HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-14-34 - Decision - 0025 0027 Green Mountain Drive#SD-14-34
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
SNYDER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LLC — 25 & 27 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-34
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
The Snyder Construction Company, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary
plat review for a planned unit development on two (2) parcels totaling 13.25 acres with lot #1 developed
with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1) resubdividing lot #2 to increase its
size to 9.96 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #1 to 3.29 acres, and 3) developing lot #1 with a four (4)
story 65 unit multi -family dwelling, 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 6, 2015. Chris Snyder
represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting
materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds,
concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Snyder Construction Company, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting
preliminary plat review for a planned unit development on two (2) parcels totaling 13.25 acres
with lot #1 developed with a 55,230 sq. ft. general office building. The project consists of: 1)
resubdividing lot #2 to increase its size to 9.96 acres, 2) decreasing the size of lot #1 to 3.29
acres, and 3) developing lot #1 with a four (4) story 65 unit multi -family dwelling, 25 & 27 Green
Mountain Drive.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is The Stonehenge Investment Corporation, Inc.
3. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 Zoning District.
4. The plans submitted consist of an 11 page set of plans, page one (1) entitled "25 & 27 Green
Mountain Drive South Burlington, Vermont Site Plan", prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson
Consulting Engineers, Inc., and dated 11/01/14.
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements:
C — 2 Zoning District
Required
Existing
Proposed Lot
Proposed Lot
Lot #1/Lot #2
#1
#2
*Min. Lot Size
6000 sq. ft./unit
3.70 / 9.55
3.29 acres
9.96
residential,
acres
40,000 sq. ft.
other
Max. Front Yard Coverage
30%
n.a. / 9.2%
n.a.
11.2%
Max. Building Coverage
40%
0%/ 4.3%
18.6%
4.2%
- 1 —
#SD-14-34
Max. Overall Coverage
70%
18.0%/ 22.9%
40.7%
24.8%
Min. Front Setback
30 ft.
>30 ft.
>50 ft.
No change
Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
>10 ft.
>10 ft.
No change
Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
>30 ft.
47 ft.
No change
A► Max. Building Height
40ft. (pitched
roof)
unknown
52 ft.
No change
Zoning compliance * Requires a height waiver of 12 feet
* The two (2) lots are being combined for purposes of the LDRs (i.e., density) and function as a single
Planned Unit Development.
The building will be located on the uphill side of the parcel adjacent to the woods and will not obscure any
views. The proposed height waiver also facilitates clustering of housing units on the parcel, lower overall lot
coverage, and maintaining greater wooded areas.
The Board hereby grants a height waiver of 12 ft.
Density
In the C-2 District, up to seven (7) housing units per acre are permitted. The City does not allocate land
area/development density for commercial buildings, and as a PUD, the entire 13.25 acres are allocable
toward the residential density. This would allow a theoretical maximum of 92.75 dwelling units; 65 are
proposed, well under that limit.
5.08 Supplemental Standards for All Commercial Districts
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, 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.
The proposed development is an "in -fill" type of development that makes use of the land which is
currently being used for parking and some undeveloped land. It is also a mixed -use development that
includes a shared parking arrangement, and a coordinated access with the adjacent general office
building.
The Board finds this criterion to be met.
B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be
allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot
size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the consolidation of
contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the
minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the
normal maximum for the applicable district.
-2—
#S D-14-34
The lot onto which this new building will be constructed does not have frontage on a public street but
will be served by a private right-of-way from Green Mountain Drive. The Public Works Director reviewed
this access at sketch and found it to be acceptable. No new public street is recommended.
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 ('4) 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 private drive serving the existing general office building will be shared with the new
residential building; a new spur drive leads to that new building. Parking would be both new and
revised to be shared between these lots and uses. The applicant has provided information
calculating the legal requirements for parking under the LDRs for both uses; a shared parking
analysis showing a reduced requirement based upon information from the Urban Land Institute; and
then requests a further reduction/waiver as authorized in the LDRs. The basics are as follows:
Required parking per LDRs: 147 spaces for 65 dwelling units + 170 spaces for 48,578 sq. ft. of
general office space = 317 parking spaces
Shared parking analysis: indicates a maximum need for 282 parking spaces
Proposed parking is as follows: 64 garage spaces, 54 surface spaces for a total of 118 spaces for the
residential building plus 125 spaces for the existing general office building. The total proposed
parking is therefore 243 spaces which represents a shortage of 39 spaces. The applicant is
requesting a waiver of 39 spaces or 14%. The Board is comfortable with the proposed waiver as 37
of the 65 units will be one -bedroom units and the project is located near employment opportunities
and the CCTA bus route on U.S. Route 7.
