Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_2021-03-03 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 3 March 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Sullivan, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B. Connolly, P. Moll, M. Cote, B. Currier, J. Bossange, A. Plant, T. Lenski, J. Smith, E. Fitzgerald, C. Roy, D. Cotter, A. J. Larosa, L. Luzzatto, J. Messina, J. Wagenhofer, P. Thompson, P. Mazurek, P. Washburn, S. Jones, G. Cucheral, A. Ulano, B. Zygmund, R. Goddard, B. Mallin, K. LeFevre, Laura, L. B. Sullivan, L. Poteau, M. Provost, Rich, Peter, J. McLane, J. Carrigan, S. Dopp, A. Klapp, Washburn/Shepard, P. O’Leary, B. Avery, R. Dickenson, D. Leban 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: Ms. Philibert advised that former DRB Chair Matt Cota was elected to the City Council yesterday, and will no longer be serving on the DRB. She will chairing this meeting. She reminded attendees to sign the virtual sign-in sheet or email their presence to Marla Keene. This is a requirement should anyone wish to gain party status to appeal a decision of the Board. Ms. Keene said a solicitation for a new DRB member will go out this week, and the hope is to have a new member on board for the first meeting in April. There will be a re-organization meeting on 16 March. Members should think about a potential new Chair for the Board and make sure that person wants the position. 4. Continued site plan application #SP-20-035 and conditional use application #CU-20-02 of ReArch Company to amend a previously approved plan for commercial parking and a vacant 54,459 sq. ft. building. The amendment consists of converting the use to general office and expanding the existing parking lot, 124 Technology Way: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert advised that the applicant has still not received a wetland permit and has asked for a continuance. Ms. Keene recommended 20 April. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-20-035 and CU-20-02 to 20 April 2021. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 6-0-0. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-21-01 of The Granite Group to amend a previously approved plan for a 16,272 sq. ft. wholesale use building. The amendment consists of expanding the fenced outdoor storage area, 20 Gregory Drive: Ms. Keene noted that staff has received the wetland analysis, and a draft decision was included in the packet. She asked for feedback as to whether the applicant wants to incorporate the maintenance agreement into the decision or to record a notice of condition. Mr. Mazurek said they prefer to incorporate it into the plan. They are also OK with the draft decision. Ms. Philibert asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr then moved to close SP-21-01. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion passed 6-0-0. 6. Continued remanded conditional use application #CU-18-12B of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved conditional use permit #CU-18-02 for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The application has been remanded due to changes in regulations governing accessory residential units. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five feet, increasing the height to fifteen feet, and increasing the size to 248 sq. ft., 30 Myers Court: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a conflict of interest. With regard to applicability of Act 179, Ms. Keene said there are 2 things to consider: Title 1 of Vermont State Statutes which lays out what happens when an act is amended/appealed, and the Court’s statement of remand. Ms. Philibert asked if the applicant has anything to add to previous testimony. Mr. Larosa said they covered most of this before. It is their belief that the applicant can take advantage of the change in the regulations. He also noted that a new application was filed by the applicant which was rejected by the city as “unnecessary.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 3 Ms. Keene said that regardless of whether the DRB decides Act 179 applies, they should still discuss the application as if it did apply and decide what decision they would make in that case. Ms. Keene said that the Board should include in their decision whether the structure is clearly subordinate to the single family dwelling, give the respective sizes and heights. She wanted to be sure no additional testimony is needed for the Board to make that determination. Mr. Behr said he was comfortable with the information at hand. Ms. Philibert then asked for public comment. Mr. Messina, representing abutting neighbors, said it is their belief that Act 179 does not apply. They agree with the procedure, as long as that is noted. Mr. Behr then moved to close CU-18-12B. Ms. Eiring seconded. The motion passed 5-0-0 via a rollcall vote. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-21-06 of Blackrock Construction for the 6.91 acre “Wheeler Parcel” phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre Golf Course and 354 unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, 22 dwelling units in two- family homes, and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road: Ms. Philibert said there is a long staff analysis and report, so the Board will go as far as possible while still leaving time for the other agenda item. Ms. Keene noted that time has been reserved on the 6 April agenda for a continuation of this application. Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert then explained the nature of a Final Plat. Mr. Avery said the project is located on the Wheeler parcel at the northeast corner of Park Road. There are 32 units of housing proposed which adhere to the guidelines unique to this parcel. Mr. Roy explained how the parcel came to be as part of an agreement between the city and J. A. M. Golf in 2015 involving a land swap. The City received 22 acres near Butler Farms to conserve. These 6.9 acres came available for development via a very specific set of zoning standards developed for this parcel (Section 9.08 in the Land Development Regulations). Mr. Roy also noted that there have been comments regarding an access onto Dorset Street being DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 4 preferable to the proposed Park Road access. The City owns the strip of land between this property and Dorset Street. If the City wanted another curb cut there, it would have been easy to do that, but nothing accommodated that in any way. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Staff asked that the applicant clarify the preconstruction grade. Mr. Currier indicated the single and 2-story units. He noted the requested pre-construction grade changes for single story units were denied at preliminary plat, and have been eliminated from the plan. On 2-story buildings, there are requested preconstruction grade changes. They will clarify on the plans. 2. Staff asked the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed single family homes are 18 feet in height and the others do not exceed 28 feet. Mr. Currier noted that the 2 buildings in the middle are single story duplexes but are not required to be by the zoning district. They abut the high-use rec path, and are very visible. They have no issue with a 20-foot height requirement and will revise elevations for the continued hearing. Units 17 & 18 are in a required single-story zone and will be single story. However, contours slope downwards and you lose about 8 feet of height. Mr. Currier said if they are held to the 20-foot standard, buildings could be only 12 feet high. They could only lower the units below the road which would create issues (e.g. drainage). They are asking to construct to 28 feet in height compared to average preconstruction grade but still have single story units. They will look uniform to what is around them. There is a landscape buffer on the eastern side with dense plantings. Ms. Keene said staff will prepare an analysis of this request for the continued hearing. Mr. Behr said he is comfortable with the request. 3. Staff asked the Board to consider whether to require removal of invasive species from adjacent areas. Mr. Currier showed a line of clearing allowance. They have removed a proposed rec path as requested. The community garden has also been moved (he indicated where). They are questioning whether to saddle future home owners with removal of invasive species. Ms. Keene said staff just wants to allow for the removal of invasives. The Board asked if the applicant should be required to do an intial sweep to remove existing invasive species or whether that would result in the appearance of the wooded area being nearly cleared. Ms. Keene said she would ask for input from the City Arborist. 4. Staff asked that the plan be modified to indicate that the wooded area not be disturbed. Mr. Currier indicated one large oak tree which the neighbor had asked to save. He showed the clearing limit and what will be attempted to be saved. They DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 5 will specifically identify the oak tree to be saved and will not dig near that tree. Ms. Keene said there should not only be a construction fence (an object) but a no-clear zone (an action) as well. She suggested having the City Arborist review that what is proposed will not result in damage to the oak tree. Mr. Behr noted comments from Ms. Leban regarding not clear cutting. He also agreed with consulting the arborist. 5. The applicant must get both water and wastewater permits. Mr. Currier said they have the wastewater permit and will have the water allocation for the continued hearing. 6. Comments from the Water Department must be addressed. Mr. Currier said they will. 7. Staff asked that the width of the rec path be reduced and its designation as an “emergency path” be removed. Mr. Currier was OK with this. He added that he would like their traffic consultant to comment on the letter from neighbors regarding the traffic impact study. Mr. Dickenson then said the issue of safety seems to be the focus of concern. He said they had analyzed both congestion and safety in the study. On Park Road, the level of service is excellent. With regard to safety, Park Road is a city street constructed to city standards, 24 feet wide and paved. At the bottom of the hill, there are 31 feet between guard rails. Grades on the road are 8%, and the city allows 10%. Mr. Dickenson said there is no reason to think the road would be unsafe. There are no reported crashes on the road or at the intersection of Park Rd. and Dorset Street from 2016 to 2020. Mr. Dickenson noted that in a letter Mr. Seff said cars go too fast. He noted that sight distances exceed 280 feet. On the hill, there is 460 feet of available sight distance. Mr. Dickenson said there is no reason to think there are unsafe conditions today or will be with this development. The issues are maintenance and speed. 8. Staff asked the applicant to have the Fire Chief clarify the location of hydrants and street profile. Mr. Currier said he talked with Chief Francis on Friday and will submit answers to his requests. Ms. Keene said she had received his comments and these will be included as conditions. 9. They intend to put the units in the locations shown. Mr. Currier said they will add names of the units. 