Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/04/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 DECEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 December 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene Development Review Officer; P. O’Leary, J. Larkin, R. Biggers, F. Cresta, C. Frank, P. Smiar 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Miscellaneous Application #MS-18-06 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for alternative compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi-Use District Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulation Section 8.06H for a 20,200 sq. ft. 100-room, 5-story hotel building, 1068 Williston Road: The applicant identified the site as the present Holiday Inn site in the T4 district. A proposed city street come into the site where the current driveway is. The applicant will build a part of that road. The project also includes renovation of the Holiday Inn building. This will include a plaza space east of the building. A new 5-story building will serve as a Hampton Inn and will be adjacent to the proposed city street. Existing parking will be slightly reconfigured. Mr. Biggers said they are looking for an “energizing urban node” with visual access from the Interstate. The 2 hotels will look related but will maintain individuality. The new street will be the primary façade for the Hampton Inn. It will engage pedestrians with an outdoor patio, breakfast area with umbrellas, etc. Parking will be on the far side of the building, underground. Mr. Biggers identified the major access. There will also be a limited entrance in the area of meeting rooms. This will have visual control from the front desk. Guests will have access via a card system. The question is how they can meet the spirit and intent of the guidelines as far as building access is concerned. A short video was shown indicating what would present itself as a pedestrian enters the site along the new road. Mr. Biggers stressed the amount of glass on the building. Mr. Wilking suggested a buzzer system at the meeting room entrance. Mr. Kochman asked what is the violation and what is the proposed “fix.” Ms. Keene said the issue is the minimum number of entrances and spacing between entrances. Section 806H allows for “alternate entrance compliance.” The Board can grant a difference from the standards if the proposal meets a list of criteria which focus on meeting the standard. A “buzzered” entrance at the exterior does not meet the criteria. Mr. Larkin said they are happy to pursue whatever comes out of this meeting to solve this challenge. Mr. Biggers said the entrances would be open when spaces are in use. Mr. Miller noted there is a 4-door minimum requirement on the new street. The applicant proposes 2 doors on the new street. The one on the south side would be viable if there is a vestibule with an interior buzzer system. Mr. Behr said he envisions people being able to go (on foot) out the south entrance to get to the Mall and other attractions. They will then want to get back in at the south entrance. He felt it was important to make that feel like a public entrance. He said if they can solve that, he would be OK with this alternate entrance. Mr. Miller and Mr. Kochman agreed. Mr. Wilking felt there is a lot of public access. The question for him is whether a buzzer on the south side will meet the standard and allow the hotel to maintain security. Mr. Behr said if they make the south entrance more pronounced, he was OK with it. How they solve the interior situation is up to them. Ms. Keene then enumerated the standards as follows: a. Staff considers the proposal addresses comprehensive plan objectives 41, 42 and 46 b. Staff considers the proposed building and entrance configuration meets the purposes of the transect zone c. Staff considers the design establishes a pedestrian friendly environment through use of wide walking areas, etc. Mr. Sullivan questioned what is gained by making the south entrance more formal. Mr. Miller said it gains more visual appeal. Mr. Behr said that with a public element on the rooftop, it makes the south entrance more important. Mr. Sullivan suggested a “rooftop only” elevator so people using that entrance don’t have automatic access to the guest rooms. Mr. Kochman said it would be nice if the south entrance could accommodate musicians coming for events and other performers that need to use the entrance. Mr. Sullivan felt there can be a different time frame for the south entrance. The regulations say “business hours,” which doesn’t necessarily mean business hours for the whole building but only for the use adjacent to the south entrance. Mr. Wilking suggested a door from the elevator lobby that could close off the meeting room area so it is a separate use. He felt they have a right to set separate hours for the meeting rooms. Mr. Kochman felt it is a really nice project. He just didn’t want “a sore thumb.” Ms. Smith said she liked the look of the new Shelburne Rd/Fayette Rd building because the top floors are set back a bit. Mr. Larkin wasn’t sure they would be allowed to do that here. Ms. Keene said staff will look into that. Ms. Keene then enumerated the other standards that must be met as follows: a. Features used to meet the standards are beyond minimum standards in the Form Based Code District. (Ms. Keene said staff feels this is met.) b. None of the proposed elements are season-dependent. (Ms. Keene said staff feels this is met). c. Staff considers the proposed alternatives are met without the use of artwork or commissioned works. Mr. Miller summed up by saying that with an adjustment to the south entrance, the project would meet or exceed the standards. Mr. Cota moved to continue MS-18-06 to 18 December 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-18-18 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, to re-subdivide two lots of 2.9 acres and 12.2 acres, 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesti Drive: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller noted that staff feels wetland issues have been addressed. Mr. Cresta showed where adjustments were made. Mr. Wilking noted that Catamount now has more responsibility for the wetland than they did before. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-18-18. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-18-51 of NFI Vermont, Inc., to amend a previously approved site plan for a group home. The amendment is to construct a building addition, four new parking spaces, and pedestrian walkway, 102 Allen Road: Mr. Miller noted the issue of tree replacement deficiency. Mr. O’Leary noted there had been a shortage in the landscaping budget. They have added trees up to the required amount. He noted that a previous approval had used existing trees as part of the landscaping amount. As part of the construction of the addition, they will have to remove some trees, about 32 inches total caliper. Regulations require replacing that over and above the landscaping amount. He estimates that would mean another $7500 to a non-profit agency. Mr. O’Leary asked the Board to find that they meet the requirement with the landscaping budget. Mr. Sullivan asked if they have authority to waive that requirement. Ms. Keene said the Board can require other amenities (e.g., hardscape features such as benches). Mr. Wilking said he agrees 100% with the applicant. He felt the rule is overly strict, but they are stuck with it. Mr. Miller agreed. Mr. Wilking added that this is a heavily landscaped site that doesn’t need another tree. He said he would be happy “to bless this” as presented if the rules allowed. Ms. Keene suggested a Board deliberative session on this issue and continuation of the hearing. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-18-51 until 15 January 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 6 November 2018: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 6 November 2018 as written. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: Ms. Smith advised that she will not be seeking re-appointment when her term expires in June. Ms. Keene suggested members encourage people to apply. Members discussed what to look for in a candidate. Some suggestions were: a female, design-sensitive people, someone from the Chamberlin area (not now represented), an understanding of the role of the DRB, an engineer. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:59 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #MS‐18‐06  Staff Comments  1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  MS‐18‐06_1068 Williston Rd_Champlain School Apts  Partnership_Alt Entrances_2018‐12‐04.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: November 30, 2018  Plans received: November 2, 2018  1068 Williston Road  Miscellaneous Application #MS‐18‐06  Meeting date: December 4, 2018  Owner/Applicant  Champlain School Apartments Partnership  410 Shelburne Road  Burlington, VT 05401  Engineer  VHB  40 IDX Drive, Building 100, Suite 200  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel 1810‐01068  FBC‐T4 Zoning District  160,200 sq. ft.    Location Map      #MS‐18‐04  Staff Comments  2  PROJECT DESCRPTION    Miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐06 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for alternate  compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi‐Use District Building Envelope  Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulation Section 8.06H for a 20,200 square foot 100  room 5‐story hotel building, 1068 Williston Road.  COMMENTS    Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed  the plans submitted on 11/2/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s  attention are in red.    CONTEXT    The proposed project is located within the Form Based Code T4 zoning district, meaning its site plan will  be reviewed administratively.  No subdivision is necessary for the project.  The Project is proposed to  consist of renovations to the existing Holiday Inn building at 1068 Williston Road, and construction of a  new building located between the existing building and Williston Road.  The City’s official map includes a  planned north‐south street extending opposite the existing north end of Dorset Street, turning to the  east within the first 150 feet.  This new street will be the primary frontage for the new building and the  renovated Holiday Inn.    The applicant is seeking Development Review Board approval under Section 8.08H for an entrance  configuration for the new building which differs from the strict entrance requirements of Section  8.13C(6).  The applicant has provided a comprehensive application narrative, floor plans, and renderings  supporting their request.  The applicant has not yet submitted their site plan application because the  final form of the proposed building will be dependent on whether the Board grants their request for  alternative entrance compliance.    APPLICABLE STANDARDS    H.  Alternate Compliance for Entrances in T4    (1) Authority. The Development Review Board shall have the authority to review and approve,  approve  with  conditions,  or  deny an  application  for  development  that  differs  from  the  strict  requirements  of  Section  8.13(C)(6)  [T4  Urban  Multi‐Use  District  Building  Envelope  Standards,  Entrances] subject to the standards and limitations below.  For the subject building, the relevant BES standards without Board approval would be as follows.  Staff  has made the determination based on 8.04D(1), the primary façade is on the new street, while the  secondary façades are on Williston Road and the west of the building.  However entrance standards do  not apply to a building façade abutting an interstate or interstate ramp, therefore the west of the  building is exempt from this standard.      #MS‐18‐04  Staff Comments  3  T‐4 BES (South Burlington Land  Development Regulations, 8.13)  Primary  Façade  Requirement  Secondary  Façade  Requirement  Requirement  without DRB  Approval  Requested  Alternative  (6) Entrances         (a)  Average frequency of  Public Entrances, non‐ residential first story use  36' Max.  54' Max. 4 doors min on  new street, and 1  on south façade   2 doors on new  street, and 1 on  south façade1     (b)  Maximum distance  between Public  Entrances, non‐ residential first story use  46' Max.  72' Max.  46’ on new  street, 72’ on  south façades  67’ on new street,  and 66’ on south  façade   1. The applicant has added a door on the south façade since their initial submission.  This is  reflected in the included plans but not in the application narrative.  Staff understands the door  will open into a vestibule which will allow communication with the meeting room and with the  front desk.  Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant’s intended operation of this  door.      (2) Entrance standard intent. It is the intent of Section 8.13(C)(6)(a‐e), in concert with other  standards of Section 8.13, to establish a regular, consistently pedestrian‐friendly environment in the  applicable district. The presence of regular, Operable entrances is designed to foster a built pattern  consisting of attractive, engaging, and interactive built forms.  Users along a street are presented  with an inviting street presence of the building and are engaged throughout its length. This section  is also intended to support the viability of activities within adjacent buildings (existing or future) by  creating a pedestrian environment where the user has reason and interest to walk the entire length  of a building and engage with the next building rather than have an uninviting and unengaging  environment where a user would turn around.  Staff notes this standard refers to operable entrances while public entrances are required for non‐ residential first story use.  The distinction between operable entrances and public entrances is that public  entrances are open to anyone from the exterior, while operable entrances are open to tenants/owners of  the building without necessarily being open to the general public.  Staff considers this standard applies to  both public and operable entrances.  The applicant has represented in their narrative that alternative compliance is being sought due to the  desire of the hotel to have the publicly accessible entrances be visible from the hotel’s front desk.  The  main lobby is located at the north end of the building, farthest from the secondary south‐facing façade.   Staff agrees with the Applicant’s assessment of the building as a primary element of the gateway area of  the T4 district, forming a strong northern nexus between the City Center area and South Burlington as a  whole.  