Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB Packet 2019-08-20 Complete AGENDA South Burlington Development Review Board 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT Tuesday, August 20, 2019 7:00 p.m. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. 4. Announcements 5. Reorganization a. Elect Chair, Vice Chair & Clerk b. Set regular meeting dates and times 6. Continued conditional use application #CU-19-05 of the City of South Burlington to extend the regulations of the Form Based Code Transect 5 zoning district up to fifty (50) feet into the Form Based Code Transect 4 zoning district to allow consistent zoning across a lot planned for construction of a municipal building/community center, 180 Market Street. 7. Continued site Plan application #SP-19-21 and Conditional Use application #CU-19-04 of Shelley Forrest to amend a previously approved site plan for a pre existing truck terminal. The amendment consists of adding commercial parking facility as a use, constructing a parking lot and associated stormwater treatment facility, 2 Holmes Road. 8. Final plat application #SD-19-21 of Rye Associates LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and three commercial buildings. The amendment consists of an after the fact request to reduce the rear yard setback for Unit #35 on Fall Street from 20-feet to 13-feet, 1075 Hinesburg Road. 9. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-22 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five (5) lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into four (4) lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), 6.7 acres (Lot 11), and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), and eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, for the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 square foot warehousing and distribution center, 635 Community Drive. 10. Site Plan application #SP-19-28 of SunCap Property Group to construct a 144,000 sf, 35 ft high warehouse building, paved equipment storage and parking areas, and associated site improvements on a proposed 43.8 acre lot, and widen and signalize the east intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue, 635 Community Drive. 11. Continued sketch plan application #SD-19-17 of Rivers Edge Building Dev. to subdivide a 4.42 acre parcel into 9 lots for the purpose of constructing seven single family homes and four dwelling units in two-family homes, 20 Foulsham Hollow Rd. 12. Continued conditional use application #CU-19-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC to extend the regulations of the Form Based Code Transect 4 zoning district up to fifty (50) feet into the Form Based Code Transect 5 zoning district to allow construction of a driveway access nearer than currently permitted to Market Street, 268 Market Street. This item has been withdrawn. 13. Continued sketch plan application #SD-19-10 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC to subdivide an existing 4.1 acre lot into three lots of 3.26 acres (Lot B1), 0.38 acres (Lot B2) and 0.45 acres (Lot B3) for the purpose of constructing a project on Lots B2 and B3, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 268 Market Street. This item has been withdrawn. 14. Minutes of January 29, February 19, July 16, 2019 15. Other business Respectfully Submitted, Marla Keene Development Review Planner Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Participation in the local proceeding is a prerequisite to the right to take any subsequent appeal. South Burlington Development Review Board Meeting Participation Guidelines The Development Review Board (DRB) presents these guidelines for the public attending Development Review Board meetings to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and that meetings proceed smoothly. The DRB is a Quasi-Judicial Board that oversees the adjudication of development projects within the City. It is made up of citizens appointed by the City Council. The role of the DRB is to hear and review applications for development under the applicable regulations. The DRB can only approve applications that comply with the applicable bylaw or state law, and the board can only levy conditions that are permitted under the bylaw. By the same token, if a project meets the applicable bylaw criteria, the DRB is bound by law to grant the approval. 1. The Board asks that all participants at meetings be respectful of Board members, staff, applicants and other members of the public present at the meeting. 2. Initial discussion on an agenda item will generally be conducted by the Board and the applicant. As this is our opportunity to engage with the subject, we would like to hear from all Board members first. After the Board members have discussed an item, the Chair will open up the floor for public comment. Please raise your hand to be recognized to speak and the Chair will try to call on each participant in sequence. 3. Once recognized by the Chair, please identify yourself to the Board. 4. If the Board suggests time limits, please respect them. Time limits will be used when they can aid in making sure everyone is heard and sufficient time is available for Board to hear all items on the agenda. 5. Side conversations between audience members should be kept to an absolute minimum. The hallway outside the Community Room is available should people wish to chat more fully. 6. Please address the Chair. Please do not address other audience members or staff or presenters and please do not interrupt others when they are speaking. The Chair will direct responses from applicable people as needed. 7. Make every effort not to repeat the points made by others and keep your comments germane to the issue before the board. 8. The Chair will make reasonable efforts to allow everyone who is interested in participating to speak once before speakers address the Board for a second time. 9. Comments may be submitted before or during the course of a single or multi-meeting public hearing to the Planning and Zoning Department. All comments should identify what application the correspondence is in reference to. All written comments will be circulated to the DRB and kept as part of the official records of meetings. Comments must include your first and last name and a contact (e-mail, phone, address) to be included in the record. 10. Please note that once a public hearing has been closed by the DRB, no further comments can be accepted, in accordance with state law. 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:   CU‐19‐05 180 Market Street    DATE:    August 20, 2019 Development Review Board meeting      Conditional use application #CU‐19‐05 of the City of South Burlington to extend the regulations of the Form  Based Code Transect 5 zoning district up to fifty (50) feet into the Form Based Code Transect 4 zoning district to  allow consistent zoning across a lot planned for construction of a municipal building/community center, 180  Market Street.    The application was continued without being heard on July 16, 2019.  The applicant is requesting that the  regulations of the Transect 5 zoning district be applied across the northeast corner of the lot.  The applicant has  provided a figure showing the area which they are requesting the T5 regulations apply which is included in the  packet for the Board.  Staff has prepared a draft decision for this application.      CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON – 180 MARKET STREET  CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU‐19‐05  FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION    Conditional use application #CU‐19‐05 of the City of South Burlington to extend the regulations of the  Form Based Code Transect 5 zoning district up to fifty (50) feet into the Form Based Code Transect 4  zoning district to allow consistent zoning across a lot planned for construction of a municipal  building/community center, 180 Market Street.    The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 16, 2019.  The applicant was represented  by Ilona Blanchard.    Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development  Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:    FINDINGS OF FACT    1. The Project is located within both the Form Based Code T4 and T5 Districts, with the majority of  the  property  located  in  the  T5  district.    Any  site  plan  for  the  property  will  be  reviewed  administratively.    2. The applicant is separately seeking final plat approval to subdivide the subject property, Lot B1,  from the parent parcel, Lot B (#SD‐19‐18).    3. The applicant has requested that the regulations of the T5 zoning district be applied across the  entirety of Lot B5, as described under Section 3.03C.    3.02C.  Split Lots. Where a district boundary line divides a lot which was in a single ownership at the  time of passage of these regulations, the Development Review Board may permit, as a conditional use,  the extension of the regulations for either portion of the lot but not to exceed fifty (50) feet beyond the  district line into the remaining portion of the lot (See Article 14 for Conditional Use Review). This  provision shall not apply to the boundary lines of any overlay or floating district.    The lot was under the single ownership of South Burlington City Center, LLC at the time the Transect  Zones were applied and was part of one parcel when the LDR applied two zones to the one lot.      By permitting the regulations of the T5 zoning district to apply across the entirety of Lot B1, the Board  allows the applicant to provide a substantially simplified site plan application, requiring only that the  applicant demonstrate compliance with the Building Envelope Standards for the T5 zoning district  instead of both the T4 and T5 zoning districts.  The building standards are more stringent in the T5 than  in the T4, and if the applicant meets the T5 standards, the T4 standards would also be met.     The Board finds the applicant’s request to apply the T5 zoning district regulations across the entire Lot  B1 results in a maximum of 38‐feet extension of the regulations.    CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW    Pursuant to Section 3.02C of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (Split Lots), the  proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section   #CU‐19‐05 2  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.    The requested extension will have no adverse effect upon the capacity of community facilities.  The Board finds 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.     Purpose of the T4 zoning district:  Generally a multi‐use, mixed use dense downtown built environment, typical of areas  adjacent to and supportive of main street(s). Housing, retail, and other commercial  uses are typical; parking facilities are also allowed. The built environment can be a mix  of freestanding buildings and shared wall buildings. T‐4 is multimodal oriented with an  emphasis on medium foot traffic pedestrianism. Parking (not including on‐street  parking) shall be away (or hidden) from the street.    Purpose of the T5 zoning district:  Emphasis is on Market Street with high volume foot traffic. Create a street‐oriented  public realm that encourages a dense downtown, multi‐use/multi‐purpose built  environment. Retail and other commercial uses must be on the ground floor, with and  mixed uses permitted above. Parking (not including on‐street parking) shall be away  (or hidden) from the street.    The proposed zoning adjustment will not have an effect of on the character of the area.  As stated  above, if the applicant meets the T5 zoning district standards, the standards of the T4 district will  also be met.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    The requested extension will have no adverse effect on traffic.  The Board finds this criterion met.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.    The Board finds this criterion met.  The request is allowed under 3.02C.    (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.    The requested extension will have no adverse effect on renewable energy resources. The Board  finds this criterion met.         #CU‐19‐05 3  DECISION    Motion by ___ seconded by ___ to approve Conditional Use application #CU‐19‐05 of The City of South  Burlington, subject to the following stipulations:      1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein.     2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan submitted by the applicant and on file in the  South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.    3. The applicant shall 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 site 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  Jim Langan    Yea  Nay  Abstain  Not Present  Dawn Philibert    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 July 2019, by      _____________________________________  Matt Cota, Acting 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.    #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 1 1 of 10  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SP‐19‐21 CU‐19‐04_2 Holmes Rd_DS LLC_2019‐07‐16.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: July 11, 2019  Plans received: June 14, 2019  2 Holmes Rd  Conditional Use Application #CU‐19‐04  Meeting date: July 16, 2019  Owner/Applicant  DS, LLC  286 Tamarack Drive  Williston, VT 05495  Engineer  O’Leary‐Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Drive  Essex Junction, VT 05452  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0870‐00002  Commercial 2 District  8.80 acres       Location Map        PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Site Plan application #SP‐19‐21 and Conditional Use application #CU‐19‐04 of Shelley Forrest to amend a  previously approved site plan for a pre‐existing truck terminal.  The amendment consists of adding  commercial parking facility as a use, constructing a parking lot and associated stormwater treatment  facility, 2 Holmes Road.  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 2 2 of 10  PERMIT HISTORY    The Project is located in the Commercial 2 (C2) Zoning District.  It is also located in the Transit Overlay  District.  A portion of the property consists of wetland and wetland buffer.  The most recent site plan  approval issued for this property was in 1999, which approved a 8,400 square foot truck terminal with a  vehicle fueling tank and pump.  The current application is to add a parking lot for the use of an off‐site  facility.  The parking lot will be unrelated to the current approved use.  The Board reviewed an optional  sketch plan for the project on March 5, 2019.    CONTEXT    The project is subject to site plan review.  Conditional use review is required because commercial  parking is a conditional use in the C2 zoning district.  Staff notes that though the applicant is only  proposing to modify a portion of the subject property, the LDRs require that certain elements be  brought up to compliance with current standards, including waste disposal and utility cabinet screening,  lighting, and bicycle parking.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed  the plans submitted on 6/14/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s  attention are in red.    1. The application was continued without being heard on July 16, 2019.  In the interest of facilitating a  single meeting, the applicant has met with Staff to review the July 16 staff comments.  Based on that  meeting, the below staff comments include some minor modifications from the July 16 comments.    A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft.  8.58 ac.  8.58 ac.  Max. Building  Coverage  40%  Apprx. 3%  No change  Max. Overall  Coverage  70%  33%  41%  Max. Front  Setback Coverage  30%  Apprx. 7%  No change  Min. Front  Setback  50 ft.  Apprx. 120 ft.  No change  Min. Side  Setback  10 ft.  >10 ft.  No change  Min. Rear  Setback  30 ft.  >30 ft.  No change  Building Height  (flat roof)  35 ft.  Unknown    No change      Proposed to be in compliance    B) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS  Land Development Regulations Section 5.08 apply to development within the C‐2 district.  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 3 3 of 10    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.    This site plan is for the purpose of creating off‐site commercial parking for vehicles for sale on an  adjacent property.  Staff notes that a number of auto dealers have expressed a need for additional  off‐site parking, and considers that should the Board wish to approve off‐site commercial parking,  this is the best available type of location for that use due to its location in an already‐developed  non‐residential area with limited visibility from the public ROW, and due to its shared access drive  with the primary proposed user of the parking lot thereby limiting traffic impacts.  Staff considers  this criterion 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.    This site plan consists of adding commercial parking use to an existing truck terminal.   Dimensional requirements are met.  Staff considers this criterion met.    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.    There is no minimum required parking for the proposed use.  The proposed parking area uses an  existing access drive which is presently used to access the property where the vehicles parked in  the proposed lot will be sold.      2. Staff recommends the Board include a condition stating that the proposed and approved use is  for commercial parking, and that vehicle sales, including permanent or temporary signage,  transactions, or sales events, is not permitted.    D.   N/A    SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 4 4 of 10    The proposed parking lot will be located to the rear of the lot at 2 Holmes Road.  There is an existing  driveway which creates connections between commercial properties and is proposed to access the lot.  The  applicant has stated in their cover letter that access to the driveway is gated and locked when Goss Dodge is  not open.  Staff considers that the operation of this driveway is not a factor in this application and that the  gated condition does not need to be included as a condition of approval.    14.06 SITE PLAN REVIEW GENERAL REVIEW STANDARDS    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 northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive  plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are  compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource  conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant.  The land use policy  for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐residential.    The Board finds the project is in compliance with 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.  No changes to the structures are proposed.  Planting is discussed under 14.07D below.  Staff  considers the remainder of 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.  The applicant is proposing to stripe a portion of the existing parking area in front of the existing  building with sixteen (16) spaces.  The 1999 site plan approval granted the applicant eight (8)  regular parking spaces in the front of the building and trailer parking around the front corner,  with additional truck and trailer parking along the sides and rear of the building.  The applicant is  not proposing any additional pavement to accommodate the proposed additional parking  spaces.  Historically, the Board has allowed applicants to reconfigure nonconforming parking as  long as no additional pavement is proposed.      3. Since the applicant is proposing to formally add eight parking spaces adjacent to Holmes Road,  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant plant at least two shade trees between the  parking area and the street in compliance with Section 13.06.  Staff notes there are no shade  trees in the front of the lot today.    Several sections of Article 13 address parking areas.  Staff has excerpted relevant sections of Article  13 parking standards below.  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 5 5 of 10  13.01G(1)  All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited.   The applicant is proposing two rows of parking which allow for vehicles to be parked two deep,  and one row of single‐deep parking spaces.  Historically the City has only considered the non‐ blocked space as counting towards the minimum parking requirement, but there is no minimum  parking requirement for the proposed use therefore there is no issue in this case.    13.01G(3)    Provision  shall  be  made  for  access  by  police,  fire  and  emergency  vehicles.  The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on June 28, 2019 and provided oral guidance to staff that he  had no concerns with the application.  Staff considers this criterion met.  13.01G(6)    Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including  but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces  are encouraged in the design of any off‐street parking or loading area.  The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “DS, LLC” site plan prepared by O’Leary‐Burke Civil  Associates, dated 12/31/18 and last updated on 7/9/19. We would like to offer the following  comments:  1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all  stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.    4. Staff recommends the Board incorporate the comment of the stormwater section as a condition  of approval.  13.01K    Access Drives. Commercial or industrial access drives connecting parking areas  to a public street or right‐of‐way shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width, or ten (10)  feet if designated for one‐way traffic. Aisles and access drives shall be privately owned and  maintained.  Required parking space and aisle dimensions are shown in Table 13‐8 and Figure 13‐1.  The access drives to the street are proposed to be 24’ wide to continue the required aisle width  to the access road.  The dimensional requirements of Table 13‐8 and Figure 13‐1 are met.  Staff  considers this criterion met.  13.06B  Landscaping of Parking Areas. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one‐family or  two‐family dwelling, all off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review  Board,  shall  be  curbed  and  landscaped  with  appropriate  trees,  shrubs,  and  other  plants  including ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed  curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area  to reach stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure.  The Development  Review  Board  shall  consider  the  adequacy  of  the  proposed  landscaping  to  assure  the  establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of  abutting properties.  (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.  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 6 6 of 10   (2)  In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces  and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of  the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and  other  plants.  Such  requirement  shall  not  apply  to  structured  parking  or  below‐ground  parking.  (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.   (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.  The applicant has proposed four crabapple trees in the interior landscape island and four  crabapple trees along the northern parking area perimeter.  The south and west sides are  already well vegetated and the east side is the location of the access driveway.  Staff notes  that  crabapple  trees  are  not  going  to  provide  shade  and  canopy of the parking lot, a  requirement in (1) above.  The applicant has made the following requests  In the island where we are planting trees, our request is that they not be tall shade trees.   This is a storage lot and no customers or pedestrians will be entering it or be around it.   Also, leaves can damage some paint on cars.  So we would like to plant small trees.  We would like to request a waiver to plant less trees than your regulations, which is one  tree for every 5 parking spaces.  We have 63 parking spaces, that would require 13 trees.   We are asking for 8 trees instead of 13.  This lot is totally screened to the south and east.   To the west about half will be screened by woods, the other half by the wetlands.  In  between the wetlands and the parking lot, the lot is where the stormwater design is.  Staff has excerpted the relevant standards that apply to the applicant’s requests above.  Staff  considers the LDRs do not explicitly allow for waiver of either of these standards.  Historically,  the Board has granted some flexibility in tree spacing when the layout of the parking lot does  not support 30‐foot spacing and the tree selection is appropriate for the revised spacing.    5. Staff considers the Board may wish to grant similar flexibility regarding the tree quantity when  full screening is otherwise provided, but that the Board should not grant a waiver of the  canopy and shading requirement without canopy and shading being otherwise provided.  Staff  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 7 7 of 10  refers  the  Board  to  Site  Plan  Specific  Review  Standard  14.07E  below  in  making  their  determination on this standard.    The applicant has verbally indicated that should the Board deny their request to not plant  shade trees, they would consider planting Serviceberry trees instead.  The City arborist offers  the following comments on the applicant’s request for crabapple trees and their potential  substitution of serviceberries.  