10. Staff noted that the LDRs require a dense vegetative buffer between the homes and the street. Ms. Keene clarified that this applies to the Dorset St. facades. Mr. Behr felt the designs need work. He said they are very generic, especially the single-story DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 6 duplex units which look more like a store front. There is not trim detail, columns, etc. Mr. Behr said the single family designs are nice. Mr. Avery said they will look into this but he doesn’t know how much better they can be. He added that part of the challenge is to limit living space on a shared wall. They attempted to address design with porches, dormers, different window configurations and will try to spruce those up a bit. They also had to get them to look different from each other. Mr. Behr said they should specifically address the “Bolton” and other duplex designs which shouldn’t have a long, linear feel across the length of the building. The 2 roofs over the door also have a retail feel. Mr. Currier noted the window issues have to deal with bedroom design, but they will work around details. 11. Staff noted that the applicant has requested a waiver regarding translucent windows. Mr. Currier said the density is such that units are close together with not many views to the south. There is obviously a concern with solar. Privacy also comes into play (e.g. bathrooms on the south). They’re proposing to meet translucency requirements for only units 1, 32, 19 and 18 which face Park Road, and are requesting a waiver from 35% translucent to 30% for units 18, 19, 32. Mr. Avery added that meet the standard they would have to put glass in “a lot of odd places.” 12. Staff asks that the applicant provide more variety in housing styles and variations within styles. Ms. Keene said this specifically applies to duplexes. Staff is OK on single family units. Mr. Currier said he doesn’t disagree. They had submitted a 2- story duplex concept, but a neighbor had concerns regarding views. He showed alternate 2-story designs along Dorset Street and said he felt it was a more pleasing design than the single story duplexes. Mr. Behr agreed but felt the window layout still needed to be addressed. Ms. Eiring said she liked the mix of one and 2-stories. 13. This item was covered above. 14. Staff noted that garage stepback criteria are not met for units 1 or 18. Mr. Currier said it is a minor garage setback issue, and they will work with staff on this. 15. Staff noted that if the applicant doesn’t ask for flexibility, they will be held to exactly what is proposed. Mr. Currier said they would like to be flexible as to whether the homes are walk-out, garden, or traditional level foundations. They would also like to be able to change color, siding, porch, and deck type. They will draft a specific request for the next hearing. 16. Staff requires that the limits of clearing should exclude any area near the oak tree and nearby hickory trees. Mr. Currier said as shown they will not affect trunks DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 7 within the clearing limit. He also noted if a tree trunk is right over the clearing limit there could be an issue. They did not want to name any specific trees. Mr. Behr said they’ve specifically modified this project to preserve a wooded area, so there should be preservation of more than just one tree. Mr. Currier said they will be removing 86 trees that are greater than 6-inches in diameter, and planting almost 200 trees and more shrubs as part of the plan. He noted they are required to have a 27-foot landscaped buffer with specific species identified. He felt they could extend the clearing limit a little to the west to get more of the hickory trees. He didn’t there is an issue with these 2 trees, but it could be a “slippery slope.” Mr. Behr noted that there can be just as much damage with fill as with excavation. Mr. Currier said there will be no fill at the trunks of these trees. Members agreed to stop the review here. Ms. Philibert asked for public comment. Mr. Bossange spoke on behalf of 3 homeowner associations and individual homeowners. He noted multiple letters sent to staff, flyers distributed to residents, and photos of curves/hills on Park Road. He stressed they do not want to stop this development and understand the need for clustered housing. But they want the development to be built into the landscape in a tasteful, affordable and safe manner. Mr. Bossange then outlined 3 issues as follows: a. Traffic and pedestrian safety: Mr. Bossange cited the dangers of access roads going into Park Road. Steep slopes and winding curves make developing on Park Rd. very dangerous. A city snow plow has even slipped off the road. Trying to brake and make a left turn onto the road in winter conditions and accelerate up the hill are very dangerous, and neighbors feel the 2 intersections will be treacherous. Even now it is a “crawl” especially with snow and ice. The pedestrian path now parallels Park Rd., and drivers will have to check for pedestrians. They will also have to cross the bike path to get onto Dorset Street. This is very dangerous in black ice conditions. Mr. Bossange suggested a one-way-in/one-way-out closed loop concept similar to the new development on Dorset St., with the driveway on Dorset Street. If the city owns the land on Dorset Street, this change could be made safely. b. Density is the second issue. Neighbors feel 32 homes on 6.9 acres is too much. Homes should be spread out with space between them. c. Neighbors do not want any 2-story homes as this is a very visible piece of land and they don’t want it to look like the homes south of them where there are no trees, etc. They also want colors to blend with the background. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 8 Ms. Plant asked to know the size and types of trees to be planted. Ms. Keene said she can direct the neighbor to that information in the plan. Ms. Leban appreciated the effort to save the oak tree and was glad to hear the City Arborist will be reviewing the plans. She noted that unit 18 comes close to where the rec path slopes away, and she was concerned with erosion protections so there is not a negative impact on the rec path during construction. Ms. Leban was also concerned that not enough of the units face south so they can be solar ready. She also felt the units are “uninspired” and need to be less boring like the detailing on other homes in the area. She thanked the applicant for removing the rec path in the middle of the neighborhood. Mr. Dickenson then responded to the question of grade of Park Road which was thought to be a mistake in Mr. Seff’s letter. Mr. Dickenson said the grade being referred to is the grade of Park Road at the intersection as it approaches Dorset Street; it is not an analysis of grades along Park Road. Mr. Bossange thanked Mr. Dickenson for the clarification but felt the safety concern is still the same. Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SD-21-06 until 6 April 2021. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0-0. Mr. Sullivan then rejoined the Board. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-07 of Brendan Connolly to create a planned unit development of three lots by subdividing a 7.98 acre lot developed with an existing single family home into Lot 1 (7.02 acres), Lot 3 (0.48 acres) Lot 4 (0.48 acres) for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of Lots and 4 and retaining the single family home. Lots 3 and 4 would be accessed off Sadie Lane, 1 Johnson Way: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Currier said they are proposing a 2-lot subdivision. The property is located in the Village Residential District, adjacent to Sadie Lane. The lots proposed are just under half an acre. Mr. Currier showed the plan and indicated a significant Class 2 wetland. The project will use both city water and sewer and will be accessed by a single drive off Sadie Lane. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 9 1. Staff asked that the applicant apply for an Interim Zoning hearing at the City Council prior to Preliminary Plat. Mr. Currier said they expect to do that next week. 2. Staff asked that the applicant give deference to draft LDRs. Mr. Currier noted that the draft LDRs allow no subdivision within a wetland boundary. He indicated the boundary of the proposed lots is outside the wetland buffer. 3. Staff noted that a written natural resource management plan will be required at the next stage of review. Mr. Currier said they will do that. They are proposing a split rail fence as part of the plan. 4. Staff asked whether the applicant has had any discussion with the State wetlands program regarding access to the south of the property. Ms. Keene indicated a potential connection to Cider Mill to the north and Windswept Ln to the south, but the proposed homes may preclude that access. Mr. Currier clarified that at the end of Dorset heights there is a bike path currently. He didn’t believe a connection is planned there. Mr. Currier added that they have not yet met with the State regarding crossing the wetland. It has been crossed 3 times within 1000 feet, so they are not hopeful they will get permission to do that. 5. Staff questioned the lot configuration and suggested possibly aligning both lots to have frontage on Sadie Lane which would have living spaces facing southwest and would not require a sprinkler system. Mr. Currier said they are trying to maximize the building area with this configuration. Lots would face single family homes on Sadie Lane and would be very narrow lots which wouldn’t work as well. Ms. Keene noted that there will be a requirement for homes to face the street in the new regulations. Mr. Currier said homes are oriented toward Sadie lane though not necessarily facing it. There is an area behind each lot to make the 1 to 2 ratio work if they were to subdivide the wetland, but they are also trying to comply with the new regulations and not subdivide the wetlands. That will have to be a discussion. Mr. Sullivan noted there is no foliage screening for homes on Sadie Lane. Mr. Currier said that is correct. There is a bike path, and possibly some sort of hedgerow. Mr. Connolly, the property owner, said there is a split rail fence with barbed wire and only some brush. There is no significant vegetation. Mr. Sullivan said if there were screening, he would be less convinced about mitigating impact. Mr. Behr said that given the fact that the site is bounded on 3 sides by wetlands, there will probably be no future development, and the proposed configuration goes against the pattern of development on Sadie lane. Mr. Behr asked if homes could face west to be in a line with the other homes on Sadie Lane. Mr. Currier said yes, at least in that orientation. Mr. Behr said this would be “finishing off what can be developed.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 MARCH 2021 PAGE 10 6. Staff asked the applicant to discuss protection to prevent encroachment into wetland buffers. Mr. Currier said they will use split rain fencing. Ms. Keene asked if that has been working. Ms. Hall said she hasn’t seen any violations or gotten any complaints. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 9. Minutes of 17 February 2021: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 17 February as written. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12 Other Business: Mr. Behr asked member to go into deliberative session for a few minutes after the meeting was concluded. Members agreed. 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 ___.