Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/29/2019DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 29 January 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via telephone), J. Smith, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; S. & D. Partilo, B. Tolmie, J. Wilking, R. Rushford, J. Stern, A. & A. Chalnick, J. Olesky, J. Bullister, S. Dopp, R. Greco, T. Perrepato, D. Murdoch, B. Bartlett, N. Hymen, D. Seff, D. Crawford, J. Messina. K Willttegs, D. Peters, A. Shields, C. Montgomery, P. Kahn 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller advised that there will be 2 openings on the DRB in July. 5. Sketch Plan Application k#SD-18-35 of SeaComm Federal Credit Union to construct a one-story 3500 sq. ft. financial institution with 3 drive-through lanes and 20 parking spaces on one acre, 1680 Shelburne Road: Mr. Miller read information regarding the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Olesky said the project is on a one-acre, undeveloped property that was associated with the Bartlett Brook apartment building project. The existing Route 7 curb cut that serves the apartment building will also serve this project. He indicated the location of the curb cut on the plan. The project will also be served by municipal water and sewer and will tie into the existing sidewalk. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 2 Mr. Olesky showed a plan of the overall existing site and showed the location of Bartlett Brook. He noted there is some mature vegetation on the site. They have indicated three that will be kept and those to be removed. The proposal is to build a 3500 sq. ft. financial/banking building as close to the front yard setback as possible. Mr. Olesky showed where vehicles would enter the site. The parking is to the left, and there is a looped traffic pattern to the right leading to the drive-through lanes and a bypass lane. Those lanes would merge into one single exit lane. The building will also be accessible from a front entrance from an extension of the sidewalk. Because of the change in grade, there will be a few steps up from the sidewalk with a handrail. There will be no impact on the roadway during construction. Mr. Olesky said the plan will take advantage of the existing stormwater treatment which meets all local and state standards. The large pine tree would be in the building foot print, and Mr. Olesky did not feel it could be saved. The other large trees at the west end of the parking lot will probably also not be maintained, but they will re-evaluate that. The trees on the north property line will be retained. The project will supplement existing landscaping that was put in for the apartment project. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. The applicant will comply with dimensional requirements and lot coverage. 2. They haven’t yet addressed compliance with the urban design district standards. Ms. Keene noted that has to be one entry facing the road, a separate walkway from the road, and 40% glazing on the building front. The applicant said they should be able to meet those standards. They also did not see any issue with compatibility with development patterns in the area. The building height will be in the high 20’s (35 is the allowable maximum). Mr. Miller commented that he liked the idea of a taller foyer area. Mr. Behr said the building should be the right scale for the site. Mr. Wilking cautioned against too much height because of views from the apartments. Mr. Olesky noted that the slope continues up, so views from the apartments aren’t blocked. 3. Mr. Olesky repeated his previous analysis of trees which can and cannot be saved. Ms. Keene noted that none of the trees are required to be saved as they are not part of the previous plan. Mr. Olesky noted that if the trees DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 3 were closer to the road, there wouldn’t be a problem saving them. Members were OK with removing the trees. 6. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-18-01 and preliminary plat application #SD- 18-29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on 2 lots developed with one single family swelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in 2-family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on site and conservation of 55 acres off site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Messrs. Wilking and Sullivan stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Rushford for his response to Mr. Seff’s letter which states that a large part of the land is non-developable. Mr. Rushford said the issue is the restricting of development because of Map #7. He cited the JAM Golf and Molgano cases as to the nature of a Comprehensive Plan. He noted that a municipality does not have to adopt everything in a comprehensive plan and added that the what Mr. Seff quoted is not in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). Mr. Rushford said the LDRs designate receiving and sending areas. In the JAM Golf case, the Court noted the tension between the Comprehensive Plan and the LDRs. Map 7 is a tool to identify important resource areas. Mr. Rushford noted that Map 7 has disclaimers that indicate the need for field verification. He said the applicant did get that verification and the plan is based on what the State found. He added that there are legitimate state interests as to what can be restricted for development, and you cannot further restrict if there are no resources to protect. Mr. Cota said this is the information the DRB asked for. Mr. Behr said he felt the presentation answered his questions. Mr. Kochman said it is true that a mere statement in a comprehensive plan that is aspirational has no binding affect unless it is incorporated into the LDRs. PUD rules are part of the LDRs and they say a proposed plan must be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan says the land shown on Map 7 is off limits for development. It is an unequivocal statement. Mr. Kochman did not feel the Supreme Court argument was relevant. Mr. Kochman added that if Map #7 is a mistake, that would have force for him. He asked in what way is the Map #7 a mistake. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 4 Mr. O’Leary said Map 7 was created from the 2014 Open Space Report. The map contains a reference that it is for “reference use only.” The map came from BioFinder and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) website. It says the map should only be used to get a general idea of where things are. Mr. O’Leary noted that the only wetland shown on Map #7 is a tiny piece in one corner of the property. There are actually extensive wetlands which they hired people to go out and map. If they relied on Map 7, they’d be developing in the wetlands. The same is true for riparian connectivity. The map was done at the State level, not for the City. ANR thinks of riparian areas in terms of river corridors, which provides for meandering floodplains and riparian functions. Rebecca Pfeiffer of the ANR visited the property and said that the wetland buffer they are providing exceeds the riparian corridor. She said that if they get a wetland permit, they will be in compliance with the riparian area regulations. Mr. Buscher said the Arrowwood study uses the 50-foot from top of bank as riparian corridor. Mr. Kochman read for the LDRs and asked if this property is identified as a conservation area. Mr. Rushford said “incorrectly so.” Mr. Kochman said he would like to hear from Mr. Seff on this issue. Mr. Behr said it is not the DRB’s job to litigate this. It is up to the Board to determine whether the applicant’s information is adequate. Mr. O’Leary then referred to Map #8 and indicated the habitat blocks. He noted one of those blocks that sticks out into the development. This map also came from a GIS study done statewide which identified wooded areas of 20 acres or more. Habitat blocks got a ranking based on specific data. This block got a rating of 3 out of 10 (10 being the highest). Mr. O’Leary noted other developments built on habitat blocks. He added that even with the old map, they would still be impacting only about 2.2% of the habitat block. With current mapping, they would probably impact none of that block. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. This has been done. 2. Regarding lot coverages, Mr. Currier said they will provide maximum values. 3. Regarding natural resource committee comments, Mr. O’Leary said they believe the maps to be guidance documents. They will be bound by what they have delineated in the field. He indicated on the maps the wetlands, river corridor and its buffer and said the only thing they impact is the with the road crossing. The applicant was asked to address comments from the Natural Resources Committee (NRC), one of which DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 5 concerned allowing for animal crossing at the wetland crossing. Mr. Murdoch of the NRC expressed concern with adequate width for deer crossing. Ms. O’Leary said 6 feet is what the Army Corps approves for aquatic and small animal passage. He noted that deer have to up on the road, which they do now. The NRC also asked for a “conservation easement” because it insures permanent conservation. Regarding tree preservation, Mr. Currier said they have submitted those plans. Mr. Currier also said they are OK with planting whips in the wetland areas. The NRC also wanted more than 50 feet for the setback because “more is better.” Mr. Currier said they will have a resource management plan. They will also provide a dog park or contribute to it as part of the recreation impact fee. Members were OK with that. Regarding the NRC’s request for management of non-native invasive species, Mr. Buscher said that is usually done by pesticides which they don’t want to use. He added their planting plan is the best way to fight invasive species. Ms. Smith felt that was an issue for the Homeowners’ Association. Members agreed. 4. Regarding the phasing plan, Mr. O’Leary said Phase 1 would include the trail connection and various paths. Phase 2 would include the 10-foot wide path to Dorset Street. Staff suggested the playground be part of Phase 4 and the applicant agreed to do that. 5. The applicant will provide fencing between the units directly abutting the NRP and the NRP. They will try to orient the homes so they’re not directly stepping off into the NRP. 6. Regarding potential encroachment of units 82-87 into the NRP. Mr. Currier showed the duplexes involved. They are OK with fencing to prevent “creeping” into the NRP. Mr. Kochman suggested a gap to allow access to the NRP. Mr. Kahn said the intent is that mowing not occur in the NRP. The Board then entered discussion of the Staff comments associated with #SD-18-29 Preliminary Plat Application for 1505 Dorset Street. 1. Regarding home types, Mr. Currier said they will address design criteria at final plat. Members were OK with that. 2. Regarding the multi-family homes, elevations were provided and members were OK with what they saw. 3. Members agreed to address remaining stormwater issues at final plat. 4. Members were OK with indicating the pedestrian easement on the plan at final plat. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 6 5. Regarding tree preservation, Mr. Currier said they will try to preserve some more mature trees. The ones indicated are in the open space area. Mr. Kochman felt that should be left to the homeowners and is not the DRB’s business. Members felt the applicant should retain the trees but not pass the requirement on to the homeowner. 