 conference will now be recorded to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for February 2nd, 2021. Thank you for being with us tonight. My name is Matt Kota. I'm the chair of the Development Review Board. With us tonight is Brian Sullivan, Mark Bear, Don Fillebert, Liz Eyring, and Jim Langen. Also intense from the city of South Burlington is Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner, and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator. Everyone who is joining us tonight on the phone or online will have the opportunity to both listen and speak just as they do in any regular meeting. First item on the agenda, are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items from staff or from the board? We'll go to announcements, three announcements to beg. The first is that if you have a question during the meeting or you would like to speak on a particular agenda item and you're a member for the public, I encourage you to use the chat box function that's in the online application. If you are listening on your phone, there will be an opportunity to speak at the different applications as they come up. I want to make sure everyone gets a chance to do that. The other thing to keep in mind is that you put your phone on mute or your computer on mute so we don't hear the background noise. That would be much appreciated. The second announcement that I would want to make is that we do have a big store outside and because of this technology, we're able to meet. If we do lose power, we want to make sure that we're keeping an eye on the power grid. If GMP shows that there's some power outages, it's not just the power for my house or the house where your house, it's also the people that may want to attend and can't if there's a power outage. If there is a power outage in the meeting ends, we'll try to get back on for 10 minutes and if we can't, then we'll postpone to next Monday in order to accommodate. Just keep that in mind. Hopefully that won't happen. The third announcement. I want to make sure that next Monday is actually doable for people. Oh, yes. In the unlikely event that we lose power, we have to shut down this meeting. Would Monday the 8th, my fellow board members be doable to continue in the unlikely event that we lose power? Let me just quickly check my busy social schedule. That's fine. You okay, Jim and Brian and Melissa? Yeah, that's fine for me. Yeah, I should be okay. Third announcement that I'd like to make is that John Wilking is not with us. John, his term was up on the Development Review Board in June and John announced last week that he was retiring a little bit earlier and it's a reminder that if anyone would like to consider volunteering the Development Review Board, I think the City Council is hearing accepting applications and will hold interviews either later this month or early in March. It's also a reminder that those of us that serve on these volunteer committees, that we are in fact volunteers, it takes a lot of work and John put a tremendous amount of work over the past nearly a decade and certainly was a great mentor to me and we'll miss him on the Development Review Board but understand time constraints for all of us volunteers can sometimes require us to make these decisions and there'll be a time where I'll walk away as well and maybe some of you as well. So if you are interested in listening and you would like to learn more about the Development Review Board, we do have an opening. Is there any other announcements from staff or from the Board? Okay, hearing none and seeing none, I'd go to agenda item number three which are comments and questions from the public are not related to the agenda item, any of the agenda items tonight. So if you would like something to say to the Development Review Board or to staff not related to the agenda, you can do it one of two ways. You can enter your name in the chat box say I like to speak or you can shout out hey Matt I'd like to talk checking the chat box not seeing anything not hearing anyone say my name. So I'll move on to agenda item number four which is continued site plan application SB2035 of Reart company to amend a previously approved plan for commercial parking and vacant 54,459 square foot building the tech amendment consists of converting the use to general office and expanding the existing parking lot at 124 technology parkway. Now the board continued this item on 1215 to allow the applicant time to obtain the state wetlands permit the applicant has not yet received the permit and has requested it to be continued until March 3rd. So I would make a motion that we continue continued site plan application SB2035 of Reart company to March 3rd. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by Brian and we'll do a roll call. Brian. Hi. Mark. Hi. Don. Hi. Melissa. Hi. Jim. Hi. And the chair votes aye and that's 6-0-0 and that item is continued for March 3rd. So now we move on to agenda item number five which is continued master plan application MP2101 of South Village communities LLC to amend a previously approved master plan for multi-phase 334 unit plan to unit development. The amendment consists of increasing the maximum allowable coverage from 13.9% to 20% removing the educational facility adding mixed use removing the requirement to construct additional dedicated southbound turn lanes on Spear Street and reducing the total unit count to 321 at 1840 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? Hi Matt. It's Robin Jeffers. I'm here with S.D. Ireland in South Village. Hi Robin. Hi. Anyone else with you Robin? I'm sorry Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Good to see you Dave. Hello Patrick. Okay. So you've seen the in the packet Robin and Dave and Patrick the staff notes with regards to the master plan amendment. Why don't we step through these and we can sort some of this out. Great. The first item standing issues to be addressed that I've noted. Of course if you note something please speak up or anyone else on the board. But the one that I noted was regarding the left turn lanes and in the notes it says this traffic study concludes that neither left turn lane is needed. Staff recommends the board review the traffic study included in this packet as well as the January 5th packet and determine if they will accept staff's recommendation to remove the requirement to construct two additional turn lanes on Spear Street. Staff reminds the applicant of the board's ability to evoke technical review if desired. Okay. So the applicant's position continues to be that the left turn lane is not needed based on that traffic study and requesting that we not require it. Staff has looked at it looked at the traffic study and come to the same conclusion. Did I summarize that correctly, Carla? Yep. Okay. Does the board have any comments regarding traffic in the left turn lane? Okay. Lot coverage. That's the next item that I say. So in the last discussion that we had was about was about measuring lot coverage in each of the zoning districts. And some work was done by all of you to determine what the maximum allowable coverage was in each zoning district. Since this is a relatively small area, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to propose how the remaining available coverage be adjudicated for future applications. So the new math figures that the total lot coverage of 28.1% is in the SEQNR. The applicant has 2.41 acres remaining in unprogrammed and pervious cover available. So, Marlick, help explain this to me. So it's based on these calculations. We're there in okay space in terms of lot