Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/12/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 June 2020, at 7:00 p.m. via remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. Hergenrother; B. Sirvis; B. Zigmund; D. Heil; D. Marshall; D. Burke; J. Lawlis; M. Provost; P. Friberg; P. Sheppard; R. Jeffers; S. & D. Mowat 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Cota asked those members of the public in attendance to sign the virtual sign-in sheet or to send their contact information to Ms. Keene if they wish to get party status in order to appeal a decision of the Board. Mr. Cota then reviewed the guidelines for the meeting and noted that it cannot run later than 11 p.m. 4. Final Plat Application #SD-20-19 or Adam Hergenrother Companies to amend a previously approved planned unit development for 450 acre Planned Unit Development for a golf course and 354 unit residential development. The amendment consists of amending the approved Tree Preservation Area and landscape planting plan, reducing the rear setback for Lot 6 or the Long Drive Project Area, and allowing a private easement and fence to be placed in common lands, 159 Long Drive: Mr. Cota explained the nature of a Final Plat and the DRB’s options. Ms. Keene noted the project in question is subject to a master plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 2 Mr. Marshall said they are looking to preserve the original intent of the project. He added that the applicant understands the concern that the project includes one of the highest parts of the city, and the city’s intent is to retain trees at the high point of land. Mr. Marshall then showed the currently proposed plan and identified Golf Course Road and Long Drive with a turnaround. He also indicated the location of Lot #6. The master plan calls for trees on the western portion of that lot; however, there is a challenge with retaining as many trees as possibly and still having enough clearing to place a home. Mr. Marshall noted this is the first of possible future similar requests to fit a footprint on the lot. There is a building proposed for Lot #6, and they want to do a “best fit” in this tree preservation area, so they are looking for some flexibility in the middle of the lot. The plan is to modify the current tree placement plan, remove some trees, and plant more trees on the west side of the site. There were no trees on that side. Mr. Marshall showed a photo of the existing situation and indicated they would supplement trees that are shown. Mr. Hergenrother said he is trying to orient the house a little differently. Mr. Cota asked about the current stage of the development. Mr. Hergenrother said they are building the roads and placing utility poles. All trees that were approved for clearing in the road have been taken down. He noted that there are currently 3 pine trees required to be retained in front of the house site that are preventing the driveway access they would liek. He would like to take those trees down and add more trees elsewhere on the lot to screen the housing. A plan for lot #6 was shown, and the applicant indicated the approved building footprint and the proposed footprint. He noted that the new footprint actually has less square footage than the original footprint. He also indicted where the line of trees would be and noted there will be 2 additional trees there. They will maintain the screening around the entire development. Mr. Cota asked if the Board would have to hear every situation like this. Ms. Keene said that as long as the trees preservation area are not impacted they would not. There is no issue with changing the orientation of the house. Ms. Keene indicated the tree preservation area and noted that within that area trees can only be removed if they have died. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Staff is concerned with overall loss of tree preservation area. Mr. Hergenrother said they’ve modified the plans so there is no loss of tree preservation area. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 3 Marshall said there is 11,266 sq. ft. of treed area. 9,750 sq. ft. is being retained, and 1517 sq. ft. will be added back in, so there is no net loss of tree preservation area. Ms. Keene asked if there is a revised landscaping plan for this. Mr. Marshall said there is not. Mr. Sullivan said that the staff report says there is over 2000 sq. ft. lost. Mr. Marshall said the difference might be that they are adding trees beyond lot #6. Mr. Wilking said it is all Golf Course land, so he didn’t feel it mattered. b. Ms. Keene said the Stowe Club Highlands test is not needed if there is no reduction in treed area. c. Staff is asking for trees comparable in size and that they be on the same side of the lot: Mr. Hergenrother said they can do that, but it makes more sense to screen the back of the lot where it is needed. He noted that only 2 of the pines are coming down, not all 3. Ms. Keene said the trees being removed are 24” caliper, and what they are adding will be 6” caliper. Mr. Cota said they should plan to add more trees in the back. Mr. Hergenrother was OK with