HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_2018-02-20 DRB Minutes Draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 FEBRUARY 2018
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20
February 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. Behr (via telephone),
M. Cota, B. Sullivan
ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B.
Jakubowski, S. Tschorn, D. Penar, J. Unsworth, K. Cubino, A. Clayton, C. Galipeau, M. Koch, L.
DeMaroney, P. O’Leary, P. & M. Meyendorff, K. Mumma, K. & N. Van Woert, R. LaMothe, J. & B.
Darling, B. Currier, M. Saunders, L. Walker, G. Bruns, P. & J. Ewing, T. McKenzie, S. Dopp, C.
Pierce, C. Snyder, B. Currier, B. Ducevich, M. Lacoch, M. McClary, C. Lumont, G. Lee
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. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐04 of Blue Dragonfly, LLC, and Antonio Pomerleau to
resubdivide 3 lots, 1519 and 1525 Shelburne Road and 5 Bartlett Bay Road:
Mr. Galipeau noted this is the first step to changing the uses on all three lots. This had been a
PUD but was taken out of a PUD. Mr. Galipeau identified the 3 lots as The Magic Hat Brewery
Lot (lot #1), the existing Jiffy Lube/Martin’s Coins lot (lot #2), and an unoccupied lot (lot #3). He
noted that Magic Hat is interested in using the unoccupied lot, which is owned by Pomerleau,
to address an office need. To make that work, they need to combine lots. This will also result in
a walking trail between the upper and lower lots. Mr. Galipeau identified the areas being
transferred between lots and showed the plan for the additional parking.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 2
Mr. Galipeau showed where there will be a “jog” to address frontage. Members questioned
whether the boundary line adjustment creates a side yard setback issue with the Magic Hat
parking lot. Mr. Belair explained that there is no required setback from a parking lot, but the
Board usually asked for 5 feet for snow storage. Mr. Galipeau suggested a permanent snow
storage easement on Lot #2. Mr. Belair was OK with this.
Mr. Miller asked whether the parking requirement will be met. Ms. Keene said staff still needs
to review this. Mr. Galipeau noted that Jiffy Lube will maintain all of its spaces. All the rest of
the parking will be for lot #3 and will be striped. Mr. Galipeau stressed that there is no
intention to drive between the two parcels.
Mr. Kochman asked about access to lot #3. Mr. Galipeau said 99% will be through lot #2. He
indicated the curb cut for that access. The egress will be signed for a right turn only.
6. 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 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‐units multi‐family
dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street and 1699 Hinesburg Road:
Mr. O’Leary reviewed the changes since the last hearing as follows:
a. Connection to Aurora Rd./Sommerfield
b. Increased road width to 26 feet in front of units
c. Revised intersections for pedestrian crossings
d. Reduced footprints of the duplexes along the west stormwater pond
e. Removed park “E”
f. Provided plantings
g. Revised the rec path to be cross‐country from Russett Road to Aurora Road
(Mr. O’Leary showed the new route on the plan)
Staff notes were then reviewed as follows:
1. The applicant was OK with TDR notification
2. The applicant indicated that the area formerly occupied by park “E” will not be
developed in the future.
3. The issue of boulders may need to be reviewed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 3
4. An agreement has been reached with the stormwater section to address this concern.
Mr. O’Leary said he thought the City was being overly picky about stormwater when
they have a state stormwater permit.
5. Side‐loaded garages will be on end units only. These were indicated on the plan.
6. Mr. O’Leary explained that in order to make the road work, they have to raise the road,
which subsequently raises the homes. Ms. Keen clarified that staff is asking them to
grade out more gradually rather than putting home on a “platform.” Mr. O’Leary said
they have provided an existing grade for every lot. Mr. Kochman questioned how you
can call something “pre‐existing” that isn’t “pre‐existing.” Ms. Keene explained that
there is an “alteration of grade” permit. The DRB can keep the existing grade or allow a
new grade to be the existing grade going forward. Staff has asked the applicant to
“meet in the middle” somewhere, but they haven’t arrived at an answer yet. Mr. Belair
further explained that not every project can work with the existing grade. Ms. Keene
said staff feels the road can be raised without raising the buildings. They prefer a more
gradual slope. Mr. O’Leary said they will look at that. He stressed that when done, all
the houses will be at the same elevation.
