Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/05/2021DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 January 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Eiring ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Larkin, R. Jeffers, C. Frank, D. Marshall, C. Orben, S. McClellan, J. Smith, L. Lackey, P. O’Brien, C. Gendron, C. Mack, J. Findlay-Shirras, S. Mowat, D. Sherman, W. Lamier, J. Page, 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 explained the opportunities for public input and importance of registering attendance at the meeting. 4. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-01 of Lark-Inns, LP, to amend an existing planned unit development on 13.26 acres consisting of a 121 room hotel, an 84 room hotel, a 60 room hotel, a restaurant, and a 3 unit multi-family building. The amendment consists of converting the 84 unit hotel to a 78 unit multi-family building, 1720 Shelburne Road: Mr. Cota advised that the applicant inadvertently mailed abutter notices 14 days instead of 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing. 24VSA-4464 states that no defect in notice invalidates the action of the municipal panel where reasonable efforts were made to provide adequate posting and notice. The Board will then review the application but continue it until the next DRB meeting to allow additional public input. Mr. Cota also explained the nature of preliminary and final plat applications and the options of the DRB. Mr. McClellan then reviewed the changes made in the plans since the sketch plan hearings including the adding of a path to Harbor View Road and the addition of landscaping. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 2 McClellan showed where these are located. He also noted that they have enhanced the passive recreation area. The same bike racks shown at sketch will be used. Staff notes were then addressed as follows: a. Staff reminded the applicant that the plan shows the whole site even though the Board’s review is only of those things that will change. b. An update to the landscaping plan is needed. Mr. Findlay-Shirras said they will submit a plan that covers the entire PUD and will show the existing landscaping that is being left intact. c. The second item on the review by the Stormwater Department asks that the applicant contact the State wetland program to confirm that the proposed is allowable. Mr. McClellan said they did a delineation in 2019 showing the path is well out of any buffers or wetland. Ms. Keene noted that the delineation shows the nearest wetland is more than 50 feet away, so there is no issue. d. Regarding bike storage/parking, Mr. McClellan said they will indicate a place for bike racks. He also noted there will be an indoor bike storage facility. Mr. Larkin added there are currently 10 bike parking spots by the eastern entrance, and that is where they will be. Ms. Keene said the Board needs to know the whole site. Mr. McClellan said they will address that with drawings. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-21-01 until 20 January 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. 5. Master Plan Application #MP-21-01 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved master plan for a multi-phase, 334 unit, planned unit development. The amendment consists of increasing the maximum allowable coverage from 13.9% to 20%, removing the educational facility, adding mixed use, removing the requirement to construct additional dedicated southbound turn lanes on Spear Street, and reducing the total unit count to 321, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Keene noted that a lot of the requests have been discussed as part of other applications. The applicant is now asking to remove the turn lane at the north end as well as the south end. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 3 She explained that if there are no changes in circumstances or in the regulations, an applicant cannot make the same request again. Staff notes were then addressed as follows: a. Regarding turn lanes southbound, Mr. Cota said he agrees with staff to maintain these. They were allowed to be reevaluated at the building of the 240th unit. Ms. Jeffers said they believe they have met that threshold. They have done a new traffic study which is for full buildout. Ms. Keene felt it makes sense to consider it now. She noted that the traffic study is in the meeting packet and staff has some questions regarding it. Mr. Mack said the study looked at the whole buildout for South Village. VTrans did a traffic count in 2016. That study showed that neither the northern nor southern location met the warrants for a turn lane. The study estimated 56 peak hour cut-thru traffic from Dorset Village to Dorset Street. Mr. Mack said they do not feel this is a popular way to get from east to west. Ms. Keene asked how this compares to the overall counts. Mr. Mack said 300 peak hour trip ends are estimated for buildout. They are at 250 for the current AM peak hour. Mr. Mack noted there was a question as to whether the 2016 traffic study was appropriate at this time. They believe it is. The numbers that day were higher than what has been seen after that, not related to COVID. 2016 was a peak traffic time in what VTrans counted, and volumes now have been reduced. If they were to do a count today, they would have to take COVID into account. Ms. Philibert said the “cut through” is not a route people would take for a “speedway” as it has lots of turns, etc. b. Staff asks that the applicant provide coverage information for each zoning district and a calculation of total building and lot coverages. Ms. Jeffers said they would be at 15.77% coverage with the proposed improvements. She was confident that is accurate or on the high side. Ms. Keene said if that is the overall coverage for the PUD, is there a computation per zoning district. She noted there are 2 zoning districts, NRP and NR. She said this information is required under the PUD regulations, and is one of the 3 requirements that the DRB cannot change (the others are no parking in front of buildings and the 5-foot minimum setback). Mr. Marshall said the developed portions of the property are in only one zoning district. What is outside of that district is the causeway, which was required by the city and is not associated with this property. Ms. Keene stressed that there are 2 computations required: what the Board approved and triggered Master Plan amendment, and what the Board is held to under PUD regulations. That has to be addressed now. Mr. Marshall said it will be a lot more than 30%, which is what they were allowed to develop. Ms. Keene said they need to establish a baseline of where they are now. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Marshall said the original calculation for the project Master Plan was based on 30% of total lot coverage. Staff is now saying they are illegal because they built to that standard. Ms. Keene said that would not be approved today. Mr. Marshall said they are below the approved numbers. He felt what is being asked for is not consistent with what master planning is about. Ms. Keene said staff has been remiss previously regarding South Village lot coverage. This is an attempt to find out where things are so future decisions can be made. c. Staff notes that the proposed development is in an area previously identified as permanent open space. The applicant is asked to show in a plan the boundaries of these lots. Ms. Jeffers said they submitted tables showing all open space. In paragraph 3, staff asks the applicant submit a plan showing the center line geometry. Ms. Jeffers added they feel the information is already available on previous plans and is not applicable to this amendment. It would be a huge exercise in engineering. Mr. Marshall said they can attach plat plans to the back of the Master Plan. He stressed that Preserve Road is not to be considered a collector roadway. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert said she was concerned with unresolved issues. Mr. Cota said the Board could decide in their deliberations or staff and the applicant could work these issues out. Mr. Sullivan said he would like to involve the City Attorney in the lot coverage issue. Mr. Cota said they could do that in deliberations. Mr. Cota noted that continuing the application would allow the Board to hear additional testimony. Mr. Cota then moved to continue MP-21-01 until 2 February 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 6. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-02 of South Village Communities, LLC, to subdivide four existing lots totaling 23.2 acres into eight lots ranging from 0.3 acres to 14.1 acres, construct 22 homes in 11 buildings on Lot 11.1(1.2 acres) and construct a permanent farm access road and pavilion on Lot 11C (1.20 acres), 180 Spear Street: Mr. Cota explained the nature of preliminary and final plat and the opportunity for public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 5 Ms. Jeffers said the plan includes 11 duplexes (22 units), 6 of which would be oriented toward the farm. Two private roads are proposed as well as 2 lots of open space, one of which would go to the farm lot and one as a play lot with a grassy pavilion. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Two units do not meet the front setback requirement. Staff questioned whether the applicant will be seeking a waiver. Ms. Jeffers said they would be asking for a waiver similar to elsewhere in South Village (10 yard front, 5 yard side and rear setbacks). They are asking for a blanket waiver as all lots in South Village have those waivers. Ms. Keene showed a plan of what that would look like and said staff has no concerns. Mr. Behr said he had no issues, but he wanted to see a plan with those setbacks indicated. He also noted that driveways look triple-stack with a lot of pavement. Ms. Jeffers said garages are 1-1/2 cars wide, and the driveways are for 4 cars, 2 for each unit. Ms. Keene noted the Public Works director also commented on the width of the driveways. Ms. Jeffers said all duplexes and triplexes have 4 car wide driveways. She added that parking is a challenge in South Village, and residents want it addressed. Mr. Behr noted that they are providing parking for three cars for each unit. b. Staff noted that there is a coverage issue for lot coverage. Ms. Jeffers said they are requesting a waiver for the increased lot coverage. c. Regarding the landscape boundary at the edge of the wetland, Ms. Jeffers said they do not want to put a split rail fence there because it would preclude the play area. She noted that the wetlands have been deemed to have no value. She noted there is an existing fence (she showed where) and indicated where other fencing is proposed that would leave a flat, grassy area for play. Ms. Keene noted that wetland regulations allow certain uses in wetlands and buffers that don’t affect functions of the wetland. Ms. Jeffers said they are preserving 116 acres of high- functioning wetland. This is all the land to the east of North & South Jefferson Road and it goes on for miles. The area in question has always been mowed. Mr. O’Brien added that the soccer field will need to impact the buffers, if it is approved. He said this area is nothing but a lawn that gets wet in the spring. South Village worked with the State and Wildlife people to get permits to fill, and was told the State no longer cares about Class 3 wetlands. Mr. Marshall noted there is a little band of the wetland that is actually a manmade farm ditch. It extends easterly through the development area. They could fence that area. He also noted that usually fencing is provided to keep homeowners from dumping, but there are no residents here; it is all open space. Mr. Sullivan asked how the DRB waives that buffer. Ms. Keene read DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 6 from the regulations including the standards