Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_2021-05-04 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 May 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. Luzzatto, A. Chalnick, A. Gill, A. Rowe, A. Plant, B. Cousins, B. Avery, Bill & Mary, B. Currier, A. & C. Long, Dan Long, Denise Long, E. Long, C. Frank, C. Carpenter, C. Snyder, D. Bauman, D. Rosensweig, E. Langfeldt, F. MacDonald, J. & H. Shustin, Holly W., J. Neuhauser, J. Gallant, S. & J. Finnigan, J. Coombs, J. Travers, J. Bossange, J. Giebink, John P., J. Stewart, J. Bloom, K. LeFevre, Katarina, K. Braverman, Wayne, T. McKenzie, TR, T. & S. Soltis, S. Banker, S. & R. Goddard, S. Dooley, R. Jeffers, R. Dahlstrom, P. Friberg, P. Flaherty, P. O’Leary, P. Leonard, N. Staunton/J. Rand, M. Provost, M. McInerney, L. Poteau, L. Kupferman 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 noted that Brian Sullivan has submitted his resignation from the DRB. Ms. Philibert reminded those attending the meeting to sign in as proof of attendance would be required should one wish to appeal a decision of the Board. Comments made in the chat box would not be considered as part of the official record and use of the chat box should be kept to technical issues and sign in. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-12 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide an existing 11.9 acre lot into 4 lots of 9.4 acres (Lot L), 1.0 acres (Lot M4), 1.2 acres (Lot M5), and 0.4 acres (Lot M6) for the purpose of constructing projects on each of Lots M4, M5 and M6, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 311 Market Street: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 2 Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Mr. McKenzie said the outstanding issue is connecting City Center property to Dumont Park property. He said South Burlington Realty had agreed to give the wetland corridor to the city to extend the wetland. The City is now asking that S. Burlington Realty pay for the bridges. Staff says the city does not intend to acquire those lands. He asked who said that. Ms. Keene said she represents the City’s position. Mr. McKenzie said there was a City Council resolution that the City intends to acquire that land. He read from the regulations and noted there are maps in the Comprehensive Plan and the Official City Map, neither of which shows a connection to Garden Street or to Dumont Park. Clearly, Mr. McKenzie noted, there is a physical obstacle to the connections, up to 200 feet. There is also a cost estimate. Bike bridges are estimated at $700,000.00-$1,000,000.00. The bridges have been designed. Mr. McKenzie said he cannot grant an easement “without the specific terms of an easement agreement.” He asked the Board to find that So. Burlington Realty has satisfied the requirement. Ms. Keene read from staff’s comment. She said they are not asking for anything more than a conceptual design. She felt staff and S. Burlington Realty are not that far apart. Mr. McKenzie said his preference is to stay with the agreement with the City. He was OK with the language as long as the project does not bear the cost of the bike bridges. He also didn’t want it left to staff without DRB input. Mr. Albrecht asked if Mr. McKenzie is comfortable bearing the cost of the conceptual design. Mr. McKenzie said the City designed the park on S. Burlington Realty land. As a courtesy, So. Burlington Realty paid for permitting the wetland impacts. The City Council agreed on a plan, and now he feels like the deal has been changed. Mr. Albrecht asked if there is anything to say that the applicant, not the city, would be responsible for the conceptual design. Ms. Keene said 15.4(b)(a) says that the applicant “construct.” Staff is asking only for a feasible design. Mr. Snyder said it seems like a “stretch” to require bridges as a connection to an adjacent property. Ms. Keene responded that staff’s intention is to show it can be built where it is shown, that it is a viable location. Mr. Snyder asked if that wasn’t answered when the City participated in the wetland application and provided feedback on both sides of the tributary. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. Behr said this is more complex than anything the Board typically deals with. It sounds like both sides are saying the same thing and hitting a wall. What is provided is almost a conceptual design for what they are proposing. He asked if staff is requiring more than that. Ms. Keene said her question is whether there is any viability to the design. Mr. Snyder asked whether anything in the regulations requires that. Mr. Behr said the regulations say “may” consider. If the DRB is to consider it, they need more information as to whether the conceptual design can occur, “this is what it will take.” Mr. McKenzie said staff is saying “don’t look at the Resolution, just the LDRs.” Ms. Keene read from 15.12(d)(4). She asked whether the DRB believes a connection may/can occur in the future. If so, what is the applicant’s responsibility: a. Nothing b. Easement c. Provide an easement with demonstration that the easement is viable d. Build the connection. Ms. Keene said staff is asking for #c, to provide a demonstrably viable easement. Mr. Albrecht asked when the design process ends or whether the “meter keeps running.” Ms. Keene asked the DRB to provide guidance on what is appropriate for the applicant to provide. Ms. Philibert said she does not have enough grasp of this to provide that. Mr. Behr then engaged in the following exchange with Mr. McKenzie: Mr. Behr: Who owns the wetland? Mr. McKenzie: South Burlington Realty. Mr. Behr: Are you deeding it to the city? Mr. McKenzie: We were asked to do a boundary line adjustment. We did that. Mr. Behr: Has part of Phase 2 already been built? Mr. McKenzie: Yes. Mr. Behr: Who paid for the design for that? Mr. McKenzie: The City. Following that exchange, Mr. Behr said he was hesitant to say who should do the design work. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 4 Ms. Keene said that she understands the city does not intend to take over the wetland. Mr. McKenzie said the City Council passed a Resolution accepting the design. He said he is now hearing different things from different parts of the city. Ms. Keene then asked which of the 4 options the DRB wants. Mr. Behr said that the applicant provide an easement in that general location (a floating easement that can be adjusted for the final design). Mr. McKenzie said it can’t vary much from where it is shown because of the wetland permit. Mr. Albrecht said he felt granting an easement makes the most sense. Ms. Eiring agreed, and Mr. Langan said he was leaning that way as well. Ms. Keene said that was enough information to conclude the sketch hearing. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-10 of Alan Long for a planned unit development on two existing 39.2 acre lots each developed with a single family home. The planned unit development consists of 49 homes including five perpetually affordable units and 9.3 acres of open space proposed to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington, 1420 & 1430 Spear Street: Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Long said he didn’t know where the figure for land dedicated to the City came from. They have already conserved 22 acres. Staff comments were then continued from the previous meeting as follows: #7. Staff asked that the applicant describe how homes will be screened or compatible with adjacent developments. Mr. Long said they want to be as compatible as possible. He didn’t want to see just a line of homes that look identical. They have tried to break up the sequences of carriage houses to relieve the monotony. He showed on the plan a mixture of building types not all in a row and noted that even the ones in a row won’t look the same (e.g., different landscaping, etc.). . Ms. Philibert suggested a “design guidelines” document approach similar to what is used in other neighborhoods. She said it sounds like they’re on the right tracks. Mr. Albrecht was concerned with the path that divides the property and was unsure of the legal status regarding the right of access onto South Village land. Ms. Keene said DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 5 there is a right of access. Mr. Albrecht was also concerned with the layout and the possibility of a path running through people’s backyards. He added he was comfortable walking down a public road to a known trail head. Mr. Long said they provided that path. They will maintain greenery along the northern part of the property. He added that it was not their intention to provide public access to get to the great swamp as access can be had through the Underwood property. Mr. Long also noted there is a road connection from South Point to South Village, and there is a path adjacent to that road. They did have feedback form South Village that the connection to their trail system might not work, and they are willing to put it where it works best. Mr. Long noted the location of the proposed path connection to South Village might make sense as a location for dumpsters. Ms. Keene reminded the Board of a request for the applicant to work with Parks/Rec and Bike/Ped Committees. Parks & Rec is prepared to work on connections with the applicant. Mr. Long said they will be in touch with the Bike/Ped Committee. #8. Staff asked the applicant how they will expend the landscape budget. Mr. Long said the perimeter is already well landscaped, with a green area to the north. There is already a stone wall and 9 trees on the southern end. They will preserve as much as possible. The eastern side is meadow and they do not intend to provide a visual barrier to the east. They want to build a berm along Spear Street so people aren’t looking into the backyards, and residents aren’t looking at traffic. The trees in the development area are new growth so they don't feel there is a high need to preserve them, though they will if they are able. Mr. Behr said this is a great infill project. He would like to see open areas “B” and “C” connected which may result in the loss of unit 39. He also noted one single family home near the stormwater treatment area which he felt could be separated more from the carriage homes, or remove the unit, which would result in the loss of 2 units but look better. Mr. Behr felt it fits perfectly between the 2 other developments. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Rosensweig, a resident of South Point, was concerned with increased traffic that would be going through the development. She was also concerned with the row of 7 homes on Parkside. She said a lot of fill will be needed, and it is a very sensitive wildlife area. She was also concerned that the development would look like theirs but not have to abide by their rules. She also noted this was a #1 parcel the Open Space Report listed for conserving. Mr. Giebink was concerned with 22,000 sq. ft. of parking in one area. He felt the project doesn’t consider the adjacent developments which are mostly single family. He also noted that DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 6 2 buildings in South Village will be looking at the parking lot. He would like to see the housing and parking reversed and felt parking should be in the front. Ms. Jeffers felt it was a good infill project but thought the parking lot was a problem. She suggested considering the same setbacks as South Village which would allow the road to be moved and preserve more land. She was concerned with the 20-foot easement crossing the great swamp and noted there are already 2 crossings. Mr. Albrecht noted that South Village multi-family buildings are on the adjacent property line. Mr. MacDonald said the LDRs say existing natural areas will be protected, and he didn’t see that happening. The 7 homes on Parkside are in a buffer area set aside by South Point. They face South Point and aren’t compatible with South Point. Mr. MacDonald was also concerned with left turns in and out of South Point, some of which come from South Village. Mr. Behr asked Mr. MacDonald to clarify if the lands of this project were conserved as part of the South Point project? Mr. MacDonald said no, but the South Point wetland delineation had it as part of the wetland buffer. Mr. Staunton and Ms. Rand agreed with most other comments. They were concerned with a large amount of development happening and disrupting existing residents. They don’t feel a berm would be effective. Mr. Stauntaon doesn’t feel this is “nice infill” for the people who already live there. Ms. Philibert explained how Interim Zoning works and noted the City Council has heard this project and is 100% responsible to see if it is allowed. The DRB hears the project based on the rules in effect at the time. Ms. Kostrabi noted she agrees with Mr. MacDonald. Mr. Chalnick felt the project is out of step with the ecology crisis. He felt the project is part of an important conservation area identified in the comprehensive plan. 6. Continued 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 3 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: Mr. Langan rejoined the Board. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 7 Ms. Philibert said the DRB will listen first to public comments. She noted comments received follow 5 themes: a. Process: This is a quasi-judicial process which means spending a lot of time with an applicant regarding potential issues. Back and forth dialog with the public is not permitted. The Board takes public comment into consideration, but the Board’s job is to be sure the project conforms with the LDRs. b. Traffic/safety issues: The Board has heard the concern with safety of Park Road in winter. Ms. Philibert noted there is another way to get out to Dorset Street. c. Density: The maximum number of units was determined in a legal settlement. The applicant can build up to 32 units. d. Architecture/design: The Board has listened to those concerns. e. Blasting to break up ledge: The Board will hear more about that at a future meeting so that they can understand what is involved. Public Comment was then solicited. Ms. LeFevre asked the Board to invoke a traffic study as the original traffic study did not study Park Road but looked at the intersection and road cuts. Ms. LeFevre acknowledged that crashes don’t occur on Park Road but “slide-offs” do. Mr. Bossange said neighbors would like to know the DRB’s thinking as not knowing leaves a lot of unknowns. He outlined 4 specific questions: Does the Board have authority to reduce the number of proposed units? Can the Board order a second traffic study regarding the access road? Is the Board concerned with building design and materials? Is the Board as alarmed as residents are about the amount and duration of blasting.? Ms. Philibert acknowledged the DRB process does not lend itself to “dialog.” The Board’s job is to adjudicate the application. She stressed the Board does understand the concerns. Ms. Plant felt the 2 accesses to Park Rd. should be addressed. She also noted Blackrock is involved in a legal action because of not meeting environmental requirements on another project. Ms. Keene said the Board cannot punish a developer on a project because of an action on another project. Mr. Behr said they can use historical perspective regarding protection on future projects. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 8 Mr. Behr noted that the DRB can ask a developer to go beyond what the LDRs, but cannot require them to do so. Ms. LeFevre said she was pleased the Board has invoked technical review regarding blasting. She felt Blackrock held back the need for blasting till the last minute. Ms. Philibert noted that anyone who lives in a home has to understand that the building of their home created a disruption. Mr. Avery said they have heard the public comments and have tried to amend the project based on them. They will present some new architectural designs in early June. He noted that the technical review of blasting came to them at noon today, and they haven’t had a chance to review it. They will before the next meeting and hope to find some common ground. Mr. Avery noted they have solved the pre-construction grade/building height issue. Mr. Currier said they lowered the road grade and can now meet the building height. Staff has agreed this is a good solution and is also good for the rec path. Staff has asked that the Board provide feedback on the applicant’s request regarding glazing. Ms. Keene noted the requirement is for 35% of glazing to be south-facing, and the applicant has asked to waive this. Mr. Behr