Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/06/2018 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 February 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), F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; R. Jeffers, S. & D. Mowat, J. Swope, F. Cresta, A. Conolly, N. Andrews, L. Demaroney, J. Goodwin, D. Nedde 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: Ms. Keene asked that item #8 be heard before item #5. She also noted that the previous item under Other Business has been withdrawn. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Belair advised that the meeting of 20 February will be in the second floor conference room at the Police Station. 5. (previously #8) Sketch plan application #SD-18-02 of John and Joyce Belter to subdivide a 286 acre lot developed with a farm into two lots of 3.57 acres (lot #1) and 282.43 acres (lot #2), 115 Ethan Allen Drive: Ms. Keene noted the applicant had requested a continuance to 20 February. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-18-02 to 20 February 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. (previously #5) Continued preliminary plat application #SD-17-29 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units. The 142 units will consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in 2 two-family dwellings, and 30 units in three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street and 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 20 February. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-17-29 to 20 February 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. (previously #6) Continued Master Plan Application #MP-17-02 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, to amend a previously approved master plan for a 258 unit planned unit development in two phases. The amendment consists of revising the roadway layout in Phase II (Cider Mill II) and increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Belair advised that the applicant had asked to continue the application to 20 February. Mr. Cota moved to continue MP-17-02 to 20 February 2018. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. (previously #7) Reconsideration of preliminary and final plat decision #SD-17-18 of South Village Communities, LLC, for approval of Phase III of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase III is to consist of the following: 1) 22 single family dwellings, 2) four 2-family dwellings, 3) tow 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and 4) two 12-unit multi-family dwellings. The reconsideration is to amend condition #5 pertaining to waivers of Land Development Regulation standards and to amend condition #25 pertaining to the number of affordable housing units in Phase IIIB, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers said the amendment to condition #5 will allow a 5-foot setback instead of 10-feet. This had been accepted all the way through and had been worked on with staff. The second amendment (to condition #25) would add the words “In the event that the applicant builds more than 269 units….” to the beginning of the sentence. Mr. Behr said he is inclined not to agree to the second amendment. The project is planned for a mix of housing with bonus density and affordable housing. If the project stops before triggering the density bonus there will be gaps in the project and there won't be any affordable housing. Mr. Belair said the project is approved for 334 units which include the affordable units. The applicant could amend their application to be 269 units and then they couldn't be forced to require affordable units. Mr. Wilking said the affordable units will occur after unit 269. He added he wouldn’t do another project like this, but he believed the added language is OK as it is what the Board talked about. Ms. Smith asked if the condition could be amended to require them to build 334 units and to take advantage of their bonus density. Mr. Cota asked if the affordable units could be spread out if they are built after unit 269. Ms. Jeffers said there is room to “sprinkle them.” Mr. Behr said the Board has been asking for a plan including the affordable units but has not gotten one. If nothing is built beyond 269 units, there would be 60 units that wouldn’t be built and land that has been planned for housing would be unbuilt. Ms. Jeffers said they haven’t been ready to bring in a plan. Mr. Miller said he is inclined to go along with Mr. Belair and Mr. Behr’s interpretation. As long as the plan is for 334 units, he wanted to see what was being worked on regarding affordable units. He would not go along with the proposed wording addition. If the applicant decides to stop at 269 units, they can come back for a language change. Mr. Kochman said he felt that is a rational application of the rules. Ms. Jeffers asked that the request regarding condition #5 and the request regarding condition #25 be considered separately. Mr. Cota moved to close the reconsideration of SD-17-18. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-01 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC, for review of a re-subdivision, 68 Nesti Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road: Mr. Nedde said there are currently 3 lots (showed these on an overhead photo) which they wish to reduce to 2 lots. The purpose of this is to secure enough frontage for a sign on Shelburne Road. The property is currently under contract for sale, and the intent is to give the buyer the full property, not a part of a PUD. There would be no additional parking or pavement on Shelburne Road. They would just increase the width of the access. Mr. Nedde indicated where the widening would occur at the traffic light. He also indicated the road which leads to the rear 5 acres which they will eventually want to develop. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a left turn lane into the property. Mr. Cresta said there is. Mr. Belair said that staff’s opinion is that there are now only 2 lots because the third “lot” cannot stand alone. Mr. Nedde said that they are separate on the tax map. Mr. Behr said that for the purpose of subdivision, the net result is the same. Mr. Kochman questioned the odd configuration. Mr. Nedde said that is to be able to get the size sign they need for the buyer. Mr. Belair noted that the Board cannot do what is requested because of the front yard coverage. Mr. Miller noted that staff comment #1 precludes approval of this application. Ms. Keene added there is no way to improve the non-compliance without removing some of the pavement. Coverage would have to be decreased from 36%, which is what it is today. Mr. Nedde noted that would eliminate a row of parking. Mr. Belair noted these are “vehicle display” spaces, not spaces required for “parking,” so removing a row would not create a non‐compliance issue. Staff also raised the issue of a lot line crossing a stream and stream buffer. Mr. Wilking suggested a fix for this by locating the proposed lot line along the stream centerline. The applicant agreed to look at this. Regarding the triangular lot shape, Mr. Wilking said he had no issue with it as the business needs it and South Burlington needs the business. He also suggested that the Board consider including a condition of approval to restrict future development of the existing green space on Shelburne Road. Mr. Belair reminded the applicant that the wetland delineation will be needed when they go to the next round. Mr. Belair also noted that the AOT will have final say as to the width of the access. Mr. Cresta said they met with the AOT last week, and they appeared to be OK with what is proposed. No other issues were raised. 