Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/19/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JUNE 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 June 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, F. Kochman, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; L. Michaels, C. Gottfried, A. Blow, J. S. & F. Leduc, B. Stark, P. & A. Ewing, S. Michaels 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. Conditional use application #CU-18-08 of Larry Michaels to install a covered entry and porch to the front of an existing 2-story house, 106 Central Avenue: Mr. Michaels explained that the pergola that has been there since before they bought the home will be taken away. They will build out the porch with deck and have a cover over the front door. The deck will be 2 feet further back than the pergola was. The walkway will be stone. There will also be an area to the side for barbeques which will be stone or gravel. No issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close CU-18-08. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. 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 1,500 sq. ft. standard restaurant, 1696 Williston Road: Mr. Gottfried said the addition will be to the back and will serve to update the ventilation system without cutting into the diner space. Heating and A/C systems are now not working properly. This will also get the cooking equipment further from customers, which is a safety concern. The applicant then addressed the staff memo: a. They are OK with utilities remaining overhead. b. Staff is OK with proposed landscaping c. Staff is OK with parking but wants all the parking spaces to be striped and to have 3 spaces designated for employee parking and signed to that effect. d. The parallel parking space must be 22 feet instead of 18 feet long. The applicant will comply e. Staff is OK with the landscaping “planters” f. Regarding shade trees, Ms. Keene said staff is trying to find a “creative way” to do this. Mr. Miller said he was OK with putting the trees to the north but they would only be shading the street. Mr. Gottfried did not want to lose his snow storage space for trees that serve no purpose. He said it could be a deal breaker to have to dig up pavement. Mr. Sullivan asked about a process not to require the trees. Members agreed to continue the application to see if something can be worked out with the trees. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-18-22 to 17 July. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. 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. Belair noted the applicant has asked for a continuance to 17 July, but that agenda is very full. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-18 to 7 August. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Sullivan abstaining as he will recuse himself from this application due to a conflict of interest. 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-17 of Peter Ewing to subdivide an existing 9.7 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres, 133 Cheesefactory Lane: Mr. Ewing said they will conveying 48 acres along Muddy Brook (12 of which are in S. Burlington) to the Nature Conservancy and 45 acres to the Vermont Land Trust. He showed what will be left of the property in South Burlington. Ms. Keene noted that both Shelburne and S. Burlington agree that the Town Line has to be corrected and numbers updated accordingly. Mr. Ewing said they will be subdividing on the Town Line when it is correctly determined. Mr. Ewing noted they plan to build a seasonal camp for the summer. It will have a low roof on the second floor resulting in a height of less than 20 feet. Mr. Miller reminded the applicant that they would need DRB approval for any additional homes to be accessed by the private road, regardless of whether the homes are in S. Burlington or Shelburne. Ms. Keene said development is not precluded, but the DRB would have to review it. It was noted that the wetland crossing permit is for a 12-foot road. Both the Fire Chief and Public Works are OK with an 18-foot wetland crossing. Mr. Ewing said they will revise the permit and have hired a wetland consultant to do that work. Staff is OK with allowing the gravel road, but the LDRs require it to be 20-feet, except at the wetland crossing. Ms. Keene said the Fire Chief is firm on 20 feet. Mr. Ewing noted that Cheesefactory Lane is 15 feet, and 20 feet would be out of character with the area. Members felt that it is Cheesefactory Lane that needs improvement. Members felt that fencing or a landscape buffer is not needed for the wetland area as long as it is consistent with the State wetland permit. Discussion then followed as to the timing of an approval to coincide with the dates of the agreements with the Nature Conservancy and Vermont Land Trust. Members of the Leduc asked how many homes would be built on the road. Mr. Ewing said one in South Burlington and 3 in Shelburne. Ms. Leduc noted that with the existing Bed & Breakfast, that makes a total of 5. Mr. Saunders asked if lot #1 is conserved or can be built on. Ms. Keene said it can be built on and would then require a paved road. Mr. Saunders said the intersection of Cheesefactory Road and Cheesefactory Lane is hazardous and has been the site of several accidents. Mr. Kochman said that is an issue to take up with the City Council. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-18-18 to 21 August. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Minutes of 5 June 2018: Mr. Wilking noted that on p. 3, he had sold the property to Skip Hoechner, not R. L. Valley. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 5 June 2018 as amended. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:34 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on 7/17/2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #CU‐18‐08  ‐ 1 ‐   CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    LARRY MICHAELS – 106 CENTRAL AVE  CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU‐18‐03  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Conditional use application #CU‐18‐08 of Larry Michaels to install a covered entry and porch to  the front of an existing 2‐story house, 106 Central Avenue.    The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 19, 2018. The applicant  represented himself.  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. Larry Michaels, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking conditional use  approval to construct a 10’ x 17’ covered porch, 106 Central Ave.    2. The owners of record of the subject property are Larry R. Michaels & Gretchen Gaida  Michaels.  3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park District.  4. The application was received on May 18, 2018.  5. The plan set submitted consists of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled  “Plan + Elevation, Larry Michaels Renovation, Queen City Park South Burlington  Vermont,” prepared by Don Welch Architecture and dated May 31, 2018.  6. Structures on the property currently include a single family home and a pergola. The  current structures conform with the property line setback standards of the district but  not with the surface water buffer standards.  A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS:     QCP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed   Min. Lot Size 7,500 SF  7,405 SF  7,405 SF   Max. Building Coverage1 20 %  11.9 %  14.9 %    Max. Overall Coverage1 40 %  19.0 %  23.0 %  #  Min. Front Setback  10 ft.  17 ft.  7 ft.   Min. Side Setback 5 ft.  Unknown  No change   Min. Rear Setback 10 ft.  Unknown  No change   Potash Brook Setback2 100 ft.  < 100 ft.  No change   Height (Pitched roof)1 25 ft.  26 ft.  No change    √  Zoning Compliance    #CU‐18‐08  ‐ 2 ‐  @  Existing nonconformity  #  Encroachment requested, see discussion under 3.06J.  1. Estimated by staff.  Values on application form were calculated incorrectly.  2. Potash Brook is located to the rear of the property.  The proposed improvements  are located outside the 100 ft. buffer.    3.06(J) EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS EXISTING  PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 28, 1974.  The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling  units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to  February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single‐family  dwelling or a two‐family dwelling.    (1) Side  and  Rear  Setbacks.  A  structure  may  encroach  into  the  required  side  or  rear  setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the  district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet.  (2) Front  Setbacks.  A  structure  may  encroach  into  a  required  front setback  up  to  the  average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the  same street frontage, but in no event shall a structure have a front setback of less than  five (5) feet.  (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a  required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved  by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional  Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear  property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the  Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not  have an undue adverse affect on:  (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;  (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties;  (c) adequate on‐site parking; and  (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property.    The applicant is proposing to construct the covered porch no nearer than seven (7) feet to the  front lot line.  The Board finds that the impacts to nearby properties of allowing the minimum  front setback to be reduced from ten (10) feet to seven (7) feet do not adversely affect views,  access to sunlight, or safety, nor does it adversely affect adequacy of on‐site parking.  Overall  impacts of the proposed additions are discussed below under Section 4.08F (3).    QUEEN CITY PARK DISTRICT  4.08F Nonconforming Structures in the Queen City Park District  Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section  3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements and restrictions:  (1)   Any nonconforming structure may be altered provided such work does not:  (a)   Exceed in aggregate cost thirty‐five percent (35%) for residential properties  and twenty‐five percent (25%) for nonresidential properties of the fair market value as  #CU‐18‐08  ‐ 3 ‐  determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by  the Administrative Officer; or   (b)   Involve an increase to the structure's height or footprint, or otherwise involve  an increase to the square footage of the building or structure.  (2)   The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the  thirty‐five and twenty‐five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to  the structure's height, footprint or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14,  Conditional Use Review.  The applicant is not subject to the 35% fair market value criterion since it was constructed  prior to February 28, 1974 (See Section 3.11D(3)).  The applicant is proposing to exceed the  square  footage  criterion.    The  applicant  is  proposing  to  increase  the  building’s  square  footage by 221 square feet, consisting of a covered porch.  Therefore the application is  subject to conditional use review.  (3)   The Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed alteration or  expansion will not adversely affect:  (a)   Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;  (b)   Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and  (c)   Adequate on‐site parking.  This criterion addresses the overall impact of the project, while the criterion under 3.06J (3)  is specific to the impacts of the portion of the project within ten feet of the front property  line.  The proposed addition is to add a covered porch in place of an existing pergola.  The  proposed porch will replace an existing pergola in the same location.  The Board finds that  on an overall basis, views of adjoining properties will not be affected.     