The applicant has provided perspectives demonstrating how the building provides an inviting  street presence throughout its length along the new street and along the south façade.    (3) Standards for review. In making its determination, the Development Review Board shall  consider the following standards:  (a) The Board finds that the alterative design advances the specific objectives of the Central  District of the Comprehensive Plan in a manner that is equal or greater than the standard  contained within the BES.  The objectives of the Central District of the Comprehensive Plan are as follows.  #MS‐18‐04  Staff Comments  4  41. Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic and people‐oriented City Center with a strong identity  and “sense of place” that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential  and non‐residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.  42. Establish vibrant streetscapes, civic spaces, public art and public facilities in the Central  District and City Center.   43. Reserve  and  establish  open  space areas  for  public  enjoyment,  natural  resource  conservation, and stormwater management, including a greenbelt along Potash Brook. .  44. Complete master planning for City Center to create opportunities for low impact stormwater  management that incorporates sustainable design and green infrastructure.  45. Conserve and protect existing nearby residential areas.  46. Minimize overall demand for parking in the Central District through design, regulations, and  investments  that  foster  pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use and  provide  efficient,  aesthetically pleasing shared parking options.  47. Promote interconnectivity and integration of public facilities including schools and school  facilities open to the public with surrounding neighborhoods, to include safe routes for  children  and  neighborhood  residents  to  walk  and  bicycle  to  school,  a  public  library,  recreation services, and other city services.    Staff considers the proposed lot configuration furthers objectives 41, 42, and 46 through the  location of outdoor seating areas along both the new street and south facades, through the  consistent design elements between the new street façade and the central plaza to be located  along the east of the existing Holiday Inn, and through the use of shared parking between the  buildings on the lot.  The final paragraph on Page 2 of the applicant’s narrative addresses this  standard.  Staff considers this criterion met.  (b) The Board finds that the alternative design advances the Purpose of the Transect Zone as  stated in these Land Development Regulations in a manner that is equal to or greater than  the standard contained within the BES.   The purpose of the transect zone is as follows.  Generally a multi‐use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas  adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial uses  are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of  freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T‐4 is multimodal oriented with an  emphasis  on  medium  foot  traffic  pedestrianism.  Parking  (not  including  on‐street  parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street.  Staff considers the proposed building and entrance configuration meets the purposes of the  Transect Zone.  (c) The Board finds that the alterative design advances the Intent of the standard as stated  in this Section in a manner that is equal to or greater than the standard contained within the  BES.  This standard refers to the entrance standard intent paragraph above.  Staff considers the design  establishes a pedestrian‐friendly environment through the use of wide walking areas, fosters a  built pattern of attractive, engaging and interactive built forms through the use of large, visible  interior spaces, and provides users with reason and interest to walk the entire length of the   building and engage with the next building through the use of consistent elements between the  streetscape and the plaza area proposed east of the existing Holiday Inn building.  #MS‐18‐04  Staff Comments  5  (d) Any proposed alternative shall be incorporated along all facades of a building for which  alternate compliance is being sought and shall be distributed along the entire façade in a  manner which meets or exceeds the average frequency and maximum spacing as required by  the BES.  The elements the applicant is using to meet the standard includes the use of structural awnings,  full‐height windows exceeding the minimum 7.5’ height, repeated features such as materials and  lighting  scones,  and  similar  surface  materials  on  the  surrounding  walkways.    On  the  west  (interstate‐facing) façade, these features are being repeated to a lesser degree.  Staff considers  this criterion met.   (e) Any proposed alternative shall be not be counted or calculated as meeting or contributing  to any other required element or financial obligation of these Regulations.  The features used to meet these standards are beyond the minimum standards in the FBC district.   Staff considers this criterion met.  (f) Any proposed alternative shall fulfill its function in all seasons.  None of the proposed elements to meet these standards are season‐dependent.  Staff considers  this criterion met.  (g) Creative alternatives are encouraged. Any proposed alternatives, however, shall consist  of  original  design  elements.  In  the  case  of  artwork,  only  Commissioned  artwork  shall  be  considered.  The provided elements do not include artwork.  Staff considers the proposed alternative as  meeting the standards without the use of artwork or commissioned works.   RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing.    Respectfully submitted,    ________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  Proposed Hampton Inn Building, 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application MS-18-06 Narrative to Accompany Request for Consideration under Alternative Entrance Standards BMA Architects - November 21, 2018 RE: Alternate Compliance for Entrances in T4 The purpose of this narrative is to outline why alternative compliance is sought and the ways in which this project meets (and aims to exceed) the intent of “developing a built environment conducive to pedestrian activity.” We also present how the perforce behind the projects position as a primary building in the Gateway Area of the T4 District is enhanced to form a strong northern nexus for the City Center and South Burlington as a whole. Perspectives are attached to help further explain and define the project’s; street presence, juxtaposition to existing and proposed streets, and general advancement of the specific objectives set forth in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. Project Entrance Design Alternative compliance for entrances is being sought due to security requirements for the hotel guests and the hotel premises in general. Hilton standards (typical of the industry and increasingly so of other industries) state that all publicly accessible entrances (during normal business hours or not) must be within clear view of the hotel’s Front Desk. While the security of guests is of paramount importance in the hotel industry; the project’s lobby is designed to meet these concerns while providing visual control at three doors; two of which are publicly primary entrances in terms