The Board grants a waiver of 39 spaces or 14 % to the minimum parking space requirement
Commercial properties that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the
abutting line in accordance with Section 3.06(I) of these Regulations.
This criterion is not applicable.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
14.06 General Review Standards
The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in
reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which
the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while
improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall
not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the
buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable,
-3—
#SD-14-34
professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant
shall retain full responsibility for design.
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
The Board finds the applicant's proposal to be consistent with the goals, objectives and stated land use
policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
(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.
No parking is proposed to the front of the building as the front lot line faces west and the overall
property's public road frontage is on a separate lot and facing north.
(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.
There are other similarly large and tall structures in the vicinity. The Board granted a 12 ft. height
waiver from the 40 ft. height limit as noted on page 2.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
The applicant has submitted plans detailing how they propose to meet this criterion. The
Department of Public Works has reviewed and accepted these plans. This criterion is 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 submitted plans detailing how they propose to meet this criterion. The Board finds
this criterion to be met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land maybe 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.
#SD-14-34
The Board finds that an easement plan will be prepared prior to construction to note easements and
reciprocal rights between Lots 1 and 2 as detailed in the applicant's letter dated November 13, 2014,
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site.
Noted above. This criterion is met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened
with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles
intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non -large drum) shall not be required
to be fenced or screened.
The applicant has provided detailed plans and elevations for a fully enclosed dumpster building. The
Board finds this criterion to be met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
The applicant has submitted a detailed landscaping plan and budget. The City Arborist provided the
following comments in an email to staff dated 12/17/14: "Overall the landscape plan looks good. My
only recommendation is that a specification for the landscape planting mix that is called for in the
planting details be included in the plan.
The Board finds that the landscaping plans shall be amended to incorporate the City Arborist's
recommendations.
Based upon proposed construction costs of $6,500,000, the required minimum landscaping value is
$72,500.
The value of the qualifying planting (proposed trees and shrubs) is $38,100 (the applicant's proposal
states $48,576 but incorrectly includes the value of perennials, ground cover and stormwater basin
plantings). This leaves a shortfall of $34,400.
The applicant and Board discussed alternatives and how to best address landscaping requirements, pre-
existing vegetation conditions on the property, and overall project needs.
The applicant noted that that they are retaining existing vegetation valued at $82,400 on the property.
The Board discussed the request and while it supports the retention of the vegetation, given that it is a
forested area to the rear of the property, the granting of a credit would not be appropriate.
The Board and applicant discussed overall project need. The Board agrees with the applicant that the
installation of additional landscaping beyond that proposed is not needed nor would significantly benefit
the project, especially given the large forested area on the property.
-5—
#SD-14-34
The project area is, however, in need of a sidewalk extension along Green Mountain Drive to the west of
the project site. No sidewalk presently exists in that area. With this project being the first residential
development in the area, a demand for such a sidewalk is anticipated in the future.
In lieu of installing additional landscaping beyond the $38,100 proposed the Board and the applicant
agreed that the applicant would make a contribution of $34,400 to the City towards design and
construction of a sidewalk along the south side Green Mountain Drive extending west beyond the
boundaries of the project parcel.
In recognition of this $34,400 contribution, the Board grants a waiver of $34,400 to the required
minimum landscaping budget of $72,500.
E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in
complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health,
safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general
objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the exception of
side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new
structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land
development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning
district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing
condition exceeds the applicable limit.
As noted above, one modification requested is a height waiver of 12 feet which the Board granted as
noted on page 2.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with
the following standards and conditions:
(A)(1)Suffcient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public
utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the
proposed dwelling units.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or
developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by
the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot wastewater is proposed.
Applicant shall obtain preliminary water/ wastewater allocation approvals prior to final plat approval.
(A)(2)Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent
properties.
The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South
#SD-14-34
Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall meet the standards set forth
in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
Erosion control specifications and grading plans have been submitted with the application. The Board finds
this criterion to be met.
(A)(3)The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The applicant is proposing to use an existing curb cut and driveway. The applicant has submitted a
Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Lamoureux & Dickinson dated November 6, 2014. The result for
the year 2022 (five years after the anticipated 2017 construction) show an incremental increase in traffic
between the build and no -build scenario with the overall Level of Service remaining at a "B."
The Department of Public Works provided its comments on this Assessment in an email to staff dated
December 17, 2014 as follows:
From: Justin Rabidoux
.Sent` Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7: 58 AM
To: r(o,
Subject: RE: Traffic Impact Study - 25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive
Ray,
1 have reviewed the referenced study and its technical attachments. I have no concerns and agree with the
stuclv's conclusions that the project will not result in unacceptable levels of service nor cause safety
concerns. The project building a new sidewalk to connect its building to the road and along its frontage is
a welcomed improvement.