The Board finds on‐site parking to be adequate.    CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW    Pursuant to Section 12.01C(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (New  Uses and Encroachments within Stream Buffers), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a  conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E):    14.10E General Review Standards  The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with  all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall  not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following:    (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.    This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. The Board finds this  criterion met.    #CU‐18‐08  ‐ 4 ‐  (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the  zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and  standards of the municipal plan.     The Board finds that the proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the  Queen City Park (QCP) district, which is in part “to encourage residential use at densities  and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park  neighborhood.  It  is  designed  to  promote  the  area's  historic  development  pattern  of  smaller  lots  and  reduced  setbacks.  This  district  also  encourages  the  conversion  of  seasonal homes to year round residences.” The Board finds this criterion met.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    The  Board  finds  this  criterion  met.    See  above  for  a  discussion  of  compliance  with  dimensional and nonconforming structure standards.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    This project will not affect renewable energy resources. The Board finds this criterion  met.    #CU‐18‐08  ‐ 5 ‐  DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve conditional use application #CU‐18‐08 of Larry  Michaels, subject to the following conditions:    1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended  herein.    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. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section  17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void.     4. Any  change  to  the  approved  plan  shall  require  approval  by  the  South  Burlington  Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer.     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 June, 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.  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‐18‐22 1696 Williston Road Site Plan    DATE:    June 19, 2018   Development Review Board meeting      Corey Gottfried has submitted site plan application #SP‐18‐22 to amend a previously approved plan by  construction a 20‐foot by 23‐foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. standard restaurant at 1696 Williston  Road.     Staff considers that the outstanding topics are relatively minor and has therefore prepared a draft decision for  this application.  Staff has provided draft language for each of the four outstanding issues, depending on the  findings of the Board.  Draft language is highlighted in the draft decision in red.  A further discussion of the  issues relevant to each topic is below.      UTILITIES  Site plan standards require utility lines to be located underground.  The applicant is proposing to relocate the  existing overhead utilities from the wall to become interior space to the wall of the proposed addition.      1. Staff considers that requiring the applicant to relocate the utilities underground would be  disproportionate to the scope of the project and recommends the Board allow the utilities to remain  overhead.      LANDSCAPING  The applicant is proposing $1,600 worth of plantings.  The required landscape value is $1,650.  The applicant is  also proposing two additional perennial planters and a bench along the front of the building facing Williston Road.      2. Staff considers the value of the proposed planters and bench provide sufficient credit to make up the $50  deficiency in landscape budget and recommends the Board approve the proposed landscape and  hardscaping.    PARKING  The applicant has provided 24 parking spaces, which meets the minimum requirement taking into  consideration the ability of the Board to waive up to 25% of the required parking.      Parking Location  Three of the parking spaces are to be designated for employees only.  These parking spaces are in non‐ traditional locations, with two spaces blocking the dumpster enclosure and the third being blocked by the first  two when they are in use.    SD‐18‐06  2   3. Staff considers Standard 5.08C(1) allows the Board some flexibility to allow these parking spaces and  recommends the Board allow this configuration.    Parking Striping  The applicant has requested the Board allow the three employee only parking spaces to be unstriped.  Section  13.01G(1) requires that all paved parking spaces be striped.      4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the site plan to show all parking spaces as  striped, and recommends the Board require the applicant designate the three parking spaces as  employee only using signs installed on the adjacent dumpster enclosure.     Parking Dimensions  The applicant is proposing one parallel parking space.  Parallel parking spaces are required to be 22 feet long  per Table 13‐8.      5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plan to reflect a 22‐foot long parking  space.    Parking Lot Landscaping  Section 13.06B requires perimeter planting, protected by curbing, and at least one major deciduous shade tree  within or near the perimeter of each parking area for every five parking spaces, spaced at least 30 feet apart.   The specific regulatory language pertaining to these requirements is included in the draft decision.      The building expansion, the purpose of which is to provide additional cooking space and not additional  restaurant seats, triggered the parking lot to be expanded by 11 spaces.  The overall lot coverage for the  subject property is 98.6% under existing conditions and 98.1% under proposed conditions.  The adjacent  property with which the subject property shares a driveway is also nearly entirely covered.    6. Given the shared driveway configuration, Staff considers the proposal to place landscaping in raised  beds along the eastern perimeter of the parking only to be acceptable and recommends the Board  consider this as meeting the perimeter planting requirements and curbing requirements.    During the sketch plan hearing, the Board requested the applicant remove some pavement to improve the lot  coverage as a compensation for the coverage, setback and parking waivers requested.  Since sketch, the  regulations have changed, and the applicant no longer requires a setback waiver.    7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant a way to provide the required shade trees, or a  suitable alternative, for at minimum the additional 11 spaces proposed as part of this application.  Staff  considers removing the pavement in the two triangular snow storage areas in the parking lot to the  north and planting deciduous shade trees may meet this requirement.  Trees must be protected by  permanently installed curbing.    ACCESS AND CIRCULATION  The existing lot configuration includes a shared driveway which connects Williston Road to Airport Road.  Under  existing conditions, drivers who enter the property via either Williston Road or Airport Road can access all of  the available parking spaces without exiting back onto a road.  Under the proposed configuration, a portion of  SD‐18‐06  3 the parking on the subject property to the rear of the building will only be accessible via the Airport Road curb  cut.      8. Staff recommends the Board approve this configuration.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner #SP‐18‐22  1    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING    COREY GOTTFRIED  1696 WILLISTON ROAD  SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP‐18‐22  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Site plan application #SP‐18‐22 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by construction  a 20‐foot by 23‐foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. standard restaurant, 1696 Williston Road.     The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday June 19, 2018.  The applicant was  represented by Corey Gottfried.    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 amend a previously approved plan by construction a 20‐foot by 23‐foot  addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. standard restaurant and making associated site  improvements, 1696 Williston Road. The site plan is subject to DRB review because the building  is an existing non‐conforming structure.  2. The owner of record of the subject property is Overlake Park, LLC.  3. The application was received on May 18, 2018.  4. The subject property is located in the Commercial 1 Airport zoning district and the urban design,  transit, and traffic overlay districts.  5. The plans submitted consist of a three (3) page set of plans.  The first page is entitled “Proposed  Improvements – Parkway Diner, 1696 Williston Rd., South Burlington, VT 05403,” prepared by  Wilson Consulting Engineers, PLC, dated April 26, 2018 and most revised May 7, 2018.  Sheets 2  and 3 are most recently revised May 24, 2018.  6. On November 7, 2017 the Development Review Board heard a sketch plan application for this  project.  7. Existing lot coverage is 98.6%, and proposed lot coverage is 98.1%.    A) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS  Land Development Regulations Section 5.08 apply to development within the C‐1 Airport district.    A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the  residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set  forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout,  encourage  more  efficient  use  of  land  for  commercial  development,  promote  mixed‐use  development  and  shared  parking  opportunities,  reduce  stormwater  runoff  and  maximize  infiltration,  provide  coordinated  access  to  and  from  commercial  developments  via  public  roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed  roadway improvements.  #SP‐18‐22  2    The purpose of the addition, as stated by the applicant, is to create a safer and more efficient  environment  for  guests  and  employees  by  improving  exhaust  systems and climate control  systems, updating kitchen layout, and refurbishing with respect to its age and historical presence.   The proposed addition represents infill development.  The Board finds this criterion met.    B. N/A    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 existing use of the building consist of 1,500 square feet of standard restaurant use.  The  2007 decision did not include the 200 square foot walk‐in cooler as part of the leasable area,  therefore the required parking is calculated based on 1,300 square feet of existing building plus  460 square feet of addition at a rate of 18 spaces per 1,000 square feet, or 32 parking spaces.   The Board has the ability to waive up to 25% of the required parking spaces, yielding a minimum  of 24 spaces which can be approved by waiver.  The applicant is proposing 21 parking spaces  which fully comply with the standard parking size and spacing requirements.  Three remaining  spaces are proposed to be stacked along the eastern property line and in front of the dumpster  enclosure.  The applicant has requested that these spaces be allowed to be unmarked and  designated as employee parking only.  Trash and recycling pick up would be coordinated to  ensure accessibility.  The Board finds that in order to comply with 13.01G(1), all paved parking  spaces must be striped.  The applicant must stripe all parking spaces.  In order to designate  parking spaces as employee only, the applicant must include signs.  See Site Plan Review  Standard B (2) below for additional discussion of parking.    D.   