Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 08/21/2018
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 AUGUST 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 August 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Planner; Sgt. D. Dubie, Police Department; J. Desautels, B. Bless, D. Heil, S. Collins, C. Trusdale, J. Morway, C. Pierce, H. Saunders, E. Abrams, J. Doig, C. Gardner, T. Carpenter, D. Burke, T. Barnes, P. Ewing, J. Tanguay, B. Howard, P. Senesac 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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: There were no announcements. 5. Suspicious Behavior and Safety Refresher presentation by Sergeant Douglas Dubie: Sgt. Dubie explained that he is involved in crisis planning for the city, and a recent event at City Hall raised the question of what constitutes “suspicious behavior.” Sgt. Dubie stressed that “people” are not suspicious; behavior is. Sgt. Dubie then enumerated some types of behavior that should alert people that something “suspicious” may be happening. These include: a. Looking around for exits b. Looking for where backup may come from c. Looking for where cameras or folks with cell phones may be located d. Avoiding security cameras e. Avoiding witnesses with phones f. Asking inappropriate questions regarding building layout, employees, security, etc. g. Sweating h. Repeated entrances and exits from building i. Repeated phrases/muttering j. The “thousand yard stare” or “tunnel vision” k. Hands in pockets (where there might be a weapon) l. Favoring/adjusting clothes m. Keeping one side turned away n. Continually grabbing/adjusting the same article of clothing o. Repeated glancing at clothing p. Carrying odd packages q. Leaving packages behind Sgt. Dubie stressed that factors such as race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc. are not suspicious in and of themselves. It is behavior that is suspicious. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-18-25 of Mitchwartz Properties, LLC, to combine two lots into one lot for the purpose of constructing a project on the combined parcel, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 321 and 325 Dorset Street: Ms. Desautels said they will be removing the property line between the two properties. The previous buildings on the lots have been demolished. Mr. Miller noted receipt of letters regarding parking and explained that parking is not one of the review criteria for this application. In answer to an audience question, Ms. Desautels said the proposed building on the combined lots will be a mixed use 2-story building with medical offices on the first floor and apartments above. No issues were raised by the Board or public. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-18-25. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Continued Miscellaneous Application #MS-18-03 of Elizabeth Pierce to confirm the presence and salability of Transfer of Development Rights on lots A, B and C, 1731 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Keene noted the City Attorney had advised that this was within the purview of the DRB to review. Mr. Kochman said the City Attorney found the facts to be analogous so the DRB would not be rendering an “advisory opinion” (which is not allowed) but a “declaratory judgment.” He was concerned that the City Attorney did not provide any of the facts upon which she made her decision. He felt that if the DRB has that information, it can be inserted into the Board’s decision. Mr. Miller felt the DRB can get that. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has asked to change the wording in paragraph 4B to read “remove or add” instead of “encumber.” Mr. Bless questioned the time-line to get the application approved. Ms. Keene said the revisions can be done for the next meeting (4 September). Mr. Bless asked if there can be a special meeting before that date for a decision. Mr. Miller said they would see how quickly they can get a response from the City Attorney. A member of the applicant’s team said time is of the essence as the Auclairs have already extended the contract, and they want the lenders to feel secure in going ahead. Mr. Wilking moved to close MS-18-03. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-26 of Gardner Construction, Inc., to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 5.8 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately six lots for the purpose of a 23 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 17 detaches dingle family homes, six units in two family dwellings, and one existing single family home, 1398 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Burke noted the project was before the Board in 2016. It involves two parcels, both of which are now owned by the Gardners. There is also a view corridor issue to be followed up on. An existing driveway serves the existing home. A temporary turnaround from Wildflower Drive is on this property. Mr. Burke said the main design features are set. To the north of the entrance road, there is a Class 2 wetland which will have a minor impact from a sidewalk. The road will be public and will meet public road requirements. They will not remove the existing home, but will update it. The main change from the 2016 plan is the narrowing of the road to match Wildflower Drive. Mr. Burke noted the state’s wetland person feels what is shown is the best place for the road. A wetland permit will be required. Mr. Burke identified a “wet spot,” classified as a Class 3 wetland. This and another Class 3 wetland will be impacted. Mr. Burke showed where stormwater will go into a “gravel wetland.” He said this will be an improvement over what is there now. Mr. Burke then identified where they plan to place the six units the same size as those on Kirby Road that were to be demolished. The city has expressed the desire to save these units. Mr. Burke identified the single story duplexes in connection with view protection issues. He felt the view protection line should be modified to protect the view and not just to follow the lot line as it now does. Mr. Burke also noted the Gardners have TDRs which will allow the number of proposed units. They will meet all the setback requirements. Mr. Miller noted that if the Kirby Rd. units are removed, what replaces them will not be affordable. Mr. Burke said they are willing to do the 6 Kirby units and are open to anything in that corner. The 6 Kirby units would be perpetually affordable, and there would be bonuses that go along with that. Mr. Wilking said he would like input from the Affordable Housing Committee. Mr. Kochman said his concern was having the 6 affordable units segregated from the “regular” people. Mr. Burke didn’t feel that on this site that issue was so relevant as those units are an integral part of everything. They are not “poor people” housing, but will cost less because of their size. Mr. Burke said they will follow-up with the Fire Chief regarding sprinklering the buildings or not. Mr. Kochman raised the “common land” issue and said he would vote against “footprint lots” which he believes are illegal. Mr. Miller noted that is a minority opinion on the Board. Ms. Keene showed a possible realignment to achieve open space within the 2 roadways. Mr. Burke felt that alignment doesn’t make sense. Mr. Wilking felt the roadway makes sense and wasn’t in favor of changing it. Mr. Burke asked about timing for the Planning Commission hearing and said that would be an issue. Ms. Keene said the Planning Commission will be hearing the request at its first October meeting, and it would take 4-6 months for any change to be implemented. Mr. Kochman said the question is when rights vest in connection with a zoning issue. Ms. Keene said rights vest at Preliminary Plat. Therefore the applicant wouldn’t want the Preliminary Plat to be submitted until after Planning Commission action. Mr. Miller said he favors more density in the Southeast Quadrant to make homes more affordable; otherwise it’s just “people who can afford non‐ affordable homes.” Mr. Wilking felt it works in South Village, but here there is a roadway with single family homes butting into smaller homes. He felt this may not be the place for that much density. Mr. Kochman said he generally agrees with Mr. Miller, but he doesn’t