Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_2021-02-02 DRB Minutes Draft DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 February 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; R. Jeffers, D. Marshall, P. O’Brien, Dr. T. Childs, 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 explained how to participate in the meeting. Ms. Keene noted the procedure that would be followed if there were a power loss due to the weather. Mr. Cota advised that Mr. Wilking has retired and given up his seat on the Board sooner than anticipated. The City Council is accepting applications for that position. Mr. Cota commended the amount of work Mr. Wilking had put in during his years on the DRB. 4. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-20-035 of ReArch Company to amend a previously approved plan for commercial parking and a vacant 54,349 sq. ft. building. The amendment consists of converting the use to general office and expanding the existing parking lot, 124 Technology Way: Mr. Cota reminded members that on 15 December they had continued this item to allow the applicant to get a State Wetlands Permit. That permit has not yet been received, and the applicant has asked to continue to 3 March. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SP-20-035 until 3 March 2021. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 2 5. Continued 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: The Board addressed the outstanding issues as follows: a. Left turn lanes: The applicant’s traffic report says the additional left turn lanes are not needed. Staff has reviewed the report and recommends removing the requirements. b. Lot coverage: Question had arisen as to measuring lot coverages in each of the zoning districts in the development. Work was done to determine this, and it was found that there is 20.1% lot coverage in the SEQ district. Ms. Keene said the applicant is OK in terms of lot coverage. The maximum is 30%, and they are at 28.1%. This leaves 2.1 acres of remaining impervious coverage allowable. Ms. Jeffers said they did an analysis and believe they have 6 remaining acres which would leave more than ample room if people wanted to add decks. Ms. Keene agreed there is enough room and no conditions pertaining to minor residential additions are needed. c. Road geometry: The standard asks the applicant to provide center-line geometry for lots 11 and 48. Mr. Marshall said that information is on each application for individual lots as there is no room for it on the Master Plan. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close MP-21-01. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. 6. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-02 of South Village Communities, LLC, to subdivide 4 existing undeveloped lots totaling 23.2 acres into 8 lots ranging from 0.3 acres to 14.1 acres, construct 22 homes in 11 buildings on lot 11.1 (1.2 acres) and 11.2 (1.1 acre), and to construct a permanent farm access road and pavilion on lot 11C (1.20 acres), 1840 Spear Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 3 Outstanding issues were addressed as follows: a. Setbacks: Staff asked the applicant to clarify which line was the setback line. Mr. Marshall showed this on the plan. Members were OK with setback waivers as they are consistent with previous waivers. b. Water allocation: Ms. Jeffers said they have received a water allocation and submitted that information. c. Wetland buffer impacts: Staff asked the applicant to clarify the location of various elements in the plan (e.g., pavilion, existing tent, etc.). Ms. Jeffers showed the proposed location of the pavilion, the land to be added to the farm, and the land to go to the HOA as recreation space. She also indicated the Class 3 wetland and noted that the bulk of the wetland will be in agricultural use. Ms. Jeffers also showed an overview with a superimposed overlay. She pointed out the location of the existing tent on Lot 11 and the proposed location of the pavilion which replaces the tent. She noted that the neighbors prefer that location. The pavilion will be used for parties, meetings, picnics, etc. There is also another small pavilion put up by the farm for shade. Ms. Keene noted that the Recreation committee thought the new location would be less popular as it isn’t near other uses. Ms. Jeffers said she spoke with the Rec Department Head who didn’t know about the land being given to the farm. The land around the pavilion will be a good grassy play area. Members were OK with the pavilion location and felt it would become a “known entity” over time. d. Light Fixture: Staff asked the applicant to provide a light fixture in an indicated location. Ms. Jeffers said they are OK with that. e. Elevations on Allen Road East: Ms. Jeffers indicated what would be facing Allen Rd. East and also the side to face Farm Way. Mr. Behr noted what was provided was “for likeness only,” not what the DRB asked for. Ms. Jeffers said they understood the Board wanted to see the “two-sided house.” Mr. O’Brien noted they have to abide by several pages of South Village design criteria. Mr. Cota was OK with design as long as there are no “blank walls.” Other members were comfortable with what was shown and what is in the guidelines. f. Affordable housing density bonus: Ms. Jeffers said they accept the “pairs” requirement to build one market and one affordable unit at a time. Public comment was then solicited. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Mowat, who serves on the South Village Homeowners Board, said they favor the proposed location of the new pavilion and the development as a whole. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-21-02. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. 7. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application 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 2-family home on each of lots 93 to 95, establishing the 5th lot as permanent open space, and expanding the existing agricultural lot, 1840 Spear Street: Members addressed outstanding issues as follows: a. Setbacks: Staff does not favor the setback because the rec path is 3-feet within the property. Ms. Keene said the LDRs allow a minimum of 10-foot setback. The rec path is already constructed. There is a proposed 10-foot setback from the property line which results in a building being 7 feet from the rec path. Ms. Jeffers noted that the LDRs allow a porch up to 5 feet in the setback. Porches are not now in the setback. They do not want to change the 10-foot setback which result in porches being in the setback which is not in keeping with other homes in South Village. Mr. Sullivan asked if there is a regulation as to where the setback is from. Ms. Keene said it is from the property line. Mr. Sullivan said the DRB has no authority to change that. Ms. Keene said because they are asking for a waiver, the Board does have authority. She added that staff feels the waiver is 3 feet more than the Board should approve. She also noted that a different configuration of buildings would not result in this problem, and that is what they showed at sketch. Mr. Marshall said the original Master Plan created waivers for all buildings. The original design for Phase 1 had single family, duplex and triplex buildings. The Board decided not to have a special review for multi-family buildings. Mr. O’Brien said they prefer not to move it, but it’s the Board’s authority. Mr. Behr suggested they move the buildings to create a 10-ft setback. b. Water allocation: Ms. Jeffers said they have provided this to staff. c. Eastern open space: Staff said the issue is whether to allow the area to regenerate naturally or have it become “lawn” or something in between. There is also the question of whether the homes should face east. Ms. Jeffers said it is already a beautiful meadow and doesn’t need to regenerate. The paved rec path goes DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 5 through it. The stewardship board wants it naturalized, and they have jurisdiction over that. Mr. Behr asked if people walk there. Ms. Jeffers said growth is too tall for that. She showed a picture of the area and indicated the bike path, fencing, and pre- existing homes that back up to the area. Mr. Cota said he liked the idea that the HOA can decide what to do with this. Ms. Philibert felt a natural space adds to the area. Mr. Behr agreed. Ms. Jeffers also noted the area does slope, and even if it were mowed, it wouldn’t be flat. d. Differentiation between driveway and road: Staff asked whether the Board felt there was enough differentiation. Ms. Jeffers said they propose some fencing where the private road begins. Mr. Cota said he liked the unpaved road and felt it provides enough differentiation. Mr. Behr agreed with the unpaved road. He felt the driveways should be paved for accessibility. Ms. Jeffers said that is what they want to do. e. Building orientation: Staff feels the new orientation is less compliant and asked the applicant to return to what they had at sketch. Ms. Jeffers showed the plan and indicated the front and back of each house. She said that to turn them would have them backward and from Preserve Road you would see the backs of the houses. In South Village, you look at the front of every house as you drive by. Mr. Behr said that made sense to him, and he felt that applicant had addressed concerns regarding the road and driveway, so he was OK with it. f. Affordable housing density bonus: The applicant agreed to a “two by two” plan as in the above application. g. Street trees: Ms. Jeffers noted they had submitted new landscape drawings, and the City Arborist has approved them. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-21-03. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. 8. Minutes of 20 January 2021: Mr. Behr noted that on p. 4, next-to the last paragraph, the height should be 18 feet. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 20 January 2021 as amended. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 6 9. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted there is a virtual training session regarding architectural review that members can attend. The City will pay for this. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.