10. Minutes of 7 February 2017, 7 March 2017, and 2 January 2018: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 7 February 2017, 7 March 2017, and 2 January 2018 as presented. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:03 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 20, 2018. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-18-02_115 Ethan Allen Rd_GMP_Sketch_2018-02- 06.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 2, 2018 Plans received: January 5, 2018 115 Ethan Allen Drive Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-02 Meeting date: February 6, 2018 Owner: John and Joyce Belter 2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant: Green Mountain Power Rutland, Vermont 05701 Engineer Krebs and Lansing 164 Main Street Colchester, VT 05446 Property Information Tax Parcel 0640-00102 Mixed Industrial and Commercial Zoning District 286.28 acres Location Map #SD-18-02 Staff Comments 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-18-02 of John and Joyce Belter to subdivide a 286 acre lot developed with a farm into two (2) lots of 3.57 acres (lot #1) and 282.43 acres (lot #2), 115 Ethan Allen Drive. CONTEXT The present application is for subdivision of an existing parcel. The applicant, Green Mountain Power, is proposing the subdivision for the purposes of constructing a substation, which is exempt from Local permit review pursuant to 24 VSA 4413(b). Instead, the proposed substation is subject to review by the Public Utility Commission under Section 248. Section 248 is a Vermont Law requiring State review of projects related to public utilities. The Board’s responsibility in this matter is to review the proposed subdivision without review of the substation project. Staff has confirmed that Green Mountain Power has not yet submitted an application for development of the substation to the Public Utility Commission and that they do not have an immediate timetable in mind for doing so. The applicant must provide notice to the City at least 45 days prior to submitting a petition (application) for Section 248 approval. When the applicant submits their Section 248 petition, they must also provide notice to abutters of the filing. The Public Utility Commission will then hold a public pre- hearing conference to set the schedule for the Section 248 process. Next the Commission may conduct site visits, and then schedule the hearing. The public hearing will be held in a location near the proposed project during the evening and is open to the public. The public is encouraged to submit comments to the Public Utility Commission prior to the public hearing so they can be considered during the hearing. The City has the opportunity to submit comments regarding the substation throughout the Section 248 proceedings and to become a party to the case should it so choose. In addition, Staff is working with GMP to represent the interests of the City in this matter prior to commencement of the Section 248 proceedings. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. #SD-18-02 Staff Comments 3 A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Mixed Industrial and Commercial Required Existing Proposed Lot #1 Proposed Lot #2 Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 12,470,335 sq. ft. 155,509 sq. ft. 12,314,826 sq. ft Max. Building Coverage 40% 0.42% 0% 0.42% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 2.99% 7.74% 2.93% Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% 0.02% 0.44% 0.01% Min. Front Setback 30 ft. Unknown N/A No change Min. Side Setback 10 ft. Unknown N/A No change Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. Unknown N/A No change Building Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Unknown N/A No change Proposed to be in compliance The Applicant has requested the Board waive of the requirement to prepare a boundary survey of the portion of the property not subject to this subdivision because of the size of the property. Staff supports this request. B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS The majority of the subdivision standards pertain to projects which involve construction. Staff considers there are no concerns with the standards pertaining to subdivision of the parcel. The applicant has indicated that the substation is proposed to be located in the northwest portion of the subdivided parcel. The subdivided parcel will be accessed via an existing farm road fronting on National Guard Avenue. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and conclude the hearing. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner New property linesto be created.Newpropertylines tobecreated.6ƒ (165.89'6ƒ (250.94'6   ƒ     : 9 6 . 2 8 '6ƒ :85.52'6   ƒ      : 1 1 4 . 8 0 '6ƒ  :215.03 ' 6   ƒ      : 12 7 . 9 6 'L=193.42', R=270.00'1ƒ :26.14'1ƒ      ( 398.15'1ƒ (60.00'Newpropertylines to becreated.6ƒ :100.09'1ƒ (296.69'1ƒ :49.29'Newproperty lineto be created.1   ƒ      ( 35 0 . 0 3 '1ƒ :200.01'New Lot6ƒ :189.31'KL&ProposedSubdivisionSketch PlanGreenMountainPowerLANDS OFJOHN AND JOYCEBELTER TO BECONVEYED TO GREENMOUNTAIN POWERB1APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THEDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD, THECITY OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONT ON THE _____ DAY OF_____________, 2018, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS OF SAID CONDITIONSOF SAID RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS______ DAY OF ___________, 2018, BY__________________________ CHAIRMAN OR CLERK CITY CLERKS OFFICERECIEVED______________ 20 AT _____ mRECORDED IN VOL. _________ PAGE______CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON LAND RECORDSATTEST:DRAFTOwner:John & Joyce Belter#2 Country Club Drive South Burlington, VT. 05403Applicant:Green Mountain PowerRutland, VT. 05701 KREBS & LANSING  Consulting Engineers, Inc. 164 Main Street, Suite 201 Colchester, VT 05446 Telephone (802) 878-0375, Fax 878-9618 ian.jewkes@krebsandlansing.com  Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc 1 | Page January 5, 2017    Ray Belair  Zoning Administrator  City of South Burlington  575 Dorset Street  S. Burlington, VT 05403    RE: Proposed Subdivision of Belter Property   PID 0640‐00102   115 Ethan Allen Drive      Dear Ray:    Please find attached a Sketch Plan and a Sketch Plan application for a one lot subdivision. The  purpose of this application is to subdivide a 3.57 acre portion of the existing 286+/‐ acre Belter farm  property. This land is to be used by Green Mountain Power for a new electric power substation. The  improvements for the substation fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission and  would be reviewed under Section 248. This parcel is in the “IC” Mixed Industrial Commercial District  zoning district. The minimum lot area is 40,000 square feet. Both the proposed and retained parcels  exceed the minimum lot area. The new lot has a frontage of 60 feet.    Given the size of the Belter Farm property we would request that the requirement to provide a  boundary survey of the remaining lands be waived by the DRB. There are no other waivers  requested for this project. The project schedule has not been determined. Construction will not  commence until Public Utility Commission review has been completed and the supporting permits  have been issued. This could take some time.     A buffer area has been included on the northeast side of the project for the adjacent residential  properties. The substation improvements will not be proposed in this area.         No water or sewer services will be needed for this installation.     Thank you,          Ian A. Jewkes, VT P.E. 7200  Enclosures  1 Marla Keene From:Bryan Currier <bcurrier@olearyburke.