HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10A_2019-12-17 DRB Minutes draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 DECEMBER 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17
December 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E.
Portman; J. Smith, alternate
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B.
Bouchard, D. Crawford, P. DeMichele, S. Williams, J. Swope, R. Horn, N. Andrews, S. Darnell, B.
Bless, P. Ewing, H. Cochran, E. Keeton, B. Perrez, E. Hazelett, R. Depot, B. Denham, J. Owen, R.
Jeffords, P. Obrien, A. Solberg, S. Mowat, J. Boyd, K. & K. Clarke, M. & A. Thermanson, C. Pinto,
T. Maynard, D. Marshall, M. & G. Butie, S. Smets, M. Smiles
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Cota provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
Mr. Cota noted a request to reopen SD‐19‐27 to address a challenge regarding defining riparian
areas.
Messrs. Wilking and Sullivan recused themselves during this discussion. Ms. Smith joined the
Board as an alternate to provide a quorum.
Mr. Cota moved to reopen SD‐19‐27 and to hold a hearing on 22 January 2020 to address a
challenge regarding definition of riparian areas. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
Messrs. Wilking and Sullivan rejoined the Board. Ms. Smith stepped down.
Mr. Cota also asked to move the Minutes to follow item #4, and other business to follow the
minutes.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
No announcements were made.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 2
5. Minutes of 3 December 2019:
Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 3 December 2019 as written. Mr. Wilking
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Other Business:
Mr. Cota recused himself during this discussion. Mr. Behr presided. He noted that the
applicant for SD‐19‐31 and SP‐19‐39 had asked to change the hearing date from 22 January to 4
February 2020. Members informally agreed to this request.
Mr. Cota resumed the Chair.
7. Continued Miscellaneous Application #MS‐19‐03 of South Village Communities, LLC,
for approval of an overall affordability plan for a previously approved multi‐phase 334
unit planned unit development, 1840 Spear Street:
Ms. Jeffers showed the plan of the development. It is on a 220 acre site on Spear Street at the
top of Allen Road. Ms. Jeffers indicated the 12.5 acre farm in the center of the property and
the remainder of the conserved property. The development is designed for connectedness,
walkability, with sidewalks on both sides of the roads, front porches, etc.
The project is being built in 3 phases. Ms. Jeffers indicated these and noted which ones are
completed. Some affordable units will be built as part of Phase 3. Mr. Cota noted the applicant
received a density bonus for those affordable units.
Ms. Jeffers then explained the options for location of the remaining affordable units as follows:
Option #1: On lot #11, 17 of the 34 duplex units would be affordable; on lot 48n, 4 of the 8
duplex units would be affordable; 5 units would be assigned to pre‐existing buildings from
Phases 1 and 2 (these are currently rentals), and there would be 6 additional units in Phase 3 as
already approved.
Option #2: 26 of 34 units on lot #11 would be affordable and 6 more units in phase 3.
Option #3: All 32 units on lot #11 would be affordable.
Option #4: Instead of 34 units on Lot #11, there would be 22 units, 12 of which would be
affordable; on lot 48n, 4 of the 8 duplex units would be affordable; 4 units would be assigned to
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 3
other lots in Phases 1 and 2, and there would be 6 additional units in Phase 3 as already
approved. This would decrease the density and the number of affordable units.
The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows:
#1. There should be a community anchoring element on lot #11 to replace the originally
proposed school: Ms. Jeffers said they are considering a pavilion that would be available for
community events. She showed where this would be. Mr. O’Brien noted there would be views
to the west. He asked whether this would be only for South Village or for the whole
community. Members said it would be for South Village. They were OK with the pavilion as an
anchoring element.
#2. Discussion of options: Mr. Wilking rejected Option #3. Other members agreed as
they wanted the affordable units spread throughout the community. Mr. Behr noted this has
been discussed for several years. When the applicant asked for bonus density, there were no
affordable units brought forth. Now they are indicating they are only on multi‐family lots. He
wanted better disbursement. Mr. O’Brien said that if staff had told him earlier to build to 334
units, there would have been affordable units allocated from the beginning. Mr. Cota said that
without an affordability plan, certain lots can’t be built. Mr. O’Brien said they have started
Phase 3, 6 affordable units will be in it. He added that Champlain Housing Trust’s funding
mechanism is geared to 30‐40 unit buildings, and this doesn’t work for this project. He said
they are “self‐performing” the affordable units, some of which will be rentals in 4‐plex buildings
and some ownership in duplexes. Ms. Jeffers felt the duplexes offer the most desirable homes
with side windows, some yard space, etc. She said single family homes don’t work at all from a
financing point of view. Mr. O’Brien added that they have provided information to some
lenders to be sure the owned units would be salable from a secondary point of view.