coverage. That's correct. So they are okay. The following paragraphs talk about by what margin they are okay. And I think Robin sent me an email, I want to say yesterday afternoon, with some additional information about that. So if everybody understands the fact that they are okay in terms of allowable coverage on a zoning district by zoning district basis, I guess speak up if you have questions about that. But because they are close, Robin prepared some additional analysis of just how close they are and what that means for the project. Wait, say that last part again, Marla. I'm sorry. Because they are close. Yeah. So, Delilah, do you still have the other PDF open? Yeah. So do you want Robin's email? You want the original comments? The original comments. Okay. On one second. So the maximum allowable coverage in the SEQNR is 30% based on the numbers from the applicant. They're at 28.1%, which leaves them 2.41 acres of remaining unprogrammed and pervious cover. And so we did a quick back of the envelope. What does 2.41 acres really mean? Say you want to add a deck. Does that unfairly result in you eating up a lot of that available at pervious cover? So that's what Robin wanted to present on. Does that make sense? Yeah. Robin, what do you think? So I had sent in a letter. We did an in-depth analysis on there and basically CEA and watershed consulting who are consultants on the pervious and impervious always carry a 10% margin or overage in all of their projections for the lot coverage. So what we distilled out in this letter that you see in front of you is that essentially there's 5.91 acres left over close to six acres. And we believe that for the few homes that would, that are even eligible to add on decks or a patio or whatever, that there's more than ample room and that doesn't need to be adjudicated. Because we're built out here. This is it, right? This is it. So what else have you got? We don't have anything else after this. Right. So Robin's analysis says that if you consider only the types of homes that could potentially have a deck added, so excluding the big multi-family building, if it were distributed evenly between all of those homes, then each home could have another 2,000 square feet of impervious and they would still be okay. Right. And they would still, if someone bought a home there and wanted to later add on a deck, they'd still have to, you would go back to these calculations, right? Would you not? Well, that's the problem. These are all owned by individuals. And so the staff comment said, well, how are we going to track that? We can't expect individual homeowners to track it and we can't put it on Delilah to track, future Delilah to track. So what do you applicants suggest? And what Robin is suggesting is that it's very unlikely to ever get to the point where it matters. So she suggests that we don't need to do anything. Well, it's also, I mean, having just gone through a deck permit, I mean, you would have to count them in terms of, I mean, it would be a first in, the first people, if everyone wanted a deck, you have to start counting them, right? And counting up impervious. Right. And that's where it gets ugly because if you're first in, what's to say that you deserve a deck more than the person who's last in? Well, you applied first, I guess. I don't know. I would like to add that the number is so large that if all the people that could could double the size of their homes, there's not even enough room on their lots to do that. There is plenty of area. Right. Okay. For a lot more than decks, people could add double the size of their garage. People could add a first floor master. People could add a lot before we would ever come near the if each potential lot that it does have the option to expand on it has 2000 square feet. You're talking about probably the footprint almost of that each lot. So that's literally like infilling the rest of your yard, you know, with pool deck, you know, adio, you know, that's a lot of space. I don't think we, I mean, again, could come back and bite us, but I don't think we need to track it and worry about first in, last out, you know. Right. Okay. Time says what? Road geometry. Road centerline geometry is a final plot requirement on balanced staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide centerline geometry, including stationing for the new roads to propose to support development on lot 11 and lot 48 and we, we submitted that. Right. Dave Marshall here. That information is on the individual applications for each one of those lots. The staff report makes it sound like it's to be added to the master plan plat. And if you go to the next page, you'll see there's just no room to do anything on there when it comes to that particular level of detail. So we just wanted to make sure everybody was comfortable with where the information is going to be and allow allow all of us to be comfortable moving forward. So you'll have the centerline geometry on the new roads. What is what you're saying? Yeah. Okay. Yes. Individual plans for a lot 11 and a lot 48 again. Right. Okay. Are there any other questions of staff or the board before I ask the public if they'd like to comment? Okay. So this opportunity for the public to comment on this specific master plan amendment to MP2101 of 1840. So if you have a question about the items that we just discussed or anything else in this master plan amendment, please indicate and you'd like to speak, please indicate by raising your digital hand by putting something in the chat box or just shouting out, hey, Matt, not seeing any, not hearing any. I would move that we close MP2101 of 1840 Spears Street South Village Master Plan Amendment. I'll second that. Seconded by Don Roll call, Brian? Aye. Mark? Aye. Don? Aye. Alyssa? Aye. Jim? Aye. And chair votes aye. MP2101 of 1840 Spears Street is closed. Now moving on to agenda item number six. Agenda number six is continued preliminary final application SD 2102 of South Villages Communities LLC to subdivide four existing undeveloped lots totaling 23.2 acres into eight lots ranging from .3 acres to 14.1 acres, construct 22 homes, 11 buildings and a lot of 11 on 1.2 acres, 11.2 lead 1.1 acres and construct a permanent farm access road and pavilion on law 11 C .2 acres at 1840 Spears Street. Who is here for the applicant? David? Robin Jeffers. Patrick? Yes. Yeah. Good to see you again and you are all still sworn in from the prior meetings. Thank you for that. Let me just call up the item number six. So you've seen the and reviewed I'm sure the staff notes in the packet and why don't we just dive right into it and talk about setbacks. The outstanding issue should be addressed. Number one, setbacks. We requested a setback plan. Our staff recommends the board clarify which line is in the front setback on Allen Road East and North Jefferson Road to make a determination as to whether accept the requested setback waivers from 2010 and 30 feet to 10, 5 and 5 feet in the front side and rear. We see a there we are. So let's clarify which line is the setback line on Allen Road and North Jefferson Road to point to it for us. If you can blow it up a little bit, it's written right in there. She could scooch to left. Why left? Coming up. Yeah, we can see it. I don't see any call out though. Which was a problem. Anyone, if you see it Marla, you can, the drawing tools are available to anyone. So if you want to note it. They are, can you slide up? They are, it's this dashed line. There's two dashed lines on Allen Road East. You see what I mean? All right. One is an electrical easement and the other is the setback line. Can