7. The Board was OK with the proposed landscaping. Mr. Currier showed where additional
landscaping has been provided around the units. Landscaping around the perimeters
will be managed by an Association, so they have provided boulders and a split rail fence
in place of some landscaping.
8. Parkland will be kept in its natural state without playgrounds. Mr. Kochman was not OK
with this. Mr. O’Leary said that in a number of their projects, the Homeowners
Associations have asked to remove playground equipment because of the cost of
insurance and maintenance. Mr. Kochman felt that families with children should have
amenities, even a couple of benches, not just bare grass. Mr. O’Leary said they can
provide some benches.
9. Mr. O’Leary said they will demarcate open spaces.
10. The Board was OK with proposed street trees.
11. Mr. Wilking did not feel there should be a mid‐block pedestrian bump out on the main
road because of the volume of traffic. Mr. O’Leary agreed but said they would put it
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 4
back if the city wants it. The Board also favored narrowing the mid‐block crossing on
Senator Street.
12. The Board was OK with the proposed rec path configuration.
13. Sizing of drainage structures will be addressed at final plat.
14. Covered under the grading discussion.
15. Open space plans will be incorporated into the Homeowners documents.
Mr. Miller noted that there are competing petitions from residents, one favoring the extension
of Cider Mill Drive, the other opposing its extension.
Mr. Kochman said he supports extending the road because residents believed it was a “given”
when they bought their homes. He also was not convinced by the traffic study regarding traffic
coming through the inner streets.
Mr. Cota said he was never informed of the road extension when he signed for his house.
Ms. Cubino said she was told in 2015 by the developer that the road would be extended when
the next phase of development came in. She said she chose a home where there would be less
traffic once Sommerfield was completed. No time‐line was given for extension of the road.
She said the road extension is a “high priority” for most residents. Mr. Miller said the opposing
petition says the road would benefit only a minority or residents.
Mr. Kochman was concerned that the Board does not have the written report of the traffic
consultant hired by residents.
Mr. O’Leary noted that once a 50th unit is built, they will have to have a second connection
open.
Mr. Sullivan said he is leaning toward requiring an independent traffic study/technical review to
help the Board make the right decision for everyone. Mr. Kochman said he was OK with that
but still wanted to hear directly from the residents’ consultant.
Mr. Miller said he favors technical review and would like the following questions be considered
a. Use of 2000 census data as opposed to 2010
b. Information on whether the conection is warranted
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 5
c. More accurate representation of where the traffic is going – is everyone going to
Shelburne Road and no one to Montpelier?
Mr. Cota moved to invoke technical review on Application #SD‐17‐29. Mr. Wilking seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Public comment was then heard as follows:
Ms. Cubino was concerned with the lost value to 22 homes when they are impacted by
additional traffic.
Mr. Meyendorff asked for additional landscaping between his home and the bike path. Mr.
O’Leary said they can provide a hedge.
Ms. Bruns said she was never told the connection was possible.
Mr. Darling said they were told there would be a connection.
Ms. Van Woert said she felt the “bike path to nowhere” doesn’t make sense. She also said they
were told the connection would be for emergency vehicles only and that any more
development was “very far in the future.” She supports natural resources over a bike path.
Ms. Bronze agreed and said they were told the land was only for conservation and would not be
developed. Mr. Cota noted that if the property north of the solar panels is ever developed, the
road has to be put in.
Mr. Miller stressed that the DRB is not bound by what residents were told by developers.
Mr. Kochman said that just looking at the plan, the road “begs for completion.” He felt it was a
given that the road would be built. He agreed with Mr. Miller that the Board cannot consider
what people were told by salesmen.
