Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/19/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, February 19 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Sullivan, Acting Chair; J. Wilking, M. Behr (via telephone), D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman (via phone) ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Heil, C. Plante, J. Lavanway. D. Burke. P. Sheppard, A. Dotolo, D. Baker, F. Sadowski, S. Homsted, S. & S. McAllister, J. Lawlis, M. Perkell, T. & K. Philips 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Sullivan provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-20-02 of CEA Properties, LLC, to construct a two-story office building totaling 7,200 sq. ft. and a one-story 4,070 sq. ft. veterinary hospital on an existing 3.1 acre lot currently developed with a 7,200 sq. ft. office building and 1,000 sq. ft. storage building, 10 Mansfield View Lane: Mr. Sullivan advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 4 March. Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD-20-02 until 3 March 2020. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 2 6. Preliminary plat application #SD-20-03 of Rivers Edge Building Dev. To subdivide an existing undeveloped 4.42 acre parcel into 9 lots for the purpose of constructing 11 single family homes, 1226 Dorset Street: Mr. Burke identified the parcel as the “Clubhouse Parcel” located across from the Clubhouse at Vermont National. He showed its location on an overhead photo and noted that the 11 units are part of the settlement with Vermont National. He then showed the proposed location of the 11 units. They will be served by public water and sewer. There are 2 stormwater sites at the rear of the parcel. Ms. Keene noted that the settlement allowed them “up to” 11 units. Mr. Burke also noted that the City Council agreed that Interim Zoning does not apply to this application. They are proposing a loop road. Both Public Works and the Fire Department wanted a loop road. The units along Dorset Street will have will have a front appearance both on the new road and on Dorset Street. Walkways will connect to the bike path. Mr. Burke showed the locations of this on the plan. Mr. Burke noted that Vermont National is subject to the 2003 LDRs. The main difference for this parcel is that in 2003 there was just Southeast Quadrant zoning, not the separate zoning districts. Everything else is the same. There were some issues raised by neighbors, and Mr. Burke said they have met with them and are proposing some additional landscaping. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Granting of a setback waiver: Mr. Heil said setbacks would be 32 feet from the porches and 35 feet from the buildings. He showed a rendering of units 8-11 and noted they would be adding streetscaping and foundation plantings to help soften the view from Dorset Street. They will be avoiding a Class 2 wetland. Mr. Behr asked whether the garage setback regulations have to be met. Ms. Keene said they are not part of the 2003 regulations. Mr. Behr felt it would be nice to change the shape of some windows and the roof to avoid sameness. Mr. Wilking noted the 32 foot setback is from the rec path not from the edge of the street. Members were OK with the setback waiver. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 3 2. Regarding erosion control: Mr. Heil said they have erosion control devices and will be getting a state permit. 3. Street width: The standard is 28 feet. The applicant is asking for 26 feet. Staff recommends 26 feet be approved. Members were OK with this. 4. Approval of the alignment of the sidewalk on the south side of the road to a crosswalk on Foulsham Hollow Road: Mr. Heil showed where this had been at sketch plan review. The have moved it west to allow a straight shot to a sidewalk across the street. Mr. Burke showed where they will build a little piece of sidewalk. Members were OK with the alignment with details to be worked out at final plat. 5. Wetland impact: Mr. Heil stressed that this is a buffer impact, not a wetland impact. They will have a State wetland permit. 6. Re: visual compatibility: Board members were encouraged to visit the site. Mr. Sullivan said a decision can be deferred until final. Mr. Burke said they can update the renderings to see what else they can do to “dress them up.” Ms. Keene said the aim is to be sure they are compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. 7. Mr. Burke said they don’t want to do the 8-foot garage setback because it would have more of a buffer impact. The 2003 regulations don’t require this. He added that they don’t see any garages extending beyond the face of the house. They are OK with stipulating that. He noted the 8-foot setback is not the norm at Vermont National. Mr. Behr said he was OK with this as it meets the regulations that are in force. Ms. Philibert suggested painting the garage doors to match the house so they don’t stand out. 8. Re: Open Space: Staff notes there is really no opportunity for contiguous open space. Mr. Burke said the open space has been the Golf Course. He noted there will be a split rail fence to prevent creeping into the wetland. Members had no issues with open space. 