that. Mr. Cota asked if this will be the first house built. Mr. Hergenrother said it will. He added that 8 of the 10 lots have been sold. d. Regarding setbacks: Mr. Marshall said they are no longer asking for any change in setbacks. e. Regarding fencing: Mr. Hergenrother showed where a little fence will be. It will be the same black fencing as on the golf course and is mainly because he has 3 children under the age of 8. Ms. Keene noted there are restrictions as to what can be done on “common land” under the Master Plan agreement. She was concerned where this could lead if other property owners wanted fencing. Ms. Philibert asked if the fence can be on Mr. Hergenrother’s property. Mr. Marshall said there is nothing to preclude that. Mr. Hergenrother said he can do that. Ms. Portman suggested plantings instead of a fence. Ms. Hall said they are supposed to retain what is there. Public comment was then heard as follows: Ms. Zigman said she was aware of the rules for screening the houses. She noted that with the trees taken down, she can now see much further than she could before, and she was concerned that if the 2 pine trees are taken down, it will create more “open space” which seems to be in violation of what was decided by the Court. She was also concerned that if there is a fence, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 4 other property owners might try to extend their property by putting up a fence on property they don’t own. Mr. Hergenrother said he was willing to scrap the fence. He said the compensatory trees will be going within a few feet of where they other trees were. Ms. Keene stressed that the DRB needs to see what is going into the “compensatory” tree area and where it is going. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-20-19 until 21 July. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a roll call vote. It was noted that Mr. Wilking had left the meeting towards the end of the discussion due to ill health. 5. Continued site plan application #SP-20-020 of South Village Communities, LLC, to construct a twelve-unit, 3-story, multifamily building with underground parking on an existing 0.53 acre lot (Lot 4A), 64 Aiken Street: and 6. Continued site plan application #SP-20-021 of South Village Communities, LLC, to construct a twelve-unit, 3-story, multifamily building with underground parking on an existing 0.52 acre lot (Lot 4B), 96 Aiken Street: and 7. Continued Miscellaneous Application #MS-20-03 of South Village Communities, LLC, for alteration of existing grade on an existing 5.6 acre lot developed with an existing recreation path and stormwater management features. The alteration of grade is associated with construction on adjacent lots, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Keene noted some errors in coverage figures. 13.9 should read 14.9. The approved coverage is 15.3%, and this application would bring them to 14.9%. Ms. Keene also noted the applicant now has written approval of the Fire Department. Ms. Jeffers indicated on the plan where the hydrant will go. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-20-020, SP-20-021, and MS.20-03. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed via a rollcall vote 5-0. 8. Final Plat Application #SD-20-18 of Rivers Edge Building Dev. for the 4.42 acre “Clubhouse Parcel” Project Area of a previously approved Master Plan for a 450-acre Golf Course & 354 unit residential development. The planned unit development DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 5 consists of subdividing 9 lots for the purpose of constructing 11 single family homes, 1226 Dorset Street: Mr. Cota explained the nature of a final plat. Mr. Burke said the main follow-up items from preliminary plat were the landscaping plan, which has been completely redone, the gas layout, and getting together with the people from Highlands. Mr. Cota asked if the Dorset St. curb cut was approved at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Burke said it goes all the way back to sketch plan. Public Works and the Fire Department strongly wanted the connection, and it has been shown. Mr. Burke also noted they now have both wastewater and stormwater approvals. Act 250 is waiting for issuance of a wetland permit and city approval. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Allowable coverages are 15/30, and the applicant is proposing 14.6/28. Staff noted that the applicant has not proposed a way to ensure coverages are not exceeded in the future. Mr. Burke said they made a mistake. 15/30 is for the whole of Vermont National, and they are at half of each of those coverages. Ms. Keene said she would check on that. Mr. Burke read from the settlement agreement. b. Regarding heights, staff noted that the 2003 regulations allow up to 40 feet. Mr. Cota suggested the Board limit heights to 35 feet from the preconstruction grade. Mr. Burke said that is OK for units 8-11, but because of the lay of the land, units on the low side of the road, particularly #2-7, are as much as 5’ above existing grade, and the back walk-out at 2-1/2 feet above existing grade. Mr. Burke said he comes up with 37 feet above preconstruction grade for those units, and they want to stick with the settlement agreement of 40 feet for those units to be on the safe side. c. The applicant agreed to provide the heights at the time they pull the building permit. d. Mr. Burke said he has sent a copy of the sewer allocation permit. e. Regarding roadway width, Mr. Burke agreed to 26 feet as it will help keep speeds down. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 6 f. The applicant agreed to provide a split rail fence along the back of the storm pond along lots 5, 6, and 7 to protect the wetland. He noted there is no wetland impact; only the buffer is impacted. The stormwater feature enhances the wetland. They will need to manage the stormwater pond, and have to report to the state every year. Ms. Keene said staff has no issue with a fence at the exterior of the buffer if the Board is OK with it. If homeowners encroach on the stormwater area, it is a State issue. Mr. Cota said he was not inclined to require them to move the fence. Mr. Heil said they could put it at the top of the berm. g. Regarding visual compatibility, staff questions whether there should be appearance criteria for homes on lots 1-7. Mr. Burke said the information they provided showed a concept based on comments from Mr. Behr at the last meeting. He noted the differing exteriors (gables, eaves, etc.). He also showed pictures of the quality of construction and noted these are custom homes. He added that they are committing to the color schemes (earth tones). Units 8-11 will have a garage on the new street and a porch, whereas the side facing Dorset street will have a porch and what is shown in the rendering. h. Mr. Burke noted the builder does not want the garages to match the housed in color because you can’t get an exact match, and this would be a maintenance issue. Members were OK with this. i. Staff asks that the color pallet apply to all homes. Mr. Burke said it will. j. Ms. Keene said a design requirement document is not needed if they commit to making the homes on lots 8-11 matching what is shown on the rendering. k. The Fire Inspector has asked for parking on one side of the road and no parking for 10 feet on either side of the hydrants. Mr. Burke said they are fine with that. l. The documents related to the private pump station must be approved by the City Attorney. Mr. Burke said they are OK with that. m. The applicant agreed to remove the crosswalk from the rec path and stop bars. n. Regarding sight distances and trees impairing visibility: Mr. Burke explained the standards for sign distances and said they meet those standards. He added that there could be an issue if the lower tree branches are not managed, but that they DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 7 would provide a vertical easement allowing the City to maintain the lower branches. Ms. Keene agreed that made sense. o. Staff is asking that the wetland permit be forwarded to the city before approval. Mr. Burke said that unless something has changed, this is usually a condition of approval, and that is what they are requesting. It is at their own risk. p. Regarding required easements for sidewalks, etc.: Mr. Burke said these will be provided. q. Wetland and stormwater permits should be provided to the City Attorney for review. Mr. Burke asked that this be a condition of approval. He noted they already have the stormwater permit. r. Regarding screening of the utility cabinet: Mr. Burke said they can move one bush to the front and remove on from the side and still give Green Mountain Power access. They can also add more grasses in front. Ms. Hall noted that GMP prefers not to have “woody growth” in front and felt the applicant’s solution sounds OK. s. Ms. Keene noted the City Arborist is OK with the proposed landscaping plan. t. Regarding landscaping to provide screening from the fairway: Mr. Burke noted there are 11 trees just off the property line, pretty well grown, that will be preserved. There will be additional groups of plantings at the backs of lots (with restrictions on stormwater and utilities at the backs of some lots). Mr. Burke stressed that they are at 6 times the required landscape budget for this project. After meeting with neighbors, they have added the option to have two 6-foot evergreens to each side of the upper deck, 10 feet off the deck, as an alternative to lattice work on units 2-7. u. Regarding solid fencing instead of landscaping, Mr. Burke said there will be no fencing other than the split rail. v. Update on landscaping budget, including street trees, and providing a bond for that value: Mr. Burke said the street trees are at $21,880. The required landscape budget is $14,380, and they are at $39,355 for added landscaping. Ms. Keene was fine with that. Public input was then heard as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 8 Ms. Lawless asked if the pond near the property is on the golf course or the development property. Mr. Burke said it is on golf course property. Ms. Lawless then asked about the height of buildings 1-7. Mr. Cota said the heights are allowable. Ms. Lawless asked why trellises would not be an option and they would plant evergreens. Mr. Burke said they don’t preclude trellises; they just want options. Ms. Lawless felt there is too wide a range of colors for the buildings. She felt the choices should be reduced with nothing very bright or very dark. Mr. Burke said there will only be 11 buildings so all the range of colors won’t be used. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-20-18. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a rollcall vote. 9. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-14 of Jennifer and Robert Morway for a planned unit development on an existing 15.0 acre lot developed with a single family home and barn. The planned unit development is to consist of 8 single family homes and one existing single family home, 1751 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Cota explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Marshall then showed the extension of the roadway to the property boundary. There had been a question as to whether it was feasible to make it a looped roadway; however, the Agency of Transportation said the second entrance on Route 116 would not be acceptable. Mr. Cota asked if the AOT had been asked abut using the existing roadway. Mr. Marshall said the plans they sent to the AOT showed the roadway superimposed on the existing curb cut. Ms. Keene said she spoke with VTrans on 2 June and explained the nature of this development on this parcel. The person she spoke with said that because of limited development, he thought their answer might change and wanted to talk with his boss. As of today, there has been no update. Mr. Marshall said there is a concern with anything fitting here. There isn’t enough room for a roadway, utilities and a walkway that would not impact the existing historic house. Mr. Marshall also noted that he did Dirt Capital’s planning for them, and one of the challenges for them is there is so much infrastructure cost. Bringing the road to them might help them in the future. They might have to bring the road down to Rt. 116 then. Ms. Keene noted the City Council is working with Dirt Capital regarding conservation, and the results of those negotiations will drive the number of homes that will be put there. She DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 9 suggested that what they can say now is that the development potential for Dirt Capital is the northern portion. How much of the Dirt Capital parcel gets developed will be determined in July. Any future pre-planning should be conscious of what happens with Dirt Capital in the next month. Mr. Sullivan said he felt the applicant has done everything possible at this time. Other members agreed. Staff questioned why lot 3 can’t meet the requirement of residential design criteria. Mr. Marshall noted a line of trees in front of that lot. He said they want to protect most of the trees, so the building envelope is set back from the road. Staff feels that the lots are set out for the best views from the highest points, which serves no ecological purpose. Mr. Marshall said the plan shows what they are proposing to conserve as open area. He identified this on the plan. They want to create view sheds. This could be modified so as not to denude the top of the hillside. He noted the high point is the middle of lot 8. He felt there is a way to maintain the general shape of the property now that they have mapped the specimen trees. He acknowledged that there will be homes here, but they will not be the only thing you see. Ms. Keene noted that LDR Section 9.06b talks abut conservation of natural resources. If the area to the rear is for conservation, the Board should see what the restrictions will be on that land. Mr. Marshall said they superimposed a map of all the resource areas identified in the comprehensive plan. He noted that the road does not impact any identified resources. They are seeking to balance opportunities on this property, but they can’t save every tree. Mr. Cota suggested a common area where there won’t be anything built. Mr. Marshall said that is what they’ve tried to show. He indicated lands that are part of the conservation easement that will allow for residents’ use (e.g., throwing a ball around, etc.). Mr. Cota questioned whether the walking trail will be usable in wet weather. Mr. Marshall said they will create a berm for the swale, so it will be drier than other parts of the property. Mr. Cota liked that concept. Ms. Philibert asked where people who come to walk could park. Mr. Marshall said there is parking on one side of the roadway. They don’t envision a parking lot. They need to be sure people living on lots 7 & 8 don’t feel there are people walking through their front yard. There was no public comment presented. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JUNE 2020 PAGE 10 The Board concluded the meeting on SD-20-14. 10. Minutes of 2 June 2020: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 June 2020 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 10:18 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on July 7, 2020.