Justin
The Board finds this criterion to be met.
The relevant portion of Section 15 of the LDRs is as follows:
(4) Connections to adjacent parcels. If the DRB finds that a roadway extension or connection to an
adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an
adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the connector roadway to the
property line or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection.
(a) In any such application, the DRB shall require sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated to
accommodate two (2) lanes of vehicle travel, City utilities, and a ten foot wide grade -separated
recreation path.
No roadway extensions or connections are anticipated.
(A)(4)The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
-7—
#SD-14-34
Most of the project area is already cleared. Selective clearing of understory growth will occur near the
proposed common grill & picnic area. The Board finds this criterion to be met.
(A)(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.
Pursuant to Section 5.05 COMMERCIAL 2 DISTRICT C2
A. Purpose. A Commercial 2 District is hereby formed in order to encourage general commercial
activity. In addition to uses permitted in the C1 District, large lot -retail uses, such as sale of motor
vehicles and building materials, may be permitted. A range of industrial uses as well as clustered
residential development may be permitted in locations that are mutually compatible with general
commercial activity. Development shall be subject to site plan review to coordinate traffic movements,
encourage mixed -use developments, to provide shared parking opportunities and to provide a potential
location for high -traffic generation commercial uses. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited
except those that are allowed as conditional uses.
The proposed project will create a new mixed use area in this portion of the District. This project is
consistent with the standards of the Commercial 2 District. The Board finds this criterion to have been met.
(A)(6)Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The project will not intrude into stream buffer areas and that some wooded area along the eastern edge of
the parcel (which abuts a wooded area on the adjacent parcel) will be maintained. The Board finds this
criterion to have been met.
(A)(7)The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that
adequate fire protection can be provided.
In an email to staff dated December 312014, the Fire Department commented as follows:
Dear Ray:
We have reviewed the plans for the proposed construction of a new multi family residential building at 25 —
27 Green Mountain Drive. We have the following recommendations:
1.Multifamily units will need fire protection plan review from the South Burlington Fire Marshal's office to
review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Codes.
2. Provide 2 additional fire hydrants for the project.
3. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the deployment of the
aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting equipment.
4. Turning radii and road widths within this property should be sized to allow for entry, exit, parking, set-up
and operation fire apparatus. This may involve modification of some of the current parking patterns.
#SD-14-34
At this point these seem to be the major issues which present themselves. As this project moves forward
additional items may surface which could be dealt with as needed with the assistance of the developer.
Should you need any further assistance on this project please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Douglas S. Brent
The Board finds that the applicant shall comply with the Fire Department's recommendations.
(A)(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 landowners.
The presence of Bartlett Brook to the south and the UVM Horticultural Farms likely precludes extension of
such services. An existing sidewalk connecting to the Berman property to the north is proposed to remain.
The Board finds this criterion to have been met.
The Board finds that in lieu of a future street right-of-way (ROW) connecting the adjacent property to the
west (presently under review by the Board) to Green Mountain Drive, that the applicant provide a
pedestrian ROW through lot #2, (in the location of the 30 ft. wide utility easement along the parcel's
southern and western boundaries), which would then connect the property to the west to Green Mountain
Drive.
(A)(9)Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent
with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
As noted above in (A) (3), the proposed sidewalk is a welcomed improvement. The plans submitted indicate
that this criterion has been met.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines
shall be underground. The plans submitted indicate that new utility lines will be underground.
(A)(10)The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
The applicant is proposing to maintain the connectivity of existing trail loops and proposing to designate an
area to the rear of the building as a "common grill & picnic area".
The Board considers the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
12.03 Stormwater Management Overlay District (SMO)
This property is located within the Stormwater Management Overlay District, and as such, must comply
with relevant standards. The applicant has submitted a "Stormwater Management Narrative" prepared
by Lamoureux & Dickinson. The Public Works Department submitted the following comments in an
email dated 12/29/14:
#SD-14-34
I reviewed plans for the "25 & 27 Green Mountain Drive" project that were prepared by Lamoureux &
Dickinson Consulting Engineer, LLC, dated 1111114 with no revision date. I would like to offer the
following comments:
1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed, which is listed as stormwater impaired by the
State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Also, the property is already subject
to a State of Vermont stormwater discharge permit (3017-9010.R). Since the project proposes to expand
upon the existing impervious area the existing State permit must be revised before construction begins.
2.The project proposes to disturb greater than 1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater
construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit
before starting construction.
3.The project stormwater management narrative indicates that there are areas of contaminated soil on
site, but does not specify the location or type of soil contamination. The project also proposes to infiltrate
stormwater runoff. Does the proposed stormwater infiltration increase the chances of mobilizing soil
contamination onto adjacent properties or into adjacent surface waters?
4.The existing parking area to be reconstructed will utilize existing drywells and piping for infiltration and
conveyance of runoff. During large storm events water would be conveyed to an existing discharge point
at the west end of the site. What is the condition of this existing drywells, piping, and outfall?Are the
existing drywells functioning as intended? Have the drywells and outfall been maintained? The applicant
should be aware that these areas will be inspected to ensure their proper operation prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
5.Will the stormwater pre-treatment area in the parking lot median contain curb cuts to allow water into
this area or is there no curb along the front of these parking stalls? If there is no curb, the applicant may
want to consider adding measures to prevent vehicles from accidentally pulling forward into and
damaging the pretreatment area.
6.The applicant should confirm that the pretreatment provided meets requirements of the 2002 Vermont
Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM).
7.Hydrologic modeling utilizes a 12.5 in/hr infiltration rate for the infiltration trench and basin. The
applicant should confirm that this is a reasonable (if not conservative) rate based on infiltration testing
and/or soil testing conducted on site?
8.The project is located in the City's Stormwater Management Overlay district and must therefore meet
the requirements in section 12.03 of the City's Land Development Regulations (LDRs).
a. The applicant must confirm that the post construction peak runoff rate for the 1yr, 24hr storm event
does not exceed the existing peak runoff rate for the some storm event.
9.The applicant must confirm that the infiltration basin meets design requirements of the VSMM. For
example, an emergency spillway is not visible in the project plans.
10.The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to maintain all stormwater treatment and
conveyance infrastructure.
-10—
#S D-14-34
11.The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to provide record drawings per the
requirements of section 12.03F.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Since the DRB hearing is only a week away (116114) I've
copied the project engineer onto this email.
-Tom
In an email dated December 30, 2014 Tom DiPietro wrote:
Ray -All my questions/comments have been satisfactorily addressed.
The Board finds that this criterion has been met.
OTHER
Since this project is a PUD and the lots involved cannot stand alone and meet the area and dimension
requirements (i.e. density) that a "Notice of Conditions" legal document should be recorded in the land
records that indicates that for the purposes of the LDRs, both lots are to be treated as one (1) lot.
DECISION
The South Burlington Development Review Board hereby approves preliminary plat application #SD-14-
34 of Snyder Construction Company, LLC, subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations, which are not superseded by this approval, shall remain
in effect.
2. This project shall 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 final plat plans submitted shall be revised as follows:
a. The plans shall be revised to comply with the Fire Department's recommendations.
b. The landscaping plans shall be amended to incorporate the City Arborist's
recommendations in an email to staff dated 12/17/14.
c. The plans shall be revised to remove the notation "Proposed 20' wide utility easement
to the City of South Burlington".
d. The plans shall be revised in include pedestrian ROW through lot #2 (in the location of
the 30 ft. wide utility easement along the parcel's southern and western boundaries),
which would then connect the property to the west to Green Mountain Drive.
e. The survey plat shall be revised to include the seal and signature of the land surveyor.
4. The Board hereby grants a height waiver of 12 ft. for a maximum height approved of 52 ft.
5. The Board grants a waiver of 39 spaces or 14 % to the minimum parking space requirement for a
total of 243 spaces provided.
- 11 —
I
#SD-14-34
6. The Board grants a waiver of $34,400 to the required minimum landscaping budget of $72,500
7. The applicant shall contribute $34,400 towards the design and construction of a sidewalk along
the south side of Green Mountain Drive beyond the boundary of the subject parcel prior to the
issuance of a zoning permit to construct the building.
8. The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation approval prior to final plat approval.
9. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Fire Chief contained in his email to
staff dated 12-31-14.
10. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan should meet the
standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The
South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent may visit the site as construction progresses to
ensure compliance with this criterion.
11. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services,
and service modifications should be underground.
12. All exterior lighting shall be downcast and shielded, and otherwise comply with Section 13.07 of
the SBLDR.
13. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat review within 12 months of the issuance of this decision.
Tim Barritt
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Mark Behr
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Brian Breslend
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Bill Miller
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
David Parsons
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Jennifer Smith
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
John Wilking
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 4— 0 — 3.
t
Signed this d C� day of �r��� 2015, by
Z-�r-_r � P4—�' —
Tim Barritt, Chair
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant
to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is
$225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may
be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d)
(exclusivity of remedy; finality).
-12—