Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_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 ___. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 March 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Sullivan, Acting Chair; M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Barron, D Shatzer, M. O’Brien, B. Sirvis, S. Homsted, C. Frank, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, P. Boisvert, R. Gonda, T. & R. Davis, P. Simon, C. Lang, S. Brutzman, D. Shatzer, 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. Sullivan explained how to sign the virtual sign-in or email their attendance to staff. This is required in order to appeal a decision of the Board. 4. Continued 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: Ms. Keene reminded members that this application had been continued without being heard at the last meeting. Staff had no outstanding issues. Mr. Sullivan asked if members had any issues. There were none. Mr. Sullivan noted that the next time there is an application from this applicant, they will have to revise their plan professionally. Mr. Baron said he was ok with that. Mr. Sullivan then asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-21-007 and CU-21-01. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 2 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-08 of DS Realty, LLC, to create a planned unit development on an existing parcel currently developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio and standard restaurant in one building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The planned unit development consists of removing all three dwelling units by demolishing one residential building and converting the other to an educational facility with associated minor improvements, and adding educational facility as an allowed use, 916 Shelburne Road: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert served as Chair for this application. Ms. Davis, co-owner of the property, said they have been in business for 17 years, first on Pine Street, and then 5 years ago in South Burlington. They have a number of child and adult art programs and are known and loved in the community. They have excellent relations with the neighbors on Lindenwood. The biggest changes are due to COVID. The café is permanently closed though they have retained the kitchen and rented it to Pie Society. There is no on-site dining; it is all delivery/pick-up. Ms. Davis noted they had “inherited” the residential units, but are now in need of classroom space. They explored putting up more residential units, but couldn’t come up with a plan that worked. The current plan is to remodel the carriage house to add studio space. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Staff asked the applicant to demonstrate why they believe the project is a PUD and how the property will function as a coherent entity and respect the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Davis said the property will actually be more coherent. The only changes from the neighbors’ perspective is that there will probably be less night activity. 2. Staff asked for confirmation that the application is only asking for an educational facility in an R-4 district. Mr. Simon said as long as they can still have parking on site, they are OK with this. He noted there is a pre-school operation, and child care is not an allowed use, but an educational facility is. Most of the site is in the Commercial District with a “sliver” in R-4. They could ask for 50 feet to go back to the east and have the carriage house fall under Commercial zoning. Ms. Keene said parking is not an issue as proposed. Ms. Keene also noted the portion of the property in R-4 is incorrectly drawn. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 3 If they decide on more parking later, that could be a separate application. Ms. Keene told the Board that if they allow the Educational Facility in R-4, they are allowing it across the entire zoning district. Members were OK with this. Mr. Simon said the 2 zones have different uses, children in the daytime, adults at night. There is also a summer camp sometimes. Ms. Keene noted a similar situation at The School House, which is also in a residential district. Ms. Hall then read from the regulations the definitions of “educational facility” and “child care facility.” Ms. Keene asked if staff should try to find a way to define them as separate or as one use. She didn’t see a down side to one use, but she wanted to be sure there is none. The applicant noted they had sent an updated plan in the morning indicating the expanded use up to 50 feet in the adjacent district. This would encompass the entire carriage house building. He added that is what the Davises have been paying taxes on. Ms. Keene said the Assessor doesn’t govern the zoning line. The line is where the GIS says it is. She showed the “sliver” than can’t be C-1. Mr. Simon asked that the pre-school function be considered pre-school education. 3. The applicant was asked to describe how the educational facility will differ from its current use, hours, noise, landscape buffer, etc. Ms. Davis said there is no change in the program and activities; the property will be used as it has been. The landscape buffer will be maintained. They will improve ADA accessibility. Hours in general will be 8-8. The pick-up time is 1-3 p.m. The noise will be the same as today, kids playing in the playground. Ms. Davis showed a photo of the buffer screening. Ms. Philibert asked about the traffic for Pie Society. Ms. Davis said they have offsite pick-up except one night a week on-site. This is coordinated when they don’t have classes. Mr. Behr asked about the wooden “platform” behind the carriage house. Ms. Davis said the building was used as a “playhouse” but is dilapidated, so it was taken down. They built the little platform for a stage. 4. Staff asked for clarification of the gravel parking area. Mr. Boisvert said the driveway had served the A-frame and will be left in place. The landscape drawing is correct. They are not changing any grading, just seeding. They will put in a curb. Ms. Keene said from a stormwater point of view, the gravel area may be the applicant’s “friend.” She suggested they coordinate with stormwater people. Mr. Behr noted the carriage house is an existing non-conforming use. The additional dormer will have to meet the setback. Ms. Davis said they are just adding light into the space. It will not change the existing footprint. Ms. Hall agreed the dormer will have to meet the setback. Mr. Behr said he would prefer to see the dormer glazing look more like the other windows. Mr. Simon noted there are 4 tiny lights on the carriage house. They would like to replace these with new downcasting little lights. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 4 Ms. Keene said the Board can waive the photometrics requirement as it seems excessive. Members agrees photometrics are not necessary. Mr. Simon asked whether it would be possible to combine preliminary and final plats. Board members said this would be at the applicant’s risk. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Brutzman, a Brewer Parkway resident, said she would be the most affected by changes to the property. She asked if there would be a time period for the property to change back to a rental property. Ms. Hall said if the applicant removes housing, they have 2 years either to replace it or pay into the housing trust fund. Ms. Keene said they could not replace the housing on this site without a hearing. Ms. Brutzman asked about turning the play area into a parking lot. Ms. Keene said that is not part of this application. Ms. Brutzman then asked if any of the treeline would be taken out. Mr. Boisvert said there is no plan to take down any of the tree buffer. Ms. Brutzman said she was excited about an educational facility. Mr. Gonda commended the applicant for planting pollinators. Ms. Davis said they want to encourage insects and wildlife. No other issues were raised. Mr. Sullivan then rejoined the Board and served as Chair. 5. Continued 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, nineteen commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, and one existing single family homes, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert noted that she lived in the adjacent development but felt she could continue to be objective. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 5 1. Staff recommended the Board invite testimony from the Bike/Ped Committee. Ms. Frank, Chair of that Committee, said that with 155 new homes and others already built, there will be a range of people who need to “get around” in the most comfortable way. The Committee feels a shared use path is the best way to accomplish that. It is far safer and more comfortable than bike lanes as this will be a major route going toward Hinesburg Road. Mr. Gill said they will respond to this at the April meeting. They have hired VHB and are working on an alternate plan that should make everyone happy. They hope to have this for the April meeting. Ms. Frank asked that the Committee see the plan before that meeting. Mr. Gill said they will provide it a few weeks before. 2. Staff asked the applicant to revisit the issue of additional guest parking. Ms. Keene said there had been discussion of additional on-street parking on Old Farm Rd. This was tabled at the previous hearing. She asked if the Board felt there should be additional parallel parking on Old Farm Rd. for visitors. Mr. Behr said that with 2 parking space for the units, he would like to see a proposal for more on-street parking. He didn’t want parking on both sides of the street, but parking should be “logical and landscaped.” Mr. Sullivan agreed. Mr. Langfeldt said they were fine with taking another look at this. Members then picked up with staff comments from where they left off at the previous meeting. #16. Staff asks that the applicant show a pavement marking plan or show pavement markings on the civil set of plans and further to provide as many typical roadway cross sections as necessary to allow for evaluation. Staff also noted that the Public Works Director has requested a signage plan to accompany the pavement marking plan. Mr. Gill said they would prefer to not provide a signage plan, but they can provide cross sections at a later stage of review. Ms. Keene said it needs to be clear what the proposed use of the asphalt width is. 17. Staff asked the Board to require a minimum 20-foot road because this local roadway connects to an adjacent commercial area. Mr. Gill said they have some plan changes to propose in April which will show an entirely new configuration. 18. Staff asks that the applicant be required to refine the design of the roadway at such time as they seek development of the commercial lots. Mr. Gill said they are looking to approve the roadway at this time; the aim is to be able to sell the lots with an approved roadways. Mr. Gill added they like the cul de sac road and see it as a feature. They’re working on a 2-dimensional proposal for the commercial lots. There are environmental issues at the end of the road, and they are proposing the park/playground, etc., there. They consider it a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 6 “destination.” They would also like to plant in the center of the cul de sac, if allowed. They don’t know what the commercial development will be and are open to a proposal that makes sense. Ms. Keene said if they can provide a concept of how lots could play out, the road could be viewed in conjunction with that. Mr. Gill said “absolutely.” 19. Staff asks that the applicant be required to provide temporary gravel parking near Old Farm Road and extend the walking path to the park prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 60th unit. Mr. Gill said they are open to that but want to see what triggers make sense. 20. Staff asks that the applicant be required to shift the east-west sidewalk on lot 32 south to be along the lot 32/33 property line. Ms. Keene zoomed in on that area and noted the request would make it a “community area.” Mr. Gill said that since the last meeting they have been looking at different options. This is one of those options. They are working through an alternate proposal to address this. It would mean a different layout for this lot. 21. Staff raised concerns with the garage side of the town homes. Mr. Gill showed elevations of 3 different units. He said they have the same interior but different exteriors. There are 6 different elevations that will get “mixed and matched.” They are happy to include a split garage as one elevation. They feel the plan would achieve a nice and varied streetscape. Ms. Keene said the elevations should be more appealing to the homes across from them since they will be viewing the backs of the homes. Mr. Gill said there will certainly be landscaping. Mr. Behr felt the applicant had done a pretty good job of giving a different feel. He favored splitting some, but not all, garage doors. Mr. Langfeldt noted they had done that on Hillside. 22. Staff asked that the applicant be required to provide a thoughtfully designed central common space for the “cottage court.” Mr. Gill said there are a lot of grading issues, but they will get a central green area. Ms. Keene noted the sidewalk from Hillside lands on nothing and questioned where people go from there. Mr. Gill said they will look into making a crossing point from there. Ms. Philibert left the meeting at this point. 23. Staff noted that elevation SF5 is the only one with a garage protruding from the front of the home. They feel it detracts from the street presence. Mr. Gill said they tried to dress the roof-line up with some stonework. Mr. Langfeldt said it also creates some diversity of design. He didn’t feel it was an “all garage” look. Ms. Keene asked how many homes could be like this. Mr. Gill said about 16. Mr. Behr said it was hard to envision. He suggested maybe making the front porch deeper. He added that elevation-wise it doesn’t bother him because of the variety of design. Mr. Sullivan agreed. Ms. Eiring liked the design and also the idea of pulling out the porch, if possible. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 7 24. Ms. Keene indicated some houses that staff has an issue with. Mr. Gill said these are the same as ones being built at Hillside (he showed these). They are designed to be built into a steep hillside. They are 3 stories in front, 2 in back. Mr. Gill said a similar situation exists here. He added they have been well-accepted by the market. People like the stone wall in back. Mr. Langfeldt said they tried to create architectural variety so the houses are not symmetrical. Ms. Keene acknowledged hers was a “subjective” comment. The houses do seem narrow to her, but she didn’t have a better suggestion. Mr. Behr said there will be a wide variety of housing types. Some will achieve some things, others other things. The applicant has a proven market for this type so it doesn’t bother him. It also responds to the site. 25. Regarding planting plans, Mr. Gill said they are willing to look at a dense buffer recommended by the Natural Resources Committee. He added there is room to plant all kinds of things. They also need to accommodate the rec path and walking trail. Mr. Gonda said Natural Resources was happy to work with the applicant. Mr. Shatzer noted that there is also a lot of wildlife to consider in this location. Mr. Langfeldt said it is a very wide area. 26. Staff asks that the applicant work with the Recreation & Parks people to develop a proposal on ownership prior to closing the hearing. Mr. Gill said they are open to public ownership of green spaces. There are still open questions. They will engage with the city and come up with a plan at final plat. 27. Regarding parking in front of the barn, Mr. Gill asked to defer this until they can look at it in context of the re-design. 28. Regarding height waivers, staff noted that single family and duplexes are OK. The question is the commercial lots. Mr. Gill said height is very important to meet the density. They will provide information at the next meeting to show their vision (i.e., setbacks, parking, etc.) without committing to specific buildings. 29. Regarding a footpath, the applicant was OK with this condition. Mr. Gill noted they can’t build much more because of wetlands and the floodplain. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Keene noted that Ms. Dooley has comments she would like to make but she is attending the Planning Commission meeting. Regarding waiver requests 1-10, Mr. Gill said they are OK with saying a 5-foot setback throughout or with saying the setbacks shown on the plan are OK. Ms. Keene said that shouldn’t be a problem. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 MARCH 2021 PAGE 8 Mr. Sullivan said there should be some analysis before allowing waivers. Ms. Keene noted they are enabled in the PUDs. Mr. Gill noted that they provided a chart of every waiver, and each is discussed in detail. About 90% are internal. Ms. Keene felt it was OK to consolidate waivers 1- 10 as they are all setback waivers. Mr. Behr said he didn’t want to give a blanket waiver as the plan should speak for itself. He was comfortable with whatever staff can come up with. 30. Staff is requesting a framework regarding commercial waiver requests. Mr. Gill said are working on it. 31. Regarding screening between residential and commercial lots and buildings, Mr. Gill noted that commercial buildings can be no more than one story higher than they adjacent residential buildings. Mr. Gill said if there are areas that require dense screening, they would like to know this. They do not want a mandatory 65-foot setback. Ms. Keene read from the rules and said if there is already buffering by a 50-foot right-of-way, the applicant is OK already. Mr. Gill said the intent is to have the residential and commercial areas relate to each other. Ms. Keene read from the rules regarding new residential units adjacent to commercial development. The setback would be greater than the standard setback in commercial areas and Mr. Gill asked that the setback be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to see if additional screening is needed rather than requiring strict adherence to the rules. Mr. Gill said the intent is to build permitted uses. It is meant to be a PUD. He said there would be a 65-foot buffer in most cases but that it would be in the residential zoning districts not the commercial. Mr. Gill said 30 feet rear and front, 10 feet side. Mr. Behr said there is kind of a built-in buffer on the residential property, so he was more supportive there. He asked to see it proven to the Board. Members agreed to stop at this point. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-20-40 until 20 April 2021. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. 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 9:57 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.