Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 July 2021, at 7:00 p.m. at the South Burlington Police Station, 19 Gregory Drive, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Wilking, A Gill, M. O’Brien, L. Thayer, R. Dickinson, C. Mack, S. Homsted, J. & J. Gates, M. Weiner, A. Dery, E. Langfeldt, B. Armstrong, C. Frank, F. & M. VonTurkevich, A. Dotolo, S. Alenick (Recording Secretary), Town Meeting TV. 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: As no audience was present in the conference room, no evacuation procedures were presented. 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: Ms. Keene announced that city offices have now moved to the new City Hall/Community Library/Senior Center at 180 Market Street. She reminded Board members and members of the public that the Grand Opening of that building will be on 23 July, 4:30 p.m. Ms. Philibert said the next DRB meeting will be in the new building. She also reminded members of the public to sign the virtual sign-in or email Ms. Keene of their presence at this meeting. This is necessary should anyone wish to appeal a decision of the Board. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-21-026 of Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing an expansion of the existing taxiway “K” for the purpose of improving safety at the runway and taxiway intersection, 1200 Airport Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert noted that the applicant had asked for a continuance to allow them to address comments of the Stormwater Department. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-21-026 until 3 August 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Ms. Wyman recusing herself due to a conflict of interest. 6. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-40 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to create a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on nine lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a conflict of interest. Members agreed to address the traffic study section of staff comments. It was noted that there had been a question of whether to modify the plans to include roundabouts instead of “T” intersections at Kimball Ave. Mr. Dickinson explained the information that was provided to the Board. He noted that the latest edition of Highway Capacity Manual was used for calculations. The printouts show that the level-of-service would vary from a.m. to p.m. Both p.m. locations would have a level-of- service of “F”. Mr. Kochman asked whether the city’s consultant has been provided with this material. Ms. Keene said he has not. Mr. Kochman was concerned with this. He noted that a 2-lane roundabout is more complex but it does resolve the level-of-service issue. He asked if it would take more land. Mr. Dickinson said it would. Mr. Kochman asked what staff’s view is. Ms. Keene said the city is not particularly interested in a large 2-lane roundabout in this location as it is not an arterial road. Mr. Kochman noted the signalized intersection has the potential for backup which a roundabout does not. Ms. Keene asked the queue length would go beyond Old Farm Road. It is about 600 feet. Mr. Kochman said that should be adequate. Mr. Gill noted that the consultant also agreed that a 2-lane roundabout was not appropriate at this location. Mr. Dickinson confirmed that. Mr. Langan asked Mr. Dickinson whether there are other areas where he found a roundabout was a good solution. Mr. Dickinson said that about 12 years ago they designed the Montpelier DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 3 roundabout which has worked well. It is a one-lane roundabout. Others have been “mini” roundabouts on residential streets to calm traffic. Mr. Dickinson felt that in the greater Burlington area roundabouts are not feasible on major connectors due to size and cost. Mr. Langfeldt said level-of-service is not the only issue. There is a grade issue, and there is existing development on the streetscape. The amount of land that would be needed is beyond the city’s right-of-way. Mr. Dickinson said at least 130 feet in diameter would be needed for a 2-lane roundabout. Mr. Albrecht said the conclusions in the analysis are very clear. There is no equivocation. Ms. Eiring and Mr. Behr agreed that a roundabout would be more problematic in these 2 instances. Pubic comment was then solicited. Mr. Wilking said he is the owner of 30 Kimball Avenue across the street from this project. He said the offset for a roundabout would be significant and would stop entry to 20, 30 and 40 Kimball Ave. A 2-land roundabout would be impossible. Mr. Wilking stressed that he would not sell land to accommodate a roundabout. Members then addressed the issue of the community rec path on the south side of Old Farm Road. Mr. Langfeldt noted that this issue is not being driven by the applicant. They are proposing a 10-foot recreation path from the east slope of Old Farm Road across Pizzagalli property to Tilley Drive pedestrian facilities. Mr. Langfeldt noted that there was a site visit earlier in the month to Old Farm Road to look at the challenges to putting a bike facility there. He added that they still feel what they are proposing gets to the same location with no upset to Old Farm Road neighborhood. He also noted that they engaged Corey Mack to look at this and submitted a letter from him today. Ms. Keene said the Board will have that letter before they deliberate. Mr. Albrecht said he found the staff comments very useful in understanding the history. He briefly reviewed that history including the November 2020 recommendation for a shared use path on Old Farm Road, the May 2021 recommendation from the Bike Ped Committee for a shared use path on Old Farm Rd. where the grade is more gradual and the path is more direct. Mr. Albrecht noted three possible options on Old Farm Road: a 10-foot path, an 8-foot path, or a 5-foot sidewalk. Mr. Albrecht also noted that staff acknowledges the strong public opposition to an Old Farm Rd. path. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 4 Ms. Philibert said she found what the neighbors said very compelling, but as she considered the residents’ encroachment on public land, she questioned the neighbors’ justification. Ms. Philibert also said she wasn’t sure this is the right place for a path but realizes a lot of people think it is. Mr. Behr said that seeing the existing conditions and hearing the neighbors’ concerns and then hearing things laid out by staff was all very compelling. He felt something in between might be possible. This is the most direct route, and if something isn’t done people will still use this route. He suggested something like what is in front of Tech Park, meandering, and more sensitive, but still achieving safety. Ms. Eiring suggested the possibility of a 5-foot sidewalk on Old Farm Road and also what the applicant is suggesting for a bike path. The biggest issue is that pedestrians are clearly using it, and they will continue to do so, so how can it be done by minimizing impacts to neighbors? Mr. Langan said he had a similar thought. He is concerned for pedestrian safety here and thought a sidewalk might make more sense. Mr. Kochman said Ms. Eiring said what he intended to say, and he supported that 100%. He added that you don’t have to run a straight shot and can respect some of the existing landscaping. Mr. Albrecht said the road is very narrow already and very dangerous for bikes and pedestrians. He suggested something in between 5 and 10 feet. He felt the path proposed by the developer would be a great amenity. He also felt that a sidewalk would improve the value of the neighborhood. Ms. Philibert said a sidewalk makes perfect sense. Ms. Frank of the Bike-Ped Committee, said there is a need to get pedestrians and bikers from the top of the hill to “where the action is.” She felt children would bike on the sidewalk because it is a shorter route. She appreciated the problem with limited space on that road, but said a rec path doesn’t have to be 10 feet. It can be 8 feet. Mr. Langfeldt noted that with respect to the grade, it is the same on both routes. Mr. Mack said he had