR area.  They will use split rail fencing  and landscaping to designate the areas.  Mr. Behr said he would like to see some of  the green spaces opened up, especially there they appear “pinched.”  This may  result in losing a few units.  He generally liked the layout, boulevard design and  diversity of units.  5. The applicant agreed to abide by design requirements.  6. Regarding the mix of housing, Mr. Boucher said they haven’t gotten to architecture  yet.  There will be some 1, 1‐1/2 and 2 story units.  Interior lot houses will be  different from exterior hones.  Town houses will have separate entrances for units.  7. Mr. O’Leary said they will provide a phasing plan as part of the Master Plan.    Members of the public then commented as follows:    Mr. Kay:  Noted that nearby residents have private wells and asked the developer to  consider this and not pollute those wells.  He also asked if the view protection corridor has  been addressed with heights of buildings.  Mr. O’Leary said no units are affected.  Mr. Kay also  asked for a plan for wildlife protection, citing deer, bobcats and other wildlife.  He was also  concerned that the area is prone to flooding during larger than 100‐year events.    Ms. Hammond:  Felt this is irresponsible growth.  There are already over 100 homes for  sale in South Burlington.  She cited wildlife issues and concern with traffic.  Mr. Miller said there  will be a required traffic study as part of the review process.  He also noted this development is  in keeping with the planned character of the area.  Mr. Behr then gave a brief review of SEQ  zoning.    Mr. Hyiaman noted that a previous property owner was denied the right to put an addition on  his home and subsequently moved to Shelburne, but this plan is allowing 164 units to be built.   He felt that wasn’t right.  He cited farmers who can no longer get hay from fields and have to  buy it.  He also noted that animals are going into homes because they have no place else to go.   He asked where salt from driveways is going to go.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 5    Ms. Meyer said that when the studies of the area were done the city looked different.  She  asked how those studies can be redone.  Mr. Kochman stressed that the DRB has no power to  change the regulations.  That is done in the Planning Commission forum.  The DRB does not  have jurisdiction to change things.    Mr. Hyiaman said the developer should build 40 or 60 solar‐efficient homes.  He said the homes  that are built today won’t last.    Due to the length of the agenda, members agreed to continue the application to allow for  further discussion.    Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐18‐23 to 7 August 2018.  Mr. Kochman seconded.  Motion  passed 5‐0.    Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Wilking rejoined the Board.    7. Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐28 of 30 Community Drive, LLC, to amend a previously  approved plan for a 275,000 sq. ft. commercial and industrial building consisting of  184,400 sq. ft. of general office, 18,700 sq. ft. of warehouse, 10,000 sq. ft. of indoor  recreation, 2000 sq. ft. of retail food, 59,500 sq. ft. of research and testing and 400 sq.  ft. of short‐order restaurant (accessory) use.  The amendment consists of replacing a  portion of the general office and warehouse uses with 25,500 sq. ft. of radio &  television studio, for a resulting use breakdown of 163,040 sq. ft. general office,  14,560 sq. ft. warehouse, 10,000 sq. ft. indoor recreation, 2000 sq. ft. retail food,  59,500 sq. ft. research and testing, 400 sq. ft. short‐order restaurant (accessory), and  25,500 sq. ft. radio & television studio use.  The amendment also includes adding a  parking lot, 16 satellite dishes and a microwave antenna, 30 Community Drive:    Mr. Savell noted that WPTZ will be relocating from Plattsburg and Colchester.  He indicated the  secured parking area and the secured area for satellite dishes.      The applicant review staff comments as follows:    1. Ms. Dery noted they have addressed all but one of the Stormwater Superintendent’s  comments and will comply completely.  2. Staff does not consider the additional 38 parking spaces necessary, especially given  the effect on the wetland buffer.  Staff recommends the Board discuss with the  applicant whether news vehicle parking can be located in a newly secured area of  the existing parking lot.  The applicant said the locations shows is a secured parking  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 6  area.  The station operates all day, and staff comes in at night.  They must be able to  walk safely into the building.  Equipment also has to be moved from vans into the  building.  The existing space does not provide the safety and security needed.  Mr.  Behr questioned why there are 2 parking spaces per employee.  Ms. Dery said that is  a requirement for radio studios.  The applicant indicated where the security fence  access will be (it will be a card access).  They will have 98 employees plus additional  guests and visitors for special events.  Special programs now done elsewhere will be  done at this location.  3. Regarding size and location of antennas, the applicant explained that the antenna on  the roof will be 6 feet in diameter, 10 feet high.  There is already a 17‐foot structure  on that roof.  4. Regarding screening of satellite dishes, the applicant indicated the location of  additional landscaping.  Security fences will be 12 feet high.    Mr. Wilking said the  site is not as landscaped as he is used to seeing in Technology Park.  Mr. Ilich said  there is more screening than at other similar installations.  5. Regarding the landscape bond amount, the applicant indicated the cost of the  building expansion is $10,000. Ms. Keene said they already have adequate  landscaping value.  6. Ms. Dery said they will provide photos as to how parking spaces are to be counted.   Ms. Keene said bicycle parking needs to be included in the photos.  Ms. Dery said the  existing bike parking is not compatible with the current standard and they will  include the required number as replacement for the existing racks and show their  location.  7. The sign will be removed from the plan.  8. Gates will be accessible to emergency equipment.  This will be discussed with the  Fire Chief.    Mr. Cota moved to close SP‐18‐28.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐24 of Pines Housing, LP, to amend a  previously approved planned unit development consisting of: 1) a 184 unit congregate  housing facility and 2) a 104 unit extended stay hotel in 2 buildings.  The amendment  consists of constructing a 2,300 sq. t. building addition for the purpose of expanding  the administrative office space for the congregate care facility, 7 Aspen Drive:    Mr. Miller recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.  Mr. Cota served as Chair  during Mr. Miller’s absence.    Ms. Getz said that administrative offices are now in the basement and will be moved to the  addition.  There will also be a conference room and break room.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 7    Staff comments were reviewed as follows:    1. The applicant will provide a bond for landscaping.  $8625 is required and $9190 is  being provided.  2. The Board was OK with the temporary and permanent impact on the Class 3 wetland  buffer.  3. The applicant was OK with the Acting Fire Chief’s comments as were members.    Pines residents said they are happy with the addition.    Mr. Wilking moved to close SD‐18‐24.  Mr. Kochman seconded.  Motion passed 6‐0.    Mr. Miller rejoined the Board.    9. Continued site plan application #SP‐18‐22 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously  approved plan by constructing a 20‐foot by 23‐foot addition to an existing 1500 sq. ft.  standard restaurant, 1696 Williston Road:    Ms. Keene noted the applicant had an arborist review the plan and locate a shade tree to meet  the requirement.  The applicant can remove a bit of pavement to give room for trees to  breathe.  Mr. Gottfried noted he will also plant perennials.  He will also be sure the tree doesn’t  block his sign.    Mr. Cota moved to close SP‐18‐22.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    10. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐19 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to  construct a two‐story, 54,868 sq. ft. medical office building with 275 parking spaces on  15.07 acres, 194 Tilley Drive:    Mr. Bouchard said there have not been many changes since sketch plan.    Staff comments were then reviewed as follows:    1. Regarding the “pedestrian route through the parking lot,” members were OK with  the main route indicated by Mr. Bouchard.  2. Regarding parking in front of the building, Mr. Bouchard noted the 3 spaces  indicated are part of the electric vehicle parking spaces, and they would like to keep  them there but will remove them if the Board requires.  Mr. Sullivan said there is  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 8  nothing in the regulations that allows the Board to OK them.  Mr. Wilking said the  DRB should discuss this with the Planning Commission.  3. Mr. Bouchard showed the details of dumpster screening.  4. Regarding curbing of the parking islands.  Mr. Bouchard showed where curbing can  happen, but he was concerned with other areas for snow storage.  He noted there  are no island curbs on the adjoining property.  Members said it can’t be waived.  Mr.  Bouchard said they will comply.  5. The trees recommended by the arborist have been added.  6. Mr. Bouchard said they have an excess of $80,000 in landscaping.  He showed a  seating area near the entrance (benches, landscaping, ornamental grasses,  perennials).  He noted that the Arborist felt the plan should be approved as  presented.  Mr. Belair noted that the Board has never counted “grasses” or  perennials as landscaping.  Mr. Bouchard cited a project for which ornamental  grasses were approved.  Ms. Keene confirmed the Board intends approve it because  the site is adequately landscaped with trees and shrubs.  7. Mr. Bouchard noted they have the permits identified in Mr. Wheeler’s letter.   Members agreed that there is compliance with city and state standards.  8. Mr. Bouchard showed how they will meet long and short‐term bike parking  standards.  They will include 6 interior long term “bike storage” spaces.  9. Mr. Bouchard said they will commit to the type of poles staff requires.  10. They will change one pole type so it will not be in danger of being hit by cars.  They  can put it on a higher concrete base.  Members were OK with this.    A member of the audience asked who will own the property and building.  Mr. Bouchard said  Pizzagalli will own both the property and building.  They will lease it to the UVM Medical  Center.      Ms. Zeller asked about construction timing.  Mr. Bouchard said they will build in the spring of   2019 and should complete the project the following spring.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐18‐19.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed unanimously.    