Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_2018-12-18 DRB Minutes Revised Draft DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 December 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, M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; R. Gonda, D. Murdoch, S. Dopp, D. Sherman, D. Peters, B. C. Toline, S. Partilo, N. Hyman, D. Crawford, R. Greco, S. Hartman, R. Rushlow, B. Bartlett, G. Mortgone, P. Kahn, R. Brinkerhoff, D. Wheeler, T. Perreprow, L. Hammond, D. Seff, P. Smiar, P. O’Leary, M. Boucher, B. Currier, A. Shields 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 item #9 to follow item #5. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted that he will be leaving the Board along with Ms. Smith will be leaving the Board at the end of his term which means there will be 2 openings as of 1 July. 5. Miscellaneous permit application #MS-18-07 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades on Kennedy Drive. The upgrades consist of replacing a stormwater detention basin with a gravel wetland and expansion of the treatment practice to the north and east, West Twin Oaks Terrace and Kennedy Drive: Mr. Wheeler noted that when Kennedy Drive was widened, 7 stormwater ponds were installed. The city is now looking to upgrade them. One issue is water that is going by pond #3, and this will be addressed. They will also modify ponds 2 and 7 in the near future. The work for this will be entirely funded by the State. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Wheeler then addressed staff comments as follows: #1 – Regarding limiting the duration of the permit, Mr. Wheeler said the goal is to bid the project in January and finish by November. Mr. Miller suggested a 2-year limit. Mr. Wheeler said that would be fine. #2 – Regarding encroachment into the wetland, Mr. Wheeler provided a letter from the State of Vermont Wetland Program that no wetland permit is needed. Staff considers the Board cannot make use of the findings of the wetland program for evaluating compliance with the standards for wetland protection. Mr. Wilking asked how wildlife will be affected. Mr. Wheeler said they are not adding runoff, but reducing the amount of water going into the wetland. This will provide a significant improvement to the stream, wetland, Lake and wildlife. #3 – There is a significant improvement in phosphorus reduction (from 0% removal to 60% removal). They have State approval dated 12 December 2018. #4 – Regarding landscaping, some invasives will be removed. The 250 sq. ft. of impact will be restored. Mr. Hyman said there were problems caused by another such project, including destruction of wildlife. Mr. Wilking responded that the applicant has said it will improve the quality of wildlife in the wetland. Mr. Wheeler said the Department has considered wildlife. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close MS-18-07. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. (formerly #9) Minutes of 4 December 2018: Mr. Kochman said his concern for accommodating musicians may have been overstated. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 4 December 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. (formerly #6) Miscellaneous application #MS-18-06 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for alternate compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi-Use District Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulations Section 8.06H for a 20,200 sq. ft., 100-room, 5-story hotel building, 1068 Williston Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 3 Ms. Keene noted the Board can review only the project entrance requirement. Mr. Smiar reviewed the history of the project and noted they had incorporated the thoughts of the Board. He showed a rendering of the proposed entrances. The door facing Williston Road will be a functional public entrance during business hours. There is also an interior door available only to guests via a key card. Mr. Wilking said if you’re only walking into a lobby, he still has the same issue. The applicant indicated they have considered the possibility of an art gallery in that lobby. Mr. Miller said if it is an entrance to the hotel, it should be accessible to the hotel or there should be a buzzer system. The applicant indicated they can do a buzzer system. Ms. Keene said staff feels that meets the requirement. Mr. Cota moved to close MS-18-06. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. (formerly #7) Master Plan Application #MP-18-01 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single-family homes, 26 dwelling units in two-family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off-site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: and 9. (formerly #8) Preliminary Plat Application #SD-18-29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in two-family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single-family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off-site through the purchase of 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking and Mr. Sullivan recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Wilking retained his party status. Mr. Miller advised that Mr. Wilking will not have a greater influence given to his comment because of his Board status. Mr. Miller noted the attorney representing a group of neighbors has asked for a postponement. Members felt comfortable proceeding. Mr. Kochman noted that Mr. Seff can file a motion to “stay” the proceedings. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Miller noted receipt of written comments and noted that everyone will be given the opportunity to speak with a 2-minute limit. There will be a strict 9:30 deadline to the hearing which will be continued at that time. Mr. Boucher said they will present changes from the last hearing following meetings with staff. Review of the GIS resulted in a minor shift of the zoning boundary. Mr. Boucher indicated where on the plan. He recommended continuing the hearing to update the plan to incorporate this shift. The application is now for 154 units 95 single-family, 35 town house style multi-family, and 24 duplexes throughout the neighborhood. They have eliminated one access to Nowland Farm Road and now have only one wetland crossing. There is also direct access to Dorset Street. Stormwater storage has been split into two separate units. The internal green spaces have been widened and now connect to the natural resource zone (Mr. Boucher indicated this on the plan). They also created a green connection as common space with a walking path. Almost every lot now back up to green space. The project’s main road, Dewberry has been oriented toward Camel’s Hump. Recreational elements have been added including benches, passive recreation areas, rec paths, a small playground area with basketball courts (Mr. Boucher indicated the location on the plan). They plan to maintain a large open field and additional green areas on the edges of the neighborhood. They meet all landscape requirements. There will be delineation between backyards and common areas by plantings and boulders. Mr. Boucher showed lighting areas at the intersections and street crossings. Mr. Kochman said the plan looks like 3 distinct neighborhoods: multi-family, multi-family and single family. He asked if they can be integrated. Mr. Boucher noted there are changes in the zoning that affect this. There are also environmental concerns. Mr. Miller noted the zoning change is a Planning Commission issue. The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows: #1 - Site coverage will be updated. #2 – Staff considers Elderberry Rd. a connector road because it will eventually connect to the property to the south. The Board agreed. #3 – The applicant will designate open space consistently. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 5 #4 – A traffic impact study was submitted. The city’s third party reviewed it. The applicant commented on the review and is waiting for a response. They are OK with the staff’s proposed condition. #5 – Ms. Keene noted the city has studied one of the intersections (Spear St. and Nowland Farm Road) and is looking at options. #6 – The applicant is OK with review by the Natural Resources Committee. #7 – Mr. Kahn said they will provide elevations for the multi-family buildings. #8 – Each phase will include some communal elements. The applicant noted the elements in each of the proposed phases. #9 – The applicant is OK with the designation of the pre-construction grade and will consider whether to flatten the rear yard grading. #10 – No lot width to depth ratio will be less than 1:1. The Board and applicant are OK with that. #11 – Lots 82-88 have already been reconfigured. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has requested to relocate the district boundary line by 50’. There are additional green areas shown which will be conserved. #12 – The applicant will provide updated coverages after reconfiguration. #13 – The applicant will provide overall building and lot coverage calculations. Mr. Kochman noted that a submission from a group of adjoining property owners challenged the development on the grounds that it could not meet one of the requirements of section 15.18 of the LDR requiring consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan because a portion of the developed area is overlain by a primary conservation area shown on Map #7 attached to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan states promotion of conservation of important natural resources as a goal. Mr. Kochman asked the applicant if the sketch provided by the adjoiners overlaying Map #7 and the Project was accurate, which the applicant’s representative said he was not prepared to do inasmuch as he was seeing the sketch for the first time. At the request of the Chair, the Director of Planning and Zoning, Mr. Conner, testified that the plan appears to be blow up DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 6 of a portion of Map #7, and that the riparian area appears to overlay the project. Mr. Kochman told the applicant that, in that case, based on his understanding of the applicable law, he would like the applicant to demonstrate how the Project doesn’t violate the goals and objectives of the district. Mr. Kochman cited the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations which have been reviewed by the courts. The “aspirations” are not binding, but the “requirements” are. Mr. Kochman pointed out that the opponents have pointed out the need to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He advised the applicant to come back and indicate how they don’t violate the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The applicant then presented the Preliminary Plat and addressed the staff comments as follows: #1 – They are OK with providing the option to purchase TDRs. #2 – They are willing to look at alternative building designs to comply (along Elderberry Lane). No two adjacent buildings will be the same style. Mr. Boucher showed where waivers would apply to setbacks, from 20 feet to 15 feet on the front and 5 feet on the side. #3 – They will comply with the view protection zone. #4 -The applicant is okay with the payment methodology. #5 – Same response as in Master Plan re: traffic study. #6 – The applicant will accommodate review by the Natural Resources Committee. #7 – Addressed above (providing elevations). #8 – Will provide revised stormwater plans. #9 – Addressed above (preconstruction grade). #10 – The applicant will show electric and telecom lines. #11 – The applicant will incorporate unit design guidelines. #12 – The easement has been provided. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 7 #13 – The applicant indicated the location of dumpsters which will be screened. #14 – The applicant will submit an open space management plan. #15 – They will present a plan showing the mature trees to be preserved. #16 – The applicant will obtain a preliminary wastewater allocation. #17 – The applicant will provide a draft of the homeowners’ agreement including open space management. #18 – The Board approves the parking layout as proposed. Ms. Keene noted the Board has to explicitly grant a waiver for parking on side of the street in the areas indicated. #19 – There will be no variations from the standard indicated. #20 – They will revise the single-family corner type floor plans to meet the regulations. #21 – They will demonstrate that they have a permit for the wetland crossing. #22 – The Board was okay with the wetland permit being provided at the time of the first zoning permit. Mr. Miller asked about the price range of the proposed homes. Mr. Kahn estimated from the high $200,000s on “affordable” homes to $400,000-$600,000 on premium lots. Public comment was then made as follows: Mr. Seff: Represents 14 interested persons who have been identified on a handout. They do not feel the Board has jurisdiction to hear this application. They feel the plan does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan as there is development planned in a primary conservation area. This area is supposed to be protected, not destroyed. Mr. Miller said the Board will analyze which maps are appropriate. Ms. Dopp: Questioned the moving of the boundary line. Ms. Keene read from the LDRs the appropriate passage. She noted the applicant has compensated for the shift elsewhere on the property. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 8 Mr. Gonda: Opposes the project because of the riparian strip. He cited the presence of wildlife in the area and also noted that the brook connects two wetlands. He said if the project is to proceed, he would remove buildings on the east side of Elderberry Lane. Ms. Partilo: Cited the importance of wildlife and streams. She was concerned with pollution from pesticides and also with traffic. She noted traffic was counted in the summer when school is not in session and didn’t take into account new homes. Mr. Shields: Cited traffic issues. He was also concerned with the reduction in lot size which would change the character of the neighborhood. He also felt landscape budget numbers should be higher. Mr. Wilking: Noted that he would have neighbors 20 feet off his property line and that the transition between Village Commercial and Village Residential needs to be seriously considered. He felt the 50-foot boundary change was significant. Ms. Greco: Cited uncommon species of wildlife in that corridor because other habitat has been blocked off. She said the wetlands are there to purify water. The more they are paved over, the more polluted things become. Mr. Kochman suggested the applicant look very carefully at Mr. Seff’s memo and work with a lawyer to present a contrary argument. He indicated he would now vote against the plan. Mr. Cota moved to continue MP-18-01 and SD-18-29 to 29 January 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. 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 9:38 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date