Via email 7/23/2019   Crabapples are OK as far as a species selection.  The size of the trees and their   location will provide minimal shading of the parking lot   Landscaping specifications are out dated:  o Fertilizer specs are meaningless without both the rate of application and  fertilizer analysis.  A generally accepted starter fertilizer specification is 1 lb.  Nitrogen 2 lbs. Phosphorous and 1 lb. Potassium per 1000sq. ft.  o It is generally not recommended to mix fertilizer with the backfill for  tree/shrub planting  o The Tree Planting Detail should specify that the root flare of the tree should  be visible.  Planting so the top of the root ball is at finish grade can result in  the tree being planted too deep if the root flare is buried in the root ball as is  often the case  Via email 8/5/2019  Serviceberry will reach a height of 20‐30 ft.  and a spread of 15‐20 ft. however, some  species/cultivars only attain a height of 10‐15 ft.  If you’re looking to provide some  shade to the parking lot then the species/cultivars that mature at a taller height  should be specified.  There are also cultivars of crabapple other than sargent that  mature at greater height.  Another suitable tree that matures at a height of 25‐30 ft.  is Amur maackia.  6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the landscaping specifications  comments of the Arborist as a condition of approval.  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.  No changes to the structure are proposed.    14.07 SITE PLAN REVIEW SPECIFIC REVIEW STANDARDS    A.  Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision  of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 8 8 of 10  arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve  general access and circulation in the area.    No changes to access to abutting properties are proposed.  The Board finds this criterion met.    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. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.    No new utility connections are proposed.  The Board finds this criterion met.    C.  Disposal  of  Wastes.  All  dumpsters  and  other  facilities  to  handle  solid  waste,  including  compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and  properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).  Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall  not be required to be fenced or screened.    The applicant has indicated two waste disposal locations on the property.  One is enclosed by a fence.   The applicant has indicated the second is a roll‐off dumpster for waste pallet material only.  Staff considers  that because there is a low likelihood that debris from the pallet dumpster would escape the enclosure,  screening would be adequate without full enclosure.      7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to screen the pallet dumpster on the side facing Holmes  Road as a condition of approval.    D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and  Street Trees.    Landscaping is discussed under 14.06B(2) above.    E.  Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, 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, 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.    8. Staff recommends the Board consider this criterion in determining whether to grant the waivers requested  under 14.06B(2) above.     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.  #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 9 9 of 10  Low Impact development is discussed under 14.06B(2) above.    G.  Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for  Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.    Standards of 15.12 pertain to street layout, roadway design, connection to adjacent parcels, and  roadway construction.  Staff considers this criterion not applicable.    CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS       A commercial parking facility is allowed in the C2 Zoning District only as a conditional use.    Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, 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.    (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.     (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.    (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.     (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.     The property is located in an area with other large‐scale commercial facilities.  No new access drives or  curb cuts are proposed.  Staff considers the proposed commercial parking lot will not result in an undue  adverse effect on any of the above criteria.    OTHER    Section 13.14: Bicycle Parking    The minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for the truck terminal is 8 based on approximately  10,000 sq. ft. truck terminal (2 spaces) and approximately 30,000 sq ft of commercial parking (6 spaces).   At the time of the first site plan application, the applicant must provide at least 50% of the required  number of short term bicycle parking spaces.    a. The applicant has proposed a bicycle rack location but has not indicated the number or type of rack  which will be provided.  Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant install  at least two inverted‐U type bicycle racks meeting the minimum spacing and location standards of  13.14.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.     #SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04  Staff Comments 10 10 of 10  Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 1 1 of 8  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐19‐21_1075 Hinesburg Rd_Rye Assoc_2019‐08‐20.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: August 9, 2019  Plans received: July 24, 2019  1075 Hinesburg road  Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐21  Meeting date: August 20, 2019  Owner/Applicant  Rye Associates, LLC  21 Carmichael Street Suite 201  Essex, VT 05452  Engineer  Civil Engineering Associates, Inc  10 Mansfield View Lane  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0667‐00XXX  Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential District  0.81 acres       Location Map      PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Final plat application #SD‐19‐21 of Rye Associates LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit  development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and three  #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 2 2 of 8  commercial buildings.  The amendment consists of an after the fact request to reduce the rear yard  setback for Unit #35 on Fall Street from 20‐feet to 13‐feet, 1075 Hinesburg Road.    PERMIT HISTORY    The Project most recently received a final plat amendment on June 8, 2019 (#SD‐16‐07).  The project  also has master plan approval, which includes conditions allowing the applicant to go directly to final  plat for this requested amendment.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)  have reviewed the plans submitted on 7/24/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items  for the Board’s attention are in red.    CONTEXT    At the present time, one home has been constructed on Fall Street.  Fall Street forms the northern  border of a park to be dedicated to the City.  The existing home was constructed with a rear deck which  encroaches 7‐feet into the approved rear setback of 20‐feet.  Previous approvals specifically address the  rear setback of homes on Fall Street as it pertains to preserving the character of the public park.      1. The unit at 35 Fall Street is one of seven homes approved for construction on Lot 7 of the Rye Meadow  PUD.  Since the unit is located on a multifamily lot, the Applicant’s request for a setback waiver for 35  Fall Street alone is not valid.  The Board may only grant a setback waiver for Lot 7 as a whole.  Staff has  written the remainder of these notes as though the Board is considering a setback waiver for Lot 7 as a  whole.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    SETBACKS, COVERAGES & LOT DIMENSIONS  SEQ‐NR Zoning District Previously  Approved*  Proposed   Min. Lot Size (Single Family) 9,937 sf  No change   Max. Building Coverage 20%  No change    Max. Overall Coverage 42%  No change    Min. Front Setback 20 ft.  No change    Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  No change  @  Min. Rear Setback  20 ft. 1 13 ft.   Height (pitched roof) 28 ft.  No change  * Required dimensions reflect approved waivers  @ Waiver Requested  1. 20 ft. rear setback waiver approved for units on Lot 7 only.  Remainder of PUD must adhere to  standard rear setback of 30 ft.    2. Staff notes that the provided plan shows a light dashed line around the buildings on Lot 7.  The previous  approvals showed no such line.  Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the dashed  lines in order to prevent it being accidentally interpreted as a footprint lot or a building envelope.  #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 3 3 of 8    SOUTHEAST QUADRANT STANDARDS  9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts  A. Height  B. Open Space and Resource Protection  C. Agriculture  D. Public Services and Facilities  E. Circulation  Staff consider compliance with these five criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.    9.07 Regulating Plans  A. Description and Regulatory Effect  B. General Provisions  C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns  Staff consider compliance with these three criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.    D. Park Design and Development    3. While the applicant is not proposing to change the park, Staff recommends the Board consider  the below park standards when evaluating the applicant’s waiver request and its impact on the  park.    (1) General standards.  The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park  Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini‐parks as defined  in the Comprehensive Plan.  Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000 square feet,  with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.  Such parks are  to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car‐free destination for children  and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood’s quality of life. They shall be knitted into  the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for  greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors. Each park should be  accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a quarter‐mile of every  home.   (2) Specific Standards.  The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐ NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐NRN, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC sub‐districts:   (a)  Distribution and Amount of Parks:   (i) A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to meet  a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and  active recreation.   (ii) Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the heart  of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development.   (iii) Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per 1,000  population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.   #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 4 4 of 8  (iv) A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be provided  within a one‐quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an existing City park or  other publicly‐owned developed recreation area.   (b)  Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be approved  by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained permanently by a  homeowners’ association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.    (c)  Design Guidelines  (i) Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to make them  sociable, safe and attractive places.   (ii) Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle connections.   (iii) To the extent feasible, single‐loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to natural  open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public realm, and to  reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not extended yard areas.     SEQ‐NR Sub‐District Specific Standards  A. Street, block and lot pattern  (1) Development Blocks  (2) Interconnection of Streets    Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.    (3) Lot ratios.  Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5  to 1:5 recommended.    4. As discussed above, the initial final plat approval waived the required minimum lot width to  depth ratio of 1:2, resulting in homes being located on relatively shallow lots.  Staff recommends  the Board consider this criterion in evaluating the applicant’s waiver request.     B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards  C. Residential Design    Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.    