Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 07/06/2022 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 July 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; J. Stern, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B. Brown, Planning Department; C. Orben, C. Mack, F. & T. Cresta, R. Dickinson, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, S. Homsted, F. van Boden, D. Slabough 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 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: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Ms. Philibert reminded the public to note their attendance on the provided sheet or electronically. This is required in order to appeal a decision of the DRB. 5. Miscellaneous application #MS-22-03 of Fernando Cresta to alter the existing grade for consistency with adjoining properties. The improvements consist of regrading the backyard with 8-12 inches of topsoil, 410 Golf Course Road: Ms. Philibert noted that currently the applicant is in violation of the zoning ordinance. On jurisdictional grounds, the Board had revoked the Administrative Officer’s approval to grade the backyard. The Crestas had put in some fill. Their options are to remove it or apply to the Board to add it. Mr. Kochman asked if the opponents (neighbors) were present. They were not. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Kochman then asked if staff is satisfied there are no drainage issues. Ms. Keene said they are. The plan makes it clear there will be no drainage issues. She showed the plan. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close MS-22-03. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-22-10 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 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family, duplex and 3-family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres, 18 commercial development logs totaling 39.8 acres and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert noted that this is a very big project, and the Board will get through as much as possible at this meeting. She also noted that she is a resident of O’Brien Hillside but felt she has no conflict of interest. Ms. Wyman noted that her company had been hired during the preliminary hearing but is no longer involved, and she felt there was no conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert said the main focus of discussion will be on the reasons that changes were made from what was approved at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Gill showed a rendering of the overview of the project. He said the project area is about 100 acres falling into 4 zoning districts (R12, R1-PRD, C1-SLR, and Mixes IC). 155 dwelling units are now being proposed. Commercial and industrial density will be regulated by lot coverage. They are estimating 400,000 sq. ft. of office/medical use, a possible hotel, retail and senior housing. The initial phase will encompass 34% of the residential density and 6% of the total development intensity based on project traffic impacts. Mr. Gill then showed project rendering from different points of view. He indicated a triplex home and alley-loaded homes as well as cottage housing at what used to be 100 Old Farm Road. Ms. Philibert asked what makes it “cottage housing.” Mr. Langfeldt said the square footage. Mr. Gill then identified the open spaces and indicated a new orientation of Old Farm Road. Another overview identified the multi-family buildings just approved by the DRB and open space to include a playground. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 PAGE 3 Mr. Kochman asked about residential acreage. Mr. Langfeldt said about 40 acres. Mr. Gill added that 38% is R-1. Mr. Kochman asked if this is a single PUD. Ms. Keene said it is not. She indicated the Hillside PUD and what is being reviewed now. Mr. Gill showed a perspective of the open spaces. Mr. Kochman asked whether all open space is available to all residents. Mr. Langfeldt said it is, and that includes the general public. Mr. Gill said the one exception is the barn area and one trail near the barn. Mr. Langfeldt stated that they are working on an agreement with the city. Ms. Keene added staff is meeting internally regarding the city taking over the open spaces. Mr. Gill noted this has the support of the Parks & Recreation Committee. Mr. Kochman said he sees a “bump coming down the road.” Ms. Keene noted that applicant’s proposal is a paradigm shift for the city though it is not a bad idea. Typically, the city does not own open spaces that are part of a neighborhood. This will eventually be a City Council decision. Mr. Gill then showed the planned barn redevelopment and open space with it. This will include a picnic pavilion and potential for a skating rink with flooding in winter. Mr. Langfeldt said they will take down the addition to the barn on the south side. There is currently no planned use for the barn. Mr. Gill then showed a rendering of the dog park area, designed with recommendations from the Dog Park Committee. It was reduced a bit in size from preliminary plat due to archaeological concerns. It is about an acre or more. Mr. Langfeldt said the dog park was planned