you highlight the one that's a setback line? It's the one furthest from the recreation path to the north. So the dashed one. Are you saying it's this one? That's correct. Thank you. It's this one. Correct. Thank you. So that's clarified and regarding the setback waivers from 20 to 10 and 30 feet to 10, 5 and 5 feet. We discussed that prior. It's consistent as I recall with other waivers on this property. I don't have an objection to it, board. No, I don't have an objection. Okay. The next item on outstanding issues to be addressed involves water allocation. Do we have an update on preliminary water out allocation for this project? We have received the allocations and we've submitted them to Marla. Okay. Excellent. Good to hear. The third item on the agenda, excuse me, third item on the list about standing issues to be addressed with regards to wetland buffer impacts. Can you clarify? Staff is recommending you clarify the various mentioned elements showing location of the farm pavilion, existing tent, the proposed pavilion both in existing context and in the context of the proposed development. Once that's clear, staff recommends the board consider whether the pavilion is in the appropriate location taking into consideration the feedback of the Rec and Parks Director and Committee and the proposed class 3 wetland buffer impact. Staff notes that while the applicant is proposing to cede a portion of the existing lot 11 to the farm as part of this application, such an action is subject to DRB review. The board may require modifications, for example, for the purpose of wetland preservation and compliance with MS-1903 requiring a community anchoring element in the school. All right. So where are we in terms of the pavilion? Could Delilah pull up the wetlands? I called it wetlands wider looking. I'm not sure what you guys are. So in the pocket and you downloaded the pocket, do you know what page number it is? If I count two, three, four, five, six, eight, it's the last page of the packet. Last page at the top. Hold on. And I know while we're looking through things, I know Kathy Frank with Bycompad is with us today. Thank you. Good to see. Good to hear you or see you in the list of people. Is there anyone from Reckon Parks that's on the line tonight listening in? Checking. Okay, here we go. Okay. Can you guys see my cursor? Yes. All right. No, but if you go up to where it says drawing tools, Robin, you can grab a pointer from the drop down or a highlighter, whichever you want. That's okay. I think, is everyone familiar where Lot 11 is sort of on the bottom of the picture? And it has the 11 duplexes that we're proposing. That's it. To the left of it is where we're the red. To the left of that black arrow is that little blob is where we're proposing the pavilion. And all of the area that is shaded in yellow, so the area in the rectangle above the black arrow is what we're proposing to seed to the farm to increase the agricultural land. And where the pavilion is that rectangle that it is in is what we're proposing to give to the HOA as recreational space. All the lobby little markings that look like filled with polka dots all over the left of the drawing are wetlands. And they're class three wetlands. And part of this illustration was to show that the bulk of these wetlands will be in agricultural use. So that's what I wanted to show on this drawing. And then if we could go to page seven of the packet, it's a Google overview and we can see better how it's being used today. Thank you. So there's a you can see that sort of the overlay which I drew with a black magic marker pretty fancy on top of the green where the approximately where the proposed new units are going to go. And at the top of that near the property line is a white rectangle. And that is the existing tent. And it is more or less on the existing road that goes into the farm, but it's on a lot of 11 where we're proposing to put it again is over here on that rectangle that's just to the left of the proposed units. And this rectangle is along Allen Road East. It's very close to the development. It's we thought it would have it has a it's always been mowed. It has always had a green grassy lawn that it would be a great grassy play area. It would be convenient to be able to be reached from everybody in the neighborhood. There is a cross path in the proposed area where we're putting the new duplexes that connects North Jefferson Road to it. The new acts the new proposed permanent road to the farm that we're proposing goes by it. There's parking alongside that road for it for ADA access. And we're pretty excited about it. We talked with the neighborhood about it. They were very excited about it. That was their preference for a location. And they really want this for their use. It's been used historically for potlucks. It's been used for birthday parties. It's been used for morning yoga sessions. It's gets used for the meetings of all of our boards and groups at South Village. And sometimes people just hang out at it when they want to go up and have a picnic in the shade. When you say tent, is this something you take down in the winter? Yes, the current tent is not there now. It's only up in the summer. We're proposing a permanent structure. You want a roof and a floor but no walls essentially? Correct. A pole barn. Pardon? You also want to keep a tent? The tent is disintegrated. It's okay. Thank you. If we get one more season out of it, it'll be a miracle. Okay. Thank you. I also wanted to point out that the you can see the green where the greenhouses are on the farm and then above that it looks like a checkerboard but it's actually a bunch of raised beds with a big blob on it. Next to that big blob which wasn't there when Google took this picture right there in that location. There is another pavilion that the farm has erected for shade for people who use the farm specifically. So I just wanted to point that out. Yeah. I think the pavilion will be a very nice feature. Unless there's something Marla, there's something from rex and parks that say that they think this area would be better utilized in a different way but it's a compelling reason to have that. Their concern was that the popularity of the tent is contingent upon its location and that removal of the amenity so that it is no longer near the farm stand and near the gardens would make would they use the term floating in space. They were concerned that the energy of wanting to use the space will be significantly diminished by its proposed location and they felt like they would like to see it pressed up closer to some more activated spaces and it's unfortunate that they aren't here because they're much more they're they're experts in this stuff and I'm just sort of regurgitating what they told me. I also had the opportunity to speak with them and they did not understand that the land to the north of where we're proposing it was going to be seated to the farm and that there was a fence running along the entire perimeter of the farm. So that was an update that they didn't have when I at least when I spoke with them following when you had spoken with them. In this view their comments to me resonate more than they did during that conversation because I look at where Robin pointed out the existing tent is and you see that it's right next to the farm stand and right next to you know the greenhouses and this proposed pavilion down here is their comments make more sense about it floating in space to me now that I look at it on the aerial. But that land around it Robin that's going to be that's going to be walking paths um what tell