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) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of  the project.     (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.  #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 5 5 of 8    (A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to  prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.    (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.    Staff consider compliance with these four criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.    (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.     The applicant has previously received approval for a reduction in the standard rear yard setback  from 30 feet to 20 feet in this location.  The applicant is asking for a further reduction of the rear  yard setback to 13 feet.      5. Staff considers the requested setback will not be visually compatible with the other homes  abutting the public park which are required to maintain a rear setback of 30 ft.  Staff further  recommends the Board consider whether the visual impacts of allowing the reduced setback  will encroach on the available active use area of the approved public park.    6. If the Board does wish to grant the requested waiver, Staff recommends the waiver be  limited to porches only and include a provision limiting the height and size of porches within  the previously‐approved 20‐foot setback.    (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 initial final plat approval for the property, SD‐14‐15, included provision for granite posts 3‐feet  in height spaced 30‐feet on center to separate the back yards of the lots abutting the park from the  public park/open space.  This provision applies to all the homes abutting the park.  The initial final  plat approval also waived the required minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, resulting in homes  being located on relatively shallow lots.  The 2016 amendment (SD‐16‐07) granted the applicant  approval to place boulders instead of granite posts.  The applicant has installed boulders, but based  on a field visit, Staff notes the boulders are not set at the perimeter of the open space.  Location  varies, but many are set more than 10‐feet from the edge of the open space, effectively reducing  the size of the open space.  Further, the approved drainage ditch appears to have been installed  inside the public park rather than centered on the western boundary as shown on the approved  plans.    7. While the size of approved open space area is not quantitatively impacted by the requested  waiver, Staff considers the quality of the open space is reduced by the waiver request.  Staff also  considers the installation of the boulders and drainage ditch inconsistent with the previous  approval, as discussed above.  Staff recommends should the Board wish to grant the applicant’s  waiver request, the Board require the applicant to address the misplaced boulder and drainage  ditch and consider enhancing the demarcation to include split rail fencing on the private property.  #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 6 6 of 8    (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.    (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.    (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, absent a specific  agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City  Council.     (A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the  affected district(s).    (A)(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.    Staff consider compliance with these five criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.    SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    14.06 General Standards  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.    Compatibility with the comprehensive plan is discussed above under PUD standards.    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.  See discussion of transition under PUD criterion 5 above.    Staff considers the other elements of this criterion unaffected by the proposed change. (2)   Parking:  Staff consider compliance with parking criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback  waiver.  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  #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 7 7 of 8  buildings of different architectural styles.  Staff consider compliance with this criterion not affected by the requested rear yard setback waiver.     (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.  8. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the requested waiver will have an adverse impact on  the visual relationship between the approved homes on Lot 7 and the park.  Staff reminds the Board  that they are considering a waiver request for all the homes on Lot 7, not just the currently  constructed unit.    14.07 Specific Review Standards    A.  Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision  of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an  arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve  general access and circulation in the area.    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. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.    C.  Disposal  of  Wastes.  All  dumpsters  and  other  facilities  to  handle  solid  waste,  including  compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and  properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).  Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall  not be required to be fenced or screened.    Staff consider compliance with these three criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback waiver.    D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and  Street Trees.    13.06C.   Screening  or  buffering.  The  Development  Review  Board  will  require  landscaping,  fencing,  land  shaping  and/or  screening  along  property  boundaries  (lot  lines)  whenever  it  determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each  other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with  pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and  multi‐family use abuts a residential district or  institutional use.    The approved landscaping plans for the residential lot and for the park are included in the packet for the  Board.  There is limited landscaping proposed in the rear setback.      9. Staff considers the requirements of 13.06C a tool available to the Board should they elect to grant  the applicant’s waiver request.    E.  Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the  limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and  #SD‐19‐21  Staff Comments 8 8 of 8  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,  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.    Compliance with this criterion is discussed under dimensional and PUD standards above.    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.  G.  Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for  Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.    Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback waiver.      RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues herein.     Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-19-22_635 Community Dr_SunCap_2019-08-20.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 9, 2019 Plans received: June 20, 2019 635 Community Drive Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-19-22 Meeting date: August 20, 2019 Owner 55 Community Drive LLC 30 Community Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant SunCap Property Group 6101 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 180 Charlotte, NC 28209 Property Information Tax Parcel 0438-00055 Mixed Industrial Commercial (IC) District 57.14 acres Engineer Cross Consulting Engineers, P.C 103 Fairfax Road St. Albans, VT 05478 Location Map #SD-19-22 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-22 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five (5) lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into four (4) lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), 6.7 acres (Lot 11), and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), and eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, for the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 square foot warehousing and distribution center, 635 Community Drive. CONTEXT The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on July 16, 2019. The Project is located in the Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District. It is also located in the Transit Overlay District, a portion of the property is located in the Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A, and a portion is located in the Interstate Highway Overlay District. There are areas of class II and class III wetlands and wetland buffers located within the project area. The applicant has concurrently applied for site plan review of a project to construct a building on the site under application #SP-19-28. COMMENTS Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 7/20/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s attention are indicated in red. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District Required Proposed Lot 8B Proposed Lot 9 Proposed Lot 11 Proposed Lot 12 Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 6.9 ac. 43.8 ac. 6.74 ac. 9.70 ac Max. Building Coverage 40% No development is proposed on this lot at this time Information pertaining to development is contained in site plan application #SP-19-28 No development is proposed on this lot at this time No development is proposed on this lot at this time Max. Overall Coverage 70% Min. Front Setback 30 ft. Max Front Setback Coverage 30% Min. Side Setback 10 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. Building Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Zoning district requirements are addressed in the concurrent site plan application #SP-19-28. SUBDIVISION 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. #SD-19-22 3 1. The applicant has submitted applications for preliminary water and wastewater allocations. Those allocations have not yet been granted. Staff anticipates they will have an update for the Board at the time of the hearing. (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 being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on application #SP-19-28. (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. Section 13.01F states that all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. 13.01F. Access Management Requirements. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible. The proposed plat provides a 50-foot access easement between Lot 9 and Lot 11. As no development is proposed on Lots 11 or 12 at this time, Staff considers no easements are necessary between those two lots. Lot 9 and Lot 8B are separated by Muddy Brook and its associated wetland buffer. Staff considers that the protection of this natural resource area supersedes the requirement for a driveway connection. 2. The applicant has provided a draft shared access agreement to formalize the connection between Lot 9 and Lot 11, but in the draft agreement has provided the proposed occupant (FedEx) with the right to deny any such connection. Staff considers that the draft agreement does not meet the requirements of Section 13.01F and recommends the Board require the applicant to amend the agreement to remove the ability of FedEx or its successor to deny the connection. Staff considers it would be acceptable for FedEx or its successor to reserve the right to be involved in the design of any such connection. Traffic is discussed below. (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 #SD-19-22 4 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 subdivision itself does not impact wetlands, streams or wildlife habitat. The applicant is proposing to locate the boundary between Lots 8B and 9 along the centerline of Muddy Brook. Staff supports this configuration. Compliance with Article 12 standards are addressed in the staff comments on application #SP-19-28. (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. On an overall basis, Staff considers the proposed configuration of the property compatible with the existing and planned development patterns of the area. Detailed discussion of the aesthetics of the building itself is provided under concurrent site plan application #SP-19-28. (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 applicant has configured Lot 9 to include the existing wetland areas. The centerline of Muddy Brook forms the western boundary of Lot 9. While this results in Lots 8B and 9 each including a portion of the Muddy Brook 100-ft stream buffer, Staff is generally supportive of the proposed lot configuration. (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. The Fire Inspector reviewed the plans on July 25, 2019, and offers the following comments. 