Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2021-02-17 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 17 February 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, M. Behr, D. Philibert, E. Eiring ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Smith, J. Wilking, J. Maschek, C. Macqueen, S. Wyman, R. Dickenson, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, S. Homested, C. Frank, M. O’Brien 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 reminded attendees to sign the virtual sign-in or to email their presence to Ms. Keene or to himself. This is required in order to be a participant to any future appeal. Mr. Cota also noted that the City Council has appointed Stephanie Wyman to fill the vacancy left by Mr. Wilking’s retirement. She will join the Board at its next meeting. 4. Site Plan Application #SP-21-007 and Conditional Use Application #CU-21-01 of Rice Memorial High School to amend a previously approved site plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of a 160 sq. ft. building expansion to house a new cooler/freezer, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Cota noted that the applicant has requested a continuation to work out outstanding issues with staff. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-21-007 and CU-21-01 until 16 March 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a rollcall vote. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 2 5. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-40 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to create a planned unit development of 6 existing parcels currently developed with 3 single-family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single-family, duplex, and 3-family dwellings on nine lots totaling 21.8 acres, 19 commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single-family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert noted that she owns a property in the applicant’s Hillside development. She did not feel this would affect her objectivity. Mr. Cota explained the history of the sketch plan review. He said this is the first formal stage of the plan’s review. He then explained the review process and the various opportunities for the public to ask questions and to make comments. He stressed that this is a very big project that will take several hearings. If the Preliminary Plat is approved, the application will move to a Final Plat review. Mr. Cota also noted that Messrs. Gonda and Crawford of the Natural Resources Committee have asked to make a presentation. There are also comments received from Ms. Dooley of the Affordable Housing Committee and from the Bike/Ped and Recreation Committees. Ms. Keene added that the project will probably be continued to the meeting of 16 March when the hour gets late. Mr. Langfeldt noted that the O’Briens have owned this property since 1944. It is about 100 acres. The first phase of development, the Hillside project, is now 60% sold out, and they are moving toward completing the remaining buildings. Mr. Langfeldt then showed an overview of the project site and noted that it is all in the core density section of the city. He also identified the roads. They are proposing single-family and town homes similar to Hillside. There will also be common spaces, green space, and path networks. They have committed to a variety of home styles, buyer demographics, price points and small local businesses. A visual rendering of what houses would look like was shown as was an overview concept of the development. Mr. Langfeldt identified a new alignment of Old Farm Road and the subdivision for commercial/limited retail mixed use development. He then showed a broad concept of buildout for the whole area including the commercial and mixed uses. Mr. Langfeldt then identified aspects of the project that address energy and the environment including the proximity to services and employment which would reduce commuting. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 3 Environmentally significant areas would be avoided, and over 24 acres will be dedicated green space. Homes will be energy efficient and will exceed the 2020 “stretch code.” They will have solar-ready roofing and energy efficient windows. They will also remove ledge in the IC district, crush it and reuse it on this site which will reduce truck traffic to bring in stone by about 100,000 miles. Mr. Langfeldt then showed a “connectivity map” including rec paths, extensive sidewalks, and a trail network. He also indicated signalized intersections, including two that will be new. A plan of green spaces and recreational amenities including 5 large green spaces. One possible space could be used for a “natural play area.” Mr. Langfeldt also identified a portion of the property that will remain private. The historic barn will be preserved, and there will be an added clubhouse/pool space for residents. There will also be an enclosed dog park that would be open for public use. The barn/clubhouse area could include a community garden. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Phasing: staff is asking for a specific plan to include traffic improvements, paths, roads, etc., relative to the homes. Mr. Gill said they have a phasing plan but don’t have a specific order. They will start with the Meadow Loop phase. After that, it will depend on the market. He said they will provide more detail but would like to have further discussion of what the project will look like first. 2. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan: Mr. Cota reminded the applicants that there is a long list of things to pay attention to. 3. Transportation and connectivity: It was noted that VHB did a traffic study, referred to as the Tilley Drive study, on behalf of the City. There will be improvements at various phases: several connector streets, transit enhancements, rec paths, etc. The study concludes only moderate intersection improvements are needed. 4. The applicant agreed to incorporate the recommendations of the Tilley Drive study into their traffic evaluation. Mr. Langfeldt said they are happy to work with staff regarding the Tilley Drive study. 