of visual hierarchy. The two doors facing east in the lobby’s main span of glass (Primary Facade) face toward the new connector street, fully engaging with the streetscape, in concert with public seating on ground level terrace, to provide unimpeded and inviting access to hotel guests and the public at large. The main lobby entrance facing North (toward the Holiday Inn Lobby) is the third public entrance, and would be accessible to the public at all hours through the buildings Porte Cochere portal and colonnade. The lobby area design accomplishes the necessary front desk functions (greeting, interaction, and controlled access to private guest room sleeping areas) while providing essential, quality connections to the community. Beyond the strategy utilized at the Front Desk to provide multiple publicly accessible entrances, every practical opportunity for implementing the visual intent of the T4 entrance standard (frequency of visible entrances along all primary and secondary facades) has been implemented. Glazed entrances have been provided along pedestrian facing (North, East, and South) facades as allowable for the hotel uses in these spaces. The hotel doors facing South towards Williston Road provide all important visual and physical access for an engaging street presence. Direct public access at these Williston Street doors is provided to registered hotel guests via electronic card key and the general public may enter these doors at will when accompanied by a hotel guest or during a public event held in the meeting areas which face Williston. Other glazed entrances are provided on the South and North facades, but are designated for employee use only and will not be accessible to hotel guests nor the general public, but provide the visual intent of the Entrance Standards. Alternative Designs The Entrance Standards as specified in Section 8.13(C)(6)(a-e), whose foundation is established in the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan’s outline of the Central District, framed throughout the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, and further refined in LDR Proposed Hampton Inn Building, 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application MS-18-06 Narrative to Accompany Request for Consideration under Alternative Entrance Standards BMA Architects - November 21, 2018 Section 8 City Center Form Based Code District 8.06(H), as to “establish a regular, consistently pedestrian-friendly environment”, which is “designed to foster a built pattern consisting of attractive, engaging, and interactive built forms.” Providing pedestrian users an experience of a design which delineates an “inviting street presence of the building” which is to be “engaged throughout its(the building’s) length.” With this framework in mind the project utilizes the following strategies to meet and exceed the standards defining this intent. [A] The project’s design advances the specific objectives of the Central District (City Center and surrounding areas) of the Comprehensive Plan, beyond the base Building Envelope Standards. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, the original 1985 City Center objectives called for “directing development to the City’s existing urban core via higher densities and infrastructure investment, creating a mixed-use, high density City center, and encouraging more pedestrian and transit friendly development along the City’s major arterials.” The following intentions have been surmised from the Comprehensive Plan and implemented in the following ways. Compact and Intense Land Use “compact and most intensely developed..... and support employment” “..higher value, compact development, more efficiently using land in this core area and supporting walkability throughout.” The project is designed to create a dense site, which efficiently uses its land, and position as a gateway building to; maximize street presence and create opportunities for public gathering. In approaching from I-89 and Williston (East Bound), this gateway building, works in concert with the HolidayInn (existing and proposed addition) to form a strong visual mass (edge) to the City Center, which builds in hierarchy and as it approaches the intersection of Williston and Dorset. Dynamic and Vibrant Street Scape “Objective 41: Create a cohesive, diverse, dynamic and people-oriented City Center with a strong identity and “sense of place” that incorporates harmonious design, an appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses and public amenities that complement adjoining neighborhoods.” “Objective 42: Establish vibrant streetscapes, civic spaces, public art and public facilities in the Central District..” “City Center initiative, which encompasses much of this District, will support this objective by the use of vertical brick elements (towers) which recede in space as establishing and enhancing public buildings and gathering spaces.” The vibrant streetscape builds in interest as you approach the intersection of Williston and Dorset. A small public seating terrace and pedestrian landscaping marks the intersection drawing users up onto the New Street from Dorset at which point the user is visually drawn to the primary terrace, which is frame by a vertical structure on each side. The use of vertical brick elements (towers) which repeat along the primary street front and whose negative space between indicates the primary public gathering location, in front of a pedestrian scaled glass facade. Proposed Hampton Inn Building, 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application MS-18-06 Narrative to Accompany Request for Consideration under Alternative Entrance Standards BMA Architects - November 21, 2018 Development of a Urban District and the Public Transition Upon Entering “The intent for this entire area – developed and undeveloped – is to create an environment that has all of the elements, functions, programing and features to become South Burlington’s principal downtown area.” “Transition from Suburban to Urban Downtown. Perhaps the most significant area of focus, time, and attention for all participants in the establishment of the City Center area is the transformation of the area from a largely retail, auto-dependent, suburban environment to one that functions as a full downtown.” “City Center will become the front porch for South Burlington- a place to meet neighbors, greet visitors, and inspire pride in the community. This will include high quality of design on buildings facing public streets, new programmable public spaces and facilities, attractive streetscapes..” [B] The project advances the purpose of the Transect Zone [T4], beyond the base Building Envelope Standards, as stated in the Land Development Regulations: “Generally a multi-use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix of freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T-4 is multimodal oriented with an emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism. Parking (not including on-street parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street.