before any housing, so there would be no issues with people who didn’t know it would be there. Mr. Gill said it is on the Kimball Avenue frontage, across from the Association for the Blind building. Mr. Gill then showed renderings of a walking path with exercise equipment along the route. Ms. Keene said the city would have a concern with the exercise equipment. Mr. Gill then addressed a key change regarding the Tilley Drive recreation path connection. They tried to secure permission to construct a rec path across the neighboring property but were unsuccessful. The portion of the path the applicant now proposes to build has been redesigned (he showed this on a plan) adjacent to the Medical Center project. The path is now located entirely on O’Brien property behind houses and connects to Tilley Drive on Lot 2. A sidewalk is proposed on Old Farm Road. It meanders in order to address neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Gill noted the project is under appeal because of that condition. The Court is delaying a decision until a Final Plat is approved. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 PAGE 4 Ms. Keene then indicated the alternate path being proposed. Mr. Gill said it will enable the Medical Center project to continue that path. He showed a slide with that indicated. Ms. Keene said UVM will be required to provide a connection to the future planned road (which is on the official city map). The path being proposed should contemplate that roadway and a connection from the path. Mr. Gill said they have no permission to build on the adjacent property. Ms. Keene asked the Board to consider whether what the applicant is proposing is a good alternative. Ms. Wyman noted the Medical Center would have to have that on their plan and build their portion. Mr. Langfeldt said they have proposed this to UVM but have had no response as yet. He stressed that they are trying to be flexible, but the cost should not be all their responsibility. Regarding the location of the stormwater pond, Mr. Gill said they had originally proposed only one area, but it has proven to be an archaeologically sensitive area, and the pond can’t be put there. There was nowhere else they could put just one pond, so they are now showing 2. Mr. Gill indicated the locations on the plan. They have also added some homes around the ponds (he showed a rendering of this). Most of the homes are 3-story, alley-loaded. There is one lot for a larger future building. The wetlands are gravel, and they will not normally have water in them. Mr. Gill then showed a conceptual rendering of how commercial development could occur around the pond at the corner. Regarding changes at 100 Old Farm Road, Mr. Gill indicated an existing house that was rendered unusable by a weather event. He showed how that area will be laid out to preserve existing trees. They can fit 5 small cottages here with a sidewalk in front of them. There will be a retaining walk along 3 of the houses similar to the boulder wall at Hillside. Mr. Gill noted there will be 8 more units built in the initial phase but no more than the original total. Regarding the barn redevelopment plan, Mr. Gill said the plans have not changed substantially. He noted the DRB supported the plan laid out on 6 April 2021 and at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Kochman asked if the barn could be an entertainment space. Mr. Langfeldt said that is a possibility. They are open to ideas for a “quasi-public” use. Ms. Keene said that will have to be ironed out before closing final plat. Mr. Gill said there will be an access agreement for public use, but the O’Briens will maintain it. He noted that the house adjacent to the barn is privately owned and is not part of the project. Mr. Gill then addressed traffic planning. He stressed that there have been no reductions in infrastructure improvements due to the conclusion of the Tilley Drive study. Mr. Langfeldt said DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 PAGE 5 they were told to eliminate the widening of roads, etc., because that does not gibe with the city’s desire to reduce vehicle travel. Mr. Gill then reviewed the history of the traffic study. There are 1890 peak hour pm trips for the whole project. Staff recommended they meet with city staff regarding the conclusions of the traffic study. The city did not want all the road widening, and they were told to look at the Tilley Drive study which they did. Mr. Gill said they could not build their whole project without the road widening. They thought they should scale back to a partial build with 1307 peak hour trip ends. They hope that in time conditions change so the remaining development may be permitted without intersection improvement. Mr. Dickinson reviewed the history of the traffic studies including the “pull-back” to the current street scenario. They came up with a partial build scenario without extensive road widening. Mr. Dickinson said Kimball Avenue can currently accommodate 3 lanes, so adding a turn lane is just a restriping situation. The analysis also showed future connections will help improve the situation, but they are not essential to the revised plan. Mr. Kochman moved to impose an updated traffic study technical review. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Keene asked what the Board wants the applicant to do regarding the Tilley Drive connection. Mr. Albrecht said he would like an update on the discussions with the Med Center. Mr. Langfeldt said he didn’t know how they can accomplish this unless it is brought up by the DRB at the review of the Medical Center project. Mr. Albrecht said the applicant has done what they can on their land. He felt it was up to the city to talk with the Med Center about their land. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t agree entirely. There was a representation made at preliminary plat, and the applicant should assume some of the burden. Mr. Albrecht asked if they should ask for a copy of the email sent to the Med Center. Ms. Keene said the decision made by the Board was predicated on that assumption. Mr. Gill said if there is a requirement for connectivity, isn’t there the same burden on the Med Center. Mr. Langfeldt said they are building their fair share as other developers are doing. Mr. Gill said the original plan is still on the table, but the other owner refuses to allow it. Ms. Keene asked the applicant to succinctly frame what they are asking for. Mr. Langfeldt said “take it up with the Med Center at their next hearing.” Mr. Albrecht said the Board can only consider the part of the development that the applicant has control over. Ms. Philibert asked when the Med Center project will be heard again. Ms. Keene said they are on the next agenda. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Kochman questioned whether it is acceptable to remove that concept from the approved preliminary plat. Mr. Langfeldt said they are going beyond what the city is asking for at another location. Members suggested getting back to this discussion after the next meeting with the UVM Med Center. The applicant then addressed staff comment #5, relating to the design of the sidewalk on Old Farm Road. Mr. Gill said they worked hard to preserve mature trees and not diminish the character of Old Farm Road. They looked at every tree, and this is the design said they came up with because they were protecting the giant trees the residents asked them to save. Mr. Gill said it may be harder for Public Works to plow, but it is what they were asked to do. Mr. Langfeldt said they are at a point where the residents are accepting the design because it protects the vegetation. Mr. Kochman said he completely accepts the applicant’s point of view in this situation. Since they did what the DRB told them to do, the Board should accept the design. Mr. Homsted noted that the “jogs” are at driveways and where there is drainage. Ms. Keene said DPW is concerned with maintenance, and the DRB objective is to preserve trees. Mr. Gill said they will try to come up with a solution that works for everyone. Regarding the end of the sidewalk, Mr. Gill said they ended it where the preliminary plat asked them to. DPW’s request is to go up to Tilley Drive (Ms. Keene indicated on the plan where that would be). Mr. Langfeldt said they don’t feel that is their responsibility. He noted that the Red Barn Market didn’t build a connection. They built a path to nowhere. This plan is built to the line drawn at preliminary plat. Mr. Kochman supported the applicant’s position and said he saw no value to added connectivity and did not support DPW. Ms. Keene agreed it is not this developer’s responsibility, but she didn’t think it was valueless. The gap is 100 feet, and it has a “weird flavor.” Ms. Philibert said that is the city’s problem, not the applicant’s. Mr. Albrecht agreed and said if it’s a city priority, the city should build it. Regarding coverage (staff comment #9) Ms. Keene said it was about coverage generally. Mr. Gill noted that if they reduce the number of units in R-1 they will lose an affordable unit. He did note 2 place on the road and sidewalk where coverage can be reduced, and he said they supported that. Ms. Keene noted that 146,000 sq. ft. of road is 30% of coverage in the R-1. Mr. Gill noted they were told to build to the property line. Ms. Keene asked if the Board would entertain a proposal. Ms. Philibert had no problem with that. Mr. Gill said they would like a little cushion so there is no future issue. He recalled that Healthy Living couldn’t put in a sculpture because they had no coverage left. Members were OK with asking the applicant to come back with numbers for removal of public rights-of-way from lot coverage. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 JULY 2022 PAGE 7 Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Wyman moved to continue SD-22-10 until 7 September 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Minutes of 21 June 2022: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the minutes of 21 June 2022 as written. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Kochman abstaining. 8. Other Business: Ms. Keene reminded members that the Board will take its usual August recess for the second meeting in August. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:35 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on August 2, 2022