#3. Demonstrate that the affordable criteria are met: Ms. Keene noted that the city or
its designee would determine that units remain affordable. CHT has said they would willing to
do this. This protects the privacy of who lives there. Mr. Cota noted that someone can’t rent a
unit and then sublet it at a higher rate. Mr. Behr stressed that the affordable units shouldn’t
stand out as “affordable.” Mr. O’Brien said that in Burlington you can’t tell which of their units
are affordable. Mr. Sullivan felt that Options 1‐3 appeared “segregating.” Mr. O’Brien said this
property isn’t “the other side of the tracks.” This is the nicest part of South Village, and the
units will be beautiful. Ms. Jeffers added that the homes will have porches, garages, etc.
Public comment was then received as follows:
Ms. Darnell: Was concerned with the impact of density on lot #11 from the point of view of
the farm and parking. She noted that South Village is an “agrihood,” and is the only
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 4
development in the city that has set aside so much open space. They also have more
infrastructure than other developments with double sidewalks, green spaces, roads, etc. She
felt the farm is very vulnerable, and the proposed units would block the view of the farm and
could put it out of business. She also was concerned with the added traffic becoming
unmanageable.
Ms. Denham: In the summer of 2018, there was a plan for 279 homes. She would favor that.
Ms. Keene noted that the applicant had withdrawn that plan. Ms. Denham noted the last of
the proposed driveways is 20 feet from the farm stand.
Mr. Andrews: He felt the proposed plan doesn’t adhere to the spirit of the Master Plan. He also
noted there still hasn’t been an affordable unit built in South Village. The developer hasn’t
been able to get builders to build affordable units because of the price of the lots. He was
concerned that quality would be sacrificed.
Ms. Boyd: She lives diagonally across from lot #11. Since construction on Phase 3 began, there
has been more construction traffic, and there will be a tremendous amount of traffic on East
Allen. She felt the road isn’t wide enough to park and drive. She felt affordable housing is an
option, not a mandate and that the 279 unit plan is preferable. She would support going back
to that plan.
Mr. Thermanson: Said the density proposed on lot #11 isn’t seen anywhere else in the
development. He asked to reduce the density requirement to 308.
Ms. Keene reviewed the history of density issues including an appeal to the Environmental
Court which reduced the number of units in Phase 3 to 60 units. Mr. Andrews said the Court
order eliminated 19 units and said the developer could move them to Phase 2. Mr. O’Brien
noted they are still working on the layout for Lot 48N in Phase 2 and had not removed and units
from Phase 2.
Mr. Burti noted he was the first resident in South Village. He isn’t opposed to affordable
housing but felt the proposed plan does not comply with how they were to be dispersed
throughout the development. At least half will be on lot #11, and the styles of these buildings
will be much different from anything else in South Village.
Ms. Clark: Serves on the Stewardship Committee. She noted a portion of every sale goes to the
Stewardship Fund to maintain the farm and common land. Homes were originally supposed to
be all owner‐occupied, but now there are 60 rental units, so the Fund can’t meet its goal. She
also noted that now more than half of the votes are cast by non‐residents.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 5
Mr. Wilking said the DRB can’t determine which are rental or bought units.
Mr. Owen was concerned that the affordable units will be “obvious.”
Mr. Swope: Was concerned with compromising the integrity of the neighborhood. He was also
concerned that affordability wasn’t integrated effectively.
Ms. DeMichele: Serves on the Affordable Housing Committee. She asked the DRB to maintain
the affordable units. She stressed that those who will be living there are people earning
$70,000 to $150,000 a year. She cited the loss of families and noted that what is keeping the
High School going is the importing of students from the Champlain Islands. She also cited the
row of houses on Market Street and challenged anyone to say which of them are affordable.
Mr. O’Brien said the location of the units on lot #11 won’t impact the open space or the farm.