“ [C] The project design advances the intent of the standards set forth in “Article 8.06(H): Alternate Compliance for Entrances in T4” District for creating a project which is equal to or greater than the Building Envelope Standards and; “Establishes a regular, consistently pedestrian-friendly environment.” “Fosters a built pattern consisting of attractive, engaging, and interactive built forms” “Users are presented with an inviting street presence of the building, and are engaged throughout its length.” “support the viability of activities within adjacent buildings (existing or future) by creating a pedestrian environment” “Project provides users with reason and interest to walk the entire length of a building and engage with the next building” [D] Proposed alternatives are incorporated along all facades of the building for which alternate compliance is being sought and are distributed along the entire façade in a manner which meets Proposed Hampton Inn Building, 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application MS-18-06 Narrative to Accompany Request for Consideration under Alternative Entrance Standards BMA Architects - November 21, 2018 or exceeds the average frequency and maximum spacing as required by the BES. Awnings, public terraces, architectural elements scaled to relate to the pedestrians, and highly transparent and inviting interiors are provided through the whole length of the facades within the pedestrian realm. [E] Proposed alternatives will not be counted or calculated as meeting or contributing to any other required element or financial obligation within the Land Development Regulations. [F] Proposed alternative solutions described throughout this document will fulfill their functions in all seasons. However, the designed exterior spaces will evolve and experience seasonal transformations throughout the seasons and time of day (just as the surrounding natural landscape does), but can still be a rich and pleasant pedestrian experience throughout all seasons in the following ways: Use of the designed exterior spaces will be fairly consistent through out Spring, Summer, and Fall. Hotel guests will occupy the main terrace on the eastern side through out the day, but will experience its densest occupancies in the morning at breakfast as guests soak up the morning sun. Seated in alignment with Dorset street in the morning, the guests will create an active street, encouraging vehicular traffic to park adding to the pedestrian traffic and will simultaneously pull the hotel guests down Dorset Street to the shops which are opening for the day. The large openings at the other first floor public gathering areas and hotel guest entrances will also provide a high degree of transparency between inside and outside activities, thus working to draw people out of the building into the streetscape as well as to draw pedestrians to the building and the activities on display within it. People moving in both directions of travel are then provided with the opportunity to mingle and interact in the terraces that occur on all pedestrian facades. The activity in the southern facing plaza will likely peek in the afternoon and evening depending on the varying events being held on any given day. A strong connection to the street is provided In rainy weather and the winter season through the large span of glass at the primary exterior terrace which renders the boundary between inside and out nearly invisible in both the bright morning sun, and the darker atmospheres of rain and short winter days. The motion of activities framed and the warmth of the interior environments, then becomes a major drawing force to area pedestrians. The terraces in winter will maintain the same ability to occupied by the public as in other seasons, but to accommodate for the assumed decline of leisurely dwellers on the terraces in winter, a seasonal ice rink is planned to help build pedestrian activity in and to the development. [G] The project provides creative alternatives for creating pedestrian friendly environments consisting of original design elements throughout a variety of design scales. Many of the previously discussed points can fall into this category as well, but its location as a Gateway Building at the end of Dorset Street and Architectural Siting which subtly forms a terminus to the City Center’s primary boulevard; a tower in the Holiday Inn which marks a small, plaza, park and seasonal ice rink, which may prove its most powerful. Proposed Hampton Inn Building, 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application MS-18-06 Narrative to Accompany Request for Consideration under Alternative Entrance Standards BMA Architects - November 21, 2018 Additional Argument for Consideration: The project is a Gateway building demarcating arrival in the City Center for vehicular traffic and marking the transition from a suburban/ rural arrival (vehicular) to urban (pedestrian and multimodal) environment. As a Gateway building forming a terminus to an urban boulevard, the project site will never be the central (cross through)point of pedestrian movement. However, it will play an equally important role as the beginning point of dense pedestrian activity that will expand primarily to the south down Dorset, but also to the east along Williston, from this site. As a multiple hotel site the project is primed to bring pedestrians to the City Center streetscape. Pedestrian interest should thus be considered from a Southern and an Easterly direction of movement as pedestrians move out of the two hotel sites and into the surrounding urban businesses. The intent of the door entrance regulation (as a regular and frequent publicly accessible entrance for the purpose of inviting pedestrian engagement) is implemented in a reverse movement pattern, so that pedestrian (almost entirely hotel guest) traffic moves from the proposed hotels and out towards the existing and future developments. The onus for pedestrian interest then falls on the creation of a series of exterior environments that hotel guests will want to occupy (leaving the building enclosure to enter the streetscape) and which will create a publicly active streetscape. The project design creates a series of exterior spaces for the Hotel guests to lounge in, creating the opportunity to be pull them down the streetscape into future T4 developments and welcomes them back to the site, encouraging them to linger in the public spaces (interior and exterior) further activating the street. Both the desire for hotel guests to become pedestrian participants and for offsite pedestrians to feel like the site is a part of the continuous public realm is enhanced by the use of large spans of glazing at the public areas at street level. This is further enforced by the placement of public gathering spaces at the large glazing, putting the interior activities on display. This is true of First Floor areas and Upper Floor areas, where additional street activity is created through both second and 6th floor public spaces, which are highly visible to the street and visually connected to the streetscape throughout all seasons. Drawing pedestrian activity to the Gateway Intersection at Dorset and Williston. As seen on approach from the south on Dorset Street and the east on Williston; the 6th floor roof terrace is sited to place public activity as a prominent attractor on the site. Activity at this prominent intersection and at this height indicates the presence of and access to and the expectation of a vista of the mountain ranges beyond an evolving city center below. Views from the roof terrace will allow visitors to create a mental map of the City Center and its various attractions, encouraging further exploration of the city center by pedestrian traffic to areas that might not be as visible to them at street level. All while being a participant in encouraging further pedestrian traffic, which they will soon rejoin. Proposed Hampton Inn Building, 1068 Williston Road Miscellaneous Application MS-18-06 Narrative to Accompany Request for Consideration under Alternative Entrance Standards BMA Architects - November 21, 2018   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.  