Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/22/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 22 January 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan (via telephone), J. Wilking, M. Behr (via telephone), D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman, J. Smith (alternate) ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; L. Alexander; B. & P. Wilcke; L. Nadeau; B. & A. Gross; P. DeMichele; B. McLay; D. Seff; D Heinberg; D. Peters; P. Saulpaugh; B. Cheng Tolmie; S. Mowat; P. O’Brien; R. Jeffers; A. Chalnick; K & W Hays; K. Francis Schep; B. Avery; A. Shields; C. Montgomery; B. Currier; P. Kahn; S. Hartman; R. Grecco; D. & S. Partilo; E. Briggs; C. Frank; E. Hazelett; N. Hyman, L. Retten; V. Zalusic; R. Gonda; E. Baseti; A. Carlow; H. Cochran; P. O’Leary, M. Busher, P. Kahn, T. Barritt, S. Dooley, H. Cochran, K. Schmucker, E. Briggs, B. McCrea, other members of the public 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: 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: Mr. Wilking noted that Sue Alenick, the Board’s minutes taker, has been honored as a “Super Senior.” 5. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-19-31 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to consolidate two lots of 0.36 acres and 0.59 acres into one lot for the purpose of constructing and expanded service station and retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: and 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-19-39 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to demolish the existing structures at 907 Shelburne Road and a portion of an existing service station at 793 Shelburne Road and construct an expanded service station with two additional fueling DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 2 positions for a total of ten and an associated 4,265 sq. ft. retail and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Cota recused themselves. It was noted that the applicant has requested a continuance until 4 February. Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD-19-31 and SP-19-39 to 4 February 2020. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Reopening of final plat application #SD-19-27 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 94 single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two-family homes, 35 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 71 Transferable Development Rights. The Development Review Board reopened to take additional testimony limited to defining riparian areas as they relate to LDR 0.06B(3) and Comprehensive Plan Map 7: Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Cota returned to the Board. The Chair noted that Ms. Portman will not participate in the discussion as she was not a member of the DRB when the application was heard. Messrs. Sullivan and Wilking recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota noted this is a contentious project, and the DRB had a robust discussion in deliberative session. The Board could not close or issue a decision because of the riparian corridor issue, and they have asked the applicant to provide additional information. Mr. O’Leary noted that the landscape architect’s firm that helped to create this plan was one of the consultants on the 2014 Open Space Plan. E. Briggs did a wetland delineation and a report on rare and threatened species. Map 7 came from the 2014 study and became part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Mr. O’Leary then read the definition of “riparian connectivity” from the 2014 Open Space study. He noted that the study also indicated strategies for protecting riparian connectivity. Strategy #4 is to check with BioFinder (and similar documents) and noted that the riparian connectivity was subject to field verification by an applicant. “Field verification” is specified in several places in the 2014 study. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 3 Mr. O’Leary noted that the data on the Natural Resources Map comes from BioFinder. He then read the BioFinder definition of “surface water” and “riparian.” He also showed the field delineated surface water area, the field delineated wetland component of the riparian area, and the field delineated 100-year flood plain component of the riparian connectivity area. He then showed the 3 areas together as an accurate delineation of the riparian connectivity area. In a second slide, he showed the riparian connectivity area with the wetland buffer, which is not part of the riparian area. The riparian connectivity area was completely contained within the wetland buffer. Mr. O’Leary said this indicates that they are actually protecting a substantially greater area than just the Riparian Connectivity Area. Mr. O’Leary said the two maps differ because of the BioFinder data set. It is based on a state- wide map of Valley Bottom Land Types. BioFinder cites the importance of field delineation. Mr. O’Leary said that they can accurately field delineate the components of the surface water and riparian area layer and can thus delineate the Riparian Connectivity Area. The components consist of the stream’s surface water, the wetlands associated with the stream, and the floodplain associated with the stream. Mr. O’Leary then addressed the question of whether BioFinder is accurate. He read from BioFinder which indicates the importance of understanding the limitations of each of the datasets. BioFinder also notes that because of accuracy issues at the local scale, BioFinder cannot replace site visits or site-specific data and analyses. Mr. O’Leary added that the Department of Fish & Wildlife also notes the limitations of maps which are “static images” being used to represent a changing landscape and can become inaccurate when used at different scales. Mr O’Leary showed a slide indicating homes at the top of the hill in an area shown on the map as a “riparian area.” There is no surface water there, no flood plain, and no wetland. He stated that the map is not accurate enough to meet the BioFinder requirement for a riparian area. Mr. Byrne then noted that an applicant is required to indicate proposed open spaces and/or natural areas on the plan and also include ongoing management for those area. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan is not a mandate, and that one of the goals in the Plan is to provide housing for various groups of people. The Comprehensive Plan also relies on the 2014 Open Space Report and that report specifically calls for field delineation which has been done in great detail for this application. Mr. Burns also noted that the DRB is to use the provisions of Article 12 of the bylaw related to wetlands and stream buffers. Article 12 provides surface water standards and requires a 50-foot buffer around the stream, which this project provides. Article 12 also cites “field delineation” over and over again. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 4 Mr. O’Leary noted that the plan protects the wetland area, the wetland buffer, the wooded NRP area and the open space NRP area. The plans show how each of these areas is to be protected. Mr. O’Leary showed the a photograph of the riparian corridor taken from Google Earth today which shows no vegetation. The proposed plan will allow the wetland area to revegetate. There will be a mix of grasslands, shrubs and native species planted. There will be construction of acres of gravel wetland to treat stormwater runoff. A variety of whips will be planted within the buffer to stimulate growth within the buffer (this has been approved by the State). They will also provide a split rail fence. Mr. O’Leary concluded by saying that with the exception of the roadway crossing, the project actually expands the riparian area. Mr. Behr felt the presentation was thorough and was a missing piece for him. He appreciated the clarity. Ms. Smith agreed. Mr. Langan questioned whether the connectivity represented in the 2014 study is incorporated into the LDRs. He noted that the regulations don’t say that everything in the Comprehensive Plan must be met. Mr. O’Leary noted that the only definition of “riparian” is in the 2014 study. He also noted this is the first time they have delineated riparian connectivity. The usually delineate a wetland. He added that Ms. Pfeiffer of A&R reviewed the plan and felt that the floodplain was confined within the buffer. Mr. Cota noted receipt of correspondence from the public and offered those present the opportunity to speak to the riparian connectivity issue only. Mr. Gonda said he took a 4-hour seminar with the Fish & Game Department recently and felt they considered the riparian area was much more expansive than defined by the applicant. Ms. Saulpaugh felt that there is more floodplain than the applicant is showing. Ms. Carlow noted that in the Halloween storm, water surged almost 100 feet wide. Ms. Francis Schepp water comes up from underground on both sides of Old Cross Road. They have had sponging on their 11 acres. She felt that more than the narrow corridor should be looked at. Mr. Wilking said he has standing water every spring way up the hill. The soils are clay and hold water. He felt the Board should have a 3rd party professional check the presentation. Mr. Seff, an attorney representing some of the neighbors, said he didn’t understand why the application was proceeding when the TDR bylaw was invalidated by the court. He then DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 5 requested that the DRB not close the application so he can submit something regarding field documentation of riparian areas. It is his belief that the LDRs don’t permit field delineation of riparian areas and that Map 7 is the controlling element. He added that if the DRB entertains that concept, he would like to submit an expert delineation of what his clients feel is the boundary of the riparian area that will be consistent with Map 7. Mr. Seff read from the Comprehensive plan regarding primary and secondary resource areas. He did agree that the Comprehensive Plan is not law, but he said that when the Comprehensive Plan is incorporated into the LDRs by reference, it is binding. It is his belief that Section 9.06B(3) does that. He added that if the developer doesn’t like Map 7, he should petition the Planning Commission to change it. Mr. Seff then reviewed what can/can’t happen within a stream buffer. He said the applicant could have proposed fewer units, but they “got greedy” even though they knew about Map 7 before they bought the property. Regarding “field delineation,” Mr. Seff said it is their belief that you can field delineate a wetland but not a riparian area. He also said that they feel Ms. Pffeifer’s letter had nothing to do with riparian connectivity; it had to do with flooding. They do not believe that what the applicant said from BioFinder is correct, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is the map. Mr. Cota said the DRB has the option to close the hearing or to continue to allow for receipt of written information, which would require another hearing date to close the application. Mr. O’Leary requested that the Board close the hearing. They presented information on riparian connectivity, which is why the hearing was re-opened. He added that Mr. Seff had the opportunity to do that as well but didn’t. A majority of Board members favored closing. Ms. Keene reminded the Board and the public that the DRB could still re-open the hearing if it chose to do so. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-19-27. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-1 with Mr. Langan opposing. Ms. Portman and Mr. Wilking rejoined the Board. Ms. Smith stepped down. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-01 of Blackrock Construction for a planned unit development on an existing undeveloped 6.91 acre parcel. The planned unit development consists of two lots containing 22 dwelling units in two-family homes and 10 units in single-family homes, 550 Park Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 6 Mr. Avery noted that this parcel is the result of a land swap with the city following a court decision. He showed an aerial photo of the area and indicated the parcel and the intended development area. They are proposing 32 units, which conforms with the zoning district and the Court settlement. They have added a pocket park connected to the bike path. Mr. Currier said the project will be served by a 1000 foot loop road. It will utilize municipal water and sewer. There is an easement for stormwater treatment. The proposed landscaped berms are also part of the settlement. He then indicated the existing bike paths to which they will connect. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: 1. Whether to require an evaluation of delay/level of service at the adjacent Park Road/Dorset Street intersection as part of the next application: Mr. Wilking noted it is tricky to get out of the area, but he wouldn’t say it is a problematic level of service. Mr. Currier said they will create 25 peak hour trips, and there is an existing left turn lane on Dorset St. The Board felt a detailed evaluation was not needed. 2. How the rec path will be perceived as open to the public: Mr. Cota said it seems like a cut-through from the ballpark. Mr. Currier said they are considering signage to indicate “public rec path.” Ms. Keene asked if the central open space will be dedicated to the city. Mr. Avery said they haven’t thought about it yet but maybe the bike path itself will and landscaping will be maintained by the Association. Mr. Cota suggested the applicants speak with the Bike Path Committee. 3. Regarding lot ratios: Mr. Avery said these will be footprint lots. The HOA will manage all the common spaces. 4. Whether to reduce the 26-foot pavement to 20 feet: Ms. Keene said the question is whether to accommodate parking. Mr. Avery said there will be double-loaded driveways. They don’t want the street too narrow because people will park there anyway. They prefer 26 feet. 5. Regarding design: Mr. Avery said there will be 6 different design types. They will present elevations at the next hearing. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 7 6. Regarding garage setbacks: Mr. Avery said they will meet the requirement. 7. Mr. Avery noted that homes at the eastern and western ends will be somewhat larger, consistent with others further back into the development. Mr. Behr said they are only 1 story and others are 2-story. Mr. Avery they are restricted to 1 story there, but they could make the homes smaller. The Board did not feel that was necessary. Mr. Behr noted that because these homes are at the entrance, all 4 sides should be shown in the elevations. 8. Mr. Avery noted they are proposing a 27-foot buffer with more landscaping, as opposed to the 70-foot less landscaped option. Staff said the 70-foot would be more of a match with what is across the street. Ms. Keene said the question is whether screening or connectivity is wanted here. Mr. Avery read the specific details of what is required in landscaping. Members were OK with 27 feet. 9. The applicant will provide specifics of the landscaping plan. 10. They will meet the minimum landscaping budget. Mr. Wilking liked the community garden plot. Ms. Greco urged the applicant to build the most energy efficient units possible. Mr. Avery said they will meet the stretch codes. Mr. McClay asked if they can possibly save a very old apple tree. Mr. Avery said as long as it isn’t in a roadway or footprint, they will save it. Mr. Currier said that they’d have to look at grading, too. Mr. McRae said it might be in the pocket park. 9. 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 said they feel the duplex plan is in keeping with the development. The affordable units would be identical to the market rate unit. The density in the duplex area would be similar to the density existing in the south end of the development today. Neighbors did not want any more 12-plexes, which was the only other alternative. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 8 Mr. Cota said the Board understands all the issues. They are concerned with the ratio of affordable/market rate on Lot 11 and 48N. Mr. Wilking said the Board has no issue with the density on Lot 11. Their concern is that 12 units are affordable and 10 market rate. The preference is for 33% to be affordable, which would be 7 instead of 12, with the remaining affordable distributed throughout the development. Similar for Lot 48N: 2 affordable and 6 market rate. He agreed that what is proposed is very nice housing in an affordable project. It is the mix that concerns him and the possible “stigma” of being an “affordable family” identified by location. Ms. Dooley, who serves on the Affordable Housing Committee, noted that 1000 of the 8000 households in the city spend more than 50% of their income on housing. That is too much. The Comprehensive Plan contains specific numerical goals. She supports the applicant’s plan because the previous owner of the development did not include affordable units with the market rate units. She felt the given everything that has happened, what the developer proposes is better related to housing needs. This is unusual as the units will be identical. She couldn’t see a negative impact. Mr. Behr asked Ms. Dooley if some types of housing are more beneficial than others. Ms. Dooley noted there are a lot of affordable rentals being provided, but these would be ownership. Usually the only ownership units they see are from Habitat. Ms. Philibert said Ms. Dooley’s argument has caused her to rethink. Ms. DeMichele said if the city wants families with children to stay in the city, they have to provide something people can own. These buildings will look the same. She thinks the Board should allow the proposed distribution. Mr. Cochran said the only alternative would be to put the affordable units into 12-plexes, and supports this alternative. Mr. Burti said if it was a new development, it would be easy to spread out the affordable units. His concern was that all of these units are a different style from the rest of the development. Another resident opposed more 12-plexes. He felt what is proposed is a good compromise. Mr. O’Brien said South Village has a lot of design requirements. These units will still be a Classic New England style though the units proposed for Lot 11 have not yet been built in their exact form on Lot 11. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 JANUARY 2020 PAGE 9 Mr. O’Brien said they don’t want to indicate on a site plan which of the units would be affordable. Mr. Cota then moved to close MS-19-03. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 17 December 2019 and 7 January 2020: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 17 December 2019 and 7 January 2020 as presented. Ms. Portman seconded. Motion passed unanimously 12 Other Business: No other issues were presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:15 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 4, 2020.