Ms. Jeffers said there will be sweeping view of the farm. She also noted that Option #4 would
have the same appearance as the 279 unit plan. She showed a picture of the proposed duplex
and said they would have the same vernacular as other buildings in South Village. She also
showed a streetscape of what is built in Burlington and said it is not different from what is
proposed in South Burlington. Mr. O’Brien noted that in Burlington, 15% of their units
(approximately 35) are inclusionary, either duplex or multi‐family. He felt they can work with
Option #4. He stressed that they are not asking for a waiver. He said the houses will be
different in size, but from a distance they will look to be the same size. And the units will not all
look the same.
Mr. Behr said he knew the applicant would build a quality project. The difference is that if the
affordable units were built throughout the project, they would “disappear.” Now it will be
known that 50% of the units in that area are affordable. He felt the DRB should have required
distribution from day one.
Mr. Cota suggested continuing the application to allow the Board to consider tonight’s
comments and possibly request they submit other plans.
Mr. Cota moved to continue MS‐19‐03 to 22 January 2020. Mr. Sullivan seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
8. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐29 of South Village Communities, LLC, to
amend Phase IIIB of a previously approved multi‐phase 334 unit planned unit
development. The amendment consists of removing the master plan condition
requiring construction of a left hand turn lane at the southernmost entrance from
Spear Street onto South Jefferson Road, 1840 Spear Street:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 6
Ms. Jeffers said the requirement was based on a traffic analysis from 2007. At that time there
was diversion due to construction on Route 7, causing traffic to divert to Spear Street. This
tripped the warrant for the left turn lane. That traffic study has now been updated. Ms. Jeffers
added that when they do Lot 11A (neighborhood commercial) a new traffic study may be
warranted. Lot 11A is scheduled to have a market and an office building. She added that the
school’s 200 proposed trips have been removed from the count.
Ms. Keene said the applicant has submitted 3 versions of the traffic study. The second version
shows the full build of Phases 1‐3. The third version reflects the connection to Midland Avenue.
Mr. Cota asked if this would be an amendment to the Master Plan. Ms. Keene wasn’t sure. Mr.
O’Brien said most importantly for them is to push the condition for a left turn lane out 6
months.
Ms. Boyd said she lives at the turn. In the past 7 years, there has been a dramatic increase in
traffic on Spear Street. Shelburne is adding a lot of new homes, some not built yet. She felt 2
left turn lanes are needed.
Mr. Mowat suggested delaying the decision until the development is completed so there can be
a correct measurement. He asked what happened to the left turn lane on Preserve Road. Mr.
O’Brien said it is still there.
Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐19‐29. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Preliminary & Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐32 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to
construct an approximately 2500 sq. ft. single story short order restaurant and retail
sales building on one acre and potentially construct traffic mitigation at Tilley Drive
and Hinesburg Road, 47 Tilley Drive:
Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Bouchard said the plan is the same as that seen at Sketch Plan Review. There are 30
parking spaces. They have submitted all the civil engineering and provided information in
response to the Fire Chief and some class 3 wetland impacts.
Mr. Bouchard showed an overhead of the site. They are replacing the building that was there
with a barn‐like building. It will serve Tilley Drive and employees in the development.
Staff comments were then reviewed as follows:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 7
#1. Staff supports the front setback waiver. Mr. Bouchard said this was identified as a
gateway site to the city, and staff recommended moving the building forward.
#2. Approval needed for the shared driveway: Mr. Bouchard said it is actually a driveway
on the adjacent lot which will be used by the applicant. Ms. Keene suggested any approval
should not preclude the driveway being shared in the future.
#3. Mr. Cota noted this is a retail sales building with an embedded short order
restaurant use. Outdoor seating is OK. The applicant was OK with this.
#4. The applicant was OK with access from Tilley Drive.
#5. Mr. Bouchard noted they have submitted the report of the environmental engineer
and the State. They are impacting 1,811 sf of wetland impacts.
#6. Maximize the opportunity for open space: Staff was OK with this. Mr. Bouchard
showed a plan indicating the location of the previous barn. The new structure will be separated
from the major PUD by the wetland area.
#7. Mr. Bouchard said they have complied with the Fire Chief’s comments. He showed
traffic patterns for emergency vehicles and mountable curbs.
#8. DPW is requesting a 24‐foot road. Mr. Bouchard noted that across the road the 30‐
foot road narrows to 24 feet. This road has been designed to mimic that. He said they would be
happy to reduce the road to 24 feet if the Fire Chief is OK with it.