tell me what's a little bit about that little land around the pavilion. The land around the pavilion with all in the rectangle we our request was for it to be grassy mode grassy play area as it is now. At our last meeting it was suggested that we allow it to because it's also wetland buffer class three wetland buffer that we allow it to be vegetate and our request was that that not be the case that it be the grassy play area and it would be a substantial big flat grassy play area and we don't have many opportunities for that. So that's what our homeowners were excited about. Yeah I'm going to ask the Lila to pull up page four of the packet which was the proposed landscaping plan and then you can kind of know you're on the right thing. I'm sorry I must have been page five minus three. Yeah so you can kind of see the pavilion looks the pavilion and its context there's the path through the middle. The path is goes through the pink trees and then and then the road goes up to the farm. And so here is the farm stand and there's really not any paths other than this one that's now on the wrong spot but this one there's no connectivity isn't on the way to anything it's like you have to go there on purpose which may may be okay but I think that that's the point that Recreation and Parks Committee was making. I would say that the rec path goes by it the farm road goes by it and first and pass them to it. Yeah having walked that listen I understand what the Rec and Park Committee and saying about having that that continuity with the farm but I think this is an excellent location that will be utilized by many neighbors despite the I mean one of the most beautiful spots right there and it's easily accessible by all the houses coming from the south. I mean I wish you could have both but I don't have a problem with where it is. I understand a sentiment wishing that there was something else by the farm but I don't know what are the rest of the board think. Matt could I chime in? In the staff notes it seems as if our authority to regulate the the pavilion only extends to protecting the wetlands buffer and if this is protecting the wetlands buffer I don't see how we actually have the authority to say it should go 10 feet to the right 20 feet to the left you know what. Yep so I put it in the wetlands section because that just sort of was the context in which we talked about it but the regulations of the SEQ have a lot of language about parks and community spaces and so there is a lot and obviously it's PUD right so PUD is the board has the authority to regulate all but three things. So there's a lot if there's any concern about you know the board's ability to weigh in on this there's certainly plenty of plenty of reasons that I could provide but I just landed in the wetlands section because that's where I fit most neatly. Okay well even if we have the authority I don't see the need to exercise it in this case I'm fine with that location. Okay thank you Brian is there anyone else that would like to Jim or Mark or Melissa? I'm good. I'm good. These types of things naturally sort of I guess adjust themselves over time as people use them and you know it becomes a known entity and known you know element but I'm okay with it sort of where it is and let it sort of sort of you know settle into the development. Okay the fourth annual consideration is a tree species director of public works by the following feedback on pedestrian scale light fixture on the corner what is indicated as plans that Farmway and Allen Road East the staff recommends that we require the applicant to provide a pole mounted replacement light fixture in this location is that agreeable? Yes we're good with that. All right number five regarding the elevations of homes facing Allen Road East can we look at those plans and discuss these elevations so last time around we asked for the elevations and here they are we're most concerned with the ones that were on Allen Road East and here we go. So the upper left hand corner would it would be typical of what is going to face Allen Road East it's going to look like a side load garage front porch front walk whereas the side on the lower left hand corner would be the side facing Farmway so the projection that you see on the left hand side of the upper image is that front porch sticking out at the other unit. We think it's clearly a two-sided home and carries the day on at least all the standards that we have for our home. One thing to note is these aren't the elevations for the actual project these are for another project it's just submitted as kind of a for likeness only and I'm not sure if this is actually what we had kind of asked for Robin. We thought that what you were asking for was how how would we show a two-sided home that was our understanding of the request and the elevation in the upper left hand corner is actually a new elevation. Robin it's Don I have a question about the lower right hand side diagram. Sure so that is the back of a duplex correct. That is the back of a duplex with a two car garage and that is what would be facing the alley because they're a rear load home. But if it's a duplex aren't there two units I mean there are two units so doesn't it need to be a two two car garages that looks like two single car garages. That's what we're proposing single car garages you are okay all right and that's why that's why the driveways I don't know if you remember the the dialogue that the driveways look extraordinarily wide and fat they look wide and fat because they're only attached to a single car garage. Thank you. The other thing to keep in mind is that we have several pages of South Village design review criteria for the architecture of each home that was put in place by the previous board for South Village. So yeah that that my hesitation is sort of alleviated by the fact that these are this is the continuation of an existing project not the first home of the new project. Yeah I'd like to see something a little bit more less a little bit more than just the likeness but I'm not going to hold it hold it up for for that. Matt I just wanted to point that out I didn't see it because with the amount of design criteria that South Village has it was kind of obvious how they're going to solve it so I really you know I just wanted to point out that these aren't actually developed for the project they were a likeness only kind of thing to show how they would solve it. Right yeah okay. So my question for the board then is the design guidelines are in the packet from the last meeting. Because the board and you don't have to pull it up but we can go through those at deliberations are there specific elements of the shown elevation that make it okay for the board and is there any of that stuff that we want to call out like I see that there's porches on both sides both three faces sides and I see that the garages have windows that fix the street. I see that there's columns on the porches and that the windows are double hung. Any of that stuff I'm pretty familiar with the design guidelines I know Robin and Patrick certainly are because there any of that stuff that you would specifically like to see in these four units in order to make them work. This is Robin I'm happy to read out what it says about entries and fenestration because it covers window openings it covers how many windows you have to have it covers that you have to have a gracious front entry that's covered either a general window does it Robin pardon doesn't require a garage windows does it every car it recovers no blank walls greater than 12 feet okay without fenestration so yes any it covers any blank wall that is visible from the street right including garage doors including garage yeah that's what I that's what I care most about whether the double hung or not I don't but but but making sure that we're not looking at black walls that's the most important thing to me and I think yeah and I think also I think you know on the the two sided or two sided houses that face you know out there on the corners that you know the side of the house that's sort of not the main front elevation doesn't have the feel of it aside you know that has more of the symmetrical duplex look you know of the entrance which is what they're showing so I'm you know I'm comfortable with the language that they have in the design guidelines and I'm also comfortable with the likeness that they're showing I have a question on here in the upper left I guess side view is that a real door that goes into the units the front door yes it is so they kind of have two that unit has two front doors that's correct okay thank you you're welcome if you live on the corner you get two front doors I guess that's how it worked okay number six is the affordable housing density bonus the applicants testified that they would accept a condition that requires them to submit zoning permits and pairs of one affordable and one market rate with each pair of market rate and four units be required at the same floor areas is one another but the floor may be allowed to differ between the pairs and staff wants us to confirm that this is the correct restatement of the applicant's proposal Robin is that correct that is correct okay I think we are done with all those comments is there any other questions the board has for staff or excuse the board has for staff or the applicant I'm hearing any this would be an opportunity for anyone in the public that would like to comment specifically on this application you can do so by shouting out your name or by entering raising your digital hand by entering your name in the chat box sorry did you discuss full lighting yes they said I believe they agreed Robin can you confirm that yes we agree okay sorry I fixed her in this location yeah she agreed so fast we barely heard it okay I'm looking at the chat box and I see that Stuart Moat would look am I pronouncing your name right Stuart would like to make a comment Stuart welcome to the developer review board meeting good to see you again you've got all the next you've got three minutes I won't hold you to three but just to be fair go ahead and tell us a little bit about you and what you think about this project I'm a hello team yeah I'm Stuart Moat I live in the north end of the south village development I'm a member of the board for the homeowners association and I just want you to speak in favour of the proposed positioning of the new pavilion as a as a resident on the north side I would have no trouble walking to it along the unpaved farm road and then the new paved farm road to me it's easy to walk to I like the new proposal I like that it's permanent I think it will be an advantage to the development as of that's really all I want you to say okay great thank you for your time Stuart appreciate it is there anyone else that would like to comment not hearing anything not seeing anything then I would make a motion that we close SD 21 02 1840 spear street south village there a second I'll second that seconded by Don Pillebert roll call Brian hi mark hi Don hi Alyssa hi Jim hi and the chair votes I and SD 21 excuse me SD 2102 is closed now we move on to agenda item number seven agenda number seven is SD 2103 of 1840 spear street south village lot 48 and preliminary and final plat and I'm guessing who is here for the applicants includes Robin Patrick Dave yes yes and you've all been sworn in last the last hearing so you're still sworn in again and let me just call up preliminary and final plot application this preliminary application SD 2101 consists of subdivision of an existing 1.92 acre lot into five lots ranging from 0.14 acres to 0.6 acres and to append a 0.1 acre 1.8 acres to an existing 12.68 acre agricultural lot for the purpose of developing a two-family home on each of the lots 92 to 95 establishing the fifth lot as a permanent open space and expanding the existing agricultural lot at 1840 spear street you've reviewed the the packet prepared by staff and the outstanding issues to be addressed so let's just dive right into it setbacks staff is not in favor of this configuration of the rec path being located on private land but since it exists recommends the board at a minimum require a 13 foot setback to result in the appearance of a 10 foot setback staff is otherwise supportive of the requested setbacks can we can we okay can we point out this this rec path here it's that gray area over on the right um but we also submitted a drawing c2.0 which I believe is page nine in the packet that shows the 10 foot setback okay so if we could zoom in a little closer a little closer sorry 92 and so whoops and great can I can I uh Marlon can I call on you here the concern with the is that the uh the rec path is really really it's more like a seven foot setback because of the the private private road and there's a concern for whoever lives in that area or explain the yeah close so the lprs allow a minimum of 10 foot front setback um has the the smallest the board can allow um a front setback so this property is this rec path is already constructed and this is the edge of the rec path and this is the property line so a 10 foot setback from the property line results in the building's actually being seven feet from the rec path which we don't think is consistent with the ldrs which allow a minimum of 10 foot front setback so because the intent obviously it does technically comply but our position is the intent was to have these setbacks 10 feet from the road uh or path or sidewalk right so so I were recommending 13 here so if we required a 13 foot setback to make up for that what are we moving a building are we moving the rec with existing rec path I mean what what what would happen see one thing moving the existing rec rec path it would be probably moving the building I don't I didn't measure um let me show you a different pen I think I had enough of a black pen today which is terrible um I can't see anything but I don't know what this distance is or how much it would have to move but I expected have to move a couple feet because this is a porch right Robin and this is that is a porch and there are a lot of undercooked setback for porches that's what I was going to say the ldrs actually allow a porch to be in the setback right um by up to five feet and we're proposing to not have our porches in the setback up to five feet most of the homes on Dewey Lane for example all have their front porches within the 10 foot setback so that they only have the appearance of a five foot setback so we would prefer that the 10 foot setback see what is the outcome here today so that the porches are not in the setback so in this case or so what you're saying the porches are one foot porches right and this building the main body of the building here is two feet so the two two stories so the two-story building would be 10 feet from the from the edge of pavement whereas on Dewey Lane and other places in South Village these smaller one-story porches are within one within 10 feet they're all within five feet of the sidewalk so does that if you look over if you look on the out for the board does everybody understand yeah now what the question is if you look to the left and you see the five foot setback on the side