This application was continued without being heard at the June 19 and August 7,  2018 hearings in order to allow the applicant to meet with the Planning Commission to request changes to the  standards prohibiting parking between a building and the front property line.  The applicant has indicated that  they wish to proceed with the proposed subdivision regardless of the outcome of their request, therefore Staff  has prepared a draft decision for this application.    For the Board’s benefit, the previous staff comments are summarized below.  Staff has no concerns with the  application and recommends the Board review the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.    PARKING    The proposed subdivision creates a new front side to the property.  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.  In addition, if the applicant proposes a 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.  The  applicant understands this potential challenge and wishes to proceed with the subdivision.    WETLANDS    During sketch, the Board requested the applicant revise the proposed lot line to split the wetland buffer between  the two properties, creating a situation of shared responsibility for the stream health.      Staff considers this has been addressed, and recommends the Board review the revised configuration to confirm  they are satisfied.    SITE PLAN STANDARDS  Pursuant to Section 5.08A, development within the Commercial 2 district is 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.  Therefore the applicant must obtain site plan approval for  the two properties with the reconfigured lot lines prior to recording the mylar for this subdivision.    SD‐18‐06  2 In addition, 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  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 at such time that building expansions are proposed.    SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  1  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    CATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLC ‐ 68 NESTI DRIVE AND 1795 SHELBURNE ROAD  FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐18‐18  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Final plat application #SD‐18‐01 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC for review of a resubdivision, 68 Nesti  Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road.      The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 19, August 7 and December 4, 2018. The  applicant was represented by Fernando Cresta and Doug Nedde.    Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Board finds,  concludes, and decides the following:    FINDINGS OF FACT    1. Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking final plat  approval to resubdivide two lots at 68 Nesti Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road.    2. The owner of record of the subject property is Catamount/Middlebury, LLC.  3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 Zoning District.  4. The application was received on May 18, 2018.  5. The plan set submitted consists of a three (3) page plan set entitled “Proposed Lot Adjustment &  Site Improvements 68 Nesti Drive & 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT,”  prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated January 2, 2018 and last revised May 7,  2018.  6. 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.  7. 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.  The applicant has corrected these deficiencies with  this final plat application.    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.          SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  2  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.  The proposed subdivision creates a new front side to the property.  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.  In addition, if the applicant proposes a 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.  Nonetheless, the Board finds these criteria met for the current  application.      SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  3  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  proposed  lot  line  approximately  splits  the  wetland  buffer  between the two properties, creating a situation of shared responsibility for the stream health.  The  Board finds this criterion met.    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.  The Board finds 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.  The Board finds 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.  The Board finds subsequent  applications to create a future potential connection between parcels will need to be closely reviewed  as they pertain to impacts to access and circulation on Shelburne Road.  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.  The wetland delineation was updated in spring of 2018.  The Board finds 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.  The Board finds 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  SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  4  location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII  of these Regulations.   Though the proposed lot line creates a triangular flag lot geometry which is inconsistent with the  geometry of other parcels within the vicinity, the Board finds the proposed configuration meets this  criterion.    (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.  The Board  finds 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.  The Board finds this criterion met.  (8) Roads,  recreation  paths,  stormwater  facilities,  sidewalks,  landscaping,  utility  lines  and  lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such  services  and  infrastructure  to adjacent  properties.  For  Transect  Zone  subdivisions,  this  standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks.  No site changes are proposed as part of this application.  The Board finds subsequent applications to  create a future potential connection between parcels will need to be closely reviewed as they pertain  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.  The  Board finds this criterion met.    (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  SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  5  transitions  to  adjacent  residential  areas,  improving  local  neighborhood  connections,  promoting  access to Lake Champlain.  The Board finds 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.  The Board finds subsequent applications to  create a future potential connection between parcels will need to be closely reviewed as they pertain  to impacts to stormwater.  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.    The Board finds the applicant must 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 must either plant landscaping to match what was  represented on the prior site plan approval or provide a proposed replacement plan for the 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.    DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve final plat application #SD‐18‐18 of Catamount/Middlebury  LLC, subject to the following conditions:     1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.     2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the  South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.    3. 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.    SD‐18‐18  Staff Comments  6  4. Any changes to the final plat plan will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review  Board.     5. The final plat plan (Overall Site and P.U.D Plan) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days  or this approval is null and void. The plat plan must be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to  recording.    6. The mylar must be recorded prior to zoning permit issuance.    7. A zoning permit must be obtained for the building within six (6) months of approval with the option  for requesting a one (1) year extension.    8. The applicant must obtain site plan approval for the two properties with the reconfigured lot lines  prior to recording the mylar for this subdivision.    9. The applicant must regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.    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 ________________, 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 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.    SSSGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GGGUEUEUEUEUEUECLASS IIIWETLAND50'BUFFER ZONE50' STREAM BUFFE R Z O NE 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 SIDEWALK125135135135135152146146145144EXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCATAMOUNT/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"2"23/4"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 Y A R D S E T B A C K 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' FRONT YARD 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' STREA M BUFFER Z ON E 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 SIDEWALK125135135135135152146 146145144EXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGBUILDINGCATAMOUNT/MIDDLEBURY, LLC68 NESTI DRIVE1693 SHELB U R N E R D . , L L C 1693 SHELB U N R E R D 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 Y A R D S E T B A C K 10' SIDE YARD SETBACK30' FRONT YARD 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 STOR 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 VIEW D R .TO BARTLETT BAY ROADALLEN ROADEXISTINGPARKINGEXISTINGGRASS / MEADOWEXISTINGPAVEMENTEXISTINGPAVEMENTN/F D. & B. F L A G G Vol. 549 P g . 4 4 0 N/F 1693 SHEL B U R N E R D . , L L C Vol. 725 Pg. 5 4 1 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‐18‐51 102 Allen Road Site Plan Application    DATE:    December 4, 2018 Development Review Board meeting      NFI Vermont, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously  approved plan by constructing a 3,255 square foot building addition to an existing group home.  At the  November 20, 2018 hearing, the Board heard the applicant and continued the hearing to address deficiencies in  their landscaping plan.  The applicant has submitted revised materials addressing the landscaping deficiencies  as well as the other items identified during the hearing.     Staff considers that the landscaping plan still requires updating.  This deficiency and a summary of the  modifications from the prior submission is discussed below.      A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS     The applicant has updated their building and overall coverage calculations.  The corrected coverages are  reflected in the draft decision and fall below the allowable maximums.  Staff considers these criterion met.    B) SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS    The applicant is proposing some encroachment into the stream buffer.  The applicant has updated their plans  to reflect planting of a naturalized seed mix within the disturbed buffer area, and has also added two  replacement trees within the disturbed area.  Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval  requiring the disturbed buffer to be allowed to re‐grow in an unmanaged manner.      C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    Landscaping and Screening Requirements    At the November 20 hearing, the Board discussed with the applicant the need to install additional landscaping  and provide replacement for the removed vegetation.  The applicant has performed a survey of the trees to be  removed.      The LDRs require a minimum landscaping value of 3% of the building cost up to $500,000, which in this case  works out to $7,500.  In addition, any landscaping which was included on a previously approved site plan must  be maintained in perpetuity.  The previous site plans for this property included the wooded areas where the  applicant is proposing to remove trees with a total size of 52 caliper inches, including a 20 inch white pine near  #SP‐18‐51  2 the perimeter of the disturbed area.  Therefore in order to receive approval, this project must provide  replacement for those 52 caliper inches of trees.    The current landscape plan provides $8,165 in landscape value, which includes five 5‐6’ arborvitaes, four 2 ½”  maples, and four 2 ½” white pines.  Since the minimum is $7,500, $665 of that value can be considered  “replacement” for the trees to be removed.  Using the four 2 ½” caliper white pines as the “replacement trees”,  Staff calculates the applicant is proposing 10 caliper inches of trees to replace the 52 caliper inches being  removed.  They are therefore deficient by 42 caliper inches of trees.     Staff recommends the Board discuss the tree replacement deficiency with the applicant.    Low Impact Development    The applicant has revised their erosion control plan to reflect the stabilization timelines and topsoil thickness  requirements of Article 16, and has added additional erosion control silt fence to protect the stream buffer.    D) OTHER    Bicycle Parking and Storage    The applicant has revised their plans to reflect the installation of three inverted‐U type bicycle racks, providing  parking for six (6) bicycles.  This meets 100% of the required minimum for the property.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues  herein.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner   DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD               6 November 2018    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6  November 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, F. Kochman, M. Behr, M. Cota    ALSO PRESENT:  D.  Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Assistant Administrative Officer; D.  Saladino, K. Darr, J. Illick, P.Cross, B. DeLaBruero, D Woolridge, C. Frank, A. Chalnick, R. Rushford    1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐26 of Gardner Construction, Inc., to  subdivide two existing parcels totaling 5.8 acres and developed with one single‐family  dwelling into approximately six lots for the purpose of a 23‐uit residential planned  unit development.  The planned unit development is to consist of 17 detached single  family homes, six units in two‐family dwellings and one existing single‐family home,  1398 Hinesburg Road:    No one was present to represent the applicant.  