said the regulations read “should,” not “shall,” so the DRB cannot require it. It is a negotiating point. Mr. Behr also noted that the 35% can be counter to energy efficiency. Efficiency Vermont has said it is not as effective as a solid wall. Mr. Avery said they did increase glazing on the south and west facing sides. The problem is there are stairways up the sides of the houses. They did try to hit the 35% figure. Mr. Albrecht said that since the 35% is not required, a waiver is not needed. Mr. Avery also noted they have narrowed the language which allows the potential homeowner to make design changes (e.g., color). He said the spirit is to keep to what the DRB wants. Ms. Keene said staff tries hard to limit the process, so if there is flexibility for something simple (e.g., enclosing a porch), staff recommends allowing modifications. Some of these are based on DRB input. Mr. Avery said they are fine with all 5 proposed flexibilities; they just want some flexibility for homeowners. Ms. Philibert said the application will be continued to 1 June to hear more about design and ledge removal. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 9 Mr. Bossange said the Board should also address traffic and density. Ms. Philibert said the Board has heard those concerns and will deal with them in their deliberations. Mr. Behr added that everything is on the table until the hearing is closed. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-21-06 until 1 June 2021. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Preliminary plat application #SD-21-13 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to amend a previously approved preliminary plat for the second phase of a previously approved master plan of up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The amendment consists of allowing the final plat submission to be submitted in 6 sub- phases, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert noted that she lives in this development but felt she can be objective. Mr. Gill explained that they are making the request to help phase the project and bring it to the DRB in smaller chunks. Staff comments were then addressed: 1. Staff asked the applicant to discuss the time-line. Mr. Gill said they originally asked for 18 months, with a maximum of 6 years for all buildings, if the second phase doesn’t include 2 of the buildings. Mr. Gill noted it doesn’t make sense to plan a building that won’t be built for 6 years. The market could shift in that time, and different things could be valued. They want a framework that makes sense within the overall approval. Ms. Keene noted the 12 months would start over if this is approved. Mr. Gill said that would work fine for them. The anticipated first phase is the largest, over 200 units. They would do the first phase within 12 months. By year 4, there would be at least 3 buildings. All the rest would be built by year 6. Members felt this makes sense. 2. Regarding compliance with the affordable housing requirement, Mr. Gill noted the inclusionary units were allowed all in one building. The question is knowing the mean number of bedrooms if those units are built first. He suggested saying that if the inclusionary units are built first, the rest of the market rate project would be adjusted to meet the mean of the affordable units. Mr. Behr noted that the applicant is no longer contracting with Champlain Housing. Mr. Albrecht said the request seems contrary to the spirit of affordability. Ms. Keene noted there was DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2021 PAGE 10 extensive discussion on this and it was allowed within criteria that are being met. Mr. Langfeldt said the relationship with Champlain Housing didn’t work, and they have partnered with another developer to provide the inclusionary units. He also noted there may be market rate units in that building. 3. Staff asked that the assessment regarding roadways be confirmed. Mr. Gill said the design of both roadways will be done at the same time as the first building. The Board was OK with this. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Dooley asked about the possibility of additional bedrooms in the inclusionary units and whether the inclusionary units could now be scattered with the new developer. Mr. Langfeldt said there are still on-going negotiations, and they can’t stipulate the unit mix. The challenge with Champlain Housing is that they couldn’t meet the timeline so the inclusionary building could be front-loaded. He added that with more bedrooms, there could be fewer inclusionary units. He added that the new developer will use the same funding sources as Champlain Housing. Ms. Dooley was pleased that the inclusionary building will be done early. Mr. Albrecht felt there are a lot of parking spaces provided. Mr. Gill said they talked a lot about this. There are about 1.5 spaces per unit, which is the industry standard. 320 are underground. Ms. Keene said the city got out of the parking game a year ago because developers know what they need. Mr. Gill said they continue to discuss and revise parking. At this time, the 1.5 metric is correct. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-21-13. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Minutes of 6 April 2021: The Minutes of 6 April 2021 were unanimously approved by common consent. 9. Other Business: Mr. Albrecht thanked Ms. Keene for the staff comments on very complex projects. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:35 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___.