N/A    B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS  Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general  review standards for all site plan applications:    A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.  Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land  use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.    The Project is located in the northwest quadrant in an area designated for medium to higher  intensity mixed use development.  Northwest quadrant objectives pertain to maintaining  affordable residential neighborhoods, allowing for infill development with focus on the  replacement of single‐family affordable homes, creation of transitions between the airport and  surrounding neighborhoods, and ensuring compatibility with University land uses.  The Board  #SP‐18‐22  3  finds the proposed expansion will support the objective of transitions between the airport and  neighborhoods.    B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.  (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from  structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,  and adequate parking areas.    The proposed site plan incorporates a pedestrian walkway between the parking and the  building entrance.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (2) Parking:  (a)  Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings.  Any side of a building facing  a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this  subsection.      Item (d) below provides guidance for through‐lots.    (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one  or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are  met.    The  Board  shall  approve  only  the  minimum  necessary  to  overcome  the  conditions below.  (i) The parking area is necessary to meet  minimum  requirements  of  the  Americans with Disabilities Act  (ii)– (iii) Not applicable    (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re‐used and  parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing  building(s).    The parking space located to the front of the building is proposed to be an accessible space.   The Board finds this criterion met.    (c)(not applicable)  (d)For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of  the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of  traffic.  Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located  to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas  adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the  parking from view of the Interstate.    According to this standard, parking may be located to the front of the building adjacent  to Airport Road.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and  scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated  adjoining buildings.    The applicant proposing to fill in the “L” shape of the existing structure, and has submitted  #SP‐18‐22  4  renderings demonstrating the massing of the proposed addition.  The Board finds this  criterion met.    C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.  (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common  materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),  landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions  between buildings of different architectural styles.  (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to  existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed  structures.    The applicant has provided renderings showing that the proposed addition will be faced in  the same siding as the existing rear portion of the building.  The Board finds this criterion  met.    In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific  standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:    (II) Access to Abutting Properties.  The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of  access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto  an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to  improve general access and circulation in the area.    The existing lot configuration includes a shared driveway which connects Williston Road to Airport  Road.  Under existing conditions, drivers who enter the property via either Williston Road or  Airport Road can access all of the available parking spaces without exiting back onto a road.  Under  the proposed configuration, a portion of the parking on the subject property to the rear of the  building will only be accessible via the Airport Road curb cut.  The Board finds this criterion met.      (III) Utility Services.   Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall  be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a  harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.    The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing overhead utilities from the wall to become  interior space to the wall of the proposed addition.  The Board finds that requiring the applicant  to relocate the utilities underground would be disproportionate to the scope of the project.  The  Board finds this criterion met.    (IV) Disposal of Wastes.  All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance  with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with  opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).    The applicant is proposing a dumpster enclosure on the east property line.  The Board finds this  criterion met.    (V) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)    #SP‐18‐22  5  Pursuant  to  Section  13.06(A) of the  proposed  Land Development  Regulations,  landscaping  and  screening shall be required for all projects subject to site plan review.  The applicant is proposing  building improvements with a value of $55,000, therefore the required landscaping value is $1,650.   The applicant is proposing sixteen juniper bushes along the parking area, which the applicant’s  landscape designer indicates have an estimated value of $100 each.  The applicant is also proposing  two additional perennial planters and a bench along the front of the building facing Williston Road.   The Board finds the value of the proposed planters and bench provide sufficient credit to make up  the $50 deficiency in landscape budget and finds this criterion met.   F.  Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site  disturbance,  and  that  integrate  structures,  landscaping,  natural  hydrologic  functions,  and  various  other  techniques  to  minimize  runoff  from  impervious  surfaces  and  to  infiltrate  precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to  where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.    The proposed development does not increase impervious surfaces on the site.  The Board finds  this criterion met.    G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for  Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.    The dimensions of parking and driveways for the new parking area meet the standards set forth  in Figure 13‐1 except for the single parallel parking space adjacent to the existing cooler.  The  Board finds the applicant must increase the length of this parking space to 22 ft.    C) OTHER  1. Lighting    Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations addresses exterior lighting as follows.    A. General Requirements.  All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one‐family  and two‐family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as  will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from  any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are  illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or  translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for  uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is  encouraged.    The applicant has two existing building mounted light fixtures.  The Board notes that all  lights must be downcast and shielded, and that non‐compliant light fixtures must be  replaced.    B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas.    The applicant is not proposing light fixtures in the parking area.  The Board finds this  criterion met.    #SP‐18‐22  6  2. Bicycle Parking    The proposed 1,760 sq. ft. restaurant building requires two (2) short term bicycle parking spaces  according to the provisions of Section 13.14.  The applicant has provided two (2) short term  spaces and designated the required clear zone around the bicycle rack.  The Board finds this  criterion met.    3. Parking Lot Landscaping    Section 13.06B of the Land Development Regulations addresses landscaping of parking areas as  follows.    (1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,  shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to  allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of  the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide  shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for  surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants  that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.  See discussion under 3.06B(4) below.  (2) N/A  (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed  as  a  collection  and  treatment  area  for  management  of  stormwater  runoff  as  per  13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet  on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large  islands are encouraged.   See discussion under 3.06B(4) below.  (4) Landscaping Requirements   (a)  Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All  planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff  or salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant.   (b)  At  least  one  (1)  major  deciduous  shade  tree  shall  be  provided  within  or  near  the  perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed  evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed  a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.  (c)  Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches when  measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.  (d)  Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species  should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the  parking lot and the site.  (e)  N/A  The applicant is proposing to increase the number of existing parking spaces by 11.  The applicant  must therefore provide for at least two deciduous shade trees on the perimeter of the parking  #SP‐18‐22  7  area.  The Board finds the applicant must remove the pavement, provide curbing, and place one  tree in each of the two triangular areas designated for snow storage at the north end of the lot.   Further, these areas may not be used as snow storage.    (5) N/A    (6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential  for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.  The Board finds this criterion met.    4. Traffic    The project is located in the traffic overlay district.  The business closes before the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.  period used to calculate trip generation.  The Board finds the project will generate zero vehicle  trip ends.    DECISION    Motion by ___, seconded by ___, to approve site plan application #SP‐18‐22 of Corey Gottfried, 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. The site plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the  Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to  zoning permit approval.    a. Provide striping for all parking spaces  b. Designate employee parking spaces with signage to be located on the dumpster  enclosure.  c. Increase the length of the single parallel parking space adjacent to the existing cooler.   to 22 ft.  d. Remove the pavement, providing curbing, and place one tree in each of the areas  designated for snow storage at the north end of the lot.  These areas may not be  designated as snow storage.      4. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the  Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void.    5. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans shall be delivered to the Administrative  Officer before obtaining a zoning permit.    #SP‐18‐22  8  6. Prior to issuance of the zoning permit, the applicant shall post a landscaping bond with a value of  $1,650.  This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has  taken root and has a good chance of survival.     7. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to  occupancy of the new building and newly created parking spaces.    8. Any change to the site plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review  Board or the Administrative Officer.    9. The Board grants the following waivers    a. Reduction of the required parking spaces from 32 spaces to 24 spaces.  b. Lot coverage from 70% to __%    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 June, 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.    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 SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 1 1 of 13  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐17_133 Cheesefactory_Ewing_Prlm_2018‐06‐19.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: June 15, 2018  Plans received: May 10, 2018  133 CHEESEFACTORY LANE  PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐18‐17  Meeting Date:  June 19, 2018  Owner  Linka R. Lee Living Trust,  Sawyer W. Lee Living Trust,  The Ewing Farm Trust  133 Cheesefactory Ln  Shelburne, VT 05482  Applicant  Peter N. Ewing  21 Old Homestead Rd.  Westford, MA 01886  Engineer  Trudell Consulting Engineers  478 Blair Park Road  Williston, VT 05495    Property Information  Tax Parcel 0360‐00020, 0860‐01753  SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection  8.06, 10.90 acres  Location Map    Lot 2a Lot 2b Lot 1 SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 2 2 of 13    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Preliminary plat application #SD‐18‐17 of Peter Ewing to subdivide an existing 9.7 acre undeveloped  parcel into two (2) lots of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres, 133 Cheesefactory Lane.    PERMIT HISTORY    The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection district.  The applicant is  proposing a two lot subdivision in South Burlington and a three lot subdivision in Shelburne.  Staff has  coordinated with Shelburne staff to ensure the permit processes proceed in a compatible manner.    At the Shelburne pre‐application conference on October 15, 2017, the Shelburne DRB indicated that in  order for the Project to proceed, the applicant would need to demonstrate that access could be  provided to the parcels.  Due to the presence of wetlands in Shelburne, access to the Shelburne parcels  can only be achieved via Cheesefactory Lane in South Burlington.  Therefore the Project must receive  preliminary plat approval in South Burlington prior to proceeding with its Shelburne applications.    The Board heard a sketch plan application for the project on February 20, 2018.  At that hearing, several  issues were raised, as follows.  1. The Board expressed concern about the value of adding a private road for the purpose of  serving two homes in South Burlington and three homes in Shelburne.    2. The applicant expressed concern about providing parking along the public road for the public to  access the conserved land.  The Board requested the applicant propose where they would like  to provide parking for the Board’s review.  3. The applicant requested that the roadway be allowed to be 12‐feet wide even though the  minimum width allowed in the SEQ is 20‐feet.    For the current application, the applicant has reduced the proposed number of additional homes off the  proposed access road to four for a total of five homes served by the access road.  This would allow the  road to be constructed as a private road, thus obviating the Board’s concern about the value of the  public roadway.    COMMENTS    Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed  the plans submitted on May 10, 2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the  Board’s attention are in red.    1) CONTEXT    Staff and Shelburne Staff consider that multiple elements must come together for this project to be  successful.  First, this project must provide a net benefit to the affected municipalities because of the  resulting conserved land.  Second, the applicant must be able to develop the proposed four dwelling  units (one in South Burlington and three in Shelburne) in order for conservation to be feasible.  Finally,  the design of the roadway for maintenance and access for emergency services must be acceptable for  the Department of Public Works and Fire Department, respectively.     The Shelburne portion of the Project is located in the Rural District, which has a maximum density of one  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 3 3 of 13  unit per five acres.       On an overall basis, the applicant intends to construct one home in South Burlington and three homes in  Shelburne.  The subdivided South Burlington parcel will be developed with one residence on the  resulting 2.1 western lot (Lot #2), and the resulting 7.6 acre eastern lot (Lot #2b) will be conserved.  The  applicant is not proposing construction on the existing lot immediately west of the subject parcel (Lot  #1).  Finally, the applicant is proposing three homes in Shelburne, each on a single lot ranging from 5.5  acres to 6.7 acres, with the remaining lands conserved. The conserved land in Shelburne would be  contiguous to Shelburne lands previously conserved through joint efforts of the City, Town, and  adjoining property owners.    2) ZONING DISTRICT DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant ‐ Natural Resource Protection (SEQ‐NRP) district.  The  SEQ‐NRP district has certain restrictions on the type of development which may occur, discussed under SEQ  standards below.      Since the time of submission, the applicant and Staff have become aware that the Town line is located  approximately 100 feet south of the location shown on the submitted plans.  The applicant has provided  a marked up drawing showing where the Town line is located.  The applicant must provide a complete  survey of the subdivision, prepared by a licensed land surveyor, showing the location, bearing and  length of every street line, lot line and boundary line, and existing and proposed restrictions on the land  as part of the final plat application.    Dimensional standards are as follows.    SEQ‐NRP Required Proposed  Lot #1  Proposed  Lot #2  Min. Lot Size 12,000 sf  348,480 sf  92,783 sf   Max. Building Coverage 15%  0%  0.3%   Max. Overall Coverage 30%  4.62%  1.51%   Min. Front Setback 20 ft.  N/A  21.0 ft.   Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  N/A  27.6 ft.   Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  N/A  > 30 ft.  X Building Height (pitched  roof)  28 ft.  N/A  Unknown    1. The provided values for lot size and coverage are known to be inaccurate because of the inaccurate  municipal boundary line.  Staff anticipates that the values will continue to meet the minimum  dimensional requirements once corrected.  The applicant must provide corrected values as part of  the final plat submission.    2. The applicant must comply with the building height standards of the district which limit pitched roof  heights to 28‐feet. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to  provide a proposed height for the structure as part of their final plat application, measured as  proscribed in Section 3.07.    SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 4 4 of 13  3) 15.18 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PUDS, SUDVIDISIONS, TRANSECT ZONE SUBDIVISIONS AND  MASTER PLANS    (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of  the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a  City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater  Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.    The proposed development will be served by private water and wastewater systems.  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.    3. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to comply with the  erosion control standards of Article 16.    (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.    Staff considers the proposed development of four residential units will have no adverse  impact on congestion of adjacent roads.    4. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to seek DRB approval  for construction of additional homes accessed solely via the proposed private road, regardless  of whether the additional home is to be located in South Burlington or in Shelburne.    (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 applicant performed a wetland survey on the portion of the Site affected by the proposed  development.  Staff considers that a wetland survey on the remainder of the Site is not  necessary for the proposed subdivision.  The applicant has obtained a wetland general permit  from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (Permit no. 2014‐480) for construction of a  12‐foot wide driveway.    5. The wetland permit is for a 12‐foot wide driveway but the minimum standard for private  roadways is twenty (20) feet as described in Section 15.12E(2).  Roadway recommendations  are discussed elsewhere in this document.  If the Board requires the applicant to adjust the  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 5 5 of 13  roadway width, the applicant must provide a state wetland permit reflecting the proposed  impacts as part of the final plat application.  This is a requirement of 12.02E(2).    (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  the  proposed  development  visually  compatible  with the low density  development patterns identified for the Natural Resource Protection district.    (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.    Staff considers this criterion to be met through the conservation of lands and the low density  proposed.    (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.    See discussion of fire safety considerations under 9.06D(4) below.    (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.    The minimum required road width described in Section 15.12 is 20 feet.  See Subdivision  Standard 9 immediately below for further discussion.    (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.    Road standards are discussed in Section 3.05B and 15.12D.  3.05B. Lots with No Road Frontage  (2)  The Development Review Board may approve subdivision or development of  lots with no frontage on a public street, as long as access to such a street by a permanent  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 6 6 of 13  easement or right‐of‐way at least twenty (20) feet in width is provided, according to the  following procedures:  (a) …  (b) Conditions of Approval. Any application to create a new lot with no road  frontage shall be subject to the requirements and major subdivision criteria of  Article 15 of these Regulations in addition to this section.  (i)  Number of lots and/or dwelling units on a private right‐of‐way. The  Development Review Board shall limit the number of developable lots on a  private right‐of‐way to three (3) and/or the number of multi‐family units to  ten (10), whichever is less, beyond which a public street shall be required  (See Article 15, Subdivision). The Development Review Board shall require a  public street if the number of developable lots is greater than three (3)  and/or the number of multi‐family units is ten (10) or more, whichever is  less. The Development Review Board may also limit the length of a private  right‐of‐way, and may impose other conditions as may be necessary to  assure adequate emergency access to all lots and dwelling units.  (ii)  The Development Review Board may require a right‐of way wider than  the twenty (20) foot minimum if it is to serve more than one (1) lot.  (iii)  The Development Review Board may impose conditions to insure the  maintenance and permanency of a private right‐of‐way and to insure that  a right‐of‐way will not place a burden on municipal services.    Under existing conditions, there is one home on one lot served by the private roadway  proposed to be extended.  The applicant is proposing to add four more homes.  One will  be located on its own lot in South Burlington, and three more will each be located on their  own lot in Shelburne.  