Ms. Penar felt there should be a safer bike path connection at the cul‐de‐sac on Sommerfield
rather than between two houses.
Mr. Van Woert was concerned with east‐west traffic at higher speeds. He felt it is dangerous
now with people crossing to check the mail. He didn’t want to see a “drag strip.”
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 6
Mr. Kochman asked if traffic calming is appropriate on that road. Mr. Belair said that is a City
Council decision.
Ms. Meyendoff asked for more landscaping near the wildlife corridor. Mr. Miller noted that
originally it was to be a park, but the public wanted it left wild, so it will be. Mr. O’Leary said
they will put no landscaping there.
Mr. Miller directed attention to an elevation and a comment from Mr. Behr about the unbroken
roof over the garages. Mr. O’Leary said they will look at that.
As there were no further public comments, Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐17‐29. Mr. Wilking
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. 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 (City Mill
II) and increasing the number of residential units by 33 to 142 units, 1580 Dorset
Street and 1699 Hinesburg Road:
Ms. Smith left the meeting.
Mr. Belair explained the master plan process.
Mr. Miller noted the applicant is at 29% of total coverage which is below the maximum allowed.
No other issues were raised.
Mr. Cota moved to close MP‐17‐02. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐02 of John & 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. Clayton noted the location of the Belter Farm and noted that there is a farm property and a
home property. The subdivision would be to the farm property and would be for Green
Mountain Power. The leftover piece would be combined with the home property.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 7
Mr. Jacobowski said the Green Mountain Power piece would be 4 acres, and the farm would be
282 acres. They did not calculate the home acreage. Mr. Miller noted that the home property
would now be separated from the farm by the Green Mountain Power property.
Mr. Jacobowski explained that Green Mountain Power is looking at other sites, and the Belter
property is not the preferred site. However, they need to go through this process to ensure
they have a viable site. If they get the preferred site (also in South Burlington), they will
probably withdraw this application.
Mr. Jacobowski indicated an area that will be left undisturbed at the request of the Belters. He
also explained how the substation would be “vetted” in a public process through the Public
Service Board.
Mr. LaMothe asked if the area east of the farm road will not be involved. Mr. Jacobowski said it
will not be involved.
Mr. McClary noted there already is a substation at the end of Berard Drive and asked if that is
relevant. Mr. Jacobowski said they substations are linked together. The substation inside the
National Guard base, however, will go away.
Mr. Kochman asked if the road remains the same. Mr. Jacobowski said it will be improved up to
where the power lines are. The rest will stay as is.
Mr. Lee asked about zoning. Ms. Clayton identified the residential and Mixed I‐C zoning areas.
Mr. Lee said he didn’t want any of the buffering destroyed.
Mr. Jacobowski again stressed that this is “Plan B.”
No further issues were raised.
9. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐05 of Peter Ewing to subdivide a 10.9 acre parcel into
two lots of 213 acres (Lot #1) and 8.77 acres (Lot #2), 133 Cheesefactory Lane:
Ms. Keene noted that the applicant is proposing a 2‐lot subdivision and a 4‐lot subdivision in
the Town of Shelburne. The Shelburne application depends on access through South
Burlington. The project is located in the NRP district and is only permissible with a conservation
plan approved by the DRB. There are 2 homes proposed in South Burlington. The existing
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 8
home is not subject to DRB approval, but the access road is. Three homes will be built in
Shelburne. The remaining 85 acres in Shelburne will be conserved. The will be a building
envelope for the South Burlington homes.
Ms. Keene explained that the standard is for no more than 5 single family homes off a private
road. Beyond that, it must be a public road. Today, Cheesefactory is a public road which ends
at the Shelburne town line. Beyond that, it is private with one home. The applicant is
proposing 5 homes plus the existing home which would equal 6 homes off a private road. Staff
feels that extending the pubic road is not in the city’s best interest, but it also makes sense to
support the regulations. Ms. Keene then showed how that could work.