for waiving. Mr. Marshall said there was a report submitted from the wetland ecologist addressing those standards. Ms. Jeffers said it was considered that the wetland had no value. d. Staff is asking that plan be modified to show the rec path connection. Ms. Jeffers said there is only a small section left to complete, and they will do that. e. Water and wastewater allocations must be obtained. The applicant said the wastewater allocation was obtained and water has been applied for. f. The property line is within the rec path by a foot and must be entirely within the right-of-way. Mr. Marshall said they will submit plans accordingly. g. Staff asked whether the Parks/Rec and Bike Path committees have looked at these plans as they have received no feedback from them. Ms. Jeffers said it came up at sketch and should have been noted then. Plans were brought to the stewardship group which is on board with them. She added this is a private amenity and felt like they shouldn’t have to wait for committee feedback. h. This was already addressed above. i. The City Arborist does not like the lilac or crab apple trees. Ms. Jeffers said this was revised and sent to the Arborist. They would like a condition of approval be to get his OK. j. Lighting should be added at Farm Road and Allen Road East. Ms. Jeffers said they agree and have submitted a new plan. k. Staff questioned whether to pave the portion of the farm road. Ms. Jeffers said all home are rear-loaded. They prefer for the farm road to remain unpaved. l. Staff is asking for the Board to describe what characteristics the homes must provide. The applicant is asking for waiver from providing elevations and has provided a sample picture instead. Ms. Jeffers said the submitted South Village Design Review Standards and support having those apply here. The designs were accepted for another South Village development. Mr. Behr said the layout meets the goal. He was comfortable it will be designed as in the site plan and narrative. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 7 m. Provide front and side elevations of the homes facing Allen Road east. Ms. Jeffers said they are comfortable with a condition that homes on Allen Road East will front on that Road. Members were OK with that condition. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Jeffers said the affordable units will be no less than the market rate units in square footage. They would like flexibility to be able to construct some 2 bedroom and some 3 bedroom units. Mr. Behr agreed, but he wanted to be sure there was some accountability. Ms. Jeffers said they are already obligated to provide a spreadsheet of all measurements. Ms. Keene questions whether all the 3 bedroom units would be market rate and all the 2 bedroom units affordable. Ms. Jeffers said they would agree to equal numbers of 2 and 3 bedroom units being affordable. Mr. Marshall said they can come in with 2 apartments at the same time, one for each. They don’t want 22 units that all look the same. Mr. Cota said the Board wants to be sure all the market rate units aren’t built first. Ms. Keene said they would have to build one affordable unit for each market rate units. Ms. Keene suggested the Board deliberate before closing the application. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-21-02 until 2 February 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-03 of South Village Communities, LLC, to subdivide an existing 1.92 acre lot into 5 lots ranging from 0.14 acres to 0.67 acres, and to append 0.18 acres to an existing 12.68 acre agricultural lot for the purpose of developing a two-family home on each of lots 92 to 95, establishing the fifth lot as permanent open space and expanding the existing agricultural lot, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers said the plan is to build four duplexes oriented toward the farm which would be accessed by a private, 20-foot road. Staff comments were addressed as follows: a. Determine setback and size waivers. Ms. Jeffers said they’re requesting the same 10’, 5’ and 5’ setbacks to apply. There could be a 13-foot setback from the road, if needed. She noted that the units and lots are smaller with the intent to bring in more affordable housing. Ms. Philibert asked if they are proposing a paved road that becomes gravel. Ms. Jeffers said it could all be paved. They were asked to make it clear that the road is only 199 feet in length as the regulations allow a private road to be only a maximum of 200 feet in length. They have also added DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 8 white fencing to delineate the change from the “road” to a “driveway.” She noted that staff was opposed to having sign. They do want the ability to pave the “driveway.” Members had no issues with the coverage waivers. b. Ms. Keene noted that there were no comments received from Public Works. c. Regarding open space, Mr. Cota asked about the agreement with the City Council. Ms. Jeffers said it is for a soccer field, but that is not part of this application. The stewardship people want to see as much of the area in its natural state. There is no flat play area, but there are nice natural areas for backyards. Ms. Keene said this should be revisited when they discuss the fronts and backs of homes. d. Ms. Jeffers addressed several staff comments noting that at sketch they were told to make the public and private parts of the road distinguishable. They want to pave the private road due to ADA concerns. Ms. Philibert asked why it is such a big deal to distinguish the public and private parts of the road. Mr. O’Brien said it shouldn’t look like one long road. Mr. Cota said gravel vs. paving isn’t the distinction for him. Mr. O’Brien noted there are other private drives in South Village. Mr. Behr suggested the driveway aprons by the homes be paved and the road gravel, but he could lean either way. Ms. Jeffers said if you’re standing on Preserve Rd., the fence articulates the private