11. Review Minutes of 19 June 2018:    Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 June 2018 as written.  Mr. Kochman seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 9  12. Continued sketch plan application #SD‐18‐16 of R.L. Vallee, Inc., to demolish an  existing hotel and a portion of an existing service station and create a planned unit  development consisting of an expanded service station with four additional fueling  positions for a total of 12 and associated 9,000 sq. foot retail sales building, 793  and 907 Shelburne Road:    Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.    Mr. Anderson felt there are issues that may or may not be resolved before addressing traffic.   They want a level of comfort before investing in addressing traffic.    Open issues were then addressed as follows:    1. Amount of pervious/open space: Mr. Anderson said they feel they can achieve this  with pervious pavers, but the Board asked for 30% open space.  The presented  concept has the space, but there are tanks underneath it.  2. Parking between the building and the street: Mr. Anderson showed a concept with  an outside open “porch”.  He said they are trying to preserve PUD options.  They  believe they meet the requirements.  He questioned whether they are required to  meet the “purpose statement” of the regulations.  Mr. Kochman did not agree with  the applicant’s definition of a “building.”  He read from the regulations indicating  that an “open structure” is not part of a building.  He felt it is a “carport,” and that a  building must be enclosed.  Mr. Anderson felt the Board can approve the design by  recognizing that the CWD easement and the difference in height from front to rear is  enough to allow the front parking.  Mr. Miller noted what CVS did to allow their  building.  He felt this situation is different as there the parking would be completely  visible while parking at CVS is at least partially screened and more difficult to see.   Mr. Wilking said he doesn’t agree with the rule, but it is the rule, and this does not  meet that rule.  3. Nonconformity: Mr. Miller said nonconformity is still a problem, and there is a  question as to whether this is an expansion of a use or a conversion of a use.  Mr.  Anderson said they feel that today the entirety of the property is used for a gas  station.  The grocery store they will put in is a conforming use by itself.  They  propose to continue to use the entirety of the property as a nonconformity.    Mr. Wilking raised the question of car repairs.  Mr. Anderson said the minor repairs  they do fall under “service station use” and not “car repair use.”  Ms. Keene said  staff’s position is that expanding from 8 to 12 fueling positions is expanding a  nonconforming use.  Mr. Anderson said they feel area is how you determine  expansion, not traffic.  He said the ordinance doesn’t say you use traffic to  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  17 JULY 2018  PAGE 10  determine changes of use.  He felt they are decreasing the square footage of the  structure that is devoted to the nonconforming use.  Mr. Behr read from a  publication by the applicant indicating the range of “major repairs” done at the  existing station.    Ms. Keene indicated that staff is not OK with the “porch” being used to meet the parking  standard.  Staff is also not OK with the notion that the utility easement precludes parking in the  rear.  Staff does not agree with the applicant’s notions regarding nonconformity.  Mr. Wilking  noted the issue of removing long‐term tenants from the “hotel” and losing affordable housing.      Due to the late hour members agreed to continue the application.    Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐18‐16 to 4 September 2018.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion  passed 6‐0.    11. Other Business:    No other business was discussed.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 11:10 p.m.    These  minutes were approved by the Board on ______.  #SD‐18‐21  Findings of Fact and Decision  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    BLACKBAY VENTURES VIII, LLC.   451, 465,481, 495 MARKET STREET  PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐18‐21  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    1 1 of 5  Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐18‐20 of Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC. to subdivide an existing  22.6 acre parcel into five (5) lots, ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 21.6 acres, 451 to 495 Market Street.    The  Development  Review  Board  held  a  public  hearing  on  Tuesday  August  7,  2018.    David  Shenk  represented the applicant.    Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting  materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds,  concludes, and decides the following:    FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The Project consists of subdividing a parcel into 5 lots.    2. The owner of record of the subject properties is South Burlington City Center, LLC.  3. The application was received on June 7, 2018.  4. The subject property is located in the Form Based Code District Transect Zone 4 and Transect  Zone 3.    5. The plans submitted consist of two (2) pages, including the following sheets.    P1  5 Lot Subdivision South Burlington City Center, Inc.  6/1/2018  P2  5 Lot Subdivision South Burlington City Center, Inc.  6/1/2018    6. The Sketch Plan application (#SD‐18‐20) for this project was heard by the Board on  July 17, 2018.      A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS       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.    There are no minimum lot dimensions within the T4 district.  The lot width, measured along the build‐ to‐line, must be between 70 feet and 120 feet within the T3 district.  Proposed Lots 1, 2 and 3 are  located fully within the T3 district and are 85 to 95 feet wide.  Lot 4 is located mostly within the T3  district, with the remainder located in the T4 district and is 120 feet wide.  Lot 5 is located within the  T4 district and will be further subdivided prior to development. Staff has no concerns with the  proposed lot dimensions.    The remainder of the district’s dimensional requirements pertain to buildings and parking and will be  reviewed administratively as part of the Form Based Code site plan approval process.        #SD‐18‐21  Findings of Fact and Decision 2 2 of 5  B) ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS    13.06 Landscaping, Screening and Street Trees  13.14 Bicycle Parking & Storage  13.17 Fences  13.18 Utility Cabinets    The applicant has provided a draft site plan for the purposes of showing how the development on Lots  1, 2, 3 and 4 is proposed to be generally configured.  The Board finds that the applicable standards of  Article 13 will be reviewed as part of the site plan application for the Form Based Code district.    C) 15.18 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PUDS, SUDVIDISIONS, TRANSECT ZONE SUBDIVISIONS AND MASTER  PLANS    Standards (1), (2), (6), and (7) pertain specifically to site design and are not applicable for review of  this subdivision.  (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to  prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely  on the findings of a traffic study submitted by  the applicant, and the findings of any  technical review by City staff or consultants.    The applicant is proposing to use an existing shared access drive for the purposes of providing  primary vehicular access to proposed Lots 1 through 4.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (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.    At this time, the applicant is not proposing any development for the subdivided parcels.  The  applicant has indicated that in the future, their intent is to develop Lots 1 through 4 with  buildings.  Lot 5 is involved in this application as the parent parcel, and plans for its future  development are unknown at this time.  The Board approved a conditional use application  (#CU‐18‐01) for the proposed wetland impacts of the overall development.  The Board finds  this proposed subdivision consistent with that application and considers this criterion met.    (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the  location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII  of these Regulations.   The Board finds the proposed transect zone subdivision creates lots which facilitate the type  of dense development prioritized for the Form Based Code district.  (6) 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  #SD‐18‐21  Findings of Fact and Decision 3 3 of 5  services  and  infrastructure  to adjacent  properties.  For  Transect  Zone  subdivisions,  this  standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.    The Board finds the proposed road type and configuration compatible with the official map.    (7) Not applicable within Transect Zone subdivisions.    (8) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific  agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City  Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and  type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.    The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 7/6/2018 and had no concerns.  The Board  finds this criterion met.    (9) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the  affected district(s).    The Project is located in the Central District.  The objectives of the central district pertain to  creation of a City Center with a strong identity and mix of uses, including residential and non‐ residential  uses,  open  spaces  areas,  and  centralized  stormwater  management  features.   Emphasis is given to promotion of interconnectivity which will result in minimizing parking  demand.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (10) 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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard  shall  apply  only  to  the  location of  natural  resources  identified in Article XII of these  Regulations.    The Board approved a conditional use application (#CU‐18‐01) for the proposed wetland  impacts for the overall development.  The applicant is proposing to lay out the lots in such a  way that the stormwater management system for the proposed development will be located  on a stormwater easement on Lot 5.  Stormwater will be piped to the proposed stormwater  management system.  The Board finds this criterion met.     DECISION    Motion by ___ seconded by ___ to approve Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐21 of Blackbay  Ventures VIII, LLC., subject to the following stipulations:     1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.     2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the  South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.     #SD‐18‐21  Findings of Fact and Decision 4 4 of 5  3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the  Administrative Officer. Three (3) complete copies of the approved revised plan set and one  electronic copy must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat  plan.   a. Provide the signature of the land surveyor    4. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services,  and service modifications must be underground.    5. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of  the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the  standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.    6. Any changes to the final plat plan will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review  Board.     7. The final plat plans (Sheets P1 and P2) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this  approval is null and void. The plats shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording.      8. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plat must be delivered to the Administrative  Officer before recording the final plat plan.    9. A digital file consisting of an ArcGIS or AutoCAD formatted file of the proposed subdivision, including  property lines, easements, and rights of way, either georeferenced or shown in relation to four  easily identifiable fixed points such as manholes, utility poles or hydrants, must be provided to the  Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plan. The format of the digital information shall  require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator.    10. The mylars must be recorded prior to zoning permit issuance.     Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Frank Kochman    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Bill Miller    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Jennifer Smith    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Brian Sullivan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  John Wilking    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present    Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _       Signed this ___ day of August 2018, by      _____________________________________  Bill Miller, Chair    PLEASE NOTE:  An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this  decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail with the Superior Court,  #SD‐18‐21  Findings of Fact and Decision 5 5 of 5  Environmental Division.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal also must be mailed to  the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South  Burlington, VT 05403.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A).  Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐ 951‐1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental   for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.      The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state  permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.      222 Dorset St.n/f3N-SB, LLC Vol. 1366 Pg. 92 Ref. Plan F 5 Market St.n/fPoon Trust, LLC Vol. 705 Pg. 450Ref. Plan D South Burlington City Center, LLC Vol. 853 Pg. 222 Ref. Plans A-D 150 Dorset St. n/fDorset St. Associates Vol. 194 Pg. 77, Vol. 260 Pg. 120 Ref. Plan E Proposed South BurlingtonCity Center, LLC Vol. 853 Pg. 222Ref. Plans A-D "The Venue""Blue Mall" 6 Iby St. 505 Market Street BlackbayVentures VIII, LLCV. 1192 P. 45 Ref. Plat J 8 Iby St. n/fM.F. Moore Vol. 1290 Pg. 203 4 Iby St. 12 Iby St. n/fBranch Trust Vol. 779 Pg. 121 14 Iby St.n/fM. Druzba Vol. 1381 Pg. 30 16 Iby St. n/f W. Gerlack Vol. 1378Pg. 211 18 Iby St. n/fB. Gerlack Vol. 1353 Pg. 308 8 0 ' W i d e C i t y R .O .W V . 6 8 7 P . 1 4 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) South Burlington City Center, LLC Vol. 853 Pg. 222 South Burlington City Center, LLC Vol. 853 Pg. 222 200 Dorset St. 59 Garden St. n/f3N-SB, LLC Vol. 1366 Pg. 922 Ref. Plan F 26 Iby St. n/f C. & M. Druzba Vol. 1278 Pg. 292 28 Iby St. n/fBurns Vol. 179 Pg. 518 10 Iby St. n/fHavers Vol. 1342 Pg. 336 22 Iby St.n/fStanley Trust Vol. 951 Pg. 168 24 Iby St. n/fMenard Vol. 91 Pg. 204 16 San Remo Dr. n/fBanchard & Sons Garage, Inc. Vol. 141 Pg. 50 4 San Remo Dr. n/f AOS Realty LLC Vol. 479 Pg. 402 60 12 Barrett St.n/f Barret Park LLC Vol. 1335 Pg. 200 "Future Street" per Ref. Map L Volume 287, Pages 213 & 215 City of South Burlington Vol. 121 Pg. 126 2 Iby St. 4 6 2 ' ± 1 0 0 ' ± 4 6 1 ' ±50' ± 5 0 ' ± 50' ±195' ±198' ± 248' ± 181' ±65' ±183' ±173' ±88' ±N 07°28'58" W95.69'50' ±54' ±to Hinesburg Rd t o D o r s e t S t . To C e ntr al S c h o ol "Healthy Living" Capped 58"Rebar 0.4' AG L.S. 07/272 2" Iron Pipe 0.9' AG 1" Iron Pipe 0.7' BG Conc. Mon. 0.4' BG REFERENCE PLAT J 984,000 Sq. Feet 22.589 Acres (Lot area shown does notreflect anyfuture/proposed lot linesor conditions) Total Parcel Remaining 21.62 Acres N 80°05'43"E 19.66' N 07°32'21"W 5.00' S 82°08'53"W 22.13' 6ƒ     :20.0'64.51'6ƒ (65.70'1   ƒ      : 1 2 0 . 3 4 ' 6ƒ :151.45 LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4 Proposed Stormwater Easement to Benefit Lots 1-4 and 505 Market Street See Sheet P2 for Lots 1-4 Less 0.97 Acres conveyed L = 2 0 5 ' ± 113 Hinesburg Rd.Chastenay Estates, Inc. V. 801 P. 357 Ref. Plat E N 82°02'46" E 374.80' N 82°09'02" E 676.83' N 82°14'17" E 238.40' 14'± 6ƒ : 5.00' 7'± 18113 1" = 100' JUNE 01, 2018 TRC/JLM RG 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com 10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. A C E LOCATION MAP NOT to SCALE P1 South Burlington City Center, Inc. Market Street South Burlington, Vermont 5 Lot Subdivision RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF __________, 20_____. ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY/TOWN CLERK APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE _____ DAY OF _____________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______. BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON To the best of my knowledge and belief this plat depicts the results of a survey conducted by me as described in "Survey Notes" above, based upon our analysis of land records and evidence found in the field. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance with the records, except as noted. This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403, "Recording of Land Plats". This statement valid only when accompanied by my original signature and seal. ____________________________________________________ Rebecca Gilson VT LS 109314 - Survey Notes - 1.Purpose of this Plat is to Subdivide 4 lots from an existing parcel of land deeded to South Burlington City Center, LLC bgy Quit Claim deed dated January 30, 2009 recorded vol. 853 Pg. 222 and shown on ref. plans D and K. Other neighboring property lines and buildings shown MAY be approximate only, and are shown for information purposes only. 2.Field survey was conducted Winter 2018 and consists of a closed-loop traverse utilizing a robotic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations on or adjacent to the site (Reference Frame NAD83 (2011, Epoch 2010)). 3.Closed loop traverse was run around Proposed Lots 1-4. Parcel geometry for the remaining lands of South Burlington City Center, LLC were taken from Reference Plat D and K. 4.Iron pipes shown as “found” are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods with outside diameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods and markers found are "good" unless otherwise noted. Corners denoted “Proposed” typically consist of 5/8” diameter rebar capped with aluminum disks stamped “Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597”, and typically set flush with existing grade. 5.Easements existing outside of the subdivision area are not shown for the purposes of this plat. 6.Not being within the scope of this survey, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. has conducted no investigation whatsoever respecting whether or not the property and each component thereof is in compliance with state or local permits. 7.Parcels lie in the Form Based Code T3 district and the Transit Overlay District. PROJECT LOCATION A."Land to be Purchased from McKenzie Estate by the Ver-Mada Corp.", circa 1968. Preparer unknown. Recorded (formerly) in Vol. 80, Page 99 of South Burlington Land Records [SBLR]. B."Corporate Circle ...South Burlington Realty Corp. ...Property Data", dated April 1981, prepared by Webster-Martin, Inc. Not of Record. C."Center Place ... Site Plan", last revised May 26, 1992, prepared by Fitzpatrick-Llewellyn, Inc. Map Slide 248.0, SBLR. D."Corporate Circle ... South Burlington Realty Corp. ... Property Plat", last revised May 27, 1992, prepared by Webster-Martin, Inc. Map Slide 248.1, SBLR. E."Preliminary Plat of Survey - South Burlington Central School", (Project 03261) dated May 12, 2004, by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Not of Record. F."Plan of Lots - Section A-A - Portion of Mary McKenzie", dated March 21, 1950, by F. Lafayette. Map Slide 25.4, SBLR. G."Plan of Lots - Portion of Estate - Mary McKenzie", undated , by Unknown. Map Slide 75.3, SBLR. H."Plan of Property of Harry & Carrie Barrett", dated July 5, 1946, by Hoag - Stone & Associates. Map Slide 4. I."Edmund A. & Stella G. Chastenay Property", dated January 1982 by W.A. Robenstien. Map Slide 119. J."Boundary Adjustment Plat for: Black Bay Ventures VIII, LLC and South Burlington City Center, Inc." last revised 4/1/2015, by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. Map Slide 585.1. K."Subdivision Plat; Malone Dorset Street Properties, LLC", dated January 28, 2014 by Summit Engineering, Inc. Map Slide 575.1. L."Proposed Park, So. Burlington, VT.; Owner: Dumont Const. Co.", dated January 29, 1974, by Stephen Page. Map Slide 101.6. M."Plat of Survey for the City of South Burlington", dated February 11, 1975 by Willis Engineering Associates, Inc. Map Slide 103.1. N."Revised Plan of Lots; Sunnyview Development Section "B"; Owned by Harry & Carrie Barrett", dated July 6, 1953 by Hoag & Associates Inc. Map Slide 11.4. O."Plat Showing A Survey of Lands of City of South Burlington", dated July 14, 2015 by LaRose Surveys, P.C. Map Slide 620. P."S. Burlington - Market Street; STP 5200(17)", dated October 11, 2017, by VHB, sheets 3, 6-10. Map Slides 618.5, 619.2-619.6. SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LINE - Referenced Plats or Plans - - Legend - CALCULATED POINT NOW OR FORMERLY ABOVE GRADE/BELOW GRADE CAPPED REBAR PROPOSED n/f AG/BG P:\AutoCADD Projects\2018\18113\1-CADD Files-18113\Dwg\18113 PLAT.dwg, 6/5/2018 3:12:54 PM, mburke S W W WS D D G G ST ST ST ST ST ST ST S S S S S W W W W W S S S G G G UE UE UE UE UEUE 6 Iby St. 8 Iby St. n/fM.F.Moore Vol. 1290 Pg. 203 12 Iby St. n/fBranch Trust Vol. 779 Pg. 121 14 Iby St. n/fM. Druzba Vol. 1381 Pg. 30 16 Iby St.n/fW. Gerlack Vol. 1378 Pg. 211 18 Iby St. n/f B. Gerlack Vol. 1353Pg. 308 80' Wide City R.O.W V. 6 8 7 P . 