#9. They will maintain the stormwater system.
#10. All utilities will be underground. They are consulting with GMP now. Ms. Keene
said this can be a condition of approval.
#11. Update the value of landscaping to exclude what is on the applicant’s property.
Mr. Bouchard noted the neighbor wants 6 trees on their property. The applicant has requested
approval for ornamental grasses instead of counting those trees.
#12. Mr. Bouchard said they would be happy to put more trees (4) between Tilley Drive
and the parking lot, which is off their property.
#13‐15. The applicant was OK with requests regarding additional trees parking islands.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 8
#16. Narrow the road to 24 feet.
#17. The applicant will remove all signs from the plan.
#18. Request for additional front yard landscaping on Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Bouchard said
the Rec Path is there, so it is tight. They also don’t want to hide a beautiful building.
#19. The applicant was OK with bike racks and storage.
Members agreed to close with the road at 24 feet.
Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐19‐32. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
10. Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐19‐34 of Tyler Maynard to subdivide an
approximately 67.3 acre parcel into three lots of 65.6 acres (Lot #1), 0.8 acres (Lot #2),
and 0.8 acres (Lot #3) for the purpose of constructing a single family home on each of
Lots 1, 2, and 3, conserving the unbuilt portion of Lot #1, and constructing a separate
private access road on the western portion of Lot #1, 47 Cheesefactory Road:
Mr. Langan was recused due to potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Maynard noted that Lot #1 will preserve over 60 acres of land. The project will also include
an access drive for a neighbor.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. Private road standards. The applicant was OK with this.
#2. Mr. Maynard advised that the maximum height for all the houses will be 28 feet.
Ms. Keene noted this needs to be shown in relation to pre‐construction grade.
#3. Conservation documents must be included with final plat. Mr. Bless said the Land
Trust is working on them. Ms. Keene noted that the easement has to be executed at least
concurrent with subdivision.
#4. Requires clarification of the “private access road” and how it results in greater
conservation. Mr. Ewing said that road is to access their property. It eliminates access off
Cheesefactory Lane and allows a house on Lot #1. Mr. Bless explained the complexity of the
efforts to conserve the land. Mr. Cota asked what happens to the approval of the original road.
Ms. Keene said there can be a condition that it has to be amended before they can build the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 9
road now shown. She noted that this is a longer road with more wetland impact, but it may
conserve 45 acres in Shelburne. Mr. Bless said he assumes the previous road will be eliminated.
#5 and #6. The applicant was OK with these.
#7. The discrepancy of the wetland designation with the Lincoln Applied Geology Plan
must be explained. Mr. Maynard said Fitzgerald’s plan is correct. They will do a full plan in the
spring.
#8. Mr. Maynard said they will comply with erosion standards.
#9. The applicant will provide buffering/fencing to protect the wetland. Ms. Keene
noted the Ewing approval did not require additional buffering. She questioned whether that
also applies here. Members were OK without buffering because the area is so rural.
#10. Mr. Ewing said they will keep the electricity going from 133 Cheesefactory Lane.
#11. The road standards are met. The “private access road” will remain private.
#12‐14. The applicant was OK with these requirements.
#15. The DRB can waive the requirement to reduce the width of the lots to meet the
criteria because this is a PUD. Mr. Maynard said they can’t have the septic system closer to the
property line (25 feet is required). Mr. Bless said they also don’t want to lose more conserved
land. Members were OK with this.
#16. The additional homes, even those in Shelburne, need DRB approval. Mr. Bless said
they have no plans to add additional houses.
#17. Determination from the Agency of Natural Resources is needed at final plat.
#18‐19. The applicant will continue to work on the conservation options/plan at final
plat.
#20. The applicant will provide the final design of the stormwater system at final plat.
Mr. Solberg did not believe the private access road is a permitted use but should be conditional.
He didn’t feel conservation of land was a reason to break the rules. He was opposed to the
construction of that road as he wants the grassland to remain contiguous among lots. He felt
that was one of the objectives of the SEQ.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 DECEMBER 2019
PAGE 10
Mr. Ewing noted that without that road, everything changes for them. Mr. Cota felt that issue
should be discussed with staff.
Mr. Cota then moved to close SD‐19‐34. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:45 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ______