Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_2021-07-06 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JULY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a site visit 5:30 PM at the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road to review the following. 1. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-20-40 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on nine (9) lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen (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. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert (Chair), E. Eiring (Clerk), J. Langan, M. Behr, F. Kochman. OTHERS PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Dir. Of Planning & Zoning; C. Frank, Bike/Ped Committee; B. Britt, Bike/Ped Committee; B. Armstrong; J. Henning; M. Weiner; T. Forest; D. Dickey; B. Bouchard; J. Wilking; J. & J. Gates; A. Gill. The attendees met at the corner of Old Farm Road and Hinesburg Road. Ms. Philibert and Mr. Conner, acting as Hearing Officer, went over procedure. The attendees walked northwards on Old Farm Rd to look at site features. The Chair then announced that the hearing will continue of July 20th. The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 July 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Leban, T. McKenzie, K. Braverman, A. Rowe, B. Currier, C. Snyder, Dave 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: There was no one from the public present, so no evacuation procedures were presented. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JULY 2021 PAGE 2 Ms. Keene noted there had been a request from Donna Leban to discuss the Old Farm Road application. That will be on the 20 July agenda, and her comments can be heard at that time. 4. Announcements: Ms. Philibert welcomed returning DRB member Frank Kochman. Ms. Philibert also reminded attendees to sign the virtual sign-in or record their presence via email to Ms. Keene in order to gain party status should they wish to appeal a decision of the Board. 5. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-18 of Snyder-Braverman Development Co., LLC, to subdivide an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of 1.0 acres (LotM4), 1.2 acres (Lot M5), 0.4 acres 9Lot M6) and 9.4 acres (Lot L) for the purpose of constructing a project on lots M4, M5 and M6 which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 311 Market Street: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of and combination of preliminary and final plats. Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Braverman explained that this is a 4-lot subdivision. Three lots will be developable (a total of 2.6 acres). Lot L is a conservation lot, mainly a wetland. The property is located in the T4 transect of City Center. The subdivision is predominantly on the southwest corner of Garden and Market Streets. Mr. Braverman said they are in agreement with most of staff’s comments. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted the slight alteration of description from the warned description. The Board confirmed they felt this is not an issue for anyone. #2. & 3. Regarding whether shared access easements for all lots must be in place prior to closing the hearing. Mr. Braverman said this is not an issue. They would like to propose that for items 2, 3, and 4, as they build, there will be shared design elements, and rather than describing them on the plat, that the make a note on the plat that they exist. These relate to such things as parking aisles, driveways, etc. Ms. Keene read language proposed by the applicant and said it is probably fine. She suggested language that the language be approved by the City Attorney prior to recording. Members agreed. Mr. Kochman said the City DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JULY 2021 PAGE 3 Attorney should make sure the right to park remains discrete to the parcel. Mr. McKenzie said that as the landowner, they are interested in protecting the value of future lots, so they want to be sure access is not restricted in any sense. Mr. Kochman said the Board needs to be sure who parks where. Mr. Braverman said it is there understanding that there are no minimum parking requirements, only maximums. He felt they have a balanced parking that meets the density. Buildings will all have underground parking available to residents, and there is on-street parking as well. Mr. Kochman asked if there could be different owners of lots. Mr. Braverman said that is not the plan, but it could happen. Mr. Kochman felt there was an issue if you can or cannot “cross-park.” Mr. Braverman said they have followed the code. Ms. Keene said the subdivision of land is subject to subdivision review. At this time, the applicant doesn’t know if people on M5 can’t park on M4. In the past, when there is a needed change to an easement such as the right to park, there could be a boundary line adjustment or a decision to address it at a later time. Mr. Kochman said it has to be resolved some time, and he would consider whether it seems appropriate to him to do it administratively. #4. Regarding how Lot M6 will be provided with parking. Mr. Braverman said they can develop multiple kinds of housing on that lot. It was their intention for that lot to have frontage on Market Street and the city park. They have no intention to build a high density building on that site. Ms. Keene asked if members felt that is sufficient. She noted that “adequacy of parking” is the standard and acknowledged it is a very thin standard. She suggested “putting a pin in it” and discussing it more before the next application. Mr. Braverman suggested saying one parking space per unit. He was very comfortable with that as anything less than that is not marketable. Mr. Albrecht said that sounded OK to him. #5. Regarding whether the alignment of the easement matches the alignment of the recreation path. Mr. Braverman said they agree. This is the area where they received an OK from the Army Corps and A & R regarding wetlands. The language gives flexibility for 20 feet in