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:19 AM To:Marla Keene Cc:ray Subject:Cider Mill - DRB Hearing Good Morning Marla    Please take this email as our official request to continue the Cider Mill Phase II application from the February 6th DRB  meeting to the February 20th DRB meeting.    Let me know if you need anything else.    Thanks,     Bryan Currier, PE  O'Leary‐Burke Civil Associates  13 Corporate Drive | Essex Jct., VT 05452  p: (802)878‐9990  bcurrier@olearyburke.com    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-17-18 1840 Spear Street—South Village Communities, LLC, Phase III Preliminary & Final Plat Reconsideration DATE: February 6, 2018 Development Review Board meeting South Village Communities, LLC, has requested reconsideration of the preliminary and final plat decision issued on December 1, 2017 for SD-17-18. On December 19, 2017, the Board accepted the request for reconsideration of two conditions, condition #5 and condition #25. The applicant’s request was included in the packet for the December 19, 2017 hearing. Condition #5: The following waivers of Land Development Regulation standards are granted a. Two-family minimum lot size from 12,000 square feet to 3,600 square feet b. Two-family maximum building coverage from 15% to 50% c. Two-family maximum lot coverage from 30% to 61% d. Two-family front yard setback from 20' to 10' e. Two-family rear yard setback from 30' to 10' (5' for rear lanes) f. Private roadway pavement width from 24’ to 20’ The applicant has requested that an additional waiver be granted to reduce the side yard setback from 10’ to 5’ for single-family and two-family homes, and from 20’ to 5’ for multi-family homes. The requested waivers were granted for Phases I and II, but were not part of the master plan approval. Condition #25: There shall be at least six (6) Affordable Housing units in Phase IIIB with no more than four (4) units in the buildings with greater than three units. This condition does not alleviate the overall responsibility of the applicant to meet the affordability mix of section 18.02 of the Land Development Regulations either within Phase IIIB or within the South Village PUD as a whole. The applicant has requested that this condition be revised to read “In the event that the applicant builds more than 269 units, there shall be at least six (6) Affordable Housing units in Phase IIIB with no more than four (4) units in the buildings with greater than three units. This condition does not alleviate the overall responsibility of the applicant to meet the affordability mix of section 18.02 of the Land Development Regulations either within Phase IIIB or within the South Village PUD as a whole.” Staff considers that Condition #26 may be relevant to the discussion of Condition #25 and has duplicated Condition #26 below for convenience. The applicant is not requesting, nor has the Board granted, reconsideration for Condition #26. 2 Condition #26: Prior to or coincident with submittal for a site plan or final plat approval for any unassigned lots within the South Village PUD that is the subject of master plan approval #MP-04-01 and #MP-05-02, as amended, the applicant/property owner must submit an overall affordability plan consistent with Section 18.02. For the purposes of this condition, the unassigned lots are Lots 4, 11 and 11A in Phase I as shown on the plans associated with site plan approval #SP-15-09 and the lot south of Preserve Road identified as “Open Space 1.92 Acres (Reserved for Future Development)” on the plans associated with subdivision approval #SD-16-08, as well as any other lot for which a change in the number of units on the most recent approved site plan is proposed. 1 Marla Keene From:Paul Conner Sent:Friday, January 26, 2018 8:00 AM To:Marla Keene; ray Subject:FW: Affordable housing In phase 3 S. Village ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: John Owen [mailto:jrowen18@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 3:48 PM  To: Paul Conner <pconner@sburl.com>  Subject: Affordable housing In phase 3 S. Village    I am a resident of South village and understand that the development review board will be discussing a request from  Ireland to change the affordable housing requirement in phase 3 of South Village. I will not be able to attend the  meeting because of another commitment. However I am quite concerned about this issue and would like to make the  board aware of my feelings.  The density bonus which requires an equal number of affordable housing units for each  additional market rate unit was agreed to by Ireland when they submitted their plans for South Village. I feel strongly  that the terms of that density bonus must be agreed to if Ireland is going to build the 30 additional market rate units. I  am also concerned that as of today no affordable housing units have been built, even though the entire development is  half completed. Phase 1 is just about build out and phase 2 as well along the way.  As a past member of the affordable  housing committee and planning commission in Charlotte , I am well aware of how difficult it is for towns to get  developers to build affordable housing. The density bonus is one of the few ways to make affordable housing attractive  to developers. I would like to see these units built in South Village and at the very least if Ireland does not want to build  them that they are not allowed to build the30 market rate units.    John Owen    148 Chipman St. S., Burlington    Sent from my iPhone  TO: Paul Conner FROM: Ann Owen 148 Chipman Street South Village DATE: January 29, 2018 I am writing as a concerned resident of South Village regarding SD Ireland’s affordable housing plans for this development. It is my understanding  The developer has a density bonus of 65 units in South Village as long as half of them are affordable units (33).  At the September 5th DRB meeting, two DRB members stated publically to Robin Jeffers  they want to see a comprehensive affordable housing plan for the entire South Village development before giving final approval for Phase III;  the 33 units should be fairly evenly distributed between Phases I, II, and III, meaning there should be approximately 11 units in each phase; and  the houses or units need to look like the other units in the development, i.e., they cannot stand out as being “affordable”.  I have been waiting since September to see Ireland’s affordable housing plan, but nothing has been shared with SV residents. I recently learned that the DRB agreed to let Ireland build Phase III as long as they built 6 affordable units in this section. This is 5 units shy of the 11 needed in phase III to meet the evenly distributed criteria, and mentions nothing about the 22 units for Phases I and II. It is my understanding that Ireland now wants to rescind even this commitment to build these 6 affordable units. I am writing to urge the DRB to require Ireland to complete a comprehensive affordable housing plan for all of South Village, as requested on September 5th, and to review and approve a final plan before giving final approval for the density bonus. Phase I is close to being built out with no plan in sight for 11 affordable units in this section, while Phase II is underway and moving right along without an affordable housing plan. By requesting to rescind even the proposed 6 units in Phase III, it appears Ireland does not intend to build affordable housing in this development. If this is the case, then the density bonus should be rescinded. Affordable housing serves those in our community such as librarians, fire fighters, police, and many others who provide vital services for all of us. South Burlington is a diverse community and our housing stock should reflect this mix. Thank you for recognizing the importance of building more affordable housing in your original approvals for South Village, which I ask you to stand by. SD-18-01 Staff Comments 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-18-01_68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd_Catamount Middlebury_Sketch_2018-02-06.