Mr. Kochman asked why it doesn’t matter that the 5 homes won’t be in South Burlington and
just ignore the homes in Shelburne. Ms. Keene said the City Attorney felt the town line didn’t
make a difference. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t agree.
Ms. Keene said the complication to what staff proposes is that the private road has to cross the
wetland. The applicant has approval to do that, and the Fire Chief is OK with an 18‐foot road.
Keeping the road to 12 feet is not OK with the Fire Chief who has to protect those homes. In
addition, the minimum standard on the public road segment is 25‐foot width, less than what is
there today. There is also a request for a few spaces of parking for people maintaining the
conservation area, which would make the road 28 feet wide in that area. Mr. Ewing read a
letter from John Binhammer that states they’d support a couple of spaces on a widened
roadways.
Mr. Kochman asked if the lots were for sale. Mr. Ewing said the lots are for sale.
Mr. Kochman asked what parking is needed to make the conservation agencies happy and
asked if parking could be on private land. Mr. Ewing said the City asked for public parking but
they’d rather put the parking on private land.
Mr. Kochman said he has a problem with conservation agencies sealing off properties without
access to the public. Ms. Dopp said she expects the land trust will be using South Burlington
funds to cover a portion of the purchase and the City should defer to them to determine what
land is suitable for recreation. Mr. Kochman said citizens of South Burlington will indirectly pay
to have this land in their midst that they can’t access. He felt that to be excluded was “galling.”
Mr. Ewing agreed to include a condition in the conservation agreement that says they cannot
post “no trespassing” signs in the right of way.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 9
Mr. Saunders indicated his house, immediately west of the property in question. He was
pleased with the conservation effort but was concerned with the public road and with tree
removal. He didn’t favor a public road or the proposed parking spaces which will require
widening the road. He cited poor sight lines at the north end of the Cheesefactory Lane which
has resulted in accidents. He noted that people from Fish and Game and UVM just come down
and park. Mr. Saunders didn’t favor enhancing that.
Ms. Leduc member of the audience agreed with the unsafe conditions that now exist. Mr.
Ewing noted that the road will have to be widened for 2 vehicles to pass, even if it is a private
road.
Mr. Cota asked if the sale to the conservancy is dependent on the parking space. Mr. Ewing
said it is not. He added that he had offered them space in the field, and they are fine with that.
Ms. Dopp made a pitch for creative, out‐of‐the box thinking and cited this as an opportunity to
conserve wonderful land.
The Board was OK with a waiver to a 20‐foot roadway. There is still a question as to whether
the Board can waive paving of a private road.
Mr. Wilking had an issue with the city maintaining a public road without a substantial tax
benefit to the city.
Mr. Pierce suggested the existing parking on Route 116 could suffice for the conservation
people. Ms. Keene said staff did not contemplate parking on Route 116.
10. Conditional Use Application #CU‐18‐01 of South Burlington City Center, LLC, to place
fill in wetland and wetland buffers and to clear trees within the wetland and wetland
buffers for the purpose of preparing the property for development, Market Street:
Mr. McKenzie reviewed the history and noted there are now permits from the Army Corps of
Engineers for mitigation of wetland impacts. A water quality improvement project is being
created to treat untreated runoff from neighboring properties.
Mr. Snyder then showed a plan of the area and identified the primary Class 2 wetland area.
They have been working with the state regarding the desire for high‐impact development
there. An area in the northwest corner of Garden Street will be preserved. Adjacent to that
will be a stormwater basin. The goal is to preserve Tributary 3 adjacent to Dumont Park. Mr.
Snyder described this as a trade‐off process to allow for city plans for City Center.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
20 FEBRUARY 2018
PAGE 10
Ms. Dopp asked if the filled land would have an impact on footings, etc, for proposed buildings.
Mr. Snyder said it would not.
No issues were raised.
Mr. Cota moved to close CU‐18‐01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
11. Minutes of 6 February 2018:
Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 6 February 2018. Mr. Kochman seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 11:20 p.m.
_____________________________________
Clerk
_____________________________________
Date