there there really isn't wiggle room this is kind of shoehorned in here as best it can be and I would say it's it's in keeping with the other homes in South Village but this is this is a footprint this isn't a real building correct we are asking for these setbacks and if we get these setbacks this will be real we won't have any room for any other differentiation question for you Marla do the FDRs define what the structure has to be setback from in other words is it the property line or is it an improvement with direct path it is the property line but our read is that the intention is that it so it has the feeling of being setback from the public way so it says in the in the LDRs that the setback is from the property line yes I don't see I don't see how we have any authority to change that again as a PUD they are asking for a waiver here they don't get a 10 foot setback automatically they're asking for a 10 foot setback waiver so you have all the authority in the world and they technically need the 10 foot setback but what you're saying is the intent of the 10 foot is to allow for like a 10 foot buffer between the rec path and the edge of the structure and the existing rec path so part of the existing rec path is actually straddled by the property line and I may have confused the issue by mentioning them boards maximum waiver authority the point here is that they're asking for a waiver and I think that the waiver is possibly three feet beyond what the board should approve can well I mean can you just shift the property lines see the between 93 and 92 93 the building has quite a bit of flexibility in wiggle room whereas 92 it's right up against the five foot setback line can you just shift the property line between 92 and 93 over three feet if you slide the image over there's not that much room yeah there is keep sliding so when you get to the hammerhead there that's where it gets tight but what I mean is that I'm going to grab the and I grab the drawing tool yeah you grab it as anybody can draw on the drawing draw me just in any way right here you've got you got this space so if this if you just shift to this line over you have five you have you could move the build the the right side of the building 93 end could be on the five foot setback line the other one could be on the five foot setback line on 92 and and you could get that 13 foot setback and get the actual 10 foot buffer you know intend to the code to change the existing rec path and the structure I would note that this conversation presupposes that the building the applicant is proposed are the only option um and different configuration of the building like they presented a sketch doesn't have this problem I have this in my hands if you want to come grab it I'll blow up where he drew yeah okay it's going to change his lines when I I'll erase the drawings if you want to draw again no I don't need to draw again I think it's pretty obvious that you know the the building on 92 end is tight on the five foot setback the building on 93 end is not tight to the five foot setback so you can adjust the property line between 92 and 93 over three feet and meet the 10 foot buffer between the existing rec path and the building on 92 end yeah I see that I see what you're going Mark and you have even more for space on against the hammerhead and 93 end you know that that five foot setback line you probably have another five to seven feet between the setback and the building and could something like that assuming everything else was honky dory be handled as a condition of approval yeah let's do I not Marla yeah I suppose I'm just really I'm just going to say it again this conversation presupposes that that building is the only footprint available for this lot and we've seen from me out looking to the other footprint and work in this space that Dave Marshall here I did I wanted to bring some of my institutional background to the south village project to the board the original master plan actually created a front yard setback waivers from 20 feet to 10 feet for all buildings and that includes multi-family buildings as well as what's labeled as single-family buildings the thing about south village is that the original design for phase one included single phase excuse me single-family duplex and triplex all in one cluster of development type in fact the triplex buildings technically required specific design review but the board at the time decided that the triplex buildings were so much similar to either duplex or a single-family home that there wasn't going to be a special multi-family review of those particular structures so when you look at the master plan and the specific waivers the way that they were requested was that there was basically two groups of waivers one for multi-family buildings and one for just hold on quote single-family buildings which were intended to basically carry both the triplex duplex and single-family and when you take a look at phase one that's exactly how it was fully executed so staff's implication that we're asking for waiver as far as from 20 feet to 10 feet based on the history of this particular project and the meeting minutes would show that 10 feet has already been provided as part of the master plan approval so I don't want to get too hung up I understand exactly where Mark's coming from there appears to be some wiggle room to basically allow the opportunities of setback to be met so I just leave that as one more thing to be thinking about with regard to um what is already on books in regards to setback waivers thank you Dave so from from the applicant standpoint we would prefer to not have to move it but um we don't have the same authority that you do so if uh if you have to condition us you have to condition us okay thank you for that pasture any other questions for the board regarding this before I go on to the next one okay water allocation do you have preliminary water allocation Robin we do and we've submitted to Marla right thank you uh eastern open space uh staff recommends the board discuss whether to accept the applicant's proposal to allow the open space east of the homes to revegetate naturally require it to be maintained as long or some in between option staff notes at the board's conclusion on whether the home should face east discussed below may impact this decision remind me where we are here with the east of the homes is this so Delilah the the staff report does include images on the different types of vegetation management that is the area now it is vegetated it doesn't need to be revegetated it's already a beautiful meadow with um that's lemon verbena in the foreground here that's golden rod on the left you can barely make out the bike path kind of going through there between the golden red and the you know and it has a couple of nice little trees in there and and there are other paths dirt paths as well or is it just the the pedestrian just a wreck the paved wreck path those two are all right so at the last hearing the board indicated they wanted um recreation and parks feedback on this that is included in the bucket scrolling scrolling scrolling those are examples of other parks at south village um that are actually across the street from each other one which is maintained and one which has been naturalized the other option is to not condition us at all of that the the uh association make up their own decision on an annual or decade decade by decade basis as they see fit the stewardship board are charged with that at south village and it was their preference that it be naturalized which is why that's what we have presented and