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 2, 2018 Plans received: January 5, 2018 68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-01 Meeting date: February 6, 2018 Owner/Applicant Catamount/Middlebury, LLC 210 College Street, Suite 201 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Ln South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1215-0068, 1540-1785, 1540-1795 Commercial 2 Zoning District 12.96 acres, 1.77 acres, 1.23 acres Location Map SD-18-01 Staff Comments 2 PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-18-01 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC for review of a resubdivision, 68 Nesti Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road. PERMIT HISTORY In 2011, Catamount/Middlebury, LLC obtained Site Plan Approval to add an access drive connection for 68 Nesti Drive through 1795 Shelburne Road (#SP-11-48). At that time, the applicant was not proposing construction of pavement or curb cuts. The conditions of that approval stipulated that site plan approval from the DRB was needed prior to constructing access connection, and that a zoning permit was needed within six (6) months in order for the easement approval to remain valid. The applicant did not obtain a zoning permit and thus the approval for an easement lapsed. The current application seeks to addresses the connection through 1795 Shelburne Road via a re-subdivision rather than an easement. CONTEXT The subdivsion includes a proposed reconfiguration of the 1785 Shelburne Road driveway to access 68 Nesti Drive. Access to 68 Nesti Drive would also be possible through the creation of an easement without subdividing the lots. The proposed driveway adds a lane to create a dedicated right turn lane and a dedicated left turn lane onto Shelburne Road, and does not create additional impervious. However, by reducing the frontage of 1785 Shelburne Road the subdivision increases the degree of front yard non- conformity, discussed below. The proposed subdivision also creates frontage for 68 Nesti Drive on Shelburne Road, which would allow the 68 Nesti Drive property to have a sign on Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. SD-18-01 Staff Comments 3 A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Commercial 2 Required Existing 68 Nesti Dr Proposed 68 Nesti Dr Existing 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Rd Proposed 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Rd Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 531,064 sq. ft. 556,386 sq. ft. 128,135 sq. ft. 102,672 sq. ft. Max. Building Coverage 40% 9.9% 9.5% 7.8% 9.8% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 28% 27% 51% 64% X Max. Front Yard Coverage1 30% Unknown on Nesti Dr No change from Nesti Dr, <30% on Shelburne Rd 36% 54% Min. Front Setback 30 ft. from Nesti Dr, 50 ft. from Shelburne Rd 141 ft. from Nesti Dr No change from Nesti Dr, 385 ft. from Shelburne Rd 38 ft. No change Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 52 ft. No change >25 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft. No change N/A1 Building Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Unknown No change Unknown No change Proposed to be in compliance X Not in compliance 1. Estimated by staff 1. The proposed subdivision exceeds the maximum front yard coverage described in Section 3.06(H) and increases the pre-existing non-conformance. Without removing pavement, it is not mathematically possible to subdivide the properties and not increase the degree of non-conformity. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they are willing to remove pavement so that the front yard coverage requirement for 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Road can be met. This is not a criterion which may be waived. Alternatively, the applicant has the option return to the prior proposal of creating an easement for access to 68 Nesti Drive. Development within the C2 district is subject to Site Plan review. In order to modify the existing driveway for 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Road so that it can be used by 68 Nesti Drive, the applicant will need to submit an application for site plan review. B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 15.10 Lot Layout A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils and drainage conditions. SD-18-01 Staff Comments 4 2. The proposed lot line crosses a stream and stream buffer area, dividing ownership of the stream buffer between two properties. Staff considers that the proposed layout creates challenges to maintenance of the stream buffer. For example, should there be an erosion control problem, there would be multiple parties involved. 15.18A General Standards The project’s design must respect and provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. 3. Staff considers that the stream buffer itself is not proposed to be impacted by development but that stream corridor of Bartlett Brook is bisected as described above and the proposed layout poses challenges to the stream corridor. The Project is required 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. 4. Staff considers that the proposed lot line creates a triangular flag lot geometry which is inconsistent with the geometry of other parcels within the vicinity. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether a rectangular geometry which splits ownership of the proposed drive between the parcels would accomplish the same goal while being consistent with the other parcels in the area. The majority of the remaining subdivision standards pertain to projects which involve construction. Therefore, the majority of the discussion of compliance below focuses on the reconfigured access driveway element of the Project. The Project is required to comply with erosion control standards described in Article 16 even if it does not require a State General Permit for Construction. 5. Staff recommends the Board confirm that the applicant understands the requirements of Article 16, which specify stabilization timelines, minimum side slopes, and minimum topsoil thickness. The Project will be required to provide a Letter of Intent from VTrans prior to obtaining site plan approval to reconfigure the Shelburne Road access driveway. The applicant is proposing to use remove a small portion of the existing parking area to allow reconfiguration the access drive. It appears the applicant is proposing to replace the landscape islands which will be impacted by the reconfiguration. Staff considers that the driveway entrance will be widened, resulting in a slightly longer pedestrian crossing distance. Should the applicant wish to reduce impervious in order to allow the project to proceed, one option would be to reduce the driveway width and retain a single lane for each of entrance and exit. From the submitted plans, it is not clear when the wetland delineation was completed. In order to comply with the submission requirements for Site Plan Review and to demonstrate compliance with the Subdivision Standard pertaining to wetland protection, the applicant may need to perform an updated wetland delineation. SD-18-01 Staff Comments 5 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant when their wetland delineation was completed. C) SITE PLAN STANDARDS The Project specifically proposes to create a shared driveway for the purposes of creating access to an arterial street without an additional curb cut, which is one of the Site Plan Review Standards. Staff considers that the proposed reconfigured access drive will not meet the minimum criteria for requiring a private road, therefore the requirements of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation do not apply. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and determine whether the project can proceed as is. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 FEBRUARY 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 February 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Behr (via phone), M. Cota, J. Wilking, J. Smith, D. Parsons, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; Ms. Britt, Development Review Planner; D. Rugh, T. Peterson, A. Rowe, K. Braverman, C. Snyder, T. McKenzie, J. Larkin, R. Flood, M. Sperry, P. Judge, P. Eastman, M. Sopher, S. Homsted, R. Rushford, M. Janswold, C. Frank, M. & R. Schwartz, J. Goodwin, A. Dery, R. Dickinson, M. Simoneau, E. Farrell, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt 1. Additions, deletions or changes in order of Agenda Items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to Agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Continued Design Review Application #DR-16-05 of University of Vermont Medical Center to install new signage at 6 San Remo Drive: Mr. Miller noted that the new sign replaces an old orthopedic surgery sign. The new sign will not be illuminated. Members viewed a picture of the proposed sign. Mr. Cota moved to close #DR-16-05. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-01 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three lots ranging in size from 7170 sq. ft. to 185,659 sq. ft., 6 Market Street: Mr. Rowe said they are proposing to place a 39-unit, mixed income residential building on Lot A, accounting for 31,733 sq. ft. The building will include 11,500 sq. ft. of non-residential use on DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 FEBRUARY 2017 PAGE 2 the ground floor and 200 sq. ft. of commercial office space. Parking will be underground. The City of South Burlington will contribute part of the funding for the project from the affordable Housing Trust. Mr. Conner noted this will be the first project in the City Center Form Based Code District to come to the Board. The Board is charged with reviewing the subdivision as well as the assignment of street types. Other aspects of the project will be reviewed administratively. Mr. Conner then explained that the Official City Map indicates a street connecting from Market Street to Mary Street. Half of that street will be on the applicant’s property, the other half on the adjacent property (owned by Century Partners). The applicant proposes to dedicate to the City the 7170 sq. ft. parcel for a 30-foot wide right-of-way (half of the required 60-foot right-of- way) so that Mary Street can be connected to Market St. For access to the building on Lot A, the applicant proposes a temporary private driveway. Staff will work with the applicant to determine the level of funding the applicant will provide for construction of the Market Street to Mary Street connection. Mr. Sperry, representing Century Partners, expressed concern with the 30-foot right-of-way. He felt the subdivision does not comply with the regulations and felt the building should be shifted to the east. He also questioned whether the DRB can issue a permit without the permission of the other landowner. Mr. Conner said staff will meet with the applicant prior to preliminary/final plat to determine the form and amount of funding for the connecting street. This amount will be based on construction cost of the relevant elements of the applicant’s half of the support street. No other issues were discussed. 6. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-03 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Miller noted the DRB does not need to consider the traffic impact study as part of the Master Plan. It will be considered at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Cota moved to close #MP-16-03. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 FEBRUARY 2017 PAGE 3 7. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-16-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to develop 50 acres with a maximum of 360 dwelling units and 55,00 sq. ft. of commercial space at 255 Kennedy Drive: It was noted that this is the original Master Plan, and the new application, #MP-16-03 requests additional units in the development. After discussion, the applicant elected to keep this application open in order to revisit the question of coverage. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-16-01 to 7 March 2017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-16-37 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 2-family dwellings, and 3, 14 lots at 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langfeldt said there will be a new city road through the development as well as spur road which he described as “glorified driveways.” There will also be trail networks and rec paths. Mr. Gill said owners would own their own footprint lots, but an association would control the 18 units in the R-12 District. The project will be multi-phased, and phases will be self-sustaining in terms of infrastructure and bonding. Mr. Behr expressed concern that the sidewalks were too narrow and too close to traffic. Other members agreed. Mr. Behr and other members also liked the proposed architecture of the homes. The Board then reviewed the applicant’s traffic study. Mr. Gill noted that Public Works Director Justin Rabidoux supports the findings of the study. Mr. Cota then moved to continue #SD-16-37 to 7 March 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 FEBRUARY 2017 PAGE 4 9. Continued Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD-16-32 of Lewis Real Estate to amend a planned unit development consisting of six commercial buildings with a total of 21,323 sq. ft. The amendment consists of constructing an 1800 sq. ft. building for retail use at 1233 Shelburne Road: It was noted that this is part of the Lakewood Commons development. The applicant proposes to grant a 30-foot easement to the property to the north to allow future development on the northern site to access to Holmes Road to the south. The applicant will also enter into a reciprocal easement with the neighboring property owner to construct a pedestrian connection to the north. This will allow the applicant to increase their traffic allocation to accommodate the new retail building. The President of the Lakewood Commons Homeowners Association expressed concern with traffic, safety and parking. He suggested running the access to the west of the property. Ms. Britt explained that staff put forth the proposed easement because there is a road show in that location on the Official City Map. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-16-32. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 3 January and 17 January 2017: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 3 January and 17 January 2017 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:00 p.m. ______________________________ Clerk ______________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2017 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 March 2017, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, M. Behr (via phone), J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Cota, D. Parsons, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; J. Ladd, Human Resources; Sgt. Dubie, Police Department; L. Michaels, B. Snyder, M. Sperry, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt 1. Additions, deletions or changes to the order of agenda items: Members agreed to move item #6 to follow #4. 2. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to agenda items: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller announced that a communication had been received from Daniel Seff indicating that the two decisions on the Snyder group (Spear Meadows) applications have been appealed to the Environmental Court. 4. Sgt. Dubie from the South Burlington Police Department and Janice Ladd, HR Director, to discuss the City’s Crisis Plan: Sgt. Dubie advised that an emergency evacuation procedure will be added to the beginning of each city meeting agenda. He then explained the procedure for evacuating the Conference Room should a fire alarm go off or should there be a medical emergency. The meeting Chair will be responsible for assuring that everyone has left the building safely. 5. (formerly #6) Continued sketch plan application #SD-16-14 of Eastern Development Corp. to develop a 12-unit planned unit development on 21.8 acres consisting of six two-family dwellings, 150 Swift Street: Messrs. Kochman and Parson and Ms. Smith recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2017 PAGE 2 The applicant reminded the Board that they had initially proposed to develop a 12-unit (6 2- family dwellings). Following Board comments at the last hearing, they scaled down the development to two 4-unit buildings, for a total of 8 units. The buildings have also been pushed further back from the road. The applicant showed the proposed elevations. Members felt the revised scale and the elevations were a major improvement. They did feel there should be some space set aside for recreation No other issues were raised. 6. (formerly #5) Preliminary and final plat application #SD-17-03 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide a 5.15 acre parcel into three lots ranging in size from 12,589 sq. ft. to 183,150 sq. ft., 6 Market Street: Messrs. Parsons and Kochman and Ms. Smith rejoined the Board. Mr. Miller noted that this project to come before the Board in the City Center Form Based Code District. Form Based Code applications typically receive administrative review and do not need to come before this Board; however, because there is a subdivision involved as well as an assignment of street type, the Board is asked to hear those issues. Mr. Snyder said that following the 2 February hearing, they agreed to provide the full 60-foot right-of-way for the future Mary Street. Mr. Miller noted that this will require a minor change to the Official City Map which currently shows Mary Street straddling this parcel (and adjacent parcels). Mr. Sperry, representing an abutting neighbor, asked how the road would comply with city standards. Mr. Belair said this road would be considered a “Neighborhood/Support Street” under the Form Based Code criteria, and the proposal meets the requirements for that type of street. Members felt it was necessary to continue the hearing to allow the Planning Commission and the City Council to act on the change to the Official City Map. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-03 to 21 March 2017. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2017 PAGE 3 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-17-01 of Steven & Eileen Rosen to: 1) expand the footprint of an existing single family dwelling from 1,400 sq. ft. to 1,550 sq. ft., 2) add a front entry porch, 3) extend the deck, and 4) reconstruct stairs to lake, 95 Central Avenue: The applicant indicated the location of the entry porch and showed how the deck would be expanded. Members discussed the proposed building materials and also the building height of the revised structure. Queen City Park neighbors were concerned that the proposal does not align with the historical nature of the QCP neighborhood. Mr. Miller advised that this was not a criteria which the Board could consider. Mr. Michaels suggested that changing the orientation of the roofline would be an improvement. Mr. Cota moved to close #CU-17-01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-16-37 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for a planned unit development on 39.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family dwellings, 2) 27 two-family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langfeldt and Mr. Gill presented a power point of the proposed project. Members then asked that they address staff notes relating to parking (specifically with regard to front yard setbacks), height and setback waivers, traffic and circulation, open space, details of landscaping and landscaping budget, wetland and wildlife habitat, affordable housing, rec paths, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. There was particular concern as to whether vehicles parked in driveways should be allowed to cross the right-of-way. Following discussion, Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-16-37 to 18 April 2017. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 21 February 2017: The Minutes were not presented for review. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2017 PAGE 4 10. Other Business: No other issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:27 p.m. ____________________________ Clerk ____________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 January 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, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. O’Leary, B. Currier, M. Provost, D. Penar, G. Kyasa, B. Darling, J. Darling, K. Cubino, P. Meyendorff, P. Meyendorff, L. Nadeau, L. DeMaroney, B. Dousevicz, D. Marshall, L. Breese 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. Continued final plat application #SD-17-28 of JAM Golf, LLC to subdivide a 47.99 acre parcel developed with a golf course into eleven (11) lots ranging in size from 0.37 acres to 45.03 acres, Golf Course Road: Mr. Miller stated that the Board had entered into deliberative session and reached a conclusion on whether to allow the beginning portion of the roadway to be reduced to 20-feet without further input from the interested parties listed in the judgement order. He stated that the Board would allow it. Ms. Keene read suggested language that the Board had agreed upon to allow clearing of trees for the purposes of turf health with site plan approval of the Administrative Officer and/or City Arborist. Mr. Marshall indicated acceptance of this modification. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Miller noted that the Board wanted to change the last sentence of the proposed condition to allow replacement of removed trees with trees of the same genus or as recommended by the City Arborist. The purpose of this is to allow diseased trees to be replaced by trees of species not subject to the same diseases. Mr. Marshall indicated acceptance of this modification. Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant had met with the neighbor, Mr. O’Leary. Mr. Marshall stated that they had not. They intend to discuss with the neighbor the location of the trees to remain and the proposed home, but is not proposing at this time to relocate the home. Mr. Marshall noted that the applicant would like to move the foundation drain on lot #86 to off of lot #86 so that lot #86 is not encumbered by an easement, and that the applicant would like to have this as a condition of approval. The Board agreed to make this a condition of approval. Mr. Marshall stated that the applicant intends to create a homeowner’s association for management of the trees. The HOA would include only the ten new homeowners. The Board agreed to make this a condition of approval. Mr. Cota moved to close #SD-17-28. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Master Plan application #MP-17-02 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved master plan for a 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment consists of revising the roadway layout in Phase II (Cider Mill II) and increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Cota disclosed that he is a resident of Cider Mill on Winesap Lane. Mr. O’Leary described the changes made to the proposed development since sketch plan. Mr. Miller noted that the NR district was originally planned for future development as part of the master plan. At the Board’s request, Mr. O’Leary clarified what the archaeologically sensitive area means. This area has been identified as needing Phase III assessment in order to be built upon. Instead of doing a Phase III assessment, the applicant has opted to keep development out of this area. Ms. Keene noted that the requested waivers are in order to provide approval for the previously approved master plan waivers, which the Board is OK with. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 3 Mr. Darling expressed concern about the roadway extension and traffic study, and asked if it was better to discuss as part of the master plan hearing or the preliminary plat hearing. The Board said the preliminary plat hearing. Mr. Meyendorff expressed concern about the location of the road connecting to Cider Mill II. He thinks it is too close to his house. He also expressed concern about the narrowing of the wildlife corridor - even with houses removed there is still a park and a storm pond and a fence and is concerned that the corridor will be too close. Ms. Kinard expressed concern about making a barrier for wildlife passage - can the remainder of Aurora Road be also narrowed to 18 feet? This would also discourage it as being a cut- through. Mr. O’Leary stated that the roads in cider mill II are 24 feet or 26 feet if there is parking, and that the applicant isn't necessarily opposed to making Aurora Road narrower for the whole stretch to the first unit. Mr. Cota moved to continue #MP-17-02 to 6 February 2018. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary plat application #SD-17-29 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units. The 142 units will consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in two (2) family dwellings, and 30 units in three (3) unit multi-family dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Keene noted a correction to the project description. There are no three unit multi-family dwellings proposed, the 30 units are to be single family dwellings on a shared lot. Mr. Kochman asked if the single family dwellings on a shared lot will own the area under the home. Mr. Dousevicz said they will not, they will be on common land. As the Project is the same as was discussed under item #6, Mr. O’Leary felt that no introduction was needed and moved directly to review of staff comments: The Board is OK with all requested waivers. Mr. O’Leary represented that a raised road is needed in order to allow installation of a gravity sewer instead of a pump station, which the City typically prefers. Road along Lindamac will need to be raised 5-6 feet. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Kochman asked if there is any view impact. Mr. O’Leary said there is not. Members are in general in agreement with the approach. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant would like the condition to just be that they have to purchase TDRs prior to issuance of zoning permits rather than showing the option prior to final plat approval. Mr. Belair clarified that the Board typically requires them to demonstrate where they come from because the Board is the only authority eligible to transfer them & secure the ability to obtain them. With the understanding that they don't have to purchase them, the applicant is OK with this. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with the staff comment regarding water & wastewater allocations. Mr. O’Leary noted that in non-buffer open space, they're proposing an open space management plan which will be part of the HOA agreement. The applicant has not yet prepared this plan, but they plan to. The applicant also feels that they're respecting the open space to the extent feasible. Ms. Keene indicated that the stormwater ponds need to be fenced for liability purposes. Everyone agrees that this is a bad thing for wildlife but perhaps the option could be a split rail fence which would be less of an impediment. Mr. Miller asked if the applicant would be OK with incorporating the recommendations of the natural resource committee as conditions of approval. Mr. O’Leary said that they would be for some of them. Specifically, the recommendations they're not OK with incorporating are conditions relating to the boardwalk since it won’t be built, establishing a fund, making Aurora Road one lane, making the connection between Cider Mill I and II for emergency vehicles only, and establishing a separate critter crossing under Aurora Road. The crossing under Aurora Road attempts to limit fill while allowing free passage of water. The applicant is OK with making the remaining recommendations a condition of approval. Members were OK reducing the width of the connector roadway to allow maintenance access to the stormwater pond. Mr. O’Leary noted that they are fine with previous condition #25 requiring the applicant to reassess the Hinesburg Road (VT 116)/Cheesefactory Road intersection before the 26th dwelling unit is constructed and pay a ‘fair share’ impact fee to the City of South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3% of the total cost of the improvement. He also noted that they are OK with removing condition #26 as staff recommended, which requires the applicant to reassess the northbound left turn lane warrant at the Hinesburg Road (VT 116) Nadeaucrest intersection prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the 50th and 100th dwelling units. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 5 Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with staff comments on site plan review, electric and telecom, home design, wetland demarcation and water & wastewater allocation. Mr. O’Leary said that the landscape budget numbers need to be updated, a budget needs to be provided, and they're planning to provide typical landscape costs. Mr. Dousevicz said they're not proposing footprint lots anywhere, duplexes or carriage homes. Ms. Keene said they had received comments from the arborist, which she will send to the applicant. Mr. O’Leary agreed to incorporate the comment. Mr. O’Leary indicated they'll be letting homeowners know about right-to-farm. The applicant is intending to leave the hedgerow. Mr. O’Leary indicated that it is up to the HOA to decide if they want additional amenities in the parks - they're finding that HOAs remove amenities. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with demarcating the open space with either a split rail fence or boulders. The Board indicated they’d prefer to limit the amount of demarcation to just by the homes. Mr. Wilking asked if there can be a path to the open space & that the HOA agreement require it to be mowed so that the limits of mowing be the demarcation. The applicant is in agreement with a path. Mr. Kochman further suggested giving the parks names as a way to make them more park-like. The applicant is OK with submitting an open space maintenance agreement. Mr. Wilking asked about parking next to the community garden. Mr. O’Leary indicated there would be on-street parking next to the community garden. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is OK with staff comments on tree spacing & light spacing. Mr. O’Leary said they will adjust road widths to be 26 feet wide anywhere homes face the street. There are pedestrian bump-outs in the existing approval for 109 units. They eliminated them on this plan thinking that’s what DPW wants to see. They're fine with narrowing down if that's what the City wants to see. The City wants to see them. Mr. Behr noted that carriage types 3 and 4 are too similar. The applicant agreed to revise these. Mr. Behr also noted that the duplex are too similar, especially considering that they're all grouped into the same portion of the development rather than mixed with the single family. Mr. Kochman asked if the homes can be less clustered. Mr. Dousevicz responded that mixed units are harder to sell, also that the roads would have to be reconfigured to allow mixing. Regarding home setbacks, Mr. O’Leary noted that with the required sidewalk and green space, they don't want to move the single family homes on shared lots closer to the road because the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 6 effective minimum driveway length would be 28 feet, 23 feet if set back 25 feet from ROW. Members were OK with the homes being 30 feet from ROW. Mr. O’Leary noted that the 10' rec path contributes to the homes along Aurora Road being unbalanced. Applicant is proposing to relocate the rec path to be cross country and reduce the path width along the road to a five foot sidewalk, which would smooth out the unbalanced nature of duplexes. Members are in favor of the path through the open space and replacing with a sidewalk along the road. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant will provide building widths relative to garage setbacks and that they will provide documentation on the sizing of the culvert crossings. Members then discussed the traffic study. Mr. O’Leary noted that 37% of trips from Cider Mill II would travel through Cider Mill I. Cider Mill II will increase PM Peak trips on Winesap from 62 to 109 vehicles per hour, which is not uncommon or considered to be high traffic on local streets. Mr. Kochman considered that the assumption that 37% of traffic from Cider Mill II will go through Cider Mill I seems incorrect. Mr. O’Leary noted that this assumption is substantiated by the census data. Members consider that the biggest traffic consideration is Van Sicklen Road. Mr. Wilking emphasized that there should be a southbound right turn lane on Hinesburg Road for vehicle safety & also sees the merit of the argument in favor of making the Cider Mill Road extension. Members in general agree that a right turn lane on Rte. 116 into development would provide the greatest benefit and recommends the applicant speak to Vtrans about it. Mr. O’Leary noted that the applicant is against the Cider Mill Road extension because of wildlife corridor, and is pessimistic that the wetland program would allow it. He considers that 109 trips on Winesap is still light traffic Mr. Currier noted that the reason for Aurora Road being in Phase I is based on needing to connect utilities through Cider Mill I. The applicant is amenable to going back to the Phase I as proposed in most recent sketch plan (Nadeaucrest and carriage homes first) and just building the utilities first without the road. Public comments were then received. Ms. Cubino stated that she is interested in seeing Cider Mill Road extended. She retained a transportation engineering firm (RSG) and asked them to look at the data from L&D & give an opinion on the information they've provided. The firm recommended that as much as 60% of traffic will be going to the west based on a map of where people work in this region. Mr. O’Leary asked if the distribution is Chittenden county people or just South Burlington people. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 7 Ms. Cubino considers that the 109 vph on Winesap is unsubstantiated in the traffic study. She presented alternatives for constructing Cider Mill Rd. extension with traffic calming measures - 18 feet wide, speed bumps. Ms. Cubino noted that residents of Cider Mill I were sold their homes with the understanding that extension would be built. She provided alternative suggestions of reducing width to 18 feet or making the connection as emergency vehicle connection only. She considers that the east west connection will be very desirable for people connecting wanting to connect from Hinesburg Road to Dorset Street. Mr. Meyendorff asked why the bike path connects to the bike path in Cider Mill I. Mr. Wilking noted that this is our one chance to have a bike path built & support the City's goal of bike path connectivity. Mr. Meyendorff clarified that he is interested in seeing the bike path aligned to connect to existing bike path. Ms. DeMaroney asked about trip generation. Ms. Keene stated that one trip per unit is what was used. Ms. DeMaroney considers that the population increase since 2000 invalidates the use of the 2000 census data, and considers that trip generation ignores the fact that there are additional trips for other purposes other than commuting. Mr. Kyasa noted that he has seen a traffic increase in the last 2 years Ms. Apenar spoke in support of the letter from Katherine VanWoert, who was unable to attend. She sympathizes with Winesap traffic concerns but considers that the Cider Mill Road extension will create more of a cut-through and building the extension would switch traffic from Winesap to Sommerfield. She prefers a narrower connection between Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II with landscaping to mitigate impacts. Ms. Apenar requests that the park that is in the northwest corner be eliminated to improve wildlife corridor, and that things that are not parks be unmowed and remain natural. After some discussion, members were amenable to removing the northwest park. Ms. Meyendorff asked if the rec path be located on the other side of Aurora Road? Mr. Bresee suggested moving the rec path adjacent to Aurora Road at the beginning where it connects to Sommerfield, and suggested using boulders instead of split rail for maintenance purpose. He stated that he is in favor of the mid-block pedestrian connection to Aurora Road for many reasons. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JANUARY 2018 PAGE 8 Members asked if the bike path can be reduced to 8 feet between Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II. Ms. Keene suggested that the Bike Ped committee be asked if they're ok with it through this section if the road is also narrowed to 18 feet. Ms. Smith recommended that if the bike path is adjacent to the road, there be some sort of barrier between the rec path and the road. Members then discussed the potential Cider Mill Rd extension. Mr. Kochman and Mr. Behr felt that is should be connected. Mr. Wilking felt it should be connected 70%, and not connected 30%. Ms. Smith and Mr. Cota feel 50%/50% on it. Mr. O’Leary reminded members that the City has to accept the road in order to require its connection. Mr. O’Leary noted that they have approval for the 109 units, the Dorset Street turning lane is expensive, Cider Mill Rd extension is expensive, and with this potential extension it's getting to be a question of math. They've agreed to many improvements, and at some point, requiring them to do one more thing, they're going to have to go back to 109 units plus some section of village residential. Mr. Cota moved to continue #SD-17-29 to 6 February 2018. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 19 December 2017: Mr. Parsons name was removed from the list of attendees. Under the South Village Request for Reconsideration item, a sentence was corrected from “They would have to spread around already built “regular” units.” to “They would have to be confined to only the unbuilt area rather than spread around.” Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 19 December as amended. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___________.