love the layout and doesn’t have the knowledge to make it more of what he would like. Mr. Burke stressed that this is a 5.8 acre project, not like other projects. The geometry is fixed. He also noted they are supposed to be providing a mix of housing, not everything the same. Ms. Dopp said she was glad to see the city is mindful of the Kirby Cottages but would prefer to see them around a green as they were. Mr. Barnes, a Wildflower Drive resident, said he welcomes development on that road. His concern is how it is being done. It is not “congruent with the nature of the neighborhood.” He didn’t object to the high density and welcomed the idea of affordable housing. He also didn’t want the existing house gone. He questioned whether the common land behind units 1-5 is a wetland buffer. Mr. Burke showed what is “common land.” There will be some delineation along the wetland buffer. Mr. Barnes felt it would make more sense to have the sidewalk on the same side of the road as the common land. Mr. Burke said the common land is not designed for use. He added they originally had a crosswalk there and were asked to remove it. Ms. Doig, also a resident of Wildflower Drive, shared Mr. Barnes concerns. She questioned why there is a 30-foot setback instead of 40 feet. Mr. Burke said 30 is the regulation here; they are not looking for any waivers. The 10-foot side setback is also within the regulations. Ms. Keene suggested that “density” may actually be a layout issue. Mr. Kochman said he doesn’t like segregating the affordable units. Mr. Burke said they will look at that, but it may result in not getting all six of the Kirby units. They will work with staff on it. Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD-18-26 to 6 November 2018. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-17 of Peter Ewing to subdivide an existing 9.7 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres: Mr. Ewing noted the large conservation element to their plan. He then reviewed changes based on comments from the last hearing. They have reconfigured the road to comply with all the concerns of the Highway Department. He identified the wetland crossing at 18 feet, which is an increase from the 12 feet approved by the wetland people. Lot 2B will be conveyed to the Nature Conservancy. He identified this on the map. It abuts Muddy Brook and is part of a larger conserved area not in South Burlington. Mr. Ewing cited the cooperation of his parents, the Vermont Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy. His father has pledged a gift to conserve the land. The project is part of a 40-year effort, and they are happy to continue that effort. The goal is to acquire these parcels and convey them to UVM as study areas and to have them open to the public as well. If the property is misused, it would revert back to the Nature Conservancy. They are concerned that if South Burlington and/or Shelburne require a “conservation plan,” it will drop the value of the property below fair market value. Ms. Keene said staff is confident they can work out this “chicken and the egg” problem. Mr. Ewing stressed the aim is to keep housing away from the brook. Mr. Wilking moved to close SD-18-17. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Conditional Use Application #CU-18-09 of Joseph Tanguay to request a front setback waiver for the purpose of removing an existing one car garage and replacing with a two car garage connected to the primary residence by an enclosed breezeway, and to add a covered porch, 41 Cortland Avenue: Mr. Tanguay said the breezeway connection will contain a mudroom. Ms. Keene noted the setback requirement is 30 feet from the road. The proposal is for 5 feet, 3-1/2 inches. Mr. Tanguay said he thought the plan showed it to be 7 feet 8 inches from the roadway. Mr. Wilking noted it is non-conforming today. Ms. Keene noted the regulations allow the increase in the non-conformity. She explained the calculations show that it will be 5 feet 3-1/2 inches from the property line and noted the property is unique because it has 2 “fronts.” She also noted the impervious goes from 26.3% to 31.3%. Mr. Miller said he was OK with that. Ms. Smith asked what is going above the garage. Mr. Tanguay said they aren’t doing anything with that for a while. Ms. Keene noted it could not be developed into a accessory dwelling unit without approval. Ms. Howard asked where snow would go. Ms. Keene said Public Works was asked about that and said there won’t be any problems. Ms. Senesac asked if the structure will come any further back because of the porch. Ms. Keene said it will actually be less further back than the existing patio and the same as the existing building. Mr. Wilking moved to close CU-18-09. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Minutes of 7 August 2018: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 7 August 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12. 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 9:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on September 4, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #SD‐18‐25 Findings of Fact and Decision CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MITCHWARTZ PROPERTIES, LLC. 321 325 MARKET STREET FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD‐18‐25 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 1 1 of 4 Final plat application #SD‐18‐25 of Mitchwartz Properties, LLC to combine two lots into one lot for the purpose of constructing a project on the combined parcel, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 321 and 325 Dorset Street. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday August 21, 2018. Jennifer Desautels represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Project consists of combining two lots into one lot. 2. The owner of record of the subject properties is MITCHWARTZ Properties, LLC. 3. The application was received on July 3, 2018. 4. The subject property is located in the Form Based Code District Transect Zone 4. 5. The plans submitted consist of two (2) pages, including the following sheets. C1‐01 Subdivision Plat Dr. Mitchell Schwartz 2/20/2018 C2‐01 Overall Site Plan 6/1/2018 6. The Sketch Plan application (#SD‐18‐22) for this project was heard by the Board on August 7, 2018. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS There are no minimum lot dimensions within the T4 district. No new blocks or streets are proposed. The remainder of the district’s dimensional requirements pertain to buildings and parking and will be reviewed administratively as part of the Form Based Code site plan approval process. B) ARTICLE 13 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.06 Landscaping, Screening and Street Trees 13.14 Bicycle Parking & Storage 13.17 Fences 13.18 Utility Cabinets #SD‐18‐25 Findings of Fact and Decision 2 2 of 4 The applicant has provided a draft site plan for the purposes of showing how the development is proposed to be generally configured. The Board finds that the applicable standards of Article 13 will be reviewed as part of the site plan application for the Form Based Code district. C) 15.18 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PUDS, SUDVIDISIONS, TRANSECT ZONE SUBDIVISIONS AND MASTER PLANS Standards (1), (2), (6), and (7) pertain specifically to site design and are not applicable for review of this subdivision. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. The applicant is proposing to use an existing access drive on Brookwood Drive for the purposes of providing vehicular access to the proposed lot, and to close the existing access drive on Dorset Street. The Board finds this criterion met. (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. At this time, the applicant is not proposing any development for the parcel. The applicant has indicated that in the future, their intent is to develop the lot with a single building. No wetlands or buffers are present on the existing parcels, which today are fully developed with single structures, parking areas, and open space. The Board considers this criterion met. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. The Board finds the proposed transect zone subdivision creates lots which facilitate the type of dense development prioritized for the Form Based Code district. (6) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. No roads are proposed. The Board finds this criterion met. (7) Not applicable within Transect Zone subdivisions. (8) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific #SD‐18‐25 Findings of Fact and Decision 3 3 of 4 agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 7/31/2018 and had no concerns. The Board finds this criterion met. (9) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). The Project is located in the Central District. The objectives of the central district pertain to creation of a City Center with a strong identity and mix of uses, including residential and non‐ residential uses, open spaces areas, and centralized stormwater management features. Emphasis is given to promotion of interconnectivity which will result in minimizing parking demand. The Board finds this criterion met. (10) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. As discussed above under criterion 4, the Board finds natural resources will not be impacted by the proposed subdivision. The Board finds this criterion met. DECISION Motion by ___ seconded by ___ to approve Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐25 of MITCHWARTZ Properties, LLC., subject to the following stipulations: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) complete copies of the approved revised plan set and one electronic copy must be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plan. a. Provide the signature of the land surveyor 4. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications must be underground. 5. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. #SD‐18‐25 Findings of Fact and Decision 4 4 of 4 6. Any changes to the final plat plan will require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 7. The final plat plans (Sheets C1‐01) must be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plats shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 8. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plat must be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plan. 9. A digital file consisting of an ArcGIS or AutoCAD formatted file of the proposed subdivision, including property lines, easements, and rights of way, either georeferenced or shown in relation to four easily identifiable fixed points such as manholes, utility poles or hydrants, must be provided to the Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plan. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 10. The mylars must be recorded prior to zoning permit issuance. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Sullivan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _ Signed this ___ day of August 2018, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair PLEASE NOTE: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail with the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal also must be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐ 951‐1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. #MS‐18‐03 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ELIZABETH C PIERCE – 1731 HINESBURG ROAD MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS‐18‐03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐03 of Elizabeth Pierce to confirm the presence and salability of Transfer Development Rights on lots A, B and C, 1731 Hinesburg Road. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on August 7 and August 21, 2018. The applicant was represented by Brandon Bless. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Elizabeth Pierce, seeks to confirm the presence and salability of Transfer Development Rights on parcels A, B and C at 1731 Hinesburg Road. 2. All parcels share a common parcel ID, 0860‐01731, and therefore are distinguished by the letters A, B and C for the purpose of this application. 3. The application was received on July 6, 2018. 4. No plans were submitted with the application. 5. Parcels A and C are located entirely within the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection (SEQ‐NRP) district, while Parcel B is located partially within the SEQ‐NRP and partially within the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential (SEQ‐NR) district. Parcels A and C, and the portion of Parcel B in the SEQ‐NRP are sending areas, while the portion of Parcel B located within the SEQ‐NR district is a receiving area in the Regulations’ transfer of development rights (TDR) program. 6. According to LDR Section 9.05, all parcels within the Southeast Quadrant have a maximum assigned density of 1.2 units per acre. This maximum assigned density of 1.2 dwelling units is tied to each acre of land in the SEQ, unless and until the owner of an acre within a parcel permanently separates the maximum density assigned to that acre by the LDRs. Parcels within the SEQ‐NR district may be developed with a higher maximum average density of four units per acre, subject to the transfer of development rights from another parcel as described in LDR Section 9.13(C). 7. Previous or current owners of Parcels A, B and C have not conveyed any development rights from or to Parcels B and C, but have removed 104 development rights from Parcel A and conveyed them in two separate transactions to Dorset Street Associates, LLC and Rye Associates, LLC. #MS‐18‐03 2 8. Based on the available data regarding the areas of Parcels A, B and C, and the maximum assigned density that the current LDRs define for the SEQ District, the following table represents each parcel’s currently available development rights. Parcel A B C Size (ac) 193.90 116.14 67.82 Size Basis1 survey plat tax map tax map Base Development Rights / Maximum Assigned Density 233 139 81 Development Rights Already Removed 104 0 0 Available Development Rights 129 139 81 Approximate Acres in SEQ‐NRP 193.90 68.54 67.82 Approximate Development Rights in SEQ‐NRP 129 82 81 Approximate Acres in SEQ‐NR 0 47.60 0 Approximate Development Rights in SEQ‐NR 0 57 0 1. Tax map parcel sizes are approximate. Calculations of development rights and maximum allowable units are based on tax map parcel sizes and are only as accurate as the tax map parcel size itself. Based on the chart above, up to 129 may be transferred off Parcel A, up to 81 may be transferred off Parcel C, and up to 82 may be transferred off Parcel B which represents the lands contained within the SEQ‐NRP on that parcel. Prior to removal of development rights from Parcels B or C, a survey of those parcels must be prepared to confirm the actual area of each parcel and the area in each SEQ Sub‐District, which governs the number of available development rights. The conveyance of these development rights to another person or persons does not require Board approval, but the LDRs only allow the reassignment of development rights to another parcel as part an approved Planned Unit Development. Specifically, any or all available development rights may be transferred from Parcel A and from Parcel C to the owner of Parcel B. The owner of Parcel B may be in possession of development rights which exceed the maximum development potential of Parcel B. 9. Pursuant to the LDR, to remove development rights from lands lying in the SEQ‐NRP district, it must be demonstrated that the sending parcel has been sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a purchase or other agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. In connection with the two previous transactions removing development rights from Parcel A, the DRB required that the then‐owner record, upon approval of the City Attorney, a certain document and a survey of the area from which the development rights have been removed. Through these documents, each entitled “Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights,” (the Easements) and recorded in the South Burlington land records at Volume 848, pages #MS‐18‐03 3 262‐265 and Volume 1289, pages 101‐106, the then‐owner, in relevant part, agreed to, and granted to the City the right to enforce, certain covenants and restrictions for the benefit of the public on two portions of Parcel A, both described as the “Sending Property.” 10. Applicant proposes that the City release the covenants and restrictions in the Easements, and that the applicant instead will record a document entitled “Grant of Development Rights, Conservation Restrictions, and Notice of Option to Purchase” (Grant) granting to the Vermont Land Trust (VLT) certain conservation restrictions on each Sending Property described in the Easements. Each Sending Property will remain sufficiently encumbered against further land subdivision and development through a document that is substantially similar to the Grant. For each Sending Property, the substitution of the restrictions granted to VLT in the Grant for the covenants and restrictions imposed in the Easements is acceptable to the City Attorney. The Board supports the applicant’s request that, subject to applicant’s grant of conservation restrictions on each Sending Property to VLT in a document that is substantially similar to the Grant, the City Council release the conservation restrictions referenced in Paragraph 9, above. The Board finds the restrictions in the Grant will sufficiently encumber each Sending Property as required by Section 9.13C(1)(a). DECISION Motion by __, seconded by __, to approve miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐03 of Elizabeth Pierce, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision will remain in full effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. Any change to the plan will require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or Administrative Officer. 4. The Development Review Board makes the following determinations with regard to the subject parcels: a. Based on information provided by the applicant, up to 129 development rights may be transferred off Parcel A, up to 81 may be transferred off Parcel C, and up to 82 may be transferred off Parcel B which represents the lands contained within the SEQ‐NRP on that parcel. Prior to removal of development rights from Parcels B or C, a survey of those parcels must be prepared to confirm the actual area of each parcel and the area in each SEQ Sub‐District, which governs the number of available development rights. b. The current LDR assign a maximum density of 1.2 dwelling units for each acre of land in the SEQ, unless and until the owner of an acre within a parcel permanently encumbers that acre against further land subdivision or development. #MS‐18‐03 4 c. Any or all available development rights may be transferred from Lot A and from Lot C to the owner of Lot B. The owner of lot B may be in possession of development rights which exceed the maximum development potential of Lot B. d. The conveyance of a parcel from one entity to another does not, in and of itself, affect the availability of development rights. 5. Any proposed transfer of development rights severed from Parcels A, B and C to another parcel must comply with the then‐applicable LDR, including Section 9.13(C). 6. The Board supports the applicant’s request that, subject to applicant’s grant of conservation restrictions on each portion of Parcel A from which development rights have been removed to VLT in a document that is substantially similar to the Grant, the City Council release the conservation restrictions previously granted in the Easements. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Brian Sullivan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of _ – _ – _ Signed this ____ day of August, 2018, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802‐951‐1740 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD‐18‐26_1398 Hinesburg Rd_Gardner Construction Inc_Sketch_2018‐08‐21.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 17, 2018 Plans received: July 20, 2018 1398 Hinesburg Road Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐26 Meeting date: August 21, 2018 Owner/Applicant Bradley C. Gardner P.O. Box 21 Colchester, VT 05446 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860‐01398 SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential; Hinesburg Road North View Protection District 5.84 acres Location Map #SD‐18‐26 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐26 of Gardner Construction, Inc. to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 5.8 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately six (6) lots for the purpose of a 23 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 17 detached single family homes, six units in two‐family dwellings and one existing single family home, 1398 Hinesburg Road. PERMIT HISTORY In April 2016, the Development Review Board reviewed a sketch plan application for the subject property. At that time, the applicant was proposing a 22‐unit residential planned unit development. Feedback from the Staff and the Board focused on access and street configuration, park planning, building orientation and design, and density. The Board expressed concern about the configuration of open spaces and of the number of units proposed. At the 2016 meeting, the applicant indicated the proposal involved two properties. The northern property was located in the Industrial‐Open Space district, but the zoning for the northern parcel is now neighborhood residential. The northern portion of the current application was subdivided from its parent parcel as part of SD‐16‐28. It is unclear from the applicant’s submitted materials who owns the northern portion of the property. The northern portion is not referenced independently in the current application. 1. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that the project involves two parcels. If two, the current and subsequent applications must reference both tax parcels and be co‐signed by the second property owner, if any. Staff recommends the meeting be continued in order to allow the applicant to update the application to reflect the information and signature of the second property owner. If the information is not updated before the meeting is closed, the meeting cannot be considered as a qualifying sketch plan application for two separately owned properties. CONTEXT The Project is located in the SEQ Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. A portion of the property is located within the Hinesburg Road North View Protection District. There are Class 2 wetlands on the north of the property and Class 3 wetlands on the east and west sides. Topography is generally flat with the lowest point on the northeast corner of the property. The purpose of the Southeast Quadrant is to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well ‐planned residential use. The design and layout of buildings and lots is intended to create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Within the SEQ‐NR, the maximum development potential is four units per acre with the purchase of TDRs. The applicant has indicated the subject property or properties (as discussed above) is 5.84 acres, which staff calculates has a maximum density of 23 units. The inherent density without the use of TDRs is 7 units. DPW, Fire, Stormwater, and Police have not yet reviewed the application. #SD‐18‐26 3 COMMENTS & REVIEW PROCESS Planning Director Paul Conner, City Planner Cathyann LaRose and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 6/11/2018 and offer the following comments. There are several major issues of concern with the proposal. As such, Staff has tried herein to limit comments to those issues, while retaining the right to provide for further review of broad concepts at subsequent sketch plan review, and more detailed comments at the preliminary and final plan reviews should the project advance. Comments at this time are organized based on the following general categories: ‐ Layout & Setting ‐ Buildings & Lots The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant and has more than 10 units. As such, the proposed development will be required to seek Master Plan approval within six months of the final sketch plan meeting. The development proposal will be subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the Southeast Quadrant standards, including design review. These will all be assessed in greater detail at subsequent reviews. LAYOUT & SETTING CONSIDERATIONS Height The Project is located in the SEQ Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. A portion of the property is also located within the Hinesburg Road North View Protection District, which limits building and landscape heights to elevation 393.5 plus 5.8 feet for each 1,000 feet the structure or landscaping is horizontally distant from the Hinesburg Road North baseline. The baseline is located approximately on Hinesburg Road, and the existing grades within the view protection district are around 387 feet, and no more than 500 feet from Hinesburg Road. Therefore the maximum allowed height in this zone is likely to be less than that of a single‐story building. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether proposed homes 1 through 5 are allowable in the view protection zone. Street Standards Section 9.07 describes the goals of design standards within the SEQ as follows. Street, Block and Lot Patterns (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian‐scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian‐oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian‐friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. #SD‐18‐26 4 Staff considers that the proposed layout, with two dead end streets and pedestrian connectivity limited to the streets themselves, may not achieve the goals of this district without significant refinement. Staff considers the retention of the existing home may present a significant hurdle to providing a high‐quality connected layout at the proposed scale. Applicant should consider how to either integrate the home or consider alternatives which involve removal of the home. 3. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to invoke design review of the proposed subdivision. Specific comments on the current configuration follow. The applicant is proposing two dead end streets. The applicant refers to these in their application narrative as private drives. Staff notes these streets cannot be considered driveways because they are proposed to serve more than two homes. Dead‐end streets within the SEQ‐NR district are limited to 200 feet if they do not extend to an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection. Further, Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation limits the number of single‐family or duplex dwellings on a private roadway to five and the number of units to nine, and Section 3.05B(2) limits the number of lots on a private roadway to three. 4. Staff considers the City is unlikely to accept either street as a public road, therefore the applicant should be limited to five buildings containing a maximum of nine units on each roadway. The southern dead‐end street meets this standard, but the northern does not. 5. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, and sprinkler systems must be approved prior to final plat approval. Staff notes that the dead‐end street standards of Section 15.12J apply to all streets, including private streets. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss providing culs‐de‐sac or hammerhead turnarounds on the dead‐end streets. Staff considers that such a configuration may also facilitate homes facing one‐ another across the street which would further support the design standards of this district. Public Facilities, Parks and Open Space Section 9.07D provides specific standards relating to park design in the Southeast Quadrant, which the proposed project must meet. The applicant has identified two common land areas on the submitted plan. The first is to the rear of units 1 through 5. Staff considers this area is predominately wetland buffer and cannot be maintained as open space, therefore should not be considered to meet the park requirements. The second open space is located on the inside of the curve of Wildflower Drive. The applicant has indicated they intend to retain a landscape architect to develop this open space. 7. Staff considers without a concept of what this open space will look like, the Board cannot evaluate whether the space meets the standard to provide “developed parkland” meeting “a variety of needs including children’s play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation,” or whether the proposed open space meets the purpose of being “a focal point of the neighborhood.” Staff recommends the Board continue the meeting and request the applicant to provide at minimum a concept of how this open space meets the required standards. #SD‐18‐26 5 In addition to the required elements of Section 9.07D, open spaces are encouraged to use single‐loaded roads to define a clear transition between the private and public realm. Staff considers a single‐loaded curved roadway mirroring the curve of Wildflower Drive may allow nearly the same number of units and create a centralized open space with clear delineation from yard areas. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss the feasibility of this configuration with the applicant. Wetlands There is a Class 2 wetland located near Hinesburg Road. The applicant is not proposing any structures within the Class 2 wetland or wetland buffer. A portion of the roadway crosses the wetland and buffer, and Staff anticipates additional buffer impacts when the applicant develops a grading plan. However, the homes which may impact the buffer are also within the view protection district, so these impacts may not be relevant. There are class 3 wetlands located on both the eastern and western sides of the property. The applicant is proposing to completely impact all but one Class III wetland and their 50‐foot buffers. 9. Staff considers any revised layout should take wetland impacts into consideration. BUILDING AND LOT CONSIDERATIONS Density The applicant is proposing 23 units, which includes one existing unit. This represents the maximum allowable density for the applicant‐stated project area of 5.84 acres. Staff considers this acceptable, if the other criteria pertaining to building orientation and design, access and opens spaces can also be satisfied. Note Staff is unable to confirm parcel size because it is unclear whether one or two parcels are involved, as discussed above. The applicant noted in their application that units 6 through 11 are intended to match the size of the homes located on Kirby Road. The applicant further indicated that they believe these proposed homes do not require the purchase of TDRs. The applicant has not indicated why they believe this to be true. Staff considers the proposed units 6 through 11 may, with additional documentation, be eligible for some density or TDR flexibility if they are proposed to be affordable. At this time, Staff cannot recommend whether the proposed units 6 through 11 require purchase of TDRs. 10. Staff recommends the Board clarify with the applicant their intended approach for units 6 through 11, or equivalent units in a revised layout, in order to allow Staff to review the proposed approach against the LDR standards, specifically related to the need for TDRs or perpetual affordability. Dimensional Requirements Based on submitted materials, it appears the applicant will be using footprint lots which are at least 10‐ feet apart but otherwise do not meet the lot and building coverage maximums of the district. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.08 lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. During the 2016 meeting, the Board reviewed an elevation of the west‐ #SD‐18‐26 6 facing side of Unit 1 to evaluate it for consistency with the character of the adjacent homes on Hinesburg Road. Staff considers this topic is still of concern. 11. Even though units 1 to 5 may not be developable as proposed when the view protection zone is considered, Staff recommends the Board request the applicant to evaluate the proposed development for consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly when viewed from Hinesburg Road. 12. The current proposal shows a variety of housing types and sizes, and Staff recommends the Board encourage the applicant to continue proposing an assortment of homes when considering revisions to the layout. Lot Ratios Section 9.08(A)(4) states that lots “shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.” The proposed lots for the single family homes appear to meet this standard. The two and three family homes are located on shared lots and do not meet this standard. Staff supports a waiver for this if the PUD otherwise meets the design intentions of Section 9.07. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the major issues identified herein. Staff recommends the Board consider continuing the meeting to address issues with the application form, if any, and to potentially allow design technical review. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: SD‐18‐17 133 Cheesefactory Lane DATE: August 21, 2018 Development Review Board meeting Peter Ewing has submitted preliminary plat application #SD‐18‐17 to subdivide an existing 9.7 acre parcel into approximately 2 lots of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres for the purpose of developing one home and conserving 7.6 acres at 133 Cheesefactory Lane. At the June 19, 2018 Development Review Board meeting, the Board reviewed the preliminary plat application. At that hearing, the Board briefly reviewed a draft purchase and sales agreement for the parcel to be conserved. That agreement lists a closure date of January 31, 2019. According to the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (“LDRs”), the final plat application must be submitted within 12 months of preliminary plat approval. The Board continued the hearing to allow more time between the purchase and sales agreement and the deadline for final plat submission. CONSERVATION 9.12 SEQ‐NRP; Supplemental Regulations A. Any lot that lies entirely within a SEQ‐NRP sub‐district is subject to the following supplemental regulations: (1) Such lot shall be conveyed to the City of South Burlington as dedicated open space or to a qualified land trust and shall not be developed with a residence, or (2) Such lot may be developed with a residence or residences pursuant to a conservation plan approved by the Development Review Board. See 9.12(B) below. (3) Such lot may be developed with uses other than residences, as listed in Table C‐1, subject to the Development Review Board’s approval of a conservation plan that balances development or land utilization and conservation. Such lot may also include the following additional development/activities: (a) Driveways, roads, underground utility services, or other appurtenant improvements to serve approved development or uses. Utility service components, such as transformers and amplifiers, may be installed at ground level where such accords with standard industry practices. (b) Landscaping, regrading, or other similar activities necessary to the creation of a buildable lot. SD‐18‐17 2 The applicant has provided an amendment to the purchase and sales agreement which removes a contingency related to sale of land by Vermont Land Trust to Bread and Butter farm. Both the original agreement and amendment are included in the packet for the Board. Staff has reviewed the purchase and sales agreement and amendment and considers that neither appear to include language regarding conservation of the subdivided parcel. The sale of land to The Nature Conservancy therefore does not inherently result in conservation of the land and thus does not, alone, permit development of a residence pursuant to 9.12A(2) above. 1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a signed conservation agreement stating that the Nature Conservancy intends to conserve the land as part of the final plat application. Staff considers the agreement may contain contingencies related to subdivision of the parcels as necessary. The applicant has also submitted a purchase and sales agreement with Vermont Land Trust for a parcel of land located wholly in Shelburne with a conservation agreement attached. 2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to an agreement similar to the provided VLT conservation agreement would satisfy the requirements of 9.12A(2). SITE PLAN The applicant has submitted a revised Site Plan reflecting the proposed subdivision with the amended town line as discussed at the June 19 hearing. Staff considers this site plan adequately describes the proposed subdivision for preliminary plat purposes, but notes that the applicant must submit a plat plan suitable for recording and prepared by a licensed land surveyor as described in LDR Section 15.09A and in the Vermont State Statues. OTHER Unless explicitly addressed at the August 21 hearing, Staff considers that the Board guidance provided at the June 19, 2018 is unchanged. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU‐18‐09_41 Cortland Ave_Tanguay_2018‐08‐ 21_memo.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 17, 2018 Application received: July 12, 2018 41 Cortland Avenue Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐09 Meeting date: August 21, 2018 Applicant/Owner Joseph Tanguay 41 Cortland Avenue South Burlington, VT 05403 Architect Hinge Architecture 431 Pine Street, Suite 314 Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcel ID 0460‐00041 Residential 4 District #CU-18-09 41 Cortland Ave 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU‐18‐09 of Joseph Tanguay to request a front setback waiver for the purpose of removing an existing one car garage and replacing with a two car garage connected to the primary residence by an enclosed breezeway, and to add a covered porch, 41 Cortland Ave. CONTEXT The Project is located within the Residential 4 District on a corner lot at Jonathan Avenue and Cortland Avenue. Structures on the property currently include a single family home with attached garage. The existing home faces Cortland Avenue. The current structure does not conform with the front property line setback standards of the district, which requires structures to be set back 30‐feet from the front property line. The current structure is set back 26.75‐feet from the front property line on Jonathan Avenue. The applicant is proposing to encroach into the front property line setback so that the proposed structure is located 5 ft 3.5 inches from the front property line on Jonathan Avenue. The structure will be 7 feet 8.75 inches from the existing curb line. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene has reviewed the plans submitted on July 12, 2018 and offers the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 9,500 SF 8,879 SF 8,879 SF Max. Building Coverage 20 % 15.5 % 20.0 % Max. Overall Coverage 40 % 26.3% 31.33% # Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 26.75 ft. 5 ft. 3.5 in. @ Min. Side Setback 10 ft. <10 ft. No change Min. Rear Setback1 30 ft. N/A N/A Height (Pitched roof)2 28 ft. Unknown No change √ Zoning Compliance @ Existing nonconformity # Encroachment requested, see discussion under 3.06J. 1. Property is a corner lot and has no rear lot line. 2. Peak of roof is 23 ft. 9.5 in. Height of midpoint of roof is not known. 3.06(J) EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR LOTS EXISTING PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 28, 1974. The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single‐family dwelling or a two‐family dwelling. #CU-18-09 41 Cortland Ave 3 (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district, but in no event shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet. (2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage, but in no event shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; (c) adequate on‐site parking; and (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. The applicant is proposing to construct the garage 5 ft. 3.5 in. from the front lot line. The home fronts on Cortland Avenue. The proposed garage is to face the same direction as the existing garage. Staff considers that the impacts to nearby properties of allowing the minimum front setback to be reduced from thirty (30) feet to 5 ft. 3.5 in. (5’3.5”) do not adversely affect access to sunlight or adequacy of on‐ site parking. Overall impacts of the proposed additions are discussed below under Section 14.10E. 1. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the proposed encroachment has an undue and adverse effect on views of adjoining and/or nearby properties, or safety of adjoining and/or nearby properties. Staff considers that though there are impacts to views and safety, they may not rise to the level of undue and adverse. (4) Processing of a Request. Any request under subsections (1) ‐ (3) above to expand an existing structure, or place a new structure, to within less than ten (10) feet of any property line shall include the submission of survey data prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the location of affected property lines, existing and/or proposed structures, and any other information deemed necessary by the Administrative Officer. The applicant has provided a partial survey showing the location of affected property lines and the proposed structure which encroaches within 10 feet of the property line, prepared by Button Land Surveyors. Staff considers this criterion met. CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Pursuant to Section 12.01C(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (New Uses and Encroachments within Stream Buffers), the proposed use shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E): 14.10E General Review Standards The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: #CU-18-09 41 Cortland Ave 4 (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. This project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. Staff considers that the proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the Residential 4 (R4) district, which is in part “to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods.” Staff considers the proposed addition compatible with adjacent homes and within the allowable building and lot coverage for the district. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. This project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers this criterion met. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. Staff considers this criterion met. See above for a discussion of compliance with dimensional and nonconforming structure standards. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. Staff considers this criterion met. Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner &257/$1'6)&257/$1'$9( )(1&($'',7,216)325&+6)325&+6)5(029((;,67,1**$5$*($1'325&+5(029('(&.6)'5,9(:$< 6):$/.:$<6)-2+1$7+$1$9( 325&+6) &257/$1'6)&257/$1'$9(-2+1$7+$1$9( )(1&(*$5$*(6)325&+6)325&+6) )5217<$5' '(&.6)'5,9(:$< 6))5217<$5' 5($5<$5' (;,67,1*/27&29(5$*((;,67,1*/276,=( 6) (;,67,1*+286( 6)(;,67,1**$5$*( 6)(;,67,1*325&+ 6)(;,67,1*'(&. 6)(;,67,1*'5,9(:$< 6)(;/27&29(5$*( %8,/',1* 727$/6) 6) 352326('/27&29(5$*(/276,=( 6) +286( 6)1(:*$5$*( 6)325&+(6 6):$/.:$< 6)'5,9(:$< 6)3523/27&9* %8,/',1* 727$/ 6) 6) ORWDUHDLVEDVHGRIIRIDVLWHPDSSURYLGHGE\%XWWRQ3URIHVVLRQDO/DQG6XUYH\RUV3&'5$:,1*.(<$'',7,21(;,67,1*6758&785(3523(57</,1(6(7%$&./,1(=21,1*',675,&7 50,1/276,=( 6)0$;/27&29(5$*( %8,/',1*6727$/)5217 6,'( 5($5 6+((712 +,1*(,1&7KHGHVLJQLGHDVDQGSODQVUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHVHGRFXPHQWVDUHWKHSURSHUW\RI+LQJH,QF8VHRUFRS\LVSHUPLWWHGE\FRQWUDFWRQO\7KHXVHRUUHYLVLRQVRIWKHVHLGHDVDQGSODQVLVSURKLELWHGZLWKRXWWKHZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRI+LQJH6&$/( '$7( '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 3+$6( $0$VLQGLFDWHG$$$$6,7(3/$1&257/$1'$9(6287+%85/,1*721970$0$7$1*8$<5(6,'(1&(6&$/( $352326('6,7(3/$16&$/( $(;,67,1*6,7(3/$1 /(9(/ /HYHO 7RSRI5RRI (;,67,1*+286( /(9(/ 7RSRI5RRI (;*$5$*(72%('(02/,6+(' (;,67,1*+286( /(9(/ /HYHO 7RSRI5RRI 325&+ *$5$*( 6+((712 +,1*(,1&7KHGHVLJQLGHDVDQGSODQVUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHVHGRFXPHQWVDUHWKHSURSHUW\RI+LQJH,QF8VHRUFRS\LVSHUPLWWHGE\FRQWUDFWRQO\7KHXVHRUUHYLVLRQVRIWKHVHLGHDVDQGSODQVLVSURKLELWHGZLWKRXWWKHZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRI+LQJH6&$/( '$7( '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 3+$6( $0 $$$$(/(9$7,216&257/$1'$9(6287+%85/,1*721970$0$7$1*8$<5(6,'(1&(6&$/( $6287+(/(9$7,216&$/( $1257+(/(9$7,216&$/( $($67(/(9$7,21 6+((712 +,1*(,1&7KHGHVLJQLGHDVDQGSODQVUHSUHVHQWHGE\WKHVHGRFXPHQWVDUHWKHSURSHUW\RI+LQJH,QF8VHRUFRS\LVSHUPLWWHGE\FRQWUDFWRQO\7KHXVHRUUHYLVLRQVRIWKHVHLGHDVDQGSODQVLVSURKLELWHGZLWKRXWWKHZULWWHQSHUPLVVLRQRI+LQJH6&$/( '$7( '5$:1%< &+(&.('%< 3+$6( $0$$$$'9,(:6&257/$1'$9(6287+%85/,1*721970$0$7$1*8$<5(6,'(1&(6&$/( $'9,(:2)1257+($676&$/( $'YLHZRI6RXWK(DVW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 August 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (by phone), B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; D. Shenk, B. Gerlack, J. Desautels, B. Bless, N. Hyman, P. O’Leary, R. Kay, J. Owens, L. Parker, B. Brinkerhoff, P. Kahn, D. Peters, C. & P. Bernhardt, L. Hammond, A. Chalnick, D. Solsky, M. Mittag, B. Servis, S. Dopp, R. Greco, G. Rounds, D. Partido, B. Chaind‐Homey 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move items #10 and #11 to follow #4. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Minutes of 17 July 2018 Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 17 July 2018 as presented. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 6. Other Business: There was no other business. 7. Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐18‐21 of Blackbay Ventures, VIII, LLC, to subdivide an existing 22.6 acre parcel into five lots, ranging in size from 0.2 acres to 21.6 acres, 451 to 495 Market Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Shenk explained that each lot will be developed into triplexes with parking in the rear. He showed an area for a stormwater pond. He also noted that a Form Based Code application has been submitted to staff. A community meeting is scheduled for 13 August. No issues were raised by the Board. Mr. Gerlack, representing 16 and 18 Iby Street noted the wetland encroachment on lot #4 and expressed concern that when snow is plowed, it will would end up in the wetland and on his and his mom’s backyard. He also cited the rise on Market Street and asked how much fill is planned on lot #4 where he would be looking at walls instead of trees. Mr. Miller said that Mr. Gerlack should raise those concerns at the public meeting on the 13th. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD‐18‐21. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐22 of Mitchwartz Properties, LLC, to combine two lots into one lot for the purpose of constructing a project on the combined parcel, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 321 and 325 Dorset Street: Ms. Desautels said the two lots would be combined into one for a future project which is a mixed commercial/residential building. Mr. Miller noted that the Fire Chief and Director of Public Works had no issues with this sketch plan. No Board of public issues were raised. 9. Miscellaneous application #MS‐18‐03 of Elizabeth Pierce to confirm the presence and salability of Transfer Development Rights on lots A, B and C, 1731 Hinesburg Road: The applicant’s representative showed the lots involved which will be reduced from their development potential and kept for agricultural use via a land trust easement. The applicant wants confirmation that the TDRs exist and can be used. There is also an area from which the city has taken TDRs and now has an easement. The applicant would like to have that easement combined with a Vermont Land Trust easement and is asking the DRB to recommend to the city to allow that to happen. It has been done before. Mr. Behr questioned why the DRB is getting involved in this as it is more like a market consideration. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Conner said this dates back to the prior work the city and DRB did with the Leduc property. In order to be clear to funding partners, they wanted more of a formal acknowledgment of what the TDRs are because they will provide substantial funds. Mr. Sullivan questioned the DRB’s authority to take that action. Mr. Conner said that as stewards of the regulations, it is in line with the statement of the number of TDRs. Regarding a recommendation to the City Council, the City Attorney and Vermont Land Trust attorney felt that since the regulations are the purview of the DRB, it would be appropriate for the Board to make that recommendation. Mr. Sullivan said he was concerned that the Board would be issuing “an advisory opinion,” and he didn’t think the Board had the authority to do that. Ms. Keene said the DRB would be saying that the restrictions imposed by the Vermont Land Trust supersede existing restrictions. Mr. Sullivan suggested the City Attorney be specifically asked about the DRB’s authority to take the proposed action. Mr. Wilking asked that the City Attorney also be asked to look at the language presented. In answer to a question regarding timing, the applicant’s representative said this would be a multi‐year process, probably in a phased process. Section “A” on the map would probably happen first. Mr. Kay asked about a 200 foot setback along the stream on the east side of lot “A.” Mr. Conner said all of “A” is in the NPR. In addition, the city has buffers that apply. Mr. Kay asked about the proposed plan for a trail on lot “A.” Mr. Conner said the city has been in separate discussions regarding trail continuation. Mr. Cota moved to continue MS‐18‐03 to 21 August 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0. 10. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐18‐18 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, to re‐ subdivide two lots of 2. Acres and 12.2 acres, 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesti Drive: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 4 December 2018 as they requesting a zoning change at the Planning Commission. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐18‐18 to 4 December 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5‐0 with Mr. Sullivan recusing himself due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 PAGE 4 11. Continued sketch plan application #SD‐18‐23 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 71.9 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately 126 lots for the purpose of a 164 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 113 single family homes, 18 units in 3‐unit multi‐family dwellings, 32 units in two‐family dwellings, and one existing single family home, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking and Mr. Sullivan recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller explained the nature of a “sketch plan” and also the judicial nature of the DRB. He stressed that the DRB has to abide by the Land Development Regulations as they exist. Mr. O’Leary then noted that following the last sketch plan hearing they reworked the layout and opened up some of the space. They met with the Public Works Director, Fire Chief and Police Chief. The Fire Chief asked for 10‐foot driving lanes. They also narrowed some roads and provided bump‐outs to slow traffic. Public Works prefers gravity sewering. The project site is listed as 72 acres but actually 132 acres are involved because they will be purchasing the development rights from other properties. They are preserving a lot of open space which will contribute to the open space plan of the city. 94 acres will be left open. Mr. Behr disagreed with this calculation. He said that TDRs are a mechanism that allows an increase in density. Mr. O’Leary noted that the Environmental Board recognizes the “off‐site” land as “involved lands.” Mr. Miller said the DRB will not include that land as “open space.” Mr. Conner said it is simply a mechanism allowing density to be moved from one property to another. Mr. Ber said he likes the overall layout of the development but does not like the broken up open spaces. He would prefer connectivity, “a green connectivity.” Mr. O’Leary felt they could accommodate that. Mr. Cota asked about connection to Dorset St. Mr. O’Leary said they are talking with the State to get a wetland crossing approved, but there is no way at this time to get a connection to the south. Mr. Conner noted that the crossing in question is an existing driveway crossing, and that would be a logical place to do a crossing. Mr. Miller then highlighted comments from a letter from Daniel Seff representing some nearby residents. Mr. Seff asked the DRB to withhold a decision until there is a court decision in the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 PAGE 5 Snyder case. He also opposes using acreage from which the TDRs are taken to calculate maximum density and also reducing some setbacks from 10 to 5 feet. There is also a concern with wildlife habitat and a belief that TDRs should not be used at all. Members agreed to continue the discussion of this application and not wait for a decision in the Snyder appeal. They also agreed to abide by the current rules in the LDRs. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Miller asked the public not to reiterate concerns that had already been stated. Mr. Chalnick: Said they moved here from New Jersey because there was “no room” in New Jersey. Felt the Board does not have to provide all the density the TDRs bring. Mr. Hyman: Asked who would buy a house in South Burlington when every house is the same. Felt houses won’t keep going up in value. Felt the DRB is pro‐development, not meanly or maliciously. Ms. Peters: Noted the rules say the DRB “may” approve all or a portion of a developer’s request. But it doesn’t have to. There is discretion. The Board’s hands are not tied. Mr. Conner said the historical interpretation is that when everything is taken into consideration, the density left can be met with TDRs. In this case, the developer is not proposing the total possible density. Mr. Brinkerhoff: The city’s plan for 2016 is already exceeded. The city has supported having more affordable housing in the City Center. This is more expensive housing. Felt the developers are running the town, not the people. People want to preserve nature. Traffic is a big issue. There will be traffic from 300 homes pouring out of Nowland Farm Road and the side streets will become shortcuts. Mr. Wilking: When the project was initially brought forward, it was smaller, and the developer was encouraged to enlarge it. He would appreciate it being smaller. Mr. Bernhart: Noted 4 big structures on Nowland Farm Rd. Said that land is a flood plain. Those units will also cast shadows on the road. Ms. Hammond: Agreed with everything said before. Noted there are 442 homes for sale in Chittenden County, 140 in South Burlington. Only 2 of the properties in the O’Brien development have been sold since March, though there are deposits on some others. The populations guidelines are way off. Prices are being reduced on houses for sale in this range. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 PAGE 6 Ms. Bernhardt: Would prefer 40 or 50 quality homes. Noted that the larger units have separate garages. Was concerned with views of Camel’s Hump. Ms. Chalnick: Felt it was disheartening to have this development next to them. Was concerned with the safety of kids waiting for school buses. Ms. Solsky: No one wants what happened in Bucks County to happen here. Asked why wetlands are included in density calculations. Mr. Conner replied that the same rules apply city‐wide. Ms. Solsky asked who pays for a traffic study. If the developer does, the study will say what the developer wants it to day. Mr. Conner said the DRB has the right to require an independent study. Mr. Miller reviewed the process for traffic studies. Mr. Mittag: Said residents would be happier with no TDRs. Ms. Sirvis: Walked this property recently. It is a paradise. Cited the “mess” of the O’Brien property and asked not to let it happen here. She suggested a dog park here. Ms. Dopp: Would be helpful to see an overlay to show which portions are 4 units/acre, which are 8 per acre, where the NPR portion is and where the stream runs and where the flood plain is. She noted the spread of water across this area during the spring. Mr. O’Leary outlined the flood plain area behind the houses. Ms. Greco: Read from the LDR purpose statement regarding the Southeast Quadrant and said the rest of that chapter goes on to say how to destroy it. She felt the board has latitude and doesn’t have to approve the maximum. Mr. O’Leary noted that the maximum allowable density is 267 units. They are asking for only 161, not the maximum. Ms. Partido: Felt it was sad to have to hire a lawyer to prevent what the people don’t want. Mr. Rounds: Asked if all the streets will be city streets. Mr. O’Leary said they would except for one little street that will remain private until there is a connection to the adjoining property. Mr. Kay: Noted it is possible to make changes to sketch plans and encouraged the Board to make use of technical review. Asked the developer to develop “smartly.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 AUGUST 2018 PAGE 7 Mr. O’Leary noted the smallest development they had planned was 100‐130 units, mostly larger houses. The city encouraged them to change the mix. A member of the public: Did not envy the Board’s position or the neighbors’ position. Appealed to people’s sensibilities and not have regrets when it “is gone.” As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:15 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on __________________.