i'm actually you're right over time if the need changed they have the jurisdiction to change that in the south village decoration and bylaws i'm not seeing it in the packet or is it is it a separate it's not in in seven so at the off of page two is the recreation parks feedback on that that open space in in sd-20103 sd-20103 with the little triangle bullets it's above the staff comment yeah top of page two oh i see okay i was looking for a quote i didn't really i was sorry yes you're sorry it was an impersonating the trajectory of the wreck part they just attributed to marla concerned about unknown transitioning into unmanaged scrub areas unattractive focus on playability interaction with neighbors hoping to reconsidering maintenance if it doesn't get used so so do dogs and people walk through this this scrub area right now uh robin the meadow i would say is too tall for that what it primarily is is um it's an area i'm gonna ask you to bring up it was an i added a submittal today it was called south sv phase two jpg if delilah if you could bring that up i think it shows pretty well where this little green space is working on it have faith there we go so it's that little perfect rectangle right in the middle so all of the homes on the right hand side you've got right there you got it that's it on the bike path goes along the western perimeter of it and there are to be it's too deep fenced area have sections of fence all the way around it and currently all the homes that on the are on the right hand side are pre-existing and so the backyards back up to that naturalized area right it sort of would be it's a nice buffer between the the rec pass and the backyards of the existing homes in the future backyards you know i i do like the idea that that the hoa could decide what to do with us you know based on what their needs are what their what their desires are preserving that ability it's just as important for us to decide on on a february what what it should be right now taking in mind the wrecking parks recommendation you know to have places for people to play but um i don't know maybe three years there'll be something else i don't know sharp what is the board is this is dawn my my sense is that there's lots of um manicured lawn space so there will be in this area and i think naturalized areas can add a great deal of interest to um property just my opinion i would also add that the area it has slope to it so it's even if it were to be mowed it wouldn't be flat so i'm not hearing anyone that's very things specific other than i like the idea of letting the homeowners get to decide if they want to change their minds or change change what to do with that space yeah i mean matt the hoa seems to have a pretty active conservation plant to it so i think letting them figure long term how they want to handle these faces seems to be you know certainly acceptable okay the next one i noted was differentiation between the driveway and the road is the driveway and the road sufficiently different differentiated so it's to present a 200 foot road with a driveway at the end swordly staff recommends the board determine if the driveway is required to be maintained permanently as untapped um we look at page nine to let off here there was the hammerhead we had proposed um some sections of fence at the where the private drive begins so that if you were standing on the sidewalk on preserve road and you were looking down the road that you would see a little bit of fence where the private road dog is down to a driveway there is not a gate but the sections of fence would come up to the sides of the driveway so that it would be very clear from your standing from that perspective that you had a private drive in the the road ended so we left off with that we had talked about we had originally proposed to put a fence also on there that said a sign on that fence that said private drive and it seemed like we all concluded at the last meeting that we didn't need to sign that was overkill that we could just go put this in the stock notes again is because we heard a lot of testimony and the board didn't really get the opportunity to discuss they did have a little bit of conversation about it at the deliberations but um i wanted to make sure that the board felt comfortable um we'll do what they presented and kind of decide if they need to make decisions um and certainly they're welcome to ask questions but I really want to hear from the board on this yeah good point Mara um I like the unpaved road uh I don't want the fence to look like a gate but I satisfied that it doesn't um and um you know I think it's sufficiently differentiated but I what does anyone else on the board have a comment regarding the gate the the unpaved road the gravel road or the differentiation between the driveway and the road or how it could be greater differentiated yeah Matt mark here um I agree with you in terms of the unpaved road but I know that at the last meeting and there was some discussion over the issue of you know gravel driveway and accessibility and stuff like that do we want to say like gravel road so there's more differentiation but allow the actual driveways to be paved so that you do have secure stable parking areas that can be plowed and secured um for accessibility that was our request that the driveways for the be accessible which would be being paved I think that's very important so Matt with that I think that there's enough differentiation to say that you know what's road and what's by the driveway um okay good anyone else then we'll go to building orientation residential buildings of course are oriented in the street staff considers this revised can can we see the revised configuration staff considered to be less compliant with this criterion because of its inconsistency with other prior approvals recommends the board direct the applicant to return the home orientation presented at sketch including sidewalk connections to the recreation path with fence segments at the property line the service delineation of open space specifically staff recommends the board require the applicant to orient the two northernmost homes towards preserve road and the remaining six homes toward the eastern open space staff notes that the applicant's southfills design review standards document incorporating the final plot approvals for south village require each home to have a front walk connection to the street or common element alleys and lanes are not required to be connected to the homes of the walkways I apologize it appears to me now that I should have shown the sketch um configuration in the packet but if anybody wants it I have that available and can show it in the meantime Delilah can I can I ask Delilah bring up the SP phase two JPG drawing that was submitted today again you face two GPG drawing oh yeah I still have it up hold on cool bear with me here it comes terrific thank you so what this drawing shows with all the little pink blue markings is that I put a little pink mark on the front of every house and a little blue mark on the back of every house and throughout um from in every dwelling that you see on this drawing the front faces out and the backs face um common elements are well primarily common elements and the fronts also face common elements so what we wanted to point out here was that to turn these around as staff is suggesting would have them backwards and they would if you were traveling up preserve road you'd be looking at the backs of the homes in the front the way that we position them is if you're entering the development and you're coming up preserve road you're