Staff considers the three homes in Shelburne are accessed via a  single point in South Burlington and therefore may be considered as one lot for the  purpose of this standard.  During the sketch plan hearing, the Board indicated their  acceptance of this interpretation.  Staff considers this criterion met.    15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation  D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways  (3)  Private  Roadways  allowed.    The  DRB  may  at  its  discretion  approve  a  roadway or roadways within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more  of the following situations applies:  (a) (b) not applicable  (c)  The  proposed  roadway  serves  five  (5)  or  fewer  single‐family or  duplex dwellings, an any combination of the two types of dwellings.    The applicant is proposing five homes off the private roadway, which includes one existing  home.  Staff considers the applicant shall not be permitted to develop an additional home,  regardless of whether it is located in Shelburne or South Burlington, without creating a  public roadway.        E. Standards for Construction of Roadways     (1) all streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant.     (2) N/A  (3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 7 7 of 13  section with the exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be  a minimum width of twenty‐six (26) feet with parking and twenty (20) feet  without parking.  (4)   Modification of Roadway Standards.   (a)   In  any  PUD  or  non‐Transect  Zone  subdivision,  the  DRB  may  specifically authorize modification of the City’s roadway standards in Table  15‐1 below if it specifically finds that such modification is in furtherance of  Comprehensive Plan policies and the goals for the specific zoning district in  which a project is located, and that such modification is consistent with  provisions  for  the  public  health,  safety  and  welfare  and  the  orderly  development of the City. In making such a finding, the DRB shall consider  the recommendation of the City Engineer, Director of Public Works and Fire  Chief with respect to the City’s ability to provide public services to the  proposed subdivision or PUD.     6. Table 15‐1 specifies a road width of 20 ft for private roads without parking.   Figure 15‐1B specifies that roads must be paved.  The Director of Public  Works  and  acting  Fire  Chief  have  reviewed  the  applicant’s  proposal  to  construct with a 15‐inch gravel base course and 3‐inch crusher run gravel top  course and are OK with the proposed materials.  Staff recommends the Board  grant the applicant a waiver to allow construction of a gravel road with the  proposed cross section.    The acting Fire Chief reviewed the applicant on June 6, 2018 and offers the  following comments regarding the road width and cross section.  I touched base with Shelburne FD Assistant Chief regarding this cross over road.  They have the same criteria as SBFD has. Per NFPA 1 Chp 18 sec 2.3.4.1.1‐  18.2.4.14 Et al.  FD access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less  than 20 feet, 13’6” in height and support impose loads of fire apparatus. If  homes lie within Shelburne the owner shall check with SFD for sprinkler  requirements. If the homes lie within SB a residential sprinkler system is required  in each dwelling unit.     Section 15.12, discussed above, also requires private roads to be a minimum of  20‐feet wide.    The Land Development Regulations contemplate an 18‐foot width for wetland  crossings in certain sub‐districts of the Southeast Quadrant.  The NRP district is  not one of those districts, because no new roads were contemplated at the time  the regulations were developed.    7. Staff recommends the Board require the road to be 20 feet wide except at the  wetland crossing where it must be 18 feet wide, and that the proposed home in  South  Burlington  be  equipped  with  a  residential  sprinkler  system.  Staff has  requested acting Fire Chief input on this recommendation and will provide an  update at the hearing.    (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the municipal Plan for the affected  district(s).  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 8 8 of 13    The Project is located in the area identified in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan as subject to  Objective #60 and Strategies #135 and #137, as follow.    Objective 60:  Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open  space areas within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically  designated for development.    Strategy 135:  Continue to work with Shelburne on strategies to create a conserved  agricultural and natural area, with appropriate public access and paths, from Shelburne  Pond and Pond Road north to the Cider Mill development, consistent with the goals of the  Open Space Strategy.    Strategy 137:  Through the development review process, land conservation initiatives, and  development of Zoning Map amendments for the SEQ, work towards the addition of  supplemental conserved areas adjacent and connected to existing open space lands.    Staff considers that the conservation of eight acres in South Burlington and the applicant’s  stated intention of additional conservation in Shelburne meets the objectives and strategies  of the comprehensive plan.      8. At sketch plan, the Board discussed with the applicant that a draft agreement for conservation  of the proposed land was required to be submitted with the preliminary plat application.  No  such agreement has been provided.  Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to continue  the hearing until such time as a draft agreement is provided to allow the Board to review and  provide feedback on the agreement prior to final plat.  Staff considers such an agreement will  need to be included with the final plat application in order to demonstrate compliance with  SEQ‐NRP supplemental regulations as discussed above.    (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.    Staff considers the low density of the proposed development adequately protective of natural  features.  The total impervious proposed does not exceed the half‐acre threshold for requiring  compliance with Section 12 standards pertaining to stormwater.    4) 9.06 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO  ALL SUB‐DISTRICTS.      The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ.    A. Height.  See Article 3.07.  Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C‐2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the  maximum number of stories and the maximum height.  Waivers are not available for  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 9 9 of 13  structures with the SEQ zoning district.    The Project is located within the SEQ‐NRP district.  The applicant has not demonstrated compliance  with the height requirements of these districts, as summarized in the zoning district and dimensional  standards section above.    B. Open Space and Resource Protection.  (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for  creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels    Staff considers this criterion to be met through the conservation of lands and the low density  proposed.    (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the  Regulating Plan for the applicable sub‐district allowing carefully planned development at  the average densities provided in this bylaw.    The subdivided property may only be developed with one dwelling unit as discussed under  9.12 below.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management  shall be established by the applicant.     See discussion under 9.12 below.    (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after  construction  to  prevent  soil  erosion  and  runoff  from  creating  unhealthy  or  dangerous  conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the  Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the  General  Permit  for  Construction  issued  by  the  Vermont  Department  of  Environmental  Conservation.    See discussion under Subdivision Standard 15.18(2) above.    (5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or  primary  or  natural  community  areas  and  buffers  in  a  manner  that is aesthetically  compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural  purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of  natural materials is encouraged.    Staff considers the layout of the proposed subdivision and access road adequately protective  of natural resource areas without additional landscaping or fencing.    9. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require additional landscaping or fencing to  protect the wetland buffer.    C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through  development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development  plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 10 10 of 13  agricultural  operations  and  new  development,  roads,  and  infrastructure,  or  creates  new  opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community‐ supported agriculture.     Staff considers this criterion met.    D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review  Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific development,  the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the location of planned  public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths,  streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.  (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the  needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as  evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water  and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.    The proposed development will be served by private water and wastewater systems.  Staff  considers this criterion met.    (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting  shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and  infrastructure to adjacent properties.    The applicant has not indicated where utility lines will be located.    10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide location of utility lines on the  plans for final plat application.    (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is  consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement  with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.    See item (2) immediately above pertaining to utility lines.  Otherwise Staff considers this  criterion met.    (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire  protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,  minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions  where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location  of hydrants.    See Fire Chief comments under Subdivision Standard 9 above.   D. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies  sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity  for  pedestrians,  bicycles,  vehicles,  school  transportation,  and  emergency  service  vehicles  between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on  the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical  review by City staff or consultants.  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 11 11 of 13    (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services  and infrastructure to adjacent properties.    (2) Roads  shall  be  designed  in  a  manner  that  is  consistent  with  City roadway plans and  maintenance  standards,  absent  a specific  agreement  with  the  applicant  related  to  maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.    (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and  neighborhoods shall apply.    Staff considers the proposed road does not satisfy emergency service vehicle requirements, as  discussed above.  Staff considers other elements of this criterion are met.    5) 9.07 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT REGULATING PLANS    A. N/A  B. General Provisions  (1) N/A  (2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub‐district  shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of  1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended    Staff considers the proposed triangular lot has a width to depth ratio of approximately 1:1.  However  given the restrictions on development of adjacent parcels this subdivision creates, Staff has no  concerns about the provided ratio.    C. – D. N/A    6) 9.12 SEQ‐NRP SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS    A. Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ‐NRP sub‐district is subject to the following supplemental  regulations:  (1) N/A  (2) Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan  approved by the Development Review Board.  See 9.12(B) below.  (3) N/A    The  applicant  has  indicated  they  will  be  preserving  approximately 7.6 acres of land by sale to  conservation agencies, identified as Lot 2B on the provided Site Plan.    11. At sketch plan, the Board discussed with the applicant that a draft agreement for conservation  of the proposed land was required to be submitted with the preliminary plat application.  No  such agreement has been provided.  Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to continue  the hearing until such time as a draft agreement is provided to allow the Board to review and  provide feedback on the agreement prior to final plat.  Staff considers such an agreement will  need to be included with the final plat application in order to demonstrate compliance with  SEQ‐NRP supplemental regulations as discussed above.    SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 12 12 of 13  12. Staff  recommends  the  Board  require  the  applicant  to  provide  an executable  plan  for  conservation of the proposed lot 2B, with an acreage which will be corrected to reflect the lot  areas shown on the provided marked up Site Plan, as part of the final plat application.    B. A lot that was in existence on or before June 22, 1992 and which lies substantially or entirely  within a SEQ‐NRP sub‐district may be improved with one or more single family detached dwelling  units, subject to conditional use review and the following supplemental standards:    (1)  Where the lot is less than fifteen (15) acres in size, the Development Review Board may  permit no more than one (1) single family dwelling unit only if:  (a)  The  portion  of  the  lot  in  any  other  (non‐NRP)  SEQ  sub‐district  is  insufficient  to  accommodate the construction and use of a single family dwelling unit in compliance with  these Regulations, and;  (b)  The location of structures, yards, and access drives have no portion within a designated  primary natural community or its related buffer.  No portions of the lot are outside the NRP sub‐district.  Staff considers this criterion met.      7) CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW    Pursuant to Section 9.12B of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (development of lots  in SEQ‐NRP district), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the  following standards of Section 14.10(E):    14.10E General Review Standards  The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all  applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in  an undue adverse effect on any of the following:    (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.    This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met.    (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district  within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal  plan.     The purpose of the zoning district is, in part, to encourage open space preservation, and well‐planned  residential use.  Staff considers this criterion met.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers  this criterion met.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    Staff considers the proposed project does not meet the roadway requirements described in the Land  SD‐18‐17  Staff Comments 13 13 of 13  Development Regulations, as discussed previously in this document.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner      X XXXXXXXMTCEXISTING PONDCLASS 2WETLANDCLASS 2WETLAND415415415410410 405405405405405405405400400400400400 400400395395395395395390 390390390385385385380375375375 375375 375 370410380340345350355360 365 375360 390405410 415370385395400390 395400410415 375370365385380395 390400 405 410 415 380 385 375 370 410385390380375WIRE FENCE50' WETLANDBUFFER 50' WETLANDBUFFERFIELD ACCESS ROADELECTRIC FENCEN/FL. WALKERN/FG. ATWEH & J.MARCHESSAULTLOT 2N/FEWING FAMILYFARM TRUST &EWING FARMTRUST115± ACCLASS 3 WETLANDSEXISTING WELLCHEESE FACTORY LN405LEDGELEDGE30'EASEMENTN/FN./J./J./S. LEDUCN/FUVMN/FERNEST N.AVCLAIR TRUSTN/FJOHN T. EWINGJR. & BETTINA S.STARK9.41 ACEXISTINGPUMP STATIONSEXISTING MOUNDSYSTEM684'±112'±82'±62'±90'±24'±60'±56'±51'±53'±39'±89'±53'±81'±99'±177'±490'±803'±231'±402'±317'±128'±84'±324'±320'±973'±290'±124'±62'±374'±340'±631'±375385380390395400405400410395390375380385390385395380400405 395410410390400385395390385395 400 390385380 405400395390385380375370LOT 1N/F LINKA R. LEELIVING TRUSTSAWYER W. LEELIVING TRUST8.0± AC395395400FM FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM240'WSANITARYEASEMENT TOBENEFIT LOT 3SANITARYEASEMENT TOBENEFIT LOT 5WW60' WIDE EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOTS 3, 4, & 560' WIDE EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOTS 4 & 530' WIDE ROW EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOT 4WFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM3BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOME3BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOME2BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOMELOT 56.7 AC. ±LOT 36.2 AC. ±LOT 45.5 AC. ±122'634'20' WIDESANITARY EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOT 5367'154'331'422' 158'292'511'38'205'598'392'462'WLOT 694.5 AC60'60'30'60'CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONTOWN OF SHELBURNELOT 694.5 AC.20' WIDESANITARY EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOT 33BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOMEW 16'LOT 22.1 AC. ±WETLAND DELINEATED BY TCEDELINEATED WETLANDWETLAND DELINEATION BYNORTHWOODS ECOLOGICALCONSULTING50'WETLANDBUFFER50'WETLANDBUFFERFRENCH MATTRESSEXISTING 60' EASEMENTTO EWING FAMILY FARM TRUSTEWING FARM TRUSTEXISTING 60' EASEMENTTO LEEEXISTING EASEMENT TOG.M.P.C. AND N.E.T. & T16'END OF WETLAND DELINEATED BY TCE10' SETBACK 10'SETBACK30'SETBACK631'10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK30'SETBACK474'10'SETBACK20'SETBACK60'10'SETBACK30'SETBACK10'SETBACK20'SETBACK10'SETBACK 405395390380 380 LOT 2B7.6 AC. ±PROPOSEDROAD WIDENINGTO 16'0FeetGraphic Scale80 80 160 240 32015°±VT GridMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByFor Permitting OnlyRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUT EL SSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO F ESSIONALENGINEERLICENSED Field Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:¬¬Site PlanC2-0109/22/171" = 80'15-187CMJJADJAD219Ewing Subdivision133 Cheese Factory LaneShelburne, VermontPROPOSEDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTSSETBACKSWETLAND LIMITTREE LINECURB STOP (CS)WATER SUPPLY WELLUTILITY POLEIRON PIPESTEEL REBAROVERHEAD POWERUNDERGROUND POWERSEWER FORCEMAINSTORM DRAINAGEPAVED DRIVE OR ROADGRAVEL DRIVE OR ROADTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSLEGENDSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSAND SERVICESTCE CONTROL POINTMAG NAILTCE CONTROL POINTSTEEL REBARMTC ORTRANSFORMER124FMWOHP124WDOHPUPFMUPDADJOINING PROPERTY LINECONE OF INFLUENCEWSSWPURPOSE OF PROJECT:THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2 INTO 5 PARCELS,WITH A SINGLE FAMILYHOME ON LOTS 2-5 AND LOT 6 TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.0360-002000860-01753 & 7-1-2Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByFor Permitting OnlyRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUT EL SSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO F ESSIONALENGINEERLICENSED Field Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:NOTES:1. HOUSE SITES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SHOWN FORINFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON VERMONT GRID NORTH.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD88 (GEIOD 12). A TRIMBLER6 RTK GPS UNIT WAS EMPLOYED FOR THESE OBSERVATIONS.4. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS BASED ON VERMONT STATE PLANE (U.S.SURVEY FEET).5. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE BASED ON RESEARCH, UTILITYPLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, AND/OR SURFACE EVIDENCEENCOUNTERED AND WERE OBTAINED IN A MANNERCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARY STANDARD OFPROFESSIONAL CARE AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLYVERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER.ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN MAY EXIST. ENGINEER SHALLBE NOTIFIED IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED.ACTUAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MAY VARY.DIGSAFE MUST BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.CALL 1-888-DIG SAFE (344-7233).6. PERIMETER BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON STRICTLY FROM TAXMAP INFORMATION ONLY, THIS PLAN DOES NOT DEPICT AFORMAL BOUNDARY SURVEY PERFORMED BY TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS.7. THE WETLAND DELINEATION, DENOTED AND SHOWN AS"WETLAND DELINEATION BY TCE" WAS PERFORMED ONOCTOBER 25, 2016 ACCORDING TO STANDARDS OF THE 1987US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DELINEATIONMANUAL AND THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT.¬THISDELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY ANDREA DOTOLO OFTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS.8. THE WETLAND DELINEATION, DENOTED AND SHOWN AS"WETLAND DELINEATION BY NORTHWOOD ECOLOGICALCONSULTING" WAS NOT DELINEATED BY TCE. THIS WETLANDDELINEATION BOUNDARY WAS TAKEN FROM SITE PLAN,PREPARED BY STUART. J. MORROW CONSULTING LANDSURVEYOR, DATED NOVEMBER 2014. WETLAND PERMIT#2014-480.SOUTH BURLINGTON LOT COVERAGE:LOT LOT SIZE (SF)LOT COVERAGE (SF)LOT COVERAGE (%)MAX LOT COVERAGE (%)1 348480 16116 4.62% 30%2 92783 1401 1.51% 30%LOT SETBACKS:FRONT YARD = 20 FEETSIDE YARD = 10 FEETBACK YARD = 30 FEETNo 8917No 8917JJEENNNNIIFFEERRAANNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSAAUUTT EELL SSSSTTAATTEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOMMMMNNTTthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.the most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE. X XXXXXXXMTCEXISTING PONDCLASS 2WETLANDCLASS 2WETLAND415415415410410 405405405405405405405400400400400400 400400395395395395395390 390390390385385385380375375375 375375 375 370410380340345350355360 365 375360 390405410 415370385395400390 395400410415 375370365385380395 390400 405 410 415 380 385 375 370 410385390380375WIRE FENCE50' WETLANDBUFFER 50' WETLANDBUFFERFIELD ACCESS ROADELECTRIC FENCEN/FL. WALKERN/FG. ATWEH & J.MARCHESSAULTLOT 2N/FEWING FAMILYFARM TRUST &EWING FARMTRUST115± ACCLASS 3 WETLANDSEXISTING WELLCHEESE FACTORY LN405LEDGELEDGE30'EASEMENTN/FN./J./J./S. LEDUCN/FUVMN/FERNEST N.AVCLAIR TRUSTN/FJOHN T. EWINGJR. & BETTINA S.STARK9.41 ACEXISTINGPUMP STATIONSEXISTING MOUNDSYSTEM684'±112'±82'±62'±90'±24'±60'±56'±51'±53'±39'±89'±53'±81'±99'±177'±490'±803'±231'±402'±317'±128'±84'±324'±320'±973'±290'±124'±62'±374'±340'±631'±375385380390395400405400410395390375380385390385395380400405 395410410390400385395390385395 400 390385380 405400395390385380375370LOT 1N/F LINKA R. LEELIVING TRUSTSAWYER W. LEELIVING TRUST8.0± AC395395400FM FMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM240'WSANITARYEASEMENT TOBENEFIT LOT 3SANITARYEASEMENT TOBENEFIT LOT 5WW60' WIDE EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOTS 3, 4, & 560' WIDE EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOTS 4 & 530' WIDE ROW EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOT 4WFMFMFMFMFMFMFMFM3BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOME3BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOME2BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOMELOT 56.7 AC. ±LOT 36.2 AC. ±LOT 45.5 AC. ±122'634'20' WIDESANITARY EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOT 5367'154'331'422' 158'292'511'38'205'598'392'462'WLOT 694.5 AC60'60'30'60'CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONTOWN OF SHELBURNELOT 694.5 AC.20' WIDESANITARY EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOT 33BEDROOMSINGLEFAMILYHOMEW 16'LOT 22.1 AC. ±WETLAND DELINEATED BY TCEDELINEATED WETLANDWETLAND DELINEATION BYNORTHWOODS ECOLOGICALCONSULTING50'WETLANDBUFFER50'WETLANDBUFFERFRENCH MATTRESSEXISTING 60' EASEMENTTO EWING FAMILY FARM TRUSTEWING FARM TRUSTEXISTING 60' EASEMENTTO LEEEXISTING EASEMENT TOG.M.P.C. AND N.E.T. & T16'END OF WETLAND DELINEATED BY TCE10' SETBACK 10'SETBACK30'SETBACK631'10' SETBACK 10' SETBACK30'SETBACK474'10'SETBACK20'SETBACK60'10'SETBACK30'SETBACK10'SETBACK20'SETBACK10'SETBACK 405395390380 380 LOT 2B7.6 AC. ±PROPOSEDROAD WIDENINGTO 16'0FeetGraphic Scale80 80 160 240 32015°±VT GridMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByFor Permitting OnlyRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUT EL SSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO F ESSIONALENGINEERLICENSED Field Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:¬¬Site PlanC2-0109/22/171" = 80'15-187CMJJADJAD219Ewing Subdivision133 Cheese Factory LaneShelburne, VermontPROPOSEDEXISTINGPROPERTY LINEEASEMENTSSETBACKSWETLAND LIMITTREE LINECURB STOP (CS)WATER SUPPLY WELLUTILITY POLEIRON PIPESTEEL REBAROVERHEAD POWERUNDERGROUND POWERSEWER FORCEMAINSTORM DRAINAGEPAVED DRIVE OR ROADGRAVEL DRIVE OR ROADTOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURSLEGENDSEWER MAINSAND SERVICESWATER MAINSAND SERVICESTCE CONTROL POINTMAG NAILTCE CONTROL POINTSTEEL REBARMTC ORTRANSFORMER124FMWOHP124WDOHPUPFMUPDADJOINING PROPERTY LINECONE OF INFLUENCEWSSWPURPOSE OF PROJECT:THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT IS TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2 INTO 5 PARCELS,WITH A SINGLE FAMILYHOME ON LOTS 2-5 AND LOT 6 TO REMAIN UNDEVELOPED.0360-002000860-01753 & 7-1-2Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByFor Permitting OnlyRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUT EL SSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO F ESSIONALENGINEERLICENSED Field Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:NOTES:1. HOUSE SITES ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SHOWN FORINFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.2. BEARINGS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON VERMONT GRID NORTH.3. VERTICAL DATUM IS BASED ON NAVD88 (GEIOD 12). A TRIMBLER6 RTK GPS UNIT WAS EMPLOYED FOR THESE OBSERVATIONS.4. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS BASED ON VERMONT STATE PLANE (U.S.SURVEY FEET).5. THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ANDIMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE BASED ON RESEARCH, UTILITYPLANS PROVIDED BY OTHERS, AND/OR SURFACE EVIDENCEENCOUNTERED AND WERE OBTAINED IN A MANNERCONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINARY STANDARD OFPROFESSIONAL CARE AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLYVERIFIED BY THE OWNER OR THE DESIGN ENGINEER.ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN MAY EXIST. ENGINEER SHALLBE NOTIFIED IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE ENCOUNTERED.ACTUAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MAY VARY.DIGSAFE MUST BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.CALL 1-888-DIG SAFE (344-7233).6. PERIMETER BOUNDARIES SHOWN HEREON STRICTLY FROM TAXMAP INFORMATION ONLY, THIS PLAN DOES NOT DEPICT AFORMAL BOUNDARY SURVEY PERFORMED BY TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS.7. THE WETLAND DELINEATION, DENOTED AND SHOWN AS"WETLAND DELINEATION BY TCE" WAS PERFORMED ONOCTOBER 25, 2016 ACCORDING TO STANDARDS OF THE 1987US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WETLAND DELINEATIONMANUAL AND THE NORTHEAST REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT.¬THISDELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY ANDREA DOTOLO OFTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS.8. THE WETLAND DELINEATION, DENOTED AND SHOWN AS"WETLAND DELINEATION BY NORTHWOOD ECOLOGICALCONSULTING" WAS NOT DELINEATED BY TCE. THIS WETLANDDELINEATION BOUNDARY WAS TAKEN FROM SITE PLAN,PREPARED BY STUART. J. MORROW CONSULTING LANDSURVEYOR, DATED NOVEMBER 2014. WETLAND PERMIT#2014-480.SOUTH BURLINGTON LOT COVERAGE:LOT LOT SIZE (SF)LOT COVERAGE (SF)LOT COVERAGE (%)MAX LOT COVERAGE (%)1 348480 16116 4.62% 30%2 92783 1401 1.51% 30%LOT SETBACKS:FRONT YARD = 20 FEETSIDE YARD = 10 FEETBACK YARD = 30 FEETNo 8917No 8917JJEENNNNIIFFEERRAANNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSAAUUTT EELL SSSSTTAATTEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOMMMMNNTTthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.the most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.APPROXIMATE POTENTIALCULVERT LOCATION. FINAL SIZEAND LOCATION TO BE DESIGNED.THE PURPOSE OF THIS SITE PLAN IS TO DEPICT THE PROPOSEDSUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 AND LOT 2B IN SOUTH BURLINGTON. THISPLAN IS NOT A SUBDIVISION PLAT.CENTERLINE OFROAD RADIUS = 30'CENTERLINE OFROAD RADIUS = 30'APPROXIMATE POSSIBLETOWN BOUNDARY LINELOCATION TO BE CONFIRMEDBY THE CITY OF SO.BURLINGTON AND THE TOWNOF SHELBURNE1. CITY REVISIONS 6/8/18 JAD MTC408404397397396391390 410385390380EXISTING WELLEXISTINGPUMP STATIONSSEXISTING MOUNDSYSTEM803'±231'±317'±128'±62'±374'±340'±410400385395390385395 400390385380LOT 1N/F LINKA R. LEE LIVING TRUSTSAWYER W. LEE LIVING TRUST8.0± ACFMW60' WIDE EASEMENTTO BENEFIT LOTS 3, 4, & 52 BEDROOMSINGLEW60'60'CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONTOWN OF SHELBURNE16'WETLAND DELINEATION BYNORTHWOODS ECOLOGICALCONSULTING50'WETLANDBUFFER50'WETLANDBUFFERFRENCH MATTRESSEXISTING 60' EASEMENTTO EWING FAMILY FARM TRUSTEWING FARM TRUSTEXISTING 60' EASEMENTTO LEEEXISTING EASEMENT TOG.M.P.C. AND N.E.T. & T16'END OF WETLAND DELINEATED BY TCE10' SETBACK 10'SETBACK10'SETBACK 10'SETBACK 20'SETBACK60'10'SETBACK0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+00 10+00 405395390380380PROPOSEDROAD WIDENINGTO 16'3723763803843883923964004044084120+00 0+50 1+00 1+50 2+00 2+50 3+00 3+50 4+00 4+50 5+00 5+50 6+00 6+50 7+00 7+50 8+00 8+50 9+00 9+50 10+00372376380384388392396400404408412402.0402.04405.0402.62402.5402.57400.4401.89398.1400.58395.8398.95393.8397.33392.8395.70392.3394.08391.3392.53389.0391.12387.3389.85385.9388.73385.5387.75385.2386.92384.4386.23382.9385.68382.6385.20382.1384.73382.2384.25381.8383.78380.9383.30379.9382.83379.1382.36378.9381.96378.7381.63378.5381.39378.3381.22378.4381.13378.5381.14378.6381.43378.6382.02379.2382.93380.6384.14382.0385.68385.0387.52385.9389.62388.6391.57390.2393.18392.8394.45395.1395.376.50%PVC STA.0+00.00PVC ELEV.402.04PVI STA.0+50.00PVI ELEV.403.83PVT STA.1+00.00PVT ELEV.400.58100.00VC115.93SD3.58% -6.50%1.90%PVC STA.2+00.00PVC ELEV.394.08PVI STA.3+00.00PVI ELEV.387.58PVT STA.4+00.00PVT ELEV.385.68200.00VC231.58SD-6.50% -1.90%PVC STA.5+65.00PVC ELEV.382.54PVI STA.6+40.00PVI ELEV.381.12PVT STA.7+15.00PVT ELEV.381.12150.00VC2283.33SD-1.90% 0.00%8.50%PVC STA.7+15.00PVC ELEV.381.12PVI STA.8+00.00PVI ELEV.381.12PVT STA.8+85.00PVT ELEV.388.34170.00VC131.05SD0.00% 8.50%3.00%PVC STA.9+00.00PVC ELEV.389.62PVI STA.9+50.00PVI ELEV.393.87PVT STA.10+00.00PVT ELEV.395.37100.00VC170.83SD8.50% 3.00%PROPOSED FRENCH MATTRESSSTA. 6+28 TO 7+78REFER TO DETAILEXISTING GRADEFINISH GRADELOT 1 DRIVEWAY PROFILESCALE: 1" = 40' HORIZ. 1" = 4' VERT.PROPERTY LINE50' WETLAND BUFFERCLASS 2 WETLANDCLASS 2 WETLAND50' WETLAND BUFFER0FeetGraphic Scale40 40 80 120 16015°±VT GridMagneticSheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByFor Permitting OnlyRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUT EL SSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO F ESSIONALENGINEERLICENSED Field Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:¬¬Lot 1 & 2Driveway Plan& ProfileC6-0105/01/2018Shown15-187CMJ,RMPJADJAD219Ewing Subdivision133 Cheese Factory LaneShelburne, Vermont0360-002000860-01753 & 7-1-2No. 8917CJENNIFERAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEESSSAAAAAAAAAAUT EL SSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFVERRRRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMNT ¬Sheet TitleProject TitleUse of These DrawingsProject Reference:Scale:Project Number:Date:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Approved By:No. Description Date ByFor Permitting OnlyRevisions478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMENGINEERING SURVEYNo. 8917CIVILJENNIFER ANN DESAUT EL SSTATE OF VERMO N T PRO F ESSIONALENGINEERLICENSED Field Book:1. Unless otherwise noted, these Drawings are intended forpreliminary planning, coordination with other disciplines orutilities, and/or approval from the regulatory authorities.¬They are not intended as construction drawings unless notedas such or marked approved by a regulatory authority.2. By use of these drawings for construction of the Project,the Owner represents that they have reviewed, approved,and accepted the drawings, obtained all necessary permits,and have met with all applicable parties/disciplines,including but not limited to, the Engineer and the Architect,to insure these plans are properly coordinated including, butnot limited to, contract documents, specifications,owner/contractor agreements, building and mechanicalplans, private and public utilities, and other pertinent permitsfor construction.3. Owner and Architect, are responsible for final design andlocation of buildings shown, including an area measured aminimum five (5) feet around any building and coordinatingfinal utility connections shown on these plans.4. Prior to using these plans for construction layout, the usershall contact TCE to ensure the plan contains the mostcurrent revisions.5. These Drawings are specific to the Project and are nottransferable. As instruments of service, these drawings, andcopies thereof, furnished by TCE are its exclusive property.¬Changes to the drawings may only be made by TCE. Iferrors or omissions are discovered, they shall be brought tothe attention of TCE immediately.6. It is the User's responsibility to ensure this copy containsthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.PLANNING ENVIRONMENTALTAX ID:Ewing Subdivision133 Cheese Factory LaneDriveway DetailsC8-0505/01/2018Shown15-187CMJJADJAD¬SD-031LAST REVISED 03/26/20132013 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSTYPICAL GRAVEL DRIVECUT SECTIONFILL SECTION1/4" PER FT.1/4" PER FT.LC212112NOTES:1. DITCH DEPTH & LOCATION MAY VARY (SEE SITE PLAN).2. IF GROUNDWATER OR SOFT SPOTS ARE ENCOUNTERED CONTACT THEENGINEER TO DISCUSS ADDED MEASURES SUCH AS UNDERDRAIN.3. USE 1:1 SIDE SLOPES IN WETLAND & WETLAND BUFFER AREAS.UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ORCOMPACTED FILL4" (MIN.) TOPSOIL WITHSEEDING AND MULCHSIDE SLOPES MAY VARY15" GRAVEL BASE COURSE3" OF CRUSHER RUN GRAVELEXTEND GRAVEL TO DITCH24"16'5'1:1 SIDE SLOPES IN WETLAND& WETLAND BUFFER AREAS1:1 SIDE SLOPES IN WETLAND& WETLAND BUFFER AREAS18" DEPTH OF 3"-6" DIA. STONE3" FINE CRUSHED GRAVEL15" COARSE CRUSHEDGRAVEL BASELAST REVISED 06/01/20172017 TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSFRENCH MATTRESSUNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ORCOMPACTED FILLMIRAFI 500X STABILIZATION FABRIC INSTALLATION INACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONSMIRAFI 500XSTABILIZATION FABRICINSTALLATION INACCORDANCE WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONSNo 8917JENNIFERANNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEESAUT EL SSTATEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRMOMMNTthe most current revisions. If unsure, please contact TCE.     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD              5 JUNE 2018    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 June   2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (by phone), B. Sullivan    ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; J. Goller, J.  Morway, E. S. Emery, M. Cate, L. Parker, R. Limoge, S. Limoge, A. Dotolo, J. Anderson, C.  Galipeau     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‐18‐02 of Merrill Cate to alter the existing grade for  stormwater improvements.  The improvements consist of regrading the lot and  installing two stormwater manholes connected with a perforated pipe to an existing  drain manhole, 4 Slocum Street:    Mr. Cate explained that he has had standing water on his property that is spilling onto the  neighbors’ property.  He will be regrading and installing two manholes to address this issue.   Neighbors are in support of this project.    No issues were raised.    Mr. Wilking moved to close MS‐18‐02.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 JUNE 2018  PAGE 2    6. Continued conditional use application #CU‐18‐07 and site plan application #SP‐18‐16  of Trono Fuels to amend a previously approved site plan for an auto repair facility.   The amendment consists of constructing a 1,600 sq. ft. addition to the existing  building, adding a paved parking lot and changing the use to contractor or building  trade facility.  A portion of the proposed work is located within a stream buffer,  requiring conditional use review, 10 Lime Rock Road:    Mr. Goller explained that the outstanding issue was replacement of landscaping.  To address  the issue they have replaced the 16” caliper maple tree to be removed with a row of willows,  and the shrubs to be removed with similar shrubs.  This now meets the requirement.    No other issues were raised.    Mr. Wilking moved to close SP‐18‐16 and CU‐18‐07.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    7. Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐15 of Ernest N. Auclair Family Trust to subdivide an  existing parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 15 acres (Lot  #1) and 117 acres (Lot #2), 1731 Hinesburg Road:    Mr. Dotolo showed where the subdivision will occur.  She also noted receipt of correspondence  from VTrans reminding them to comply with the State statutes regarding access.  She noted  that the 117 acre lot will have two access points on Hinesburg Road.  Ms. Keene asked if the  applicant can provide an actual plan showing where the access is.  The applicant agreed to do  this if VTrans requires it.    Mr. Parker asked whether the land on the east side of the road is addressed by this application.   The applicant said it is not.      No other issues were raised.    Mr. Wilking moved to close SD‐18‐15.  Mr. Sullivan seconded.  Motion passed 5‐0.    8. 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 9,000 sq. ft. retail sales building, 793 & 907 Shelburne  Rd:  Mr. Sullivan recused himself as he is representing R. L. Vallee on another matter.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 JUNE 2018  PAGE 3    Mr. Wilking noted that he had sold this property to R. L. Valley 25 years ago.  Members and the  applicant did not feel he should recuse himself.    The applicant noted that the site contains two parcels: #793 is the northern parcel with the  service station and a convenience store, and #907 is the southern lot with the Maple Leaf Hotel.   Both lots will be redeveloped and reconfigured.  They will add 2 fueling pumps (4 positions) to  the service station and will change the use on the southern parcel to retail sales/restaurant use.    There are now 3 curb cuts.  The applicant proposes to eliminate one of these, leaving one north  of the canopy and one to the south of it.  The access drive on the south side will connect to the  former Kmart parcel.    There is a 24” CWD transmission main with an easement that cannot presently be shut down.   There will be a project next year that will allow CWD to shut down that pipe and relocate it so  this project can move forward.    One option for the retail sales building to have retail and restaurant on the second floor.  The  use of the first floor has not yet been determined.    Mr. Wilking asked if there is an agreement with Hannaford for access to the former Kmart  property.  Mr. Anderson said there is an agreement, but it has not yet been signed.      The Board the reviewed staff issues as follows:    a. Overall site coverage:  Mr. Anderson said there is an issue as to whether the  applicant’s coverage estimate is correct.  He noted that the DRB has consistently  taken the position that the pervious pavers count toward lot coverage, but he felt  that as he reads the regulations, they should not be counted toward coverage.  Mr.  Wilking said if it can be allowed by the DRB, he was OK with it, but he had an issue  with the pavers getting bogged down with silt and no longer working.  He would  want there to be a maintenance plan.    Mr. Wilking also cited an issue of gasoline getting into the pervious surface.  He  noted that the Airport has removed all of its pervious concrete because of  maintenance issues.      Mr. Miller noted that the DRB has consistently regard pervious pavers as non‐ pervious.  Mr. Belair added that if down the road the pervious pavers don’t work out  and are replaced with paving, they would be way over the allowable coverage.  Ms.  Keene said if the pavers were removed, there wouldn’t be adequate parking.  There  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 JUNE 2018  PAGE 4    is also the issue of “open space” and aesthetics.  Mr. Behr said the pervious pavers  still have the appearance of pavement and not green space.  He would not support  pervious pavers if they are over allowable lot coverage.    b. Nonconformities at the site:  Mr. Anderson said they would not make any of the  setback nonconformities worse.  He noted there was a variance to allow the canopy  structure to be built.  They will be adding pumps and canopy but there will be “less  structure” because of the building coming down.  Ms. Keene said they would be  removing a conforming structure and adding to a non‐conforming one.    Mr. Anderson said they believe this is a service station use, which is what 3 decisions  have said.  The owner does allow “minor repairs,” and staff says it is a combination  of service station and auto repair use.  Mr. Anderson said they perform inspections  and other “minor repairs.”  They don’t sell automobiles and don’t do major engine  repairs or sell parts.  Mr. Wilking noted a large piece of the business is tow truck  related, and there are large scale tow trucks sitting on the property.    Ms. Keene asked the use of the hotel property today.  Mr. Belair said it is an  “extended stay hotel,” which is not in compliance with it’s previous approval.    Mr. Anderson said they believe the parcel at #793 is 100% service station use.  He  added that he has never seen a question raised about traffic being generated by a  non‐conforming use.  He said the area will be the same before and after the project.   It never occurred to him to consider added traffic.  Mr. Miller noted there will be 4  additional pumps.  Mr. Anderson said the other building will be gone.  Mr. Belair said  the project is expanding the canopy and the number of gas pumps, which is an  expansion of the use.  He also noted there is a sign which reads: “Full Service.”    Mr. Anderson said the size of the building being demolished is larger (1680 ft.) and  the canopy expansion is smaller (800 sq. ft.), so there will actually be less building  there.  Mr. Wilking said he would have no issue if it was a single use.  Mr. Miller felt  this is a huge improvement over what is there today, and he didn’t feel there is a  better use for that property.    c. Traffic: Mr. Anderson the way to resolve the issue is for the city’s traffic engineer to  talk with their traffic engineer.  They Valleys are reluctant to address traffic while  the other issues are still out there.  Mr. Anderson also noted that the district will be  undergoing changes to the Traffic Overlay District, but he didn’t feel they could wait  for that.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 JUNE 2018  PAGE 5    Mr. Anderson said they feel the traffic number should be the 125.2 trip ends  generated by the service station property and 7.5 generated by the hotel for a total  of 132.7.  He felt staff is addressing this as one lot.  He also felt they can get a “cross‐ easement from Hannaford which would keep people from using Shelburne Road.    Mr. Belair said staff has analyzed traffic from an LDR point of view.  The budget for 2  properties combined is 15.56.  The existing uses create 117 trips. The estimate for  the additional fuel positions and replacement of the hotel is 243 trip ends.  This  results in 227 excess trip ends.    d. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan:  Mr. Anderson said the housing situation is  something they have to think about.  He didn’t feel they are legally required to keep  the hotel there.  Ms. Smith said she didn’t think there is a requirement but the effort  to replace affordable housing is important.  Mr. Wilking suggested that this is a  major intersection off a highway and is not where people want to live.  He noted  that in Burlington developers can buy credits for destroyed housing units.    Mr. Behr agreed with staff that the plan is inconsistent with the objectives of the  Comprehensive Plan.  He noted there are projects the Board may love that don’t fit  and some the Board hates that do meet the regulations.  He was concerned with  removing a residential use and replacing it with a service station.  Mr. Anderson said  what is permitted is a motel.  If that is the baseline, there is no issue.  Mr. Belair said  with the 15‐year statute of limitations, it may be an “extended stay hotel.”    e. Parking:  Mr. Anderson noted the issue is front yard parking.  He said they will meet  the requirement, but he didn’t know how.  One possible way is to keep the building  where it is and solve the issue; another is to put parking “under a porch,” so it is now   “inside the building.”  Staff has said they should move the building up to the street.   Mr. Anderson said that results in conflict with the CWD easement that they can’t  build on top of.  The only alternative would be to move the building south which  would move the connection to Hannaford’s lot between the 2 buildings to the north,  but that is a bad design from a safety point of view.  Mr. Anderson noted the  regulations allow parking in front if there is an easement issue or soil issues.  Mr.  Belair noted the CWD easement is confined to the northeast corner of the property  which would allow the building to be moved to where it would be south of the  easement.  The dimensions of the building could also be changed.   Mr. Behr noted  that even with a “porch” you are still seeing cars in front of the building.  Mr. Wilking  said he had no issue with parking in front.    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  5 JUNE 2018  PAGE 6    f. PUD Standard: Staff does not consider that the layout meets the classification for a  PUD.  It is not “innovative” and does not efficiently use the available space.  Mr.  Anderson said they feel they meet the legal requirements for a PUD and that  “innovative” is not a legal requirement.    Mr. Wilking said this is the entrance to the City of South Burlington and a lot could  be done to be more innovative in terms of style.  He added that they applicant is up  against a lot here, some of which is not fixable.    A representative of the abutting landowner (833 Queen City Park Road, a 30‐unit apartment  building with a parking lot) noted that there is a pending claim against this applicant for  contamination of soils.  They want to be on record that this is an ongoing case and they are  concerned that the applicant’s project may damage/impact their abutting property.    Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD‐18‐16 to 17 July 2018.  Ms. Smith seconded.  Motion passed  4‐0.    Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board.    9. Minutes of 15 May 2018 :    Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 15 May 2018 as written.   Ms. Smith seconded.   Motion passed 5‐0.    10. Other Business:    There was no other business.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:44 p.m.    These minutes were approved by the Board on ____________.