Based on the staff notes, Board members  chose not to proceed.    6. 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 twelve, and associated 9000 sq. ft. retail sales building, 793 and  907 Shelburne Road:  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  6 NOVEMBER 2018  PAGE 2    No one was present to represent the applicant.  Based on the applicant’s request, the Board  chose not to proceed.    7. Sketch plan application #SD—18‐30 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five lots  (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into three lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres  (Lot 9) and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), eliminate the proposed City Street Community Way, and  construct an approximately 144,000 sq. ft. warehousing and distribution center, 45  Community Drive:    Mr. Illick said the project is smaller than at the previous sketch hearing; otherwise it is the  same.  The property was originally subdivided in 1996.    Community Dr. is proposed to be removed because it was originally intended to provide access  to Lot #9 which is no longer needed.  Lot 8B is not a building lot.  The driveway to the proposed  building will be where Community Drive was originally proposed to be.    Mr. Illick said the majority of the building will be a distribution facility with a small office.  It will  serve FedEx Ground (which is different from FedEx Air).  Vehicles will not be coming from the  Airport.  Large tractor‐trailers will be delivering in off‐peak or overnight hours, and packages  will be sorted and loaded onto vans for delivery.  Since the site slopes from southwest to  northeast, the south side of the building will be cut into the slope to accommodate the height  of the tractor‐trailers.    Mr. Illick stressed that there would be no reason for the public to come to this facility.  The  proposed walking path will be retained and slightly realigned.     Mr. Illick identified the location of a wetland.  Only the center of the site will be impacted.  VHB  has done a wetland delineation which is being reviewed by the State and ACE.  The total  infringement on the Class 2 and Class 3 wetlands is less than an acre.    Mr. Illick noted that FedEx is amenable to having their traffic study reviewed.  They do not yet  know the total number of employees.  The parking lot has been sized to accommodate two  overlapping shifts.  The parking requirement is 70; 299 spaces are being provided.  Mr.  Kochman asked how many parking spaces are there at the current facility.  Ms. Keene said just  over 100.    Mr. Illick also noted that the applicant is willing to do a noise study.  He reiterated that the large  trucks will be entering the site only in off‐peak/night hours; during the day it will be vans and  employees. There will be no underground tanks/fueling on the site.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  6 NOVEMBER 2018  PAGE 3    Mr. Illick said that for those driving north on Rt.  I‐89, the building will be almost invisible.  It will  be more visible going south.  The building will be brick precast with metal paneling.   Architecture will be consistent with 30 Community Drive.  There will also be 8 to 10‐foot berms  for “aesthetic reasons.”  The Whales Tail will remain.    Mr. Illick said they would like to combine preliminary and final plats.    Staff notes were then addressed as follows:    1. The applicant will correct the dimensional calculation.    2. They are OK with technical review.  They have no preference regarding a signal or  roundabout, whichever works.    3. Regarding shared curb cuts on lots 11  & 12, the applicant doesn’t want to do that  now because they don’t know who the user will be.  There are existing curb cuts  opposite Lots 11 & 12.  They are OK with providing an easement as long as they can  keep the curb cuts.    4. They will submit the wetlands report.    5. The applicant does not want a requirement that would allow public use of the  walking path.  They feel the DRB should not be able to mandate future use of private  property.  Mr. Cota said the Board would like to provide input on the path  realignment.  Mr. Illick was OK with this.  Mr. Miller did not feel the Board can make  a requirement for public use of the path.  Mr. Behr said the path has been shown on  all plans; he was not concerned with making it public.    6. Regarding outdoor space for employees, Mr. Darr, representing the applicant, said  there could be picnic tables near the office area.  Staff can use the patio area.    7. They will comply with State stormwater standards.    8. Parking is what is required by FedEx, and they will not build without it.  Mr. Kochman  was concerned with the aesthetics.  The applicant agreed to bring in a line‐of‐sight  drawing(s).    9. Mr. Behr asked if they would consider a transitional lighting plan such as they have  in Williston.  Mr. Illick said they will meet the regulations and will not have light  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  6 NOVEMBER 2018  PAGE 4  spilling off the property.  They need the lighting for safety.  They will look into  automatic lighting.    10. Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the project meeting performance standards  (noise, lighting, etc.).  He asked that these be addressed in subsequent applications.    11. Regarding trailer parking, the applicant does not want interior landscaping or  shading.  The will see if they can include some of the trailer parking area as  equipment storage and some van parking as “parking” to make the front parking  25% or less in order to meet interior landscaping/shading requirements.    12. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a barrier between trailer storage and the wetland.   Mr. Illick said the loading docks have to be on the downhill side.  They won’t be “too  visible.”  He said the I‐C Zoning District is where these things should be.  Mr. Miller  asked that the view from the north/south leg of Community Drive be included in the  drawings.    13. Regarding the easement on Lot 11, Mr. Illick didn’t think there will ever be a reason  for collaboration between properties.  They will sell the FedEx property when it is  developed.  They will never share parking.  Board members seemed OK with this.    14. The applicant is OK with showing the location of interior long‐term parking.    Public comment was then heard as follows:    1. The Energy Committee would like the applicant to consider solar on the roof.    2. Ms. Frank of the Bike/Ped Committee said the Committee would like to weigh in on  the signal vs. roundabout decision.  Staff will share the traffic study with them.    Regarding combining preliminary and final plats, Mr. Miller said this is up to the applicant.  Mr.  Kochman said the Board can’t approve anything until all the external permits are in hand and  he questioned whether the applicant should make a major investment before preliminary  approval.    8. Minutes of 16 October 2018:    Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 16 October as written.  Mr. Cota seconded.   Motion passed 5‐0.  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  6 NOVEMBER 2018  PAGE 5    9. Other Business:    No other business was presented.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:25 p.m.            _____________________________________       Clerk