9. Re: Pump Station: Mr. Heil said the applicant does not want the pump station to be public at this time as they don’t want to upgrade the conduit to a 3-phase from a single phase. They will have a State stormwater permit. Members had no issues with what is proposed for the pump station. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 4 10. Compliance with DPW comments. Ms. Keene enumerated the comments. Mr. Heil said they were OK with #1 and #4. #3 was addressed above. They need clarification on #2 and will consult with DPW. 11. This will be addressed at final. 12. Location of sidewalk in right-of-way. Mr. Heil said this would be problematic because of the steep lopes for the driveway. He noted that DPW approved what they are doing. Ms. Keene suggested moving the right-of-way line. Mr. Heil said that would affect the front setbacks for units 1-7. Ms. Keene suggested dealing with this at final. 13. Maintenance of open space: Mr. Burke said there really isn’t any open space here. There will be a fence along the wetland. Legal documents reflect stormwater management. They will follow up with their attorney on this. 14. The buildings differ in scale from nearby buildings: Mr. Burke said Ironwood is duplexes, so these units will be smaller than those, more like buildings on Four Sisters. 15. Staff asked for an explanation of the waiver regarding electric and gas layout: Mr. Heil said utilities will be underground. GMP and Vermont Gas are working on this. 16. Landscape waiver request of $3200: Mr. Heil said they provided a letter from Terry Krinsky. There will be additional trees in front of units 8-11 and additional shrubs. There will also be additional screening at the north section of Dorset Street. They will meet with minimum landscape requirement and won’t seek any landscape waiver. The retaining wall will be decorative, and additional screening will be vegetative. Ms. Keene suggested possible breaks in the split rail fence or the use of boulder instead of fencing. The President of the Ironwood Homeowners Association said they appreciate the cooperation with the developers. Ms. Wallace asked to see “a lot of trees” along the back. She questioned the compatibility and continuity of colors of buildings and noted that what is there now are muted colors. She encouraged more of a “Cape Cod look.” She also preferred a more natural barrier to the split rail fence. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 5 Ms. Philibert then moved to close SD-20-03. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-20-04 of Scott McAllister to subdivide an existing 1.23 acre parcel developed with a single family home into three lots of 0.63 acres (Lot 1), 0.28 acres (Lot 2) and 0.28 (Lot 3) for the purpose of constructing anew single family home on each of Lots 2 and 3, 1430 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Homsted said the project layout hasn’t changed from sketch plan review. They will create 2 new lots fronting on Highland Terrace. All 3 houses will use municipal sewer; they will all share a private well. Utilities will be undergrounded. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: 1. The project cannot be approved without a TDR agreement. Ms. Keene noted there is a draft agreement, but it needs to be filled in. Mr. Behr noted it does not yet indicate the name of the other party. Mr. McAllister said they agreement can be finalized, and they will provide the information to staff. 2. There is not enough information to calculate overall coverage. Mr. Homsted said coverage is about 19% on each lot, well under the limit. 3. Regarding building height: Mr. Homsted said they are not close to the allowable height. Mr. Sullivan said the DRB can approve a “not to exceed” height. 4. Allowances for tree preservation: Mr. Homsted said the trees involved are more scrub than trees. There isn’t even one nice tree. Members were OK with their removal. 5. Incorporate comment #2 from the Water Department. Mr. Homsted was OK with this. 6. Wastewater allocation: Mr. Homsted said they have a preliminary allocation. 7. Satisfy comments of Public Works Director: Mr. Homsted said it is hard to make culverts work in this kind of location. They will just grade out the low spots in the driveway. Ms. Keene said staff got an OK from DPW. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 6 8. Re: screening for wetland on eastern property line: Mr. Homsted said they have forwarded the opinion from the State. Ms. Keene acknowledged receipt of this. 9. Comply with comments 4 and 6 of the Stormwater Department: Mr. Homsted said this has been addressed. Mr. Behr noted that the City Attorney should sign off on the TDR agreement. Public comment was then received as follows: Mr. Sadowski questioned the impact on the aquifer. Mr. Homsted said these are some of the highest yielding wells in the area. The existing well yields 6 gpm. There will also be an additional well. Mr. Sadowski said 6 or 8 more houses are anticipated in the coming years which will increase the demand. The area does not have access to city water. He questioned whether there will be enough water for a dry summer. Mr. Wilking asked that the applicant provide a map of well yields. Mr. Sadowski also noted that the scrub that is being removed captures a lot of water that flows down Highland Terrace. Removing it will increase the flow across driveways, not under them. Mr. Lavanway expressed the same concerns regarding the wells and water coming down the street. He noted that driveways for 2 new houses have a foot of water in them. He also noted that to get water from their well, they had to go 400 feet. Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SD-20-04 to 4 March 2020. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-05 of David and Melissa Baker to subdivide two existing lots totaling 12.45 acres, each developed with a single family home, into two lots of 2.0 acres (lot #1) and 10.45 acres (lot #2), 114 & 152 Highland Terrace: The applicant noted that 4.21 acres will be transferred from the Tudors to the Bakers. There is no proposed development and no planned site changes. They feel this should not be a PUD. Ms. Keene read from the regulations. While staff doesn’t feel it should be a PUD, the regulations say it should. Mr. Wilking suggested just a lot line adjustment. Ms. Keene said that changes the development potential. Members agreed this should not be PUD because it does not qualify as “development.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 7 Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: 1. The applicant will go to the City Council prior to Preliminary Plat. 2. Members were satisfied with the purpose statement. 3. The applicant will provide a management plan. 4. Members questioned why there isn’t just a straight line division instead of an irregular line. Mr. Baker said the Tudors want to maintain 2 acres, and the jog allows fitting in with the contour of the terrain. 5. This is not affected by the lot line adjustment. Members were Ok with going to final plat. There was no public comment. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-06 of Thomas & Kimberly Philips to subdivide an existing 2.0 acre lot developed with a single family home into two lots of 1.1 acres and 0.9 acres for the purpose of constructing a new single family home on the 0.9 acre lot, 1430 Spear Street: Mr. Philips said they thought they had bought 2 lots and then found out the lots had been joined into one. Their deed reads “lot 1 and lot 2.” Ms. Keene explained the history of the joining of lots. Mr. Phillips noted they had a survey done and he explained the little “jog” in the line. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Demonstrate that this is achievable before final plat. Ms. Keene said they should show a potential building envelope. Mr. Phillips presented a drawing. Mr. Wilking was satisfied it could be done. 2. Setback requirements should be shown at the next stage of review. The applicant was OK with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 8 3. A wetland evaluation will be required. Ms. Phillips said Mr. Rabidoux and Mr. Wheeler came out. Ms. Phillips said there was some standing water when they bought the property. It needs grading to get to the drains. Members asked for a wetland evaluation, and if anything shows up, a delineation. 4. The PUD must meet residential design criteria. Mr. Wilking noted the setbacks in the area are much more than 25 feet, so members should consider a waiver. Mr. Behr noted that 35% glazing is a “should,” not a “shall.” The garage setback is a “shall.” Mr. Sullivan suggested the applicant have an engineer with them for the next stage. 5. Re: shared portion and configuration of driveway: Ms. Keene read from the regulations. She said there should be only 1 curb cut unless the applicant can provide a justification for 2. Mr. Sullivan noted there is some flexibility, but there needs to be a reason for it. Ms. Keene noted comments from the Fire Department that the new home will have to be sprinklered if it is greater than 150-feet from the road. The Board accepted a letter from Mr. Gonda expressing his concerns. 10. Minutes of 4 February 2020: Mr. Langan moved to approve the Minutes of 4 February 2020 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Sullivan abstaining. 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 9:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on March 4, 2020