1 4 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 10 Iby St. n/fHavers Vol. 1342 Pg. 336 22 Iby St.n/fStanleyTrust Vol. 951 Pg. 168 24 Iby St. n/f Menard Vol. 91 Pg. 204 N 07°28'58" W95.69'2" Iron Pipe 0.9' AG 1" Iron Pipe 0.7' BG Conc. Mon. 0.4' BG N 80°05'43"E 19.66' N 07°32'21"W 5.00' S 82°08'53"W 22.13'94.22'94.69'95.16'EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING PARKING LOT6ƒ :147.41'1ƒ (1ƒ ( 85.20'95.09' 1ƒ ( 85.20' 1ƒ ( 161.85' N 89°26'04" W 100.16' (TIE) MARKET STREET LOT 1LOT 2LOT 3LOT 4 1ƒ :1ƒ :1ƒ :0.208 ac.0.186 ac.0.185 ac.0.394 ac. L = 2 0 5 ' ± 6ƒ :85.20'6ƒ :85.20'19.47'6ƒ :R=340.0' L=100.53' 1ƒ ( 62.38' 14'± 6ƒ : 5.00' E1 E2 E3 PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDINGPROPOSED BUILDING E4 FENCE LINE CRP CRP CRP CRPCRPCRP CRP CRP CRP 6ƒ :95.26' 18113 1" = 30' JUNE 1, 2018 TRC/JLM RG 802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com 10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. A C E LOCATION MAP NOT to SCALE P2 Market Street South Burlington, Vermont RECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF __________, 20_____. ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY/TOWN CLERK APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE _____ DAY OF _____________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______. BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON To the best of my knowledge and belief this plat depicts the results of a survey conducted by me as described in "Survey Notes" above, based upon our analysis of land records and evidence found in the field. Existing boundaries shown are in substantial conformance with the records, except as noted. This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA 1403, "Recording of Land Plats". This statement valid only when accompanied by my original signature and seal. ____________________________________________________ Rebecca Gilson VT LS 109314 - Survey Notes - 1.Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only. Buried utilities shown are depicted based solely on surface indications. Actual locations may vary. Contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2.Gas and Water service for lots 1-4 to be accessed though public right of way. 3.Reference is made to a plan entitled "Blackbay Ventures VIII, LLC 12 Unit Housing Project Lower Market Street South Burlington VT" prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 4.Reference is made to a plan entitled "S. Burlington - Market Street" dated 10/11/2017 prepared by vhb recorded in slide. 618 pg. 5 and slide 619 pg. 2-6 PROJECT LOCATION SUBJECT PROPERTY LINE IRON ROD/PIPE FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LINE - Legend - CALCULATED POINT NOW OR FORMERLY ABOVE GRADE/BELOW GRADE CAPPED REBAR PROPOSED n/f AG/BG South Burlington City Center, Inc. 5 Lot Subdivision G ST S W UE PROPOSED ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, CABLE PROPOSED GAS PROPOSED STORM PROPOSED GRAVITY SEWER PROPOSED WATER - Easement Notes - Proposed 10' Sanitary Sewer Easement for installation and maintenance to benefit lots 1-4 Proposed 10' Electrical and Communications Easement for installation and maintenance to benefit lots 1-4 Proposed 10' stormwater Easement for installation and maintenance to benefit lots 1-4 and 505 Market Street Proposed 30' wide Easement to benefit lots 1-4 and 505 Market Street for Ingress and Egress E1 E2 E3 E4 EXISTING FENCE LINE P:\AutoCADD Projects\2018\18113\1-CADD Files-18113\Dwg\18113 PLAT.dwg, 6/5/2018 3:23:36 PM, mburke 1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐22_321 325 Dorset St_Mitchwartz_Sk_2018‐08‐ 07.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: August 3, 2018  Plans received: July 3, 2018  321 and 325 Dorset St  Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐22  Meeting date: August 7, 2018  Owner/Applicant  MITCHWARTZ Properties, LLC  329 Dorset St  South Burlington, VT 05403    Engineer  Trudell Consulting Engineers  478 Blair Park Rd  Williston, VT 05495  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0570‐00321 and 0570‐00325  Form Based Code District Transect Zone 4, Transit Overlay District  0.17 acres each parcel  Location Map          2  PROJECT DESCRPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐22 of Mitchwartz Properties, LLC to combine two lots into one lot for the  purpose of constructing a project on the combined parcel, which will be reviewed under separate site  plan application, 321 and 325 Dorset Street.    CONTEXT    The Applicant is proposing to combine two existing parcels into one lot in preparation for development  on the resulting lot.  The development of the resulting lot will be subject to administrative review through  the Form Based Code process.  The DRB is responsible for review of subdivisions within the Form Based  Code district to ensure that the proposed lots are legal and developable.  Therefore these staff comments  focus on those elements of the proposed subdivision and omits discussion of the proposed development  except as relevant to the DRB’s authority.  The applicant has submitted  a  conceptual  site  plan  demonstrating how they may develop the subdivided parcels.  This plan is to facilitate Board review and  approval of the subdivision does not require the applicant to construct their project in conformance with  the conceptual site plan.     COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as  Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments.    A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS  There are no minimum lot dimensions within the T4 district.  No new blocks or streets are proposed.    The remainder of the district’s dimensional requirements pertain to buildings and parking and will be  reviewed administratively as part of the Form Based Code site plan approval process.    B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS  Access  Staff considers the proposed parcel consolidation does not affect access to the parcels.  Further, Staff  considers the applicant’s intended future closure of the existing curb cut on Dorset Street in favor of the  singular use of the existing curb cut on Brookwood Drive consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s  characterization of Dorset Street as a Collector Road and Brookwood Drive as a Local Road.    Wetlands, streams and wildlife habitat  There is a stream channel and associated buffer located north of the property.  The buffers associated  with these features do not extend onto the subject property.      Consistency with Comprehensive Plan  The Project is located in the Central District.  The objectives of the central district pertain to creation of a  City Center with a strong identity and mix of uses, including residential and non‐residential uses, open  spaces areas, and centralized stormwater management features.  Emphasis is given to promotion of  interconnectivity which will result in minimizing parking demand.      3  Fire protection  The acting Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/30/2018 and had no concerns.    Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting  The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 7/31/2018 and had no concerns.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the meeting.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   MS‐18‐03 1730 Hinesburg Road Miscellaneous Application    DATE:    August 7, 2018   Development Review Board meeting      Elizabeth Pierce has submitted miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐03 to confirm the presence and salability of  Transfer Development Rights on lots A, B and C, 1731 Hinesburg Road.    Staff has prepared draft findings for this application.  Additional contextual information is included in this  memorandum and in the cover letter prepared by the applicant.    Parcels A, B and C are shown on the below location map.  The parcels are separated by Hinesburg Road which  runs north to south, and Cheesefactory Road, which runs east to west.        MS‐18‐03  2   All parcels share a common parcel ID therefore are distinguished by the letters A, B and C for the purpose of  this application.    Parcels A and C are located entirely within the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection (SEQ‐NRP)  district, while Parcel B is located partially within the SEQ‐NRP and partially within the Southeast Quadrant  Neighborhood Residential (SEQ‐NR) district.  Parcels A and C, and the portion of Parcel B in the SEQ‐NRP are  sending areas, while the portion of Parcel B located within the SEQ‐NR district is a receiving area in the  Regulations’ transfer of development rights (TDR) program.    According to LDR Section 9.05, all parcels within the Southeast Quadrant have an inherent base density of 1.2  units per acre.  Parcels within the SEQ‐NR district may be developed with a maximum of four units per acre  subject to the purchase of development rights from another parcel as described in LDR Section 9.13(C).    The owner has removed 104 development rights from Parcel A in two separate transactions in 2009 and 2015.   The owner has not removed or added any other development rights from the subject parcels.  A summary of  development rights for each parcel is provided below.    Table 1: Development Rights by Parcel  Parcel  A  B  C  Size (ac) 193.90  116.14  67.82  Size Basis1 survey plat  tax map  tax map  Base Development Rights /  Inherent Density 233  139  81  Development Rights Sold 104  0  0  Development Rights Remaining 129  139  81  Approximate Acres in SEQ‐NR  ‐‐  47.6  ‐‐  Maximum Units in SEQ‐NR  ‐‐  190  ‐‐  1. Tax map parcel sizes are approximate. Calculations of development rights and maximum allowable units are  based on tax map parcel sizes and are only as accurate as the tax map parcel size itself.    The applicant has indicated that the subject properties are being sold for the purpose of permanent  conservation.  To support this goal, they have made three requests.    1. That the Development Review Board recognize the number of development rights on each of the subject  properties.    Staff considers that the applicant has accurately represented the number of development rights  available in connection with parcels B and C, but that their survey plat shows 193.90 acres for Parcel A,  representing 233 base development rights.  Their table inaccurately represents that the survey of  Parcel A states that it is 191.35 acres, yielding an inaccurate estimate of development rights.  Staff  considers that based on the available parcel data, Parcel A has 129 available development rights, Parcel  B 139 development rights, and Parcel C 81 development rights.    2. That the DRB recognize that the properties will continue to have the same transferable development  rights after the properties are sold.    MS‐18‐03  3 Staff considers the development rights are not affected by sale of the property.    3. That the DRB approve in advance the future allocation and transfer of the development rights from Lot  A and C to Lot B as follows.    Table 2: Applicant's Desired Transfer  Parcel A  B  C  Available Development Rights1 129  139  81  Development Rights to be Retained 3  139  3  Development Rights to Parcel B 126  ‐‐  78  Resulting Development Rights 3  343  3  1. Based on corrected value from table above.    Staff considers development rights removed from a parcel to be owned by an individual.  The LDRs do not allow  the assignment of development rights to another parcel for which there is no development application.   Therefore, the applicant may transfer the proposed number of development rights from Parcels A and C to the  owner of Parcel B.  The LDRs permit Parcel B to be developed with a maximum of 190 dwelling units as noted in  the table above.  The owner of Parcel B may not use on Parcel B all the development rights transferred from  Parcels A and C, but there is no restriction on their ownership.  Staff therefore recommends the Board affirm  that the owners of Parcels A and C may remove the proposed number of development rights from Parcels A  and C, but the conveyance of those development rights to another person or entity does not require Board  approval.     In addition to the three requests pertaining to development rights accounting above, the applicant has also  requested the Board recommend the City Council approve substitution of conservation restrictions required by  the City to be imposed on Parcel A in connection with the removal of development rights from Parcel A in 2009  and 2015 with alternative restrictions provided by the Vermont Land Trust (VLT). The City attorney has  compared the two sets of conservation restrictions and considers the VLT restrictions to be sufficiently  protective to meet the conservation requirements of 9.13C(1)(a).  Staff recommends the Board include a  statement of this recommendation in their findings of fact for this decision.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.   #MS‐18‐03  1    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    ELIZABETH C PIERCE – 1731 HINESBURG ROAD  MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS‐18‐03  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐03 of Elizabeth Pierce to confirm the presence and salability of  Transfer Development Rights on lots A, B and C, 1731 Hinesburg Road.    The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 7, 2018. The applicant was represented  by Brandon Bless.    Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development  Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:    FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The applicant, Elizabeth Pierce, seeks to confirm the presence and salability of Transfer  Development Rights on lots A, B and C at 1731 Hinesburg Road.    2. The subject parcel ID is 0860‐01731.    3. The application was received on July 6, 2018.    4. The parcel is located in the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection (SEQ‐NRP) and  Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential (SEQ‐NR) Districts.  5. No plans were submitted with the application.  6. All parcels share a common parcel ID therefore are distinguished by the letters A, B and C for the  purpose of this application.    7. Parcels A and C are located entirely within the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection  (SEQ‐NRP) district, while Parcel B is located partially within the SEQ‐NRP and partially within the  Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential (SEQ‐NR) district.  Parcels A, C, and the portion of B  in the SEQ‐NRP are sending areas, while the portion of Parcel B located within the SEQ‐NR district is  a receiving area in the Regulations’ transfer of development rights (TDR) program.  8. According to LDR Section 9.05, all parcels within the Southeast Quadrant have an inherent base  density of 1.2 units per acre.  Parcels within the SEQ‐NR district may be developed with a maximum  of four units per acre subject to the purchase of development rights from another parcel as  described in LDR Section 9.13(C).  9. At this time, 73 development rights have been sold from Parcel A to Dorset Street Associates, LLC  and 31 development rights have been sold from Parcel A to Rye Associates, LLC.  No other  #MS‐18‐03  2    development rights on the subject properties have been bought or sold at this time.  A summary of  development rights for each parcel is provided below.    Parcel  A  B  C  Size (ac)  193.90  116.14  67.82  Size Basis1  survey plat  tax map  tax map  Base Development Rights /  Inherent Density 233  139  81  Development Rights Sold  104  0  0  Development Rights Remaining  129  139  81  Approximate Acres in SEQ‐NR  ‐‐  47.6  ‐‐  Maximum Units in SEQ‐NR  ‐‐  190  ‐‐  1. Tax map parcel sizes are approximate. Calculations of development rights and maximum allowable  units are based on tax map parcel sizes and are only as accurate as the tax map parcel size itself.    10. Based on the available parcel data tabulated above, Parcel A has 129 available development rights,  Parcel B 139 development rights, and Parcel C 81 development rights.    11. Prior to transfer of development rights from Lots B or C, a survey should be confirmed to determine  the actual area of the parcel, which governs the number of available development rights.    12. Further based on the data tabulated above, the area of Lot B within the neighborhood residential  district is approximately 47.8 acres, and Parcel B has a maximum allowable density of 190 units.    13. Development rights are not affected by sale of the property.    14. Any or all available development rights may be transferred from Lot A and from Lot C to the owner  of Lot B.  The owner of lot B may be in possession of development rights which exceed the  maximum development potential of Lot B.  Development rights may be transferred at any time by  recording a legal document that meets the conditions of LDR Section 19.13C with the City Clerk.    15. The Board, with recommendation of the City Attorney, supports the applicant’s request that City  Council approve the substitution of Vermont Land Trust (VLT) conservation restrictions on Lot A’s  previously‐sold development rights for the City’s conservation restrictions.  The Board finds the  proposed VLT restrictions are protective enough to meet the conservation requirements of  9.13C(1)(a).          #MS‐18‐03  3    DECISION    Motion by __, seconded by __, to approve miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐03 of Elizabeth Pierce,  subject to the following conditions:    1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full  effect.    2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in  the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.    3. Any change to the plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review  Board or Administrative Officer.     4. The Development Review Board makes the following determinations with regard to the subject  properties:    a. Based on the available parcel data, Parcel A has 129 available development rights,  Parcel B 139 development rights, and Parcel C 81 development rights.    b. The number of available development rights on each parcel will not be affected by sale  of the parcels, unless the sale explicitly includes conditions affecting the development  rights.    c. The applicant may transfer any number up to the maximum available development  rights from Lot A and Lot C to any other entity.  The transferred development rights may  be used on any parcel up to the maximum allowable density of that parcel under the  land development regulations applicable at the time.  Unused transferred development  rights may be retained by a property owner without affecting the conserved status of  the sending lands.     5. The Board recommends that City Council approve the substitution of Vermont Land Trust (VLT)  conservation restrictions on Lot A’s previously‐transferred development rights for the City’s  conservation restrictions.        Mark Behr    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Matt Cota    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Frank Kochman    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Bill Miller    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Jennifer Smith    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Brian Sullivan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  John Wilking    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present    Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _     Signed this ____ day of August, 2018, by  #MS‐18‐03  4          _____________________________________  Bill Miller, Chair    Please note:  An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this  decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental  Division.  See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b).  A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South  Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403.  See  V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A).  Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐828‐1660 or  http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing  requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.    The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state  permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.      575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐18‐18 68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd     DATE:    July 17, 2018   Development Review Board meeting      Catamount/Middlebury, LLC has submitted final plat application #SD‐18‐01 for resubdivision of 68 Nesti Drive  and 1795 Shelburne Road.    At the June 19, 2018 Development Review Board meeting, the applicant requested that the hearing be  continued.  The Board continued the hearing to August 7.  No new materials have been submitted.  The packet  includes staff comments and plans prepared for the June 19 hearing.    SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐18_68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd_Catamount  Middlebury_Final_2018‐06‐19.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: June 15, 2018  Plans received: May 18, 2018  68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd  Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐18  Meeting date: June 19, 2018  Owner/Applicant  Catamount/Middlebury, LLC  210 College Street, Suite 201  Burlington, VT 05401  Engineer  Civil Engineering Associates  10 Mansfield View Ln  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel 1215‐0068, 1540‐1785, 1540‐1795  Commercial 2 Zoning District  12.96 acres, 1.77 acres, 1.23 acres      Location Map          SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  2  PROJECT DESCRPTION    Final plat application #SD‐18‐01 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC for review of a resubdivision, 68 Nesti  Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road.      PERMIT HISTORY    In 2011, Catamount/Middlebury, LLC obtained Site Plan Approval to add an access drive connection for  68 Nesti Drive through 1795 Shelburne Road (#SP‐11‐48).  At that time, the applicant was not proposing  construction of pavement or curb cuts.  The conditions of that approval stipulated that site plan approval  from the DRB was needed prior to constructing the access connection, and that a zoning permit was  needed within six (6) months in order for the easement approval to remain valid.  The applicant did not  obtain a zoning permit and thus the approval for an easement lapsed.      The Board reviewed the sketch plan application for the re‐subdivision on February 6, 2018.  At that time  the proposed subdivision created a problem with lot coverage.  The Board also identified concerns with  the proposed shape of the lot.     CONTEXT    The subdivision includes a proposed reconfiguration of the two parcels in order to provide frontage on  Shelburne Road for 68 Nesti Drive.  The applicant has also indicated that they intend to reconfigure the  driveway  for  1795  Shelburne  Road  to  provide  access  to  68  Nesti Drive at a future time.  Access  improvements will be addressed in separate site plan applications for the two properties.  The frontage  for 68 Nesti Drive on Shelburne Road would allow the 68 Nesti Drive property to have a sign on Shelburne  Road.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as  Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments.    SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  3  A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS  Since the sketch plan application for this Project, the Land Development Regulations have changed.   The required front yard setback on Shelburne  Road is now  twenty  (20) feet, which affects  the  properties’ front setback coverage.    Commercial 2 Required Existing  68 Nesti Dr  Proposed  68 Nesti Dr  Existing 1785  & 1795  Shelburne Rd  Proposed  1785 & 1795  Shelburne Rd  Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft.  531,065 sq.  ft.  545,475 sq. ft.  128,040 sq.  ft.  113,635 sq.  ft.  Max. Building  Coverage  40%  10%  9.7%  8%  8.9%  Max. Overall  Coverage  70%  28%  27.7%  51%  56.1%   Max. Front  Setback Coverage  30%  10% Nesti  Dr, 0%  Shelburne  Rd  10% Nesti Dr,  14.5% Shelburne  Rd  23%  29.4%  Min. Front  Setback1  30 ft. from  Nesti Dr, 20  ft. from  Shelburne Rd  151 ft. from  Nesti Dr  No change from  Nesti Dr, 385 ft.  from Shelburne  Rd  38 ft.  No change  Min. Side  Setback  10 ft.  61 ft.  No change  12 ft.  No change  Min. Rear  Setback1  30 ft.  683 ft.  N/A 2  62 ft.  78 ft.  Building Height  (flat roof)  35 ft.  Unknown    No change     Unknown  No change   Proposed to be in compliance  1. Estimated by staff  2. Proposed subdivision creates a lot with no rear yard      5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts  C.   Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation  (1)   Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the  presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance (defined as  no further than one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts). Any requirements  for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal agreements acceptable to  the City Attorney.  (2)   Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number  of curb cuts onto the public roadway.  (3)   Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.  Staff considers the compliance of the property at 68 Nesti Drive with this standard is potentially  problematic.  The proposed subdivision creates a new front side to the property.  First, there is existing  parking located between the new front and Shelburne Road.  This parking is existing and can be  allowed to continue, but may not be expanded in the future.  Second, if the applicant proposes a  SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  4  second building on the property, the parking may not be located between the building and Shelburne  Road or between the building and Nesti Drive.  The available exceptions to allow parking in the front  do not apply to properties in the Commercial 2 zoning district.      1. Staff recommends the Board discuss the non‐conforming parking and the challenges it presents to  future development with the applicant.    B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS    15.10 Lot Layout  A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land  development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils and drainage conditions.    The proposed lot line crosses a stream and stream buffer area, dividing ownership of the stream  buffer between two properties.  The configuration is in response to the Board’s previous comment  about the proposed lot line creating an unevenly divided stream buffer.  The proposed lot line  approximately splits the wetland buffer between the two properties, creating a situation of shared  responsibility for the stream health.      Further, as discussed above Staff has concerns that the proposed subdivision creates challenges  regarding parking for future development of the lot.    2. Staff  recommends  the  Board  review  this  configuration.    Staff’s concerns  with  this  configuration  pertaining to parking are discussed above.    15.18A General Standards    (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.  No changes to the use of the site are proposed.  Staff considers this criterion met.  (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  may  rely  on  evidence  that  the  project  will  be  covered  under  the  General  Permit  for  Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.  No construction is proposed.  Staff considers this criterion met.  (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.  Though the applicant has indicated an eventual desire to modify the access and circulation patterns  for the site, no changes are proposed as part of this application.  Staff considers the future potential  SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  5  connection between parcels will need to be closely reviewed as it pertains to impacts to access and  circulation on Shelburne Road.  (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,  wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features  on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these  Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the  Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.  The wetland delineation was updated in spring of 2018.  Staff considers that the stream buffer itself  is not proposed to be impacted by development but that stream corridor of Bartlett Brook is bisected  by the proposed lot line.      (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the  location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII  of these Regulations.   Staff considers that the proposed lot line creates a triangular flag lot geometry which is inconsistent  with the geometry of other parcels within the vicinity.  At the sketch plan hearing, the Board discussed  the configuration with the applicant and indicated though they would prefer a different configuration  more consistent with the surrounding parcels, they would accept the proposed configuration with  some modifications.  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.  For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural  resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be  dedicated to the City of South Burlington.  The alignment of the proposed property line along the center of the stream buffer further restricts  development  within  the  stream  buffer  by  making  it  subject  to  lot  setback  requirements.    Staff  considers this criterion met.  (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to  insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval  including,  but  not  be  limited  to,  minimum  distance  between  structures,  street  width,  vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and  pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall  be  designed  and  installed  in  accordance  with  applicable  codes  in  all  areas  served  by  municipal water. This standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions.  The Acting Fire Chief reviewed the plans on June 7, 2018 and indicated he had no comments on the  proposed subdivision.  (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.  For  Transect  Zone  subdivisions,  this  standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.  SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  6  No site changes are proposed as part of this application.  Staff  considers  the  future  potential  connection between parcels will need to be closely reviewed as it pertains to impacts to stormwater  facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and landscaping.    (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific  agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City  Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and  type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.  The Director of Public Works reviewed this project on June 7, 2018 and has no comments on the  proposed subdivision.  He notes that the Project will be required to provide a Letter of Intent from  VTrans prior to obtaining site plan approval to reconfigure the Shelburne Road access driveway.    (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the  affected district(s).  The objectives of the Southwest Quadrant as described in the Comprehensive Plan include among  others  promotion  of  higher‐density,  mixed  use  development  and  redevelopment  and  effective  transitions  to  adjacent  residential  areas,  improving  local  neighborhood  connections,  promoting  access to Lake Champlain.  Staff considers the proposed subdivision neither supports nor detracts  from the objectives identified in the Comprehensive Plan.  (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard  shall  apply  only  to  the  location of  natural  resources  identified in Article XII of these  Regulations.  No site changes are proposed as part of this application.  Staff  considers  the  future  potential  connection between parcels will need to be reviewed as it pertains to impacts to impacts.  The Project  is required to comply with erosion control standards described in Article 16 even if it does not require  a State General Permit for Construction.     C) SITE PLAN STANDARDS  Pursuant to Section 5.08A, development within the Commercial 2 district shall be subject to site plan  review.    There is no construction proposed as part of the project.  However, the proposed subdivision does change  the characteristics of the site as they pertain to the lot.  Future changes to the site access will require Site  Plan approval.    3. Staff  recommends  the  Board  include  the  requirement  to  obtain  site  plan  approval  for  the  two  properties with the reconfigured lot lines prior to recording the mylar for this subdivision.    As no building improvements are proposed, no additional landscaping is required as part of this subdivision.   When the applicant submits for site plan review, they will be required to either plant landscaping to match  what was represented on the prior site plan approval or provide a proposed replacement plan for the  SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  7  landscaping which was approved as part of prior site plan approval, as well as provide landscaping in  accordance with the schedule in Table 13‐9 if building expansions are proposed.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner      SSSGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGUEUEUEUEUEUECLASS IIIWETLAND50'BUFFER ZONE50' STREAMBUFFE R Z ONE EXISTINGDUMPSTEREXISTINGRECYCLING BIN10' EL. EASE.GMP CORP.20' WATER EASE.END 40' UNRESTRICTEDNON-EXCLUSIVE R.O.W &EASEMENT50' EASEMENT20' WATER EASE.50'CLASS IIWETLANDBUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFER PERCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONZONING REGULATIONS(CLASS III WETLANDS)EXISTING CONC BASEFOR PRIOR SIGNLOCATIONEX. STORMWATERTREATMENT POND135 PAVEMENTCROSSESLOT LINECONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALK125135135135135152 146146145144EXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLC68 NESTI DRIVE1693 SHELBURNE RD., LLC1693 SHELBUNRE RD CHAMP CAR CARE CENTER(WEST) INC.1801 SHELBURNE RD1835 REALTY, LLC1835 SHELBUNRE RDBURLINGTON SELFSTORAGE, LLC123 NESTI DRIVE"SHELBURNE ROAD" - U.S. ROUTE 7RR MAIN LINEWIRE R.O.W. FENCEC.L. VELCO TRANSMISSION LINEVELCO EASE.RR SIDINGFENCECONCRETERETAINING WALL15" CMP15" CMPEX-CBRIM= 139.4INV. OUT= 135.3EX-DMHRIM= 142.0INV= 134.2±EX-DMHRIM= 141.14INV. IN= 135.29INV. OUT= 134.84EX-CBRIM= 140.94INV.= 136.5915" CMPINV.= 133.115" CMPINV.= 131.78" D.I.12" CMP GGGGGGGGGGGG6"6"6"1"1"2"2"1""3/4"3/46"6"2"GG2"2"EX. CBRIM = 139.5INV IN =137.4INV OUT =135.4EX-CBRIM=140.12212" CMP12" CMP16" D.I. WATER MAIN (CWD)EX. SWALEVELCO EASE.VELCO EASE.VELCO EASE.ROUTE 7 (SHELBURNE ROAD)#1795SHELBURNE ROADAUTO DEALERSHIPEXISTINGBUILDING50'WETLANDBUFFERCLASS IIWETLANDEXISTINGGRASS / MEADOWCAR WASHCHAMPCESLOW HOLDINGS, LLC1800 SHELBURNE RD566' ±231' ±62' ±200' ±92' ±149' ±269' ±183' ±60' ±190' ±38' ±994' ±262' ±200' ±262' ±74' ±50' ±162' ±261' ± 30' ±EXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTG75'75'VELCO EASE.VELCO EASE.CATAMOUNT/ SOUTHBURLINGTON, LLC1795 SHELBURNE RDZONING DISTRICT - RES. 1ZONING DISTRICT -LAKESHORENEIGHBORHOODFFE=142.0TRAFFIC SIGNALSTRAFFICSIGNALS20' FRONT YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' REAR YARD SETBACK30' REAR YARD SETBACK 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' FRONT YAR D S E T B A C K TRAFFIC SIGNALSTRAFFIC SIGNALS(10,000 S.F.±)292322EXISTINGBOLLARDSDSMCJGMAB1" = 50'06105C1.0LOCATION MAPNOT TO SCALE210 COLLEGE ST.BURLINGTON VERMONT05401EXISTINGCONDITIONS SITEPLANACE68 NESTI DRIVE &1785 &1795 SHELBURNE RD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTLAKECHAMPLAINROADALLENLOCATIONPROJECTHARBOR VIEWBARTLETT BAY RD.SHELBURNESOUTH BURLINGTON7100EXISTING CONTOURFENCESWALESTREAMPROJECT BENCHMARKDSTORM MANHOLECATCH BASINHYDRANTSHUT OFFUTILITY POLELIGHT POLEGUY WIRE/POLESIGNDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDLEGEND01/02/201801/05/18 CJG SKETCH PLAN APPLICATIONCATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLC&CATAMOUNT/ SOUTHBURLINGTON, LLCPROPOSEDLOT ADJUSTMENT& SITEIMPROVEMENTSNOTES1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TOCONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIESLOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THESURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITYLOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THECONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITYCONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BEREPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE(888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION ISAPPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAXMAP INFORMATION. THIS PLAN IS NOT ABOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TOBE USED AS ONE. MONUMENTATIONRECOVERED IS CONSISTENT WITH RECORDEDDOCUMENTS.4. WETLAND LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON A FIELDSURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC MAY 3, 2018. CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEYORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONTCOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL)AND NAVD88 (VERTICAL) ESTABLISHED FROMGPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE.3. CONTOUR INFORMATION IS BASED UPONLIDAR DATA FROM 2004. HORIZONTAL ANDVERTICAL DATUM BASED ON VCS NAD 83 ANDNAVD 88. ALL OTHER SITE INFORMATION ISBASED UPON ORTHOMETRIC PHOTOGRAPHY .WETLAND NOTE:WETLANDS WERE MARKED BYECOLOGIST JEFFREY SEVERSON OFOAKLEDGE ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES ON MAY 2, 2018 AND FIELDLOCATED BY CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES ON MAY 3, 2018.05/07/18 CJG REVISE WETLAND LOCATIONS & UPDATE BUFFERS04/26/18 CJG PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATIONP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06105\1-CADD Files-06105\Dwg\06105 - Site.dwg, 5/18/2018 12:07:47 PM, mburke SSSGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGUEUEUEUEUEUECLASS IIIWETLAND50'BUFFER ZONE50' STREAM BUFFER ZONE 10' EL. EASE.GMP CORP.20' WATER EASE.END 40' UNRESTRICTEDNON-EXCLUSIVE R.O.W &EASEMENT50' EASEMENT20' WATER EASE.50'CLASS IIWETLANDBUFFER50' WETLAND BUFFER PERCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONZONING REGULATIONS(CLASS III WETLANDS)22.5'EX. STORMWATERTREATMENT POND135 PAVEMENTCROSSESLOT LINECONCRETE SIDEWALKCONCRETE SIDEWALK125135135135135152 146146145144EXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLC68 NESTI DRIVE1693 SHELBURNE RD., LLC1693 SHELBUNRE RD CHAMP CAR CARE CENTER(WEST) INC.1801 SHELBURNE RD1835 REALTY, LLC1835 SHELBUNRE RDBURLINGTON SELFSTORAGE, LLC123 NESTI DRIVE"SHELBURNE ROAD" - U.S. ROUTE 7RR MAIN LINEWIRE R.O.W. FENCEC.L. VELCO TRANSMISSION LINEVELCO EASE.RR SIDINGFENCE15" CMP15" CMPEX-CBRIM= 139.4INV. OUT= 135.3EX-DMHRIM= 142.0INV= 134.2±EX-DMHRIM= 141.14INV. IN= 135.29INV. OUT= 134.84EX-CBRIM= 140.94INV.= 136.5915" CMPINV.= 133.115" CMPINV.= 131.78" D.I. 12" CMP GGGGGGGGGG6"6"6"1"1"2"2"1"3/4"3/46"6"2"GG2"2"EX. CBRIM = 139.5INV IN =137.4INV OUT =135.4EX-CBRIM=140.12212" CMP12" CMP16" D.I. WATER MAIN (CWD)#1693EX. SWALEVELCO EASE.VELCO EASE.VELCO EASE.ROUTE 7 (SHELBURNE ROAD)#1795SHELBURNE ROADAUTO DEALERSHIPEXISTINGBUILDING50'WETLANDBUFFERCLASS IIWETLANDEXISTINGGRASS / MEADOWCAR WASHCHAMPCESLOW HOLDINGS, LLC1800 SHELBURNE RD566' ±231' ±269' ±183' ±60' ±190' ±38' ±994' ±262' ±200' ±262' ±74' ±50' ±162' ±261' ± 30' ±EXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTG75'75'VELCO EASE.VELCO EASE.CATAMOUNT/ SOUTHBURLINGTON, LLC1795 SHELBURNE RDZONING DISTRICT - RES. 1ZONING DISTRICT -LAKESHORENEIGHBORHOODFFE=142.0TRAFFIC SIGNALSTRAFFICSIGNALS20' FRONT YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' REAR YARD SETBACK 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' FRONT YA R D S E T B A C K TRAFFIC SIGNALSTRAFFIC SIGNALS(10,000 S.F.±)PROPOSEDBIKE RACK (2)PER DETAILPROPOSEDBIKE RACK (2)PER DETAILSNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGESNOW STORAGESNOW STO R A G E 29232246±16±299±51±79±270±107±50±DSMCJGMAB/GAC1" = 50'06105C1.1LOCATION MAPNOT TO SCALE210 COLLEGE ST.BURLINGTON VERMONT05401PROPOSEDCONDITIONS SITEPLAN & LOT LINEADJUSTMENTACE01/05/18 CJG SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION68 NESTI DRIVE &1785 &1795 SHELBURNE RD SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTLAKECHAMPLAINROADALLENLOCATIONPROJECTHARBOR VIEWBARTLETT BAY RD.SHELBURNESOUTH BURLINGTON7- LOT COVERAGE TABLE -ZONE: C2 - COMMERCIAL 2 DISTRICT1785 & 1795 SHELBURNE ROADMINIMUMEXISTINGPROPOSEDLOT SIZE40,000 SF 128,040 S.F. 113,635 S.F.2.9 AC.± 2.6 AC.±REGULATIONEXISTINGPROPOSEDBUILDING COVERAGE40% 8% 8.9%LOT COVERAGE70% 51% 56.1%FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% 23% 29.4%SETBACKFRONT YARD 20' 38' 38'SIDE YARD 10' 12' 12'REAR YARD 30' 30' 48'FRONTAGE 486' 274'68 NESTI DRIVEMINIMUMEXISTINGPROPOSEDLOT SIZE40,000 SF 531,065 S.F. 545,475 S.F.12.2 AC± 12.5 AC.±REGULATIONEXISTINGPROPOSEDBUILDING COVERAGE40% 10% 9.7%LOT COVERAGE70% 28% 27.7%FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% 0% 14.5%(SHELBURNE ROAD)FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% 10% 10%(NESTI DRIVE)SETBACKFRONT YARD 30' 150' 150'SIDE YARD 10' 61' 61'REAR YARD 30' 640' 640'FRONTAGE (SHELBURNE ROAD) 0' 212'FRONTAGE (NESTI DRIVE) 566'± 566'±100EXISTING CONTOURFENCESWALESTREAMPROJECT BENCHMARKDSTORM MANHOLECATCH BASINHYDRANTSHUT OFFUTILITY POLELIGHT POLEGUY WIRE/POLESIGNDECIDUOUS TREECONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDLEGEND01/02/2018CATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLC&CATAMOUNT/ SOUTHBURLINGTON, LLCPROPOSEDLOT ADJUSTMENT& SITEIMPROVEMENTS1785 & 1795 SHELBURNE ROAD-FUTURE LOT COVERAGE AVAILABILITY:ADDITION LOT COVERAGE OF 14,595 S.F.± =70%04/26/18 CJG PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATIONWETLAND NOTE:WETLANDS WERE MARKED BYECOLOGIST JEFFREY SEVERSON OFOAKLEDGE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESON MAY 2, 2018 AND FIELD LOCATED BYCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES ONMAY 3, 2018.05/07/18 CJG REVISE WETLAND LOCATIONS & UPDATE BUFFERS05/11/18 CJG REVISE LOT COVERAGESP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06105\1-CADD Files-06105\Dwg\06105 - Site.dwg, 5/18/2018 11:37:36 AM, mburke EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCHAMPCARWASHHARBOR VIE W D R .TO BARTLETT BAY ROADALLEN ROA DEXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGGRASS / MEADOWEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTN/FD. & B. FLAGGVol. 549 Pg. 440 N/F1693 SHELBURNE RD., LLCVol. 725 Pg. 541 N/F1775 SHELBURNE LLCVol. 1357 Pg. 28-29CATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLCVol. 724 Pg. 683N/FCHAMP CAR CARE(WEST) INC.Vol. 278 Pg. 42N/FTHE SHELBURNEPARTNERSHIP, LPVol. 211 Pg. 414N/FBURLINGTON SELFSTORAGE, LLPVol. 552 Pg. 758n/f F. NESTI Vol. 117 Pg . 2 4 4STATE of VERMONT - LEASED TO VERMONT RAILWAY Corp.Vol. 299 Pg. 105CATAMOUNT/SOUTHBURLINGTONLLCVol. 1029 Pg. 229"Parcel Two"CATAMOUNT/SOUTHBURLINGTONLLCVol. 1029 Pg. 229"Parcel One"Grid NorthVCS 1983Note 3"SHELBURNE ROAD" - U.S. ROUTE 7#68 Nesti Dr.#1795#1785#1801#1775#1693#1691S 00°22'38" E299.43'15.82'45.86'48.52'43.77'N 76°45'15" W269.77'S 04°47'52" W107.17'S 00°22'38" E51.15'S 00°22'38" E78.63'S 85°12'08" E50.00'Catamount/Middlebury, LLCA. "Property of Fassett's Bakery Inc", last revised May 1986, prepared by Fitzpatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated. MapSlide 190, South Burlington Land Records.B. "Plat of Survey of Lands of Albert J. & Rita J. Reyes - #1691 & #1693 Shelburne Road", last revised March 3,1999, prepared by A.W. Harris. Map Slide 337, South Burlington Land Records.C. "Property Survey - Queen City Motors Inc." dated April 7, 1970, prepared by G.G. Harlow. Map Slide 95, SouthBurlington Land Records.D. R.O.W. Plan - Project F-EGC-019-4(19), dated 9/12/1995, prepared by VTRANS.E. "Location Plans of the Rutland Railroad - Volume 1", circa 1845-1893. Archived at State of Vermont PublicRecords Division.F. "Plat of Survey - State of Vermont Shelburne Road Parcel" dated October 26, 2013, prepared by Civil EngineeringAssociates Inc.