road. (Mr. Behr left the meeting at this point). Regarding the stub road, Ms. Jeffers said there is no way to continue it. It is all open space., and there will never be development there. Ms. Keene said there are alternative arrangements, including a driveway for multifamily homes. Mr. O’Brien said when they did propose multi-family units there, the neighborhood was very opposed, and they withdrew it. e. Regarding lot ration, staff noted that the lots are wide than deep. They felt that another configuration could result in the lot ratios being met. Ms. Jeffers said they are congruent with other lots in South Village, and lot ratios have been forgiven before. Mr. O’Brien said they could push the units toward Preserve Road, but this iteration gives the houses more room. Mr. Cota noted that lot ratios can be waived in a PUD. Members had no issues with the lot ratios. f. The standard is for a 24-foot private dead end road, and staff asked whether the Board wished to allow this road to be 20 feet. Mr. Cota asked why the road is 20 feet with a 5-foot gras strip. Ms. Jeffers said that is what all private roads are in South Village. The Fire Chief and Public Works were fine with it. Members had no issue. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 9 g. Staff questioned whether to allow parking on one side of the road and increase the road width to 26 feet. Ms. Jeffers said 20 feet is consistent with South Village. h. Staff questioned why there was a change from sketch for the directions some of the units are facing. Ms. Jeffers said they were told to take advantage of view to the farm. The backs of the homes face other buildings. One unit now faces Preserve Rd., and others face west. Both units at the corner now have access to the garage. The landscape architect says this is the best orientation. Ms. Keene noted that the Board only discussed the orientation of homes on Lot 11. Ms. Jeffers said they applied that discussion to this application as well Mr. Sullivan had to leave the meeting at this point and Ms. Keene questioned whether to continue with 4 members. Mr. Cota said the application will probably be continued to a future date, so he had no issue continuing as other members would have a chance to weigh in. i. The applicant was asked to provide more traditional street trees. Ms. Jeffers said they have done that. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Lamier, who lives in South Village, noted that a lot of water collects where the land slopes down, and he was concerned with where that water will go. Mr. Cota said the developer is required to mitigate stormwater. Mr. Marshall indicated the location of the pipe that will convey runoff. He said it ties into the infrastructure on North Jefferson. He also said the area is overtreated beyond what is required, and the area will be drier in the future than it is now. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-21-03 until 2 February 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-04 of Beta Air, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 762 sq. ft. second-story addition to an approved 60,300 sq. ft., three- story hangar/office building, 1150 Airport Drive: Mr. Cota briefly reviewed the history of the application. Mr. Gendron said there have been only minor changes since sketch and conversations with staff. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 10 Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Regarding the loss of 13 parking spaces, staff asked for a parking strategy and expressed concern with parking that might block the access to the gate. Mr. Gendron said they are actually losing only 1 space, and it is being replaced with covered bike parking. They are going from 86 to 85 spaces. Ms. Keene noted that there is an approval for the 13 spaces which are being replaced with storage containers in those spaces. Mr. Gendron said those spots can’t be used as they are too close to the fence and are not sufficient in size. They are not part of the 85 spaces. Mr. Gendron added that they are asking to permit the existing storage containers, originally planned to be temporary, as permanent. There are “no parking” signs by those containers. They have made the aisle width 25 feet and will discourage trucks from parking alongside the building. The access to the gate will be maintained. Mr. Lackey added that the access is monitored by the Airport. b. Staff asked to see the cooling equipment and what other utilities are being affected. Mr. Gendron said the HVAC equipment has always been there. The only thing proposed in this plan are some units on the mezzanine. The cooling tower is temporary equipment and will be removed during construction. It may or may not be returned. It is located on gravel and not on a foundation. Mr. Cota asked if it needs to be on the plan. Ms. Keene said that as it is equipment, it does not. c. Re: clarifying screening for the dumpster, Mr. Gendron said they intend to use aluminum as a final finish. d. Re: snowplowing, Mr. Gendron said snow will be plowed to the south end of the southern lot. If there is too much snow, it will be moved to a location on the airport site. There are bollards along the building and landscaping area, and they are proposing electric vehicle charging stations there. e. Re: requiring the charging stations to be moved, Mr. Gendron said they considered it, but they are there now, and to bring conduits in would conflict with what is there now. He felt there is sufficient aisle width. He said Beta knows not to park big trucks there. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-21-04. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 JANUARY 2021 PAGE 11 9. Minutes of 15 December 2020: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 15 December 2020 as written. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. 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 10:26 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on January 20, 2021.