Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2021-09-08 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 8 September 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market 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; B. Roberts, E. Suljanovic, S. Behar, L. Yankowski, N. Smith, M. Abrams, S. Baker, L. Vera, B. Bless, A. Morwood, D. Goodman 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #8 to before item #6 2. Emergency Evacuation Instructions: Ms. Keene provided instruction for emergency evacuation of the building. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Reconsideration of Miscellaneous Application #MS-21-01 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works to construct a dog park on the northwest corner of Wheeler Nature Park. The project involves impacts to Class III wetland and wetland buffers: Staff advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 19 October. Mr. Albrecht moved to continue MS-21-03 to 19 October 2021. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAGE 2 6. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-21-19 of 600 Spear Street, LLC, for a planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7,000 sq. ft. storage building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four-family buildings, a 1.23 acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear Street: and 7. (previously #8) Miscellaneous permit application #MS-21-04 of Larkin Realty for stream alteration and stormwater drainage modification, 1195 Shelburne Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself during these items due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Keene noted that applicant for item #6 requested a continuance to 19 October, and the applicant for item #7 today requested a continuance but did not provide a date. She suggested 5 October. Ms. Keene also noted she received a letter of interest in this project from the Holmes Road neighborhood, which will be posted with the packet. Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD-21-19 to 19 October 2021 and MS-21-04 to 5 October 2021. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary plat application #SD-21-22 of Hickory Hillside, LLC, to subdivide an approximately 67.6 acre parcel into three lots of 66.4 acres (Lot 1), 0.6 acres (Lot 2), and 0.6 acres (Lot 3) for the purpose of constructing a single family home on each of Lots 1, 2 and 3, and conserving the unbuilt portion of Lot 1, 47 Cheesefactory Road: Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Smith noted that they have met with the State wetland program. The Class 3 wetland has been reclassified as a Class 2 wetland with buffer. The wetland is exempt from State regulation because it is in agricultural use. As long as there is no impact to the wetland, there will be no buffer, and they are avoiding the wetland. The State has no issues with this. Mr. Smith also noted they have removed a lot of the stormwater infrastructure and are now below the half- acre. They will maintain as much disconnected impervious as possible. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAGE 3 1. Staff questioned whether the dotted line represents a building envelope and whether there is an intention to have the building locations be flexible. Mr. Smith said the intention is to have flexibility as to where to locate the houses. They are requesting a building envelope and will show it on the next plans. 2. Staff asked if the Board felt additional mitigation of the wetland buffer impacts was needed. If it is not sufficient, there may be simple changes possible. Mr. Albrecht asked whether the State wetlands program had any issues. Ms. Keene said they did not. Because the wetlands are not in agricultural use, the state does not have jurisdiction of the wetland. For City purposes, there are impacts to the buffer. Ms. Keene showed a plan with the wetlands and buffer identified. Mr. Albrecht asked if there is an existing curb cut at the buffer. Mr. Smith said there is not. He added that to the east there is ledge and there are also sight distance issues. If they move east, there will be a lot of blasting required. Mr. Smith added that they have a culvert that discharges into the wetland buffer. It is not a large drainage area. They will be providing a small amount of landscaping at the edge of the buffer impacts to delineate the area. Mr. Albrecht asked where the farm laborer dwellings will be. Mr. Smith said the lots are located where they are not usable for agriculture because of ledge and grading. They are trying to provide buffering from Cheesefactory Road. Mr. Albrecht asked if there is an internal drive. Mr. Smith said there is for lot #1. To get from the house to the farm, you have to use Cheesefactory Rd. Ms. Keene said they could build a path which would qualify as “agriculture,” and there would be no required permitting from the City. 3. Staff noted there is no fencing proposed to demarcate the wetland buffer and asked if the Board felt it should be required. Mr. Albrecht noted that if this were regular housing it would be required. Mr. Smith said it will remain in agricultural use. He suggested the possibility of another row of trees. 4. Staff asked whether the road should be reduced to 18 feet wide to make the turn into the private road more difficult. Mr. Smith said that could create a bottleneck at Cheesefactory Rd., and the reduction of impact to the buffer would be negligible. Ms. Philibert suggested thinking about that for final plat. 5. Staff asked whether to consider requiring reduction in the width of lots. Mr. Albrecht suggested doing a single septic system for all three lots. Mr. Smith DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAGE 4 said they are discussing that and are looking at what will be the most efficient. There could be a shared easement for all the lots. Ms. Keene said the purpose of lot requirements is to create a neighborhood feel. Having the lots closer together would give that feeling. Mr. Albrecht asked if this is being approved as farm housing or single family housing. Mr. Albrecht said he didn’t want to see this become open rentals. Ms. Keene said 3 lots can be single family housing any way they want to do it; the LDRs don’t allow further restrictions, but there are some restrictions on the use because of the Land Trust easement. Mr. Albrecht noted the city has put a lot of money into this project, and farm laborer housing is what it should be. Mr. Bless said the city’s money doesn’t go to Bread & Butter Farm; it goes to conservation. This plan is what the Farm needs to do to thrive. He said he would call it “farm community housing.” The intent is not for them to be vehicles for revenue but to be part of the farm community in perpetuity. He asked that this be reviewed as any other project would be reviewed, and noted their intention is to minimize impacts. They’re only subdividing in order to meet City standards; the land under the homes will be conserved. Ms. Philibert said it would behoove the farm to have housing available to farm workers. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert moved to close SD-21-22. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Langan rejoined the Board. 9. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-21 of Donald and Lois Kerwin to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development of two lots. The amendment is to subdivide Lot 2 (0.83 acres) into three lots of 0.28 acres each in order to develop a single family home on each, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Roberts said each lot will have its own driveway. Two houses would share one well. The third house will have its own well. There is municipal sewer. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Staff asked the applicant to clarify that all lots are 12,000 sq. ft. Mr. Roberts said that is the case. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAGE 5 2. Staff asked the Board to consider whether the scrub trees need preservation. Mr. Roberts said they plan to remove those trees for utilities. They are not well maintained, and a fresh start will be good. Ms. Philibert asked if there will be new trees. Mr. Roberts said they are not planning that. Ms. Keene said options are available to the Board. Mr. Albrecht said he was OK with the 3 separate lots, but he felt there could be minimal clearing or new plantings so as not to shock the neighbors. He suggested the possibility of trees at the corners of the lots. Ms. Keene said that since this is a PUD, the Board can place whatever it wants. Ms. Philibert and Ms. Eiring agreed with the need for some trees. Ms. Keene said there is no issue with planting in the city’s right-of-way but not in the ditch. Trees could also be on the applicant’s property. Ms. Philibert suggested putting them on the applicant’s property so there isn’t a potential conflict with a future sidewalk. 3. Regarding values in the Vermont wetland rules, Ms. Keene outlined the values. Mr. Roberts said the State wetland people came out and said the wetlands are “not of significant value.” He added that the project will extend the foundation drain to the new swale. Ms. Keene stressed that the Board needs to determine whether the impacts to the functions and values, however minimal, are acceptable. She noted the wetland does have some minimal function. She did not know how removing water from the wetland helps mitigate the impact. She indicated the wetland and buffer on the plan. Mr. Albrecht felt there should be mitigation and asked whether additional landscaping at the back of the lot would help. Ms. Keene said mitigation should be tailored to the function of the wetland. Mr. Albrecht asked if the houses would have a drainage system. Mr. Roberts said they will have foundation drains. Ms. Wyman said that essentially the wetland will go away. The foundation drain will go to the swale. Ms. Keene questioned whether there is enough information to decide whether it is worth “jumping through hoops to protect this wetland.” Members felt they need more information. 4. Staff noted that driveway drainage does not meet city standards. This will have to be addressed before closing the hearing. Mr. Roberts said Mr. Rabidoux agreed there is not enough elevation for an 18” culvert. He agreed to 15”. There will be a 2-inch cover over the pipe. Ms. Wyman said the plan doesn’t look like that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAGE 6 5. The homes on lots 2, 3, and 4 will be oriented to Highland Terrace, and very few windows are shown. Regulations require that 35% of the windows should be oriented to the south. She noted that applicant has covered the “musts,” but the Board can ask for more glazing. Mr. Albrecht said the garages still look like the dominant feature, almost like a commercial building. He asked if the houses could be larger do the garages don’t look so dominant. Mr. Roberts said the houses are to the “to build” line, but there is room to make them wider. Ms. Philibert was concerned with the lack of glazing and wanted it closer to the standard. Ms. Keene noted there is language regarding building width, but the Board can modify that criteria. What is shown is the standard set by the Planning Commission; if the Board imposes different criteria, they are taking on a “policy role.” The standard is “no less than 12 foot building width.” Ms. Keene noted that the Board can require 35% glazing oriented to the south, but with less overall glazing the applicant can meet that standard. Members agreed they would like to come closer to the standard. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Abrams asked how much consideration is given to the impact on long-established neighborhoods. He said the street had long lots running to the east, but today there are mixed neighborhood developments. Highland Terrace used to be very quiet with green space on the west side of the street. That has now been torn out. He asked that access to the lots be from Hinesburg Road. He was also concerned with multiple driveways. He felt existing neighborhoods should be grandfathered against “character change.” Mr. Albrecht noted that the by-laws set the parameters for development, and this development meets those parameters. He said this is a “neighborhood residential” area. Mr. Abrams said there should be more detail as to what goes into a neighborhood. Ms. Philibert said the Board needs more information regarding wetlands and glazing and felt the application should be continued. Mr. Albrecht moved to continue SD-21-21 to 5 October. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 8 SEPTEMBER 2021 PAGE 7 10. Minutes of 20 July and 3 August 2021: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 20 July and 3 August 2021 as written. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: Ms. Keene reminded members that there will be no meeting on 21 September. The next DRB meeting will be on 5 October. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.