5. Re: Technical review for compliance with regulations and consistency with Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive study – Mr. Gill said the Tilley Drive study came out after their own study, and they haven’t had a chance to review it. They did not ignore it. Members agreed to invoke Technical Review. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Cota moved to invoke technical review for compliance with regulations and consistency with Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive study. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a rollcall vote. 6. Staff recommends the Board explicitly limit findings for the roadways in the commercial areas to the locations of the rights-of-way, access points, and the bike network and defer findings on such things as landscaping until that area is being developed. Mr. Gill said they will need a decision on the commercial area road ending in a cul-de-sac as it accesses some residences. Ms. Keene said there are questions about that road. It is clear what will be on one side but not on the other. Mr. Gill said the IC lots are proposed as a traditional subdivision similar to Meadowood and Tilley Drive and they would like findings on that road as well. They would build the road now to identify that lots are available for development. There is also a rec path on that road. It will be built in full compliance. They are also open to creative solutions that will allow roads to be built. Mr. Cota asked if they could put in plantings, etc., when development occurs. Ms. Keene said the question is whether they can determine where driveways should be, etc. Mr. Behr noted that Technology Park did that. They need to allow for flexibility later on, show what can be done. Mr. Gill felt that was a reasonable request. They can lay out a conceptual plan for the Board to see. They would like findings on what should be on the roads to allow creation of the infrastructure, green space and development areas so all that is left to approve is essentially the site plan. they think if they propose these things one lot at a time it will be disjointed so they are willing to put the work in now. 7. Staff noted that 5 lanes are proposed at Kimball Avenue/Kennedy Drive. There are 3 lanes today. Mr. Gill said the traffic study said that at full buildout 5 lanes could be needed. They feel that connecting the IC road to Tilley Drive could fix the problem so 5 lanes wouldn’t be needed. Mr. Dickinson said that is a busy intersection today without development, and it will be a main access point for this development. He stressed the study was done before the Tilley Dr. study was available. That study included plans that would divert traffic from this intersection. He said they can take another look at this with staff and come up with a better plan. Mr. Gill noted they had told Mr. Dickinson to assume there was nothing new in the city except this project, a very conservative approach. All of the assumptions in the Tilley Drive study can change everything. Mr. Langfeldt said they are happy to work with staff on this. Mr. Cota asked what needs the most direction from the DRB. Ms. Keene asked for details on Old Farm Road. Mr. Gill said they propose a right-turn lane onto DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 5 Hinesburg Road. They think they can narrow down at the other end. They did remove the median and will align the road to comply with neighbors’ concerns. They will engage a consultant to address safety, etc., and will provide details ideally toward the end of preliminary plat. Ms. Keene noted that the Bike/Ped Committee recommends a rec path along Old Farm Road. There is a question as to whether there should be parking along the road. Staff would like to see a typical cross- section of the road, including trees. That can affect traffic calming. Mr. Gill said they do want to discuss the request for a rec path, but asked to make the major decisions: driveways, setbacks, etc. Without that, they can’t see what the road will look like. Mr. Cota asked to see what a “sharrow” looks like. Ms. Hall noted that there is one at the new Hannaford. Mr. Cota noted that the Bike/Ped Committee recommends them. Mr. Gill said they have looked at the Committee’s request. He showed the existing Hillside rec path. He noted that a rec path on Old Farm Road would be a few feet from some of the garages for the existing four homes sat the south end of Old Farm Road. Residents of those homes would not like that. Mr. Gill said they prefer the sharrow approach. He indicated new trees, etc., that would also be affected by a rec path, and landscaping that would have to be removed. Mr. Behr asked about the other side of the road where homes are further back. Mr. Gill said there are telephone poles and other utility concerns on that side. Mr. Cota said he would not want to see the vegetation removed. Mr. Gill said they propose a gateway feature, preserving the beauty, and then creating an opening to the larger development. He also noted there is a rec path 1000 feet away. He felt there are things they could look at that would be less impactful. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that their intent is to keep this a low-speed road, not a high-speed cut-through. Ms. Keene noted there are no bike-ped improvements south of the project. Mr. Behr said there will be a lot of pedestrian flow to the little market. With no pedestrian improvements, people will be walking in the road. He stressed the need to look at good pedestrian flow. Mr. Langfeldt said they can work on some options that won’t impact neighbors’ yards. 8. Staff asked about more parallel parking spaces for “guest parking.” Staff is recommending on-street parking. Mr. Gill said they will look at some on-street parking. They don’t object to parallel parking. They should confirm that it is adequate once they have a layout of all houses confirmed. He noted that every unit will have a 2-car garage and 2 parking spaces in the driveways. He said parking is not an issue at Hillside. Ms. Philibert said it is “inconvenient” sometimes when you are carrying heavy packages. It’s not ideal, but she didn’t know a better solution. Mr. Behr noted that parked cars would add to traffic calming. Mr. Homsted said there is some parking proposed on Old Farm Road. They could look at more. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 6 9. Staff requests a typical cross-section of Old Farm Road prior to a decision on Preliminary Plat. Ms. Keene asked what feedback the applicant needs before firming up streets. Mr. Gill said they need to know how various types of homes relate to the street. They could push Old Farm Road homes further back but would lose the “old farm” feeling. There is also a question of alleys and a cottage court and the alignment of Old Farm Road. Mr. Behr said the streetscape should be designed now not at final plat. Regarding the alignment, Mr. Gill said they got no negative feedback. Mr. Cota said it made sense. Mr. Gill said they did get feedback and realigned the end of Meadow Loop. There are triplexes right to the edge of the road, and they felt they could reduce the right-of-way by a couple of feet. This would avoid needing waivers. Mr. Langfeldt noted they came up with a design of “two-front” homes so that homes across the road are not facing the backs of homes. Mr. Cota said he liked this alignment better than what the Board saw at sketch review. Mr. Langfeldt said it also allows for a concept for cottages, smaller homes with smaller footprints similar to the Kirby Cottages. Regarding setbacks, Ms. Keene noted a “wave effect” on Old Farm Road. Mr. Gill said changing reduces rear-yard setbacks. Ms. Philibert felt it was an interesting look. Ms. Keene noted the applicant proposes to modify the right-of-way to address the setback issue. Ms. Homsted said the right-of-way is 66 feet wide. He felt that could be reduced as most rights-of-way are only 50 feet. Mr. Langfeldt noted they also have rear-loaded garages. Mr. Gill stressed they are trying to get a “village feel” on the road. Ms. Keene noted it is the City Council that would have to approve any change to the right-of-way. Mr. Gill then showed elevations of the Meadow Loop town homes and homes that would face the single-family homes. Mr. Behr felt they were attractive, definitely a “2-front” look. He liked the closeness to Old Farm Road on the fringes. He suggested the possibility of green space by moving the sidewalk. Mr. Homsted said there are some grading concerns, but it could happen. One concern with a sidewalk is that it would be a public sidewalk on private property. Ms. Keene said that is not a problem. Mr. Behr said he would move the parallel parking near the cottages to the south. With the above feedback, Mr. Gill said they can provide Old Farm Road cross sections. 10. Staff supports the alley serving garages on the north side of Lot 31. The applicant questions the marketability of non-attached garages. Staff also recommended rear- load garages for the remainder of homes on Lot 31 which would create a yard for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 7 those homes. Mr. Gill said the problem with that is that a road behind the homes creates a non-private space. They didn’t want to do it because they are providing a range of homes in the area. They also want to limit the quantity of an “unproven commodity.” Mr. Langfeldt noted it would limit the demographics of whom you appeal to (e.g., seniors would not like unattached garages). Mr. Gill said there would also be snow removal concerns. The main concern is project balance. Mr. Sullivan said he likes the proposed design. Ms. Eiring agreed that this is a good opportunity to test the detached garages. Other members agreed. 11. Staff notes there is only one vehicle connection to Hillside and asked whether there should be a connection to Split Rock Court. Ms. Keene noted that Ledge Way was approved with the potential to connect, but with this plan that connection can’t happen. She asked if members were OK with this. She also noted that some homes would be lost if the Split Rock connection is made. Mr. Cota said you would also lose open space, and he would not want to see that happen. He felt people could use the rec path as a connection. Mr. Behr said the last thing he wants to see is a vehicle connection through tight residential streets. Members agreed. 12. Staff is asking to modify the plan to provide a connecting road to the city-owned easement within the Tilley Drive PUD. Mr. Gill said they have no issue with that. He showed a picture of the area and said they will get a proposal to staff. 13. Re: connection from Eastview to the commercial areas, Mr. Keene asked how one would get from the homes to the industrial area. Mr. Gill showed a slide and highlighted connections. He noted there are significant grading challenges. They did put an easement in the plan to accommodate a connection, but they don’t propose to build it. It could be built in the future. He cited the amount of fill that would be needed (16-18 feet) and questioned how it would relate to buildings on the road since the road would be above the front doors. Mr. Gill also showed what commercial lots could look like and said that having a road into the parking lot makes no sense and creates a cut-through for 2 very different uses. He said there could be a lumber yard there or an RV dealership or a drive-thru bank, etc. A potential road would also impact the wildlife corridor. Mr. Gill noted it would be an 8-minute walk to work and would save 87 seconds to drive. Members felt that given the impacts and benefits of a vehicular connection, it was not needed. Mr. Cota considered that a condition requiring pedestrian connectivity is the best balance. Mr. Behr agreed and said he’d like to see a specific trigger for the connection be included. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 FEBRUARY 2021 PAGE 8 Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-20-40 until 16 March 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a rollcall vote. 6. Minutes of 2 February 2021: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 February 2021 as written. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. 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 10:03 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.