either direction for connection. Mr. Rowe noted the path curves, and the intent is to have point A line up with point B. #6. Regarding whether the plat should be modified to include easements. Mr. Braverman said they have no problem with this. Mr. Rowe said they took the city’s concept plan and overlaid it on the plan, and Mr. McKenzie had no problem with the easements. #7. Regarding whether the application include on the plat easements for a list of features. Mr. McKenzie said they are in disagreement with this. They are willing to provide the connection, but will not assume the liability of an easement for a treehouse. He did not feel that anything in the regulations obligates them to do so. He noted that the City can take the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JULY 2021 PAGE 4 entirety of the wetland corridor and noted that the design of the park was based on the city owning that land. Mr. Behr asked why this didn’t come up at sketch. Mr. McKenzie said there was a long discussion regarding connections. An easement for a treehouse was never put forth. He said he agreed to donate the land to the city, and the city would then design the park. Mr. Behr asked where the city stands on this proposal. Ms. Keene said that matters of policy are the City Council and City Manager’s decision. It is her understanding the that city’s most recent position is not to accept ownership of those lands. Mr. Albrecht said it would be a lot cleaner if the city did own the land. Ms. Philibert agreed. Mr. Behr said this is a political discussion. The Board just needs to decide how to go forward. He felt kind of “stuck.” Mr. Kochman said he felt that as the city is unwilling to assume the liability for an amenity it wants, if the Board imposes that stipulation on the developer and making him liability for that amenity, it is illegal. Mr. Langan agreed. Mr. Kochman said any condition imposed by the DRB has to be “reasonable,” and this is unreasonable. He felt the Court would find that as well. Ms. Keene asked if a piece could be subdivided out that the city would accept for the treehouse. Mr. Kochman said that would be great, but the DRB can’t impose it. #8. Regarding whether there should be sidewalks across the entrances on the east side of the building on Lot M6. Mr. Braverman said they are comfortable with that. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SD-21-18. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-21-17 of Brendan Connolly to amend a previously approved planned unit development of three lots by subdividing an existing 8.0 acre lot developed with a single family home into three lots of 0.5 acres (Lot 4), 0.5 acres (Lot 5) and 9.0 acres (Lot 1), for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of lots 4 and 5, 1 Johnson Way: Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. Mr. Currier noted that the project has received Interim Zoning approval. He located the property at the southern corner of Sadie Lane in the Village Residential District. Lots 4 and 5 would be accessed by a driveway off Sadie Lane. The properties would have municipal utilities. A wetland on the property will be marked off by a split rail fence. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff notes front and side lot lines and setbacks are shown incorrectly. Mr. Currier said they will correct this for final plat. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JULY 2021 PAGE 5 #2. Regarding height from pre-construction grade for final plat. Mr. Currier said they will provide that. #3. Staff notes that a written management plan for the wetland hasn’t been provided and was requested by the Board for preliminary plat during the sketch plan meeting. Mr. Currier said they are showing a split rail fence. They don’t have a specific plan, but can provide one by final plat. Members asked if there was a specific requirement to provide it at preliminary plat. Ms. Keene noted the standard is not specific as to preliminary or final plat. Mr. Kochman said if it isn’t in the regulations, he’s OK with it. #4. Regarding fire suppression systems vs. designing for fire truck access. Mr. Currier said they can design the driveways to support a fire truck. There is a hydrant on the corner of Sadie Lane. He noted the regulations say you don’t need sprinklers if you are within 150 feet of the road. He was happy to have a conversation with the Fire Chief. Ms. Keene said if if Chief Francis is OK with the driveway remaining the width as shown with an extra 6 inches of gravel, she’s OK with it, but expressed concerns about a widened driveway. #5. Regarding whether lots 4 and 5 should be reconfigured so the wetlands are not part of the lots. Mr. Currier reviewed the history of the project. He said that in the spirit of Interim Zoning, they truncated the lots to exclude much of the wetlands. He noted that lots on Dorset St. and Sadie Lane go all the way back through the wetland. They would like to keep it that way, and the State wetland program fully supports this layout and say that wetland is fully protected. #6. Regarding whether houses should be required to face west as discussed at sketch. Mr. Currier said they actually do face west; the error is in the elevations. Garages will be side-loaded. Ms. Keene was OK with this. #7. Regarding whether the home on Lot 4 should have a street-facing presence to the north because it is on a corner. Mr. Currier said the homeowner might want to build further back from the rec path, so that would be an issue. He also didn’t feel it is a “corner” as it abuts a lot. He added that there is screening along the northern property line as requested. Mr. Behr didn’t feel the 2 street-facing presences were needed. Ms. Eiring and Mr. Albrecht agreed. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to close SD-21-17. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JULY 2021 PAGE 6 7. Minutes of 15 June 2021: The minutes of 15 June were not presented. 8. 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 8:38 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___.