6. Regarding landscape credit for trees to be retained, using them as credit towards landscape budget would require ongoing preservation, so the Board doesn't want to do this. 7. Regarding glazing, Mr. Currier said they’re requesting 35% apply only to the fronts and backs of units. They are asking for 20% south facing glazing for buildings whose south faces are a side which faces other buildings walls. Members were OK with this. Public comment was then considered as follows (Mr. Miller noted the false appearance that the neighbors’ concerns were based on a “wealthy people vs. affordable housing.” ) Mr. Seff said he represents 14 clients. He was disappointed that Mr. Rushford’s letter was not sent to him. He then gave members his written response to Mr. Rushford’s presentation. He felt Mr. Rushford’s comments are “baseless” and that the letter “misses the point.” He said the LDRs can incorporate the municipal/city plan, and that is what South Burlington did. He cited specific areas where this happens and said it was in direct response to the J. A. M. Golf case as were maps #7 and #8. Mr. Seff said it is his opinion that this development encroaches on both primary and secondary conservation areas, and you can only develop in a non-protected area, even if TDRs are allowed to be used on a property. Mr. Seff added that riparian areas are primary resources, and the applicant says they are secondary. He felt that if the applicant disagrees with the map, he should go to the Planning Commission and ask for it to be changed. Mr. Kochman rejected the idea that you can’t amend a mistake on a map. Mr. Seff said maps have the force of law. He didn’t believe the DRB can ignore them. He also said the applicant bought the land after the maps were developed. He said it wouldn’t matter even if the riparian area was a secondary area since the regulations said “conservation areas are to be protected.” Mr. Seff also rejected the idea that to deny the application would be an impermissible taking. He added that this is about a developer destroying land for $18,000,000. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 7 Mr. Chalnick said he is not a professional engineer. He said the Open Space Plan defines riparian areas. He gave members a handout on surface waters and riparian areas put out by the State in 2016 and read a statement regarding the value of these areas. He added that Dorset Meadows is one of the highest priority areas. Mr. Kochman asked about accuracy. Mr. Chalnick said accuracy doesn’t matter because the City said it wants to protect this area. Mr. Busher then read the disclaimer from the maps. He felt they meet all the requirements (e.g., honoring buffers, etc.). Mr. Cota apologized to members of the public who did not get a chance to speak and invited them to submit letters. Mr. Cota then moved to continue MP-18-01 and SD-18-29 to 5 March 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU18-12 of Paul Washburn to amend a previously approved conditional use permit for constructing of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to 5 feet and increasing the height to 15 feet, 30 Myers Court: Messrs. Wilking and Sullivan rejoined the Board. Mr. Washburn said he is asking for an adjustment of 12.75 feet to 15 feet, an adjustment of the grade to bring the building height to 15 feet (about 14 inch adjustment), approval of a 5-foot setback instead of 7 feet, and allowing them to dedicate 100 sq. ft. of the garage space to living space to address the loft space issue. Mr. Washburn noted the garage foundation is in and is 10 feet from the house. The garage in 19 feet high, higher than the primary structure but is considered part of the primary structure. Ms. Keene noted the application for the garage was reviewed administratively. Mr. Washburn said the 100 feet in the garage would be added to the house square footage to allow the additional living space in the loft. The garage will be attached to the house. Mr. Sullivan emphasized there is no flexibility for the 15-foot max height. Mr. Behr noted that building height is determined by preconstruction grade. Ms. Keene said one reason to allow the change in the preconstruction grade is technical, in this case a sewer issue. Mr. Washburn said they would actually have preferred a lower house but because of positive flow to the sewer, the house has to be higher. Ms. Keene read from the regulations as to how the Board can grant this. Mr. Miller noted that if the roof were flatter, it would solve this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 8 Ms. Keene said the only other option that doesn’t involve construction is to change the preconstruction grade. Mr. Washburn said they are asking for an adjustment to allow measurement from what is there now, not the preconstruction grade. Mr. Sullivan felt the applicant is asking for more than what is needed for the sewer adjustment. Mr. Wilking noted the sewer line has to be buried deeply enough to avoid freezing. Mr. Washburn said he would rather reduce the crawl space than lower the roof. Mr. Kochman suggested having someone come in and tell the Board technically what adjustment is needed for sewer. Members supported that. The applicant said he was willing to do that. Mr. Messina, representing the abutting neighbors, said his clients didn’t oppose the original application, but Mr. Washburn didn’t follow that application. He asked that the person doing the study be impartial because it is their feeling Mr. Washburn wasn’t forthcoming in the first place. He added that his clients want to maintain the 15 foot height limit. Mr. Cota then moved to continue CU-18-12 to 19 March 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 18 December 2018 and 15 January 2019: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 18 December 2018 and 15 January 2019 as presented. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously 12 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 10:33 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on March 17, 2020