- REFERENCED MAPS or PLANS -- SURVEY NOTES -1. Purpose of this plat is:a.) To retrace and document the existing boundaries of lands conveyed to Catamount/Middlebury LLC bydeed of Charles Freihofer Baking Company, Inc, dated August 17, 2005, recorded in Volume 724 Page683, South Burlington Land Records, and to Catamount/South Burlington, LLC. by deed of JWJ Realty, Inc.,dated September 30, 2011, recorded in Volume 1029 Page 229, South Burlington Land Records.b.) to depict the approved right-of-way across "Parcel One" of Catamount/ South Burlington, LLC to servethe Catamount/Middlebury parcel.2. Portions of the lots on Shelburne Road were conveyed to the State of Vermont for the widening ofShelburne Road (a/k/a U.S. Route 7) as described in Volume 482 Page 309 and Volume 482 Page 310,South Burlington Land Records, and depicted on Reference Map "D".3. Survey was conducted during April 2007, utilizing an electronic total station instrument and RTK GPS.Bearings shown are from Grid North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, calculated from GPSobservations on or adjoining the site. New VELCO power line was located and 7 new markers were set onShelburne Road and the 50' R.O.W. during March 2012.4. Corner markers shown as "set" shall typically be marked by 5/8" diameter reinforcing rod with aluminumcaps embossed "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597", set flush with existing grade.5. Corner markers labelled "VTRANS" are typically marked by reinforcing rods with "VTRANS" aluminumcaps, typically found flush with existing grade.6. Railroad boundary shown is based upon Reference Map "E" (circa 1893) and stone railroad monumements found.This boundary varies somewhat from previous recentsurveys by others.7. Only the centerline of the VELCOtransmission lines are shown, based onpole locations as surveyed during 2012.8. Not all utilities are shown hereon.- LEGEND -- EASEMENT NOTES -E.1. The Catamount/ Middlebury, LLC property is benefited by certain rights in andto a 40-foot-wide right-of-way over the private roadway known as "Nesti Drive". Thisright-of-way is (or may be) subject to terms and conditions as set forth in severaldocuments recorded in Volume 50 Page 334 (1957), Volume 143 Page 478 (1978),Volume 186 Page 518 (1983), and Volume 218 Page 308 (1986).E.2. No record of easement was found for gas service line(s) or force main sewer(s)serving 68 Nesti Drive.E.3. Catamount/South Burlington, LLC parcels are benefited by a stormwater run-offagreement over lands of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, as recorded in Vol. 259 Pg. 39.E.4. Right-of-way and easement reserved over westerly 62' of Champ Car Careparcel (serving Catamount/Middlebury, LLC). Paragraph (k) Volume 218 Page 309.TRCTRC / MAB1" = 60'06105P1LOCATION MAPNOT to SCALEACEJAN 5, 2018Sketch Plan / Boundary Line AdjustmentPROJECTLOCATIONCHAMPLAINLAKE768 Nesti Drive & 1785-1795 Shelburne RoadSouth Burlington, VermontDRAFTfor ReviewCatamount/SouthBurlington, LLCandE.5. Permanent easements for pipe, culvert, headwall and channels serve State ofVermont. Vol. 482 Pg. 310.E.6. A 150-foot-wide power line easement for VELCO & GMP Corp.Vol. 117 Pg. 149 (1974)E.7. A 20-foot-wide water line easement for Champlain Water District.Vol. 118 Pg. 272 (1974)E.8. Approved 50-foot-wide access easement over "Parcel One" of Catamount/SouthBurlington, LLC to serve Catamount/Middlebury, LLC. [City of South BurlingtonPlanning & Zoning , #SP-11-48 Findings of Fact paragraphs 6 and 8, and #SP-11-50Findings of Fact paragraphs 6 and 8, both signed 12/8/2011 ].01/05/18 CJG SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION04/26/18 CJG PRELIMINARY PLAN APPLICATIONP:\AutoCADD Projects\2006\06105\1-CADD Files-06105\Dwg\06105-PLAT-2018.dwg, 5/7/2018 3:37:30 PM, gcarter 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SP‐18‐23 1505 Dorset Street    DATE:    August 7, 2018   Development Review Board meeting      Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC has submitted sketch plan application #SD‐18‐23 of to subdivide two existing  parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately 126 lots for the  purpose of a 161 unit residential planned unit development and to conserve approximately 62.5 acres offsite.   The planned unit development is to consist of 110 single family homes, 18 units in 3 unit multi‐family dwellings,  32 units in two‐family dwellings, and one existing single family home at 1505 Dorset Street.     At the July 17, 2018 Development Review Board meeting, the Board reviewed the sketch plan application.  On  July 24, the applicant had a technical review committee meeting with City Staff including representatives from  the Public Works, Fire, Police, and Stormwater departments.  The applicant has provided updates on some of  the items discussed on July 17 and July 24, described below.    1. Roads  a. The applicant has increased the drive lane width on the central avenue to 10‐feet in response  to a request made by the acting Fire Chief for additional clearance on a street with parking on  both sides.  b. The applicant has added pedestrian bump outs along the main north‐south road at the central  avenue and at the northern intersection in response to Staff comments discussed on July 17  pertaining to standards in LDR Section 9.08B.   2. Wetlands:  The applicant has reached out to State and Federal wetland programs regarding permitting  a connection to Dorset Street.  This additional connection is desirable because without it, there would  be approximately one half mile along Dorset Street without any road connections, and because it  would provide a second road for access to this and subsequent adjacent developments.  3. Open Space  a. The Board requested the applicant consider how to make the open spaces located in the center  of the development welcoming and accessible to all residents of the development.  The  applicant has removed three internal single‐family lots and reconfigured the other lots to  increase the size of and access to the internal green space for the entire neighborhood.  b. The Technical Review Committee discussed the need for compliance with the developed  parkland requirements of Section 9.07D.  Staff considers the applicant will need to  demonstrate compliance with this standard at Preliminary Plat but has no concerns at this  time.  SD‐18‐23  2 c. The technical Review Committee also indicated that the applicant must provide an open space  plan to be included in the legal documents identifying the area within the NRP sub‐district to be  maintained as woods with open access, about which the applicant had no concerns.  4. Conservation:  The applicant has provided a figure graphically representing the size of the area which  will be protected from development if the proposed development is approved.  This conservation area  is directly consistent with the purpose of the Southeast Quadrant “to encourage open‐space  preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued  agriculture and well‐planed residential use.”    The Board continued the hearing to August 7 in order to allow interested persons to speak to the Board about  the Project.  The Board and the public is reminded that the sketch plan hearing is first and foremost a hearing  of the applicant in the public for the benefit of the Development Review Board, and that the Development  Review Board’s obligation is to determine whether a proposed project meets the current Land Development  Regulations.    Recommendation  Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.    1 Marla Keene From:Michael J. Buscher <mike@tjboyle.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 31, 2018 6:10 PM To:Marla Keene Cc:'Peter Kahn'; 'Paul O'Leary'; 'Bryan Currier' Subject:Dorset Commons - Revised Sketch Plan Drawings Hi Marla,    Please find the following link, from which you can download revised drawings for the Dorset Meadows Project.   https://www.dropbox.com/sh/naqj33b8litteal/AABqUCr_Zwa0mmluatSiN4n8a?dl=0   Revised drawings include:   L‐100 (B&W)   L‐100 (with green space highlighted)   L‐103 Street Sections    And 1 new drawing:   L‐104 Off‐Site Open Space Diagram. – This exhibit graphically displays the amount of offsite open space that will  be preserved in addition to green space preserve within the development parcel.    Revisions to the sketch plan include:   Elimination of 3 ‘internal’ single‐family residential lots and reconfiguration of other lots to increase the internal  common/green space and improved access to internal common/green space for the entire neighborhood.   Increase drive lanes along the ‘Central Avenue’ to 10‐feet per discussion at the technical review session   Provide bump‐out and sidewalk crossings along the main north‐south road at the central avenue and also at the  next intersection north.   Revise 50’ wetland setback to remove buffer around class III wetland.    Please let me know if you have any questions. I will print and delivery hard copies tomorrow.    Best regards,  Mike    Michael J. Buscher, ASLA, PLA  Principal Landscape Architect  T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC        301 College Street • Burlington, VT 05401  (p) 802.658.3555 • (c) 802.922.6704  tjboyle.com • Facebook    To: Planning Commission, Development Review Board, City Council, Director of Planning & Zoning, City  Manager, Zoning Administrator  From: Randall Kay, 28 Old Cross Road  Re: Proposed Dorset Meadows Development  Date: July 24, 2018    Following are some thoughts regarding the proposed Dorset Meadows Development    1. Maintaining Integrity of Private Wells: There are several private wells abutting Dorset Meadows.  When Vermont National Country Club (VNCC) began development, there was no mitigation plan  for pesticide and/or herbicide  pollution of  adjacent pre‐existing private wells. With no other  recourse, adjacent property owners sued VNCC to a) hook us up to City Water at their expense if  they polluted our wells, and b) to test our wells at their expense at labs that can determine the  smallest/lowest presence of pesticides and herbicides. VNCC subsequently agreed to these  terms. These private pre‐existing wells are important South Burlington Resources. What are the  City’s thoughts re protecting these resources with regards to Dorset Meadows?    2. Golf Course Road View Protection Zone: When John Larkin built a home off of Nowland Farm  Road, it was built too high. He proposed to donate money to South Burlington. South Burlington  insisted that the house get a haircut. Please confirm that you’ll continue to enforce this  regulation with Dorset Meadows and not sub    3. Stream/Wetback Setback: What realistic enforcement mechanisms does the City have in place  to insure that A) homeowners don’t mow into the stream/wetlands setback? My property has  quite a bit higher elevation than most of the proposed Dorset Meadows Elevation. I’ve had to  install expensive perimeter drainage around my home. B) What plans does Dorset Meadows  have to insure that proposed  homes do not flood? C) The City should not have take on a new  liability like it did with Butler Farms, Oak Creek Village, etc.    4. Density Layout: Is there any reason why Dorset Meadows couldn’t concentrate development in  4‐6 multilevel total buildings? This way, it would keep the majority of the space open with larger  setbacks from the streams and wetlands.    5. Wildlife: The Planning Commission hired wildlife consultants who spoke about South Burlington  maintaining higher order species such as bear, bobcat, coyote, deer, etc. and that South  Burlington would be at a loss if our wildlife was reduced to squirrels and chipmunks? How does  this development fit into this vision? Is there a different way Dorset Meadows could develop  that would allow for South Burlington to maintain this vision?