passing all of these beautiful homes on your left with their fronts of their houses and as your eyes um focus on farm's edge road you're also going to be looking at the fronts of the houses and then the backs of those houses would back up against that little green that we were just discussing and then those they would essentially be backyard to backyard with the pre-existing houses that are already on the right hand side so because every home in south village um you look at the front of it and not the back of it when you're driving through the neighborhood this made the most sense to us um we also our do have the unit the one that we were just talking about with the 13 foot setback that is to face onto preserve road it is to be a two-sided unit the same as the allen road east units that we were talking about on lot 11 so this orientation is consistent with lot 11 um in the units that look out over the farm and we believe it's the most desirable and the most attractive for the development and this proposal if you could zoom back out a little bit delilah um that'd be great so we could see the lot 11 zoom out a little more thanks so you can see the homes have that same orientation the westward facing looking over the farm again with their backyards facing the backyards of other homes so we thought ultimately this makes the most sense um it's the most attractive and it is in keeping with the balance of homes certainly in phase two but also all of south village reaction sport no i mad i think that actually does make sense in terms of um building orientation with the front facing the um the road and the back because then the backs are going to be sort of a common element with the roads on north jefferson with the sort of the community green space in between it keep in mind is not a road i know i'm first 200 feet as a road i i i know okay i know but i think doing it the other way is you're you're going to be presenting the back of the house to the more public way let's put it that way if i may just a clarification on the staff notes um it says that um the design review standards uh require each home to have a front walk connecting to the street or common element and um i believe if you were to zoom in on this proposal you would see that the first two buildings do have a sidewalk uh that brings you to the uh the public street admittedly the last two buildings do not but that is not unlike uh the flag lots at south village bob and you can correct me if i'm wrong but the flag lots at south village um they do not have a sidewalk that leads to the to the public sidewalk to them they do not if we can flip back to the drawing that we were just on you can see that in the upper left hand corner on preserve road okay it's not opening Patrick's correct all the flag lots including including the first uh they are the third and fourth house up preserve road um which are visible on that drawing oh you got it i'm just in the upper left and maybe maybe the board has some some different perspective on this those southern two homes two proposed homes without facing onto common element the farm is a common home they're just homes that don't communicate with the rest of the neighborhood um what's the am i board am i missing the point what how is it that you guys are comfortable with that they have a front walk connecting to a common element do they the bottom two i don't think they do no the the looking at the plan the the ones the ones to the two to the north closest to preserve road those two buildings have a sidewalk connecting to a sidewalk along preserve road the southern two buildings do not have a sidewalk but again there's already you know precedent set set um on other locks in south village that do not have frontage on public street it also do not have sidewalks leading to the public sidewalk Patrick as you say that i feel the same anxiety so maybe the board has already been down this road because my reaction to that is like oh god that's all stuff is bad so i don't know no they do i would just say that they do front on a common element because the farm is a common element not are we on on this sure yeah please i mean i i hear what you're saying marlo but i think you know the issue is we kind of not that we created this issue but you know the the applicant addressed our concern and the fact that they can't have a public road more than 200 feet long so we kind of push to create this private road driveway feel and you know i think for us to kind of now push back on the fact that they have these two houses or four units you know these two structures they don't need all of the other elements of fronting on you know roads you know sidewalk going out i think i i think that sort of i'm okay with it because i think that sort of it's done everything we can short of saying okay then let's just pave it and put a sidewalk down the rent the rest of that and make it look like the rest of the you know farms and plane okay moving on to affordable housing density bonus uh yes two by two march two by twos yes relevant yes please um good um and uh you are to provide you should provide more traditional street trees along the private dead end street after our we did we did i think this was a carry over just a do-over copy from the last meeting because we did submit new landscape drawings and then item four of this packet staff notes that the arborist did approve them okay more traditional street trees good done okay are there any other questions for the applicant or staff from the board is there any uh one in the public that would like to make a comment about this application you can do so by entering your name in the chat box or by waving your hand at me or saying your name not seeing any not hearing any i would move that we close sd2103 1840 spear street south village lot 48 and preliminary final plot i'll second that i second from dawn roll call brian hi mark hi lisa hi jim hi and chair votes i and sd2103 is closed thank you very much robin patrick and dave thank you for your time very much now i'll move on stay safe item number eight which is the minutes from january 20th i've had a chance to review the minutes don't have any changes does anyone else have any changes to the minutes from january 20th i had one comment on page i'm going to find it it was the page with mires court shoot i thought i marked that oh here we go page four second the last paragraph starts with mr bear but it's the middle of it they're coming in today with a building that is 28 feet high should that be 18 feet high yep yep soon as you get to that she's that's okay it's in my court now okay good yeah i got it are there any other uh amendments edits to uh the minutes and here i'm going to move that we approve the minutes as amended there a second a second second by don do a voice vote all in favor say hi hi hi as opposed anyone i'm stating and the minutes have passed is there uh any other business that people would like to report i sent a note to everybody today about an opportunity for a training session on um architectural review of development applications we would be more than happy to pay for you to attend that if it would help increase your comfort level um reviewing the aesthetics of buildings you said that you're probably going on this one you said that to our esporolino yeah i sent it today it's a daytime hour and a half training virtual i'm certainly yeah virtual yeah oh let me know if you want to go and i'll sign you up thank you okay is there anything else then that concludes the south going to develop review board meeting for february 2nd thank you everyone see you in two weeks