1. Gates and traffic signals should be equipped with an Opticom system. 2. Fire hydrants should be located between the driveway and the building. 3. Staff recommends the Board incorporate the first comment as a condition of approval. The applicant has already addressed the Fire Inspector’s comment regarding the hydrant location. (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. The subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion. Compliance of the proposed development project is discussed in the staff comments for #SP-19-28. #SD-19-22 5 (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. The subdivision is proposed to support a development which the applicant estimates will generate 230 vehicle trips per PM peak hour, and which will reduce the level of service (LOS) below the acceptable threshold at the eastern intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue. Staff notes the applicant’s traffic study estimates the 230 trips will consist, on average, of 174 automobiles, 49 vans and 7 trucks in two sizes. The applicant has therefore proposed mitigation at this intersection to address both the volume of traffic and the turning movements needed for the trucks. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan identified this intersection as a site for future improvement via signalization or a roundabout. It is proximate to the temporary Muddy Brook culvert which is planned to be reconstructed with a permanent culvert with off-road shared use path in the year 2021. This will also be an important intersection in creating east west connections at such time as the vehicular connection between Tilley Drive and Community Drive is made. Accordingly, Staff has studied this intersection and developed a design for a roundabout which includes utilities, sidewalks and recreation paths consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards. The preliminary roundabout configuration is included in the packet for the Board. Staff has reviewed the possible roundabout design and found it to be both a viable option for construction & operation. With comparatively lesser annual operating costs versus a signal, greater overall capacity, and significant off-peak vehicle delay improvements, Staff considers the roundabout to be a preferred alternative in this location over a signal. The applicant has requested City Council approve a credit of traffic impact fees if the applicant constructs the required intersection improvements. City Council is reviewing this request on August 19. 4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to construct a roundabout. Staff considers that in order to close the hearing, the City and the applicant must agree on a total right of way required for the roundabout, and that the DRB should receive guidance from City Council on the mechanism for funding the intersection improvements. 5. Design for the intersection is ongoing. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff and the applicant to continue to work on developing a more design and report findings back to the Board prior to closing the hearing. The Board can at that time determine what level of design details can be conditioned upon approval of the Director of Public Works. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). A discussion of warehousing within the Comprehensive Plan is included in the staff comments for #SP-19-28. Other objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant address allowing opportunities for employers in need of larger amounts of space, and providing a balance of open spaces. Staff considers this criterion met for the proposed subdivision. #SD-19-22 6 (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 proposed subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion. Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on application #SP-19-28. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff notes for application #SP-19-28. OTHER Staff has evaluated the proposed building location and determined the address of the building must be 635 Community Drive for compliance with State E9-1-1 addressing standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Staff recommends the Board not close this hearing until the related hearing for #SP-19-28 is also ready to be closed, as issues affecting the site plan may also affect this decision and the Board may not accept new information once this hearing is closed. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SD-19-22 & SP-19-28 635 Community Drive SunCap Packet for 8/20/2019 Hearing Table of Contents Civil Plans Floor Plans Elevations & Architectural Details Height Plans including View from Interstate Landscape Plans Lighting and Photometrics Plan Plat Roundabout Design Memorandum, Supporting Computations and Figures Traffic Impact Study (No changes have been made since the sketch plan meeting) Acoustical Analysis Lighting Cut Sheets & Specifications Large-Scale Lighting Plan Public Comments CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP-19-28_635 Community Dr_SunCap_2019-08-20.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 9, 2019 Plans received: June 20, 2019 635 Community Drive Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SP-19-28 Meeting date: August 20, 2019 Owner 55 Community Drive LLC 30 Community Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant SunCap Property Group 6101 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 180 Charlotte, NC 28209 Property Information Tax Parcel 0438-00055 Mixed Industrial Commercial (IC) District 43.8 acres Engineer Cross Consulting Engineers, P.C 103 Fairfax Road St. Albans, VT 05478 Location Map #SP-19-28 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Site Plan application #SP-19-28 of SunCap Property Group to construct a 144,000 sf, 35 ft high warehouse building, paved equipment storage and parking areas, and associated site improvements on a proposed 43.8 acre lot, and widen and signalize the east intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue, 635 Community Drive. CONTEXT The applicant has concurrently applied for preliminary and final plat approval for a subdivision to create the lot on which this building is proposed under #SD-19-22. The Project is located in the Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District. It is also located in the Transit Overlay District, a portion of the property is located in the Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A, and a portion is located in the Interstate Highway Overlay District and the Airport Approach Cones. There are areas of class II and class III wetlands and wetland buffers located within the project area. COMMENTS Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 7/20/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s attention are indicated in red. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District Required Proposed Lot 9 Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 43.8 ac Max. Building Coverage 40% 8% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 30% Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 283 ft. Max Front Setback Coverage 30% 17% Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 230 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A* X Building Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 35.30 ft. plus 5.3 ft for roof equipment * The property does not have a rear yard as it abuts the interstate. The IHO district requires a building setback of 150 ft. 1. Applicant has verbally represented that roof equipment will consist of air handling equipment. Staff considers air handling equipment qualifies as a minor rooftop apparatus under the definition of “height”, which is excluded from the calculation of height. Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant’s characterization of the roof equipment. 2. The applicant has calculated the average preconstruction grade at elevation 339.6 and the maximum roof elevation to be 374.90, resulting in a height of 35.3 feet. 3.07D(2) allows the DRB #SP-19-28 3 to approve heights above 35 feet within this zoning district by increasing front and rear setbacks one foot and by increasing side setbacks one half foot for each additional foot of height requested. The building is set back more than the required minimum on all sides, therefore Staff considers the Board may grant approval for the requested height but that the Board must do so explicitly. Mixed Industrial-Commercial District (IC) The purpose of the Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is as follows. The Mixed Industrial-Commercial District is formed to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its associated land use impacts. Major commercial uses, such as supermarkets and shopping centers shall not be permitted. Any uses not expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses. The subject property is proposed to house FedEx Ground, which Staff considers consistent with the purpose of the district. Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts A. Site plan or PUD review required. The applicant has requested site plan review. B. Multiple Structures and uses permitted. Only one structure containing one use is proposed. C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation The applicant has proposed 296 standard parking spaces and 204 large spaces for commercial vehicle parking. (1) N/A (2) Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible. The applicant is proposing to locate 25% of parking to the front. This criterion is discussed further under 14.06 Site Plan General Standards below. (3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. One curb cut is proposed. Staff considers that the pavement appears to be appropriately scaled for the loading dock and commercial vehicle storage areas. (4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required. #SP-19-28 4 The applicant has proposed a 50-ft wide location for future connection to the adjacent undeveloped lot to the west. This connection is discussed in greater detail in the staff comments for #SD-19-28. 3. Staff notes that the proposed connection between Lot 9 and Lot 11 is shown on the survey plat but does not appear to be indicated on civil plan as a future connection. Staff recommends the Board discuss this with the applicant. Floodplain Overlay District No land development is proposed in the Floodplain Overlay District. Interstate Highway Overland District No building is proposed within the IHO district. An existing private recreation path, open to the public, is located in the IHO district. The applicant is proposing to modify the grading, add landscaping, and relocate the path. Staff considers these activities to be permitted within the district. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Review Standards 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 entire IC District is located within the Northeast Quadrant. The comprehensive plan addresses the issue of warehousing in the Northeast Quadrant as follows. Warehousing. Recently, there have been significant concerns about the suitability of this quadrant for warehousing, particularly in areas adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods. While this area is close to the Airport and the contemplated highway interchange at Route 116 and I-89, the noise and visual impacts associated with truck traffic are potentially very disruptive to residential neighborhoods. This issue has been discussed during the SEQ Concept Plan; among the ideas evaluated was the creation of a warehousing sub-district adjacent to the Interstate. In any case, there was strong consensus that the zoning regulations for the IO district regarding warehousing should be reevaluated. Staff considers that the location of this site relative to residential development adequately meeting this concern. Compliance with the objectives of the comprehensive plan is discussed in the staff comments for #SD-19-22. 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 applicant has provided architectural renderings in support of their application. The building is proposed to be clad in brick with building breaks in the form of floor to ceiling pre-finished metal panels. The south elevation consists largely of loading docks which are proposed to be screened by #SP-19-28 5 a row of arborvitae, installed at 6-7 feet in height 6-feet on center. Pedestrian access is provided from Community Drive and the existing recreation path is proposed to loop around the building, relocated as necessary to allow for berming and stormwater treatment. The applicant is proposing 296 parking spaces, while the LDRs only require 72. Staff considers 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. (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) – (vi) N/A (vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open Space Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations of the use(s) on the lot; i. In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the general requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to: 1. Distribution and related storage 2. Light manufacturing 3. Manufacturing 4. Processing and Storage 5. Warehousing and Distribution The use is proposed to be warehousing and distribution. Staff considers this criterion met. ii. The parking shall be limited as follows: 1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public street and the building(s); There are 296 parking spaces proposed. Of these, 74 spaces, or 25%, are proposed to be located between the public street and the building. Staff considers the proposal to be within the bounds of this criterion. 2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more of the following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Appendix F, except for the location standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area; Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, #SP-19-28 6 (2) largely screen parking from the street right-of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building. The applicant is proposing to locate a Streetfront Open Space between the parking area and the roadway. The applicant reports the total area of the parking spaces is 12,654 sf, and the area of the open space to be 62,324 sq. ft. Streetfront open space must exhibit the following landscaping design: Slight, gentle and undulating berms from 1-3 feet in height are encouraged to block views of parking areas. Ever-green landscaping is required. Include canopy trees whose branches are above the average visual line of sight, located throughout the space, with no more than 40 feet between any two such trees or between a tree and the street or parking area. Landscaping should aim to detract from parking beyond, but should not create dense walls of shrubbery or trees. Artwork is also highly encouraged. Staff considers this criterion met. The applicant is proposing a gravel walkway around the stormwater pond, a significant number of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs, and several durable metal benches for sitting. 3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review Board pursuant to Section 13.06 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000, and no less than 10% of the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard). The minimum required landscape budget is $142,209. For 25% of parking in the front, the minimum landscape budget is increased to $177,761 and $35,552 must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard. The applicant has stated the value of landscaping in the front yard is $100,800. Staff considers this criterion met. 4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. The walkway through the open space is proposed to be gravel but the access from the street to the main entrance is proposed to be concrete. Staff considers this criterion met. #SP-19-28 7 5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from the street to the building’s main entrance. Staff considers this criterion met. Pedestrians utilizing this sidewalk do not need to cross the area proposed for access by large trucks, and only a small area proposed for access to employee parking. (c) N/A (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. As discussed above, parking is located to the side, front, and Interstate side. 4. See note #5 below concerning screening parking areas from view of the Interstate. (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. As discussed above, the building is higher than the maximum allowable in the zoning district, which the DRB may allow if additional setbacks are provided. The building, if approved, will be the third largest in South Burlington. However, Staff considers this an appropriate location for the building. 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. The proposed architecture for this building is consistent with the existing buildings on Community Drive. The applicant is proposing a mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. 5. The applicant has provided earthwork sections showing how the building, commercial vehicle storage areas and parking areas will appear relative to one another. They have also provided a height diagram (Sheet H-2) which shows the view from the interstate. The applicant is proposing to construct a berm, but Staff considers the berm will do little to block views of the commercial vehicle storage area from the northbound lanes of the interstate. The berm is proposed to have a height an average of 8 feet above the average preconstruction grade. Staff recommends the #SP-19-28 8 Board consider Sheet H-2 and discuss whether additional screening of the commercial vehicle parking area is warranted. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. 6. As discussed in the staff notes for #SD-19-22, the applicant has provided a 50-foot easement for future connection to the adjacent property. Staff considers the proposed easement agreement does not meet the requirements of 13.01F, however, and recommends the Board require the applicant to address this issue prior to closing the hearing. 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. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. Utility connections are proposed to be underground. A discussion of utility screening is provided under Site Plan Review Standard D below. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. 7. The applicant has not provided a detail for dumpster screening nor shown proposed screening in the location of the dumpster on the plans. Staff considers the applicant must indicate how the proposed dumpster is to be screened prior to the Board closing the hearing. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. The minimum required landscape value for the Project, based on an estimated building construction cost of $13,470,900 is $142,209, plus an additional 25% for parking in the front, for a total of $177,761. The applicant is proposing $181,650 worth of landscaping on site in the form of trees and shrubs. 8. Other comments affecting landscaping layout will require the applicant to update their schedule of landscape values. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update their landscape values prior to closing the hearing. The City Arborist reviewed the landscaping plan on August 1, 2019 and offered the following comment. #SP-19-28 9 The landscaping looks pretty good. The only spec I’d like to see added is that the parking lot islands contain uncompacted planting soil to a depth of 2.5 ft. to provide soil volume to support tree growth. It would be acceptable to utilize existing topsoil stripped from the site. 9. The applicant modified their plan to address this standard, but has only provided 2.0 ft of uncompacted planting soil, underlain by 0.5 ft of compacted planting soils. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their detail to provide 2.5 feet of uncompacted planting soil to comply with the arborist’s comment. Several additional landscaping standards apply to this property, as follows. 13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas All off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers as approved by the Development Review Board. (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. Staff considers the employee and visitor parking area adequately screened. Staff’s concerns with screening of the commercial vehicle parking area from the interstate are addressed in 14.06C(2) above. (2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking. The applicant is proposing 296 standard parking spaces. At sketch, the Board considered the commercial vehicle spaces as for operational purposes and therefore not requiring 10% interior landscaping for that portion of the property. The purpose of interior landscaping is to provide shade, reduce heat islands and glare. The applicant has indicated on sheet C-03 that 14.1% interior landscaping is provided. Staff considers this criterion met. (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. Interior planting is protected by curbing. Perimeter planting is set back behind snow storage areas, fencing or drainage ditches. Staff considers this criterion met. #SP-19-28 10 (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. There are 296 parking spaces. Therefore the applicant must provide 60 shade trees. The applicant has provided the required shade trees around the perimeter of the parking lot. 10. The fire inspector has indicated by email on 8/9/2019 that the proposed shade trees at the ends of the parking islands will interfere with fire truck access to the parking lot, and indicated it would be acceptable to replace the two trees with a single centrally located tree on the ends of each island. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to make this change and to replace the removed trees elsewhere around the perimeter of the parking lot. 13.06C Screening or Buffering (1) All off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and compost collection (excluding on-site composting) areas, and utility improvements such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be effectively screened. (2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence. (3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot. (4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review Board, may be substituted for the required planting. (5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or increasing the requirements. Staff considers parking to be adequately screened. Screening of the commercial vehicle storage area from the interstate is discussed under 14.06C(2) above. 11. The applicant has not proposed any screening around the utility cabinet to be located on the west side of the access drive. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to fully screen the cabinet from the street. #SP-19-28 11 E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, 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, 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. No modification of standards has been requested. Staff considers no modification of standards is necessary. 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 applicant has provided an EPSC plan and stabilization notes. The project disturbs greater than one acre and will therefore be required to obtain either and Individual or General Permit for Construction. 12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plans to meet the requirements of Article 16, including that exposed soil be seeded and mulched or covered with erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading, and that a minimum of four (4) inches of top soil be provided to cover overall finished slopes. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. Dimensional standards of 15.12 have been met. The applicant has submitted a traffic study which attempts to evaluate the impacts the proposed project will have on adjacent intersections. The traffic study estimates that the proposed project will generate 230 PM peak hour trips and that improvements are needed at the eastern intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Ave. Those impacts are addressed in the staff comments for #SD-19-22 and are included herein by reference. OTHER 12.01 General Stream and Surface Water Protection Standards These standards apply to all land within 100 feet horizontal distance of the centerline of Muddy Brook. The applicant is proposing to locate a stormwater outfall within 100-feet of Muddy Brook. The DRB may authorize encroachments for stormwater treatment facilities meeting the VT ANR stormwater treatment standards under 12.01C(4)(f) as a conditional use, or as part of a PUD review. #SP-19-28 12 13. Since the project is not a PUD, Staff considers the applicant must submit a conditional use application for their proposed stream impacts, or revise their plan to remove the impacts within 100 feet of Muddy Brook. As part of the conditional use application, the applicant must demonstrate they have submitted a complete application to ANR for coverage under a state stormwater permit. Alternatively, the applicant could revise the plans to remove infrastructure from this area. 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50-feet of a wetland. (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: The applicant is proposing to impact two large Class III wetland areas and their buffers. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has determined they have jurisdiction over the Class III wetland areas. USACE does not regulate Class III wetland buffers. (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; The USACE jurisdictional determination states the impacted wetlands do not function to retain or attenuate floodwaters. Staff considers this criterion met. (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; The Stormwater Section has reviewed the proposed plans and has not expressed any concern about this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met. (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The USACE jurisdictional determination identifies the primary functions as water quality treatment through sediment/nutrient trapping. Stormwater treatment is provided for runoff from the impacted areas. Staff considers this criterion met. 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards #SP-19-28 13 The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the amended application materials on several dates, most recently August 6, 2019. The remaining comments from the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent are as follows. The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “SunCap Property Group - Distribution Facility” site plan prepared by Cross Consulting Engineers, dated 7/17/2019. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. 14. Staff recommends the Board incorporate these comments as conditions of any approval. Lighting The applicant is proposing 88 building mounted and 33 pole mounted lights. Pole mounted lights are at the maximum height of 30 feet allowable under the LDR. Building mounted lights vary from 15 feet to 25 feet high. The following standard applies to lighting in parking areas. 13.07B Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: (2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 15. A comment letter has been provided by a member of public who is a lighting professional, which concludes that the proposed lighting will be at a temperature and level resulting in nuisance impacts. Staff recommends the Board review the public comment letter and request necessary modifications to the proposed lighting plan. Bicycle Parking The proposed 143,979 sf. warehouse building will require eight short term and two long term bicycle parking spaces. The applicant is proposing eight inverted U type bicycle racks near the main pedestrian entrance providing parking for 16 bicycles, and an approximately 10-foot by 8-foot bicycle storage area near one of the building entrances. Clothes lockers are provided in proximity to the bicycle storage area. Staff considers the bicycle spaces and clothes lockers must meet the dimensional standards of 13.14. 16. The Board at Sketch Plan had discussed the possible installation of a cover over the outdoor bicycle parking. Staff recommends that the Board follow-up on this subject with the applicant. A.3 Noise Performance Standards The applicant has submitted a noise assessment to evaluate anticipated noise impacts when compared to the performance standards of LDR Appendix A. Appendix A provides the following limits on noise between midnight and 8:00 AM. #SP-19-28 14 a. 45 dBA based on a one-hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise emanates adjoins any property used for residential purposes b. 60 dBA based on a one-hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise emanates adjoins any property used for commercial purposes. The applicant’s study does not provide one-hour average values at the property lines. It only provides instantaneous levels. Instantaneous levels are predicted to be as high as 62 dBA. The sources of sound at or above 60 dBA are as follows. • Drop frame (short duration, 60 dBA at property line) • trailer connect/disconnect (short duration, 62 dBA at property line) • truck accelerating at gatehouse (continuous, 61 dBA at property line) Staff notes that noises are cumulative. In other words, if a truck is accelerating at the same time as a trailer is connected, the noise level will be somewhat higher than the noise level of each generator, though Staff does not have sufficient expertise to understand how much higher the noise might be. Staff anticipates based on the applicant’s description of their proposed operation that these noise levels could occur between midnight and 8:00 AM. 17. Staff recommends the Board consider whether they would like to see one-hour average noise levels for the property taking into consideration the provided sound barriers and the potential cumulative impacts of noise. Staff notes that this project is subject to Act250 review. Act 250 has its own noise limits which are higher than the South Burlington allowable noise levels. 13.17 Fencing A fence over eight (8) feet in height shall require approval by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. The provided fence detail shows that the fence is to be 8 feet high at stations and 10 feet high at hubs. 18. It is not clear to Staff where “stations” are as opposed to “hubs.” Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify this designation. If there are any sections over 8 feet in height, the applicant must apply for conditional use approval. 13.03 Airport Approach Cones A. General Restrictions. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other section(s) of these regulations, the uses permitted in any district in the Airport Approach Cones, as shown on the Official Zoning Map and Overlay Districts Map, shall be permitted subject to the following limitations: (1) No use shall be permitted which will produce electrical interference with radio communication or radar operations at the airport. (2) No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the airport. (3) All uses shall comply with applicable FAA or other federal or state regulations. (4) No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion with airport lights. A portion of the project appears to fall within the Airport approach cones. The application materials do not address this subject. #SP-19-28 15 19. Staff recommends that the applicant provide information and evidence that the proposed project complies with the above-listed standards, or, alternatively, that the project is located entirely outside the Approach Cones. 3.05 Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-19-17_20 Foulsham Hollow Rd_Rivers Edge_SK_2019- 08-20.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 9, 2019 Plans received: May 28, 2019 20 Foulsham Hollow Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-17 Meeting date: August 20, 2019 Owner Highlands Development Company, LLC P.O. Box 132 Lyndon Ctr., VT 05850-0132 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Drive Essex Jct, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0293-0000A Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential 4.42 acres Applicant Rivers Edge Building Development 41 Gauthier Drive, Suite 1 Essex, VT 05452 Location Map 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-19-17 of Rivers Edge Building Dev. to subdivide a 4.42 acre parcel into 9 lots for the purpose of constructing seven single family homes and four dwelling units in two-family homes, 20 Foulsham Hollow Rd. CONTEXT This application was continued without being heard from July 2, 2019. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into nine lots in preparation for development eight of the lots and construction of a public roadway on the ninth lot. On September 25, 2003, the DRB approved Master Plan MP-03-01 for the property, elements of which were appealed. The Master Plan was most recently amended on March 27, 2017 by a second amendment to a settlement agreement for the proposed subdivision between the City of South Burlington and the owner of the subject property. The agreement allows construction of up to eleven dwelling units on the property, and establishes the Land Development Regulations effective May 2003 as the governing regulations for the parcel. The project is located along Dorset Street, directly across from the existing golf course clubhouse and south of Foulsham Hollow Road. It is located across a fairway from an existing residential development on Fairway Drive, which consists primarily of two-family homes. It is served by an existing recreation path on Dorset Street and is in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of low to very low intensity development consisting principally of open space. Staff has listed applicable subdivision and site plan standards from the May 2003 LDR in order to familiarize the Board with the applicable standards. Staff has not provided an exhaustive evaluation of compliance with each of the presented standards at this sketch plan review. As is the case in the current LDR, the May 2003 LDR contains numerous sections outside of the specific subdivision and site plan standards that describe how compliance with each specific standard is to be evaluated. Prior to the hearing, the Applicant has met with Staff to discuss the proposed project. The largest differences between the May 2003 LDR and the current standards affecting this review are the addition in the current standards of design review standards for projects in the Southeast Quadrant. Based on feedback from Staff, the applicant has adjusted their proposed project to generally meet the goals of the current SEQ standards. Staff has provided a brief discussion of conformity with the current SEQ standards below. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS 3 Within the 2003 LDR, SEQ setbacks are 20 ft front, 10 ft side, and 30 ft rear. Along Dorset street, there is a minimum 50-foot setback. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Dorset Street setback to approximately 30 feet. 1. Staff considers the applicants requested setback wavier as supportive of the SEQ purpose of street-oriented neighborhood development and recommends the Board provide feedback on whether they will support this request at subsequent stages of review. B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS The general standards applicable to this subdivision are as follows. (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. This Criterion was found met at a master plan level. (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. This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual phases. (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. This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual phases. (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. (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. (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. 4 These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat approval was also required. The Project has proposed a narrower street and buildings closer to Dorset Street in order to increase setback from the wetlands buffer for lots 1 to 7. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for compliance with these criteria. (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 criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual phases. (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. The sidewalk and direct access from units on Dorset Street to the existing recreation path creates a pedestrian-oriented environment. (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. This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual phases. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat approval was also required. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for compliance with these criteria. C) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT A Master Plan or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant District shall comply with the following standards: (1) Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic values of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development. 5 (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that maximizes the protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant identified in the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully planned development at the overall base densities provided in these Regulations. (3) Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat and corridors including those areas identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. (4) Consistent with (1) through (3) above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed and located to maximize the potential for combination with other open spaces on adjacent properties. These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat approval was also required. Staff considers the applicant has laid out the property with consideration for contiguous open spaces, natural resources, aesthetics from Dorset Street, and aesthetics from adjacent development areas. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for compliance with these criteria. (5) The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the SEQ is encouraged through development planning that avoids impacts on prime agricultural soils as defined in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure. The master plan considered continuation of agriculture not an issue. (6) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be established by the applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged. This criterion was found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat approval was also required. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to provide a maintenance plan for open spaces and natural resources within the project limits at the next stage of review. (7) In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB 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. In its proposed configuration, there are no conflicts with the official map. CURRENT SEQ STANDARDS The applicant is not required to meet the current SEQ standards but has indicated they are willing to consider these standards in laying out the subdivision. The purpose of the SEQ encourages the 6 design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that will best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces. Specific standards not addressed elsewhere in the current or 2003 LDR include the following. Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. The use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. 3. Given the presence of homes with backyards abutting a wetland, Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant options for discouraging wetland encroachment. 9.08A Street, block and Lot Pattern Criteria in this section pertain to block lengths less than 500 feet, and lot ratios having a minimum width to depth ratio of 1:2. Dead-end roads more than 200 feet long are prohibited. This project addresses these criteria through the connection to both Foulsham Hollow Road and to Dorset Street, and with the proposed lot configuration. 9.08B Street, Sidewalk and Parking Standards Streets are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Sidewalks must be 5-feet wide. Street trees are required at 30- foot spacing. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking should be provided. The applicant has not proposed on-street parking. On-street parking was not required in the May 2003 LDR. 4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the proposed layout accommodates visitors while preventing congestion on adjacent streets. 9.08C Residential Design Residential buildings should be oriented to the street, have a close relationship to the street, and have a garage that is set back beyond the building line by at least eight feet. 5. Staff considers the proposed layout creates a street oriented neighborhood and recommends the DRB encourage the applicant to place restrictions on homes such that “snout” homes, or homes with garages protruding, cannot be constructed. D) SITE PLAN STANDARDS 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 identified in the comprehensive plan as an area of very low intensity to lower intensity land use. However, the above referenced settlement agreement resulted in this property being approved for development of eleven units. Therefore Staff considers the Board obligated to respect this agreement regardless of the land use policies of the comprehensive plan. 7 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 shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. (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. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for compliance with these criteria. 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 proposed lot configuration results in lots which are generally similar to one another and compatible with the existing configuration on Foulsham Hollow Road. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for compliance with these criteria. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. 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. 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). D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. 8 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 July 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Acting Chair; F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), D. Philibert, J. Langan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; I. Blanchard, Program Manager; T. McKenzie, D. Crawford, D. Shenk, C. Snyder, R. Rushford, D. Saladino, J. Illick, K. Darr, D. Heil, S. Forrest, B. Hoar, N. Saranieck, J. Greene, D. Woolridge, B. DeLaBruare, S. Schenker 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Cota provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Keene noted that due to a staff error, public notices for item 10 and 8 were not posted in a timely manner. She read from the regulations and said that because the warning in the Other Paper was timely, the Board could hear the items. Mr. Kochman disagreed. Ms. Keene felt the applicant shouldn’t be punished for a staff error. Mr. Langan said he agreed with Mr. Kochman. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue SP-19-21, CU-19-04 and CU-19-05 until 20 August and to renotice in accordance with the rules. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Cota reminded members and the public that the next DRB meeting will be on 20 August. 5. Reorganization: Mr. Cota suggested doing this on 20 August when there is a full board. Members agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 2 Ms. Keene asked members whether they would agree to hold the meeting on 3 September (Tuesday) on 4 September (Wednesday) so it does not conflict with the City Council meeting on the 3rd. Members agreed to meet on the 4th. 6. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-19-12 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 27.8 acre parcel into two lots of 6.2 acres and 21.2 acres, Meadowland Drive: and 7. Continued site plan application #SP-19-07 of SBRC Properties, LLC to construct a 25,560 sq. ft. high warehouse building, paved parking area, and associated site improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot, 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Shenk said they have no objection to the staff decision. He then outlined the changes made since the last hearing: a. They have inversed the colors (grey is now the accent color) b. They have repositioned windows c. Windows are now “fancier” (he showed an elevation indicating this) d. They deleted the window at the front entrance and moved the store front across for more light. e. Panels are insulated; some now have more ribs closer together f. They added a “block” to the west elevation. Mr. Behr felt this was a great improvement. Other members agreed. Mr. Cota said the applicant’s participation in the Natural Resources Committee pilot program will be added to the stipulations. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-12 and SP-19-07. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. (previously #9) Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-18 of the City of South Burlington to subdivide a 4.09 acre lot into three lots of 0.27 acres, 0.61 acres, and 3.21 acres for the purpose of a future development project under the Form Based Code on the 0.61 acre lot and dedicating the 0.27 acre lot as a public right-of- way: Ms. Blanchard reviewed the plan to develop a building on one lot. She noted that since the last meeting, an agreement has been reached with the School District. Mr. Cota read a letter from the School District Counsel, David Rugh. Mr. Bolduc noted the School District has agreed to unrestricted access. He added there is no objection to the staff decision. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. McKenzie said they want to be sure access to their lot is unrestricted. Ms. Keene noted there is not such designation as “primary” or “secondary access” in the LDRs. Mr. Bolduc said there is no objection to mentioning unrestricted access in the decision. He added that the standards of a support street would not restrict access. Mr. Langan was concerned with the 30mph speed limit. Ms. Blanchard cited several things which would help slow down traffic (e.g., narrow lanes, trees, the building, etc.). It was noted that the design speed is 15-20 mph while the target speed is what is posted. Members felt that made sense. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-18. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. (formerly #11): Sketch plan application #SD-19-20 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and one easement into four lots of 6.9 acres (lot 9), 6.7 acres (lot 11), and 6.6 acres (lot 12), eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, and construct an approximately 144,000 sq. ft. warehousing and distribution center, 45 Community Drive: Mr. Illick said this is similar to the application the Board saw last year. He noted there are already office buildings on several lots. SunCap wants to building in the southeast corner, but their project doesn’t fit on one lot, so they are combining parts of three lots to accommodate them. The street that was dedicated to the city will be eliminated, and they will ask the City Council to “give it back.” A different radius will be needed on the curb where Kimball Avenue joins Community Drive, so they will be asking to flatten out that radius. Packages that come in will be sorted and go out in smaller trucks. This will be a 3-shift operation, 365 days a year. Their big season is the Holiday season. The building will be 31 feet to the top with a small office with a slightly lower roof line. The building and trucks will have to be in a secure area. This will be fenced and gated (chain link fence). They will be making the project as “visually non-impactful” as possible. They have created berms along the Interstate to diminish the impact. They have talked with the City regarding water and sewer and with Green Mountain Power regarding power. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 4 Staff comments were then reviewed: a. The cost of required mitigation cannot be applied toward traffic impact fees unless the mitigation is for a priority project. Mr. Illick said their preference is to have a signal rather than pay the fee. He said they will consume 15% of the traffic through the intersection so they’d like 85% of the cost of the signal to cover their impact fee. He suggested they install the traffic signal so they can have it on “day one” and consult with the City Council to have 85% of that cost count toward traffic impact fees. Mr. Illick stressed that they will exceed ITE standards in everything they do. b. The applicant was asked to submit wetland data to ensure compliance with wetland standards. c. Stormwater should be addressed as part of preliminary plat. d. Information regarding employee parking should be provided as well as the feasibility of off-site parking, frequency of peak demand, transit options, etc. Staff will use this information to evaluate whether to require a phased construction of parking spaces. Mr. Illick noted they are entitled to 70% lot coverage and are using only 30%. He stressed that they want all of their parking on their lot. Ms. Keene said staff is trying to be conscious about not over-paving. Mr. Darr said they don’t want to build more than they need; they will provide data. e. The applicant agreed to comply with open space requirements. f. Mr. Darr said they work to obtain a future connection to the adjacent property. g. Regarding shade trees in the parking area, Mr. Illick said there are evergreens on the berm, and landscaping is in excess of the requirement. It has been placed for safety, convenience, and aesthetics. He didn’t feel shade trees would make a difference. h. They prefer to stick with their number of bike parking spaces. i. Regarding light spillage, Mr. Illick showed the area where this occurs, which he said is not a building lot. He is the property owner of the adjacent lot and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 5 had no issue with 2 foot candles there. They need 5 foot candles only at the gate. Mr. Crawford commended the applicant for the extra trees. Mr. Kochman asked about heat island effect around the massive piece of asphalt compared to the 30% lot coverage. Ms. Keene suggested the Board include a condition or at least language in the decision saying which criteria are considered met since 30% coverage is provided and 70% is allowed. Mr. Darr said they will work to add landscaping around the perimeter. No other issues were raised. 10. Minutes of 18 June and 2 July 2019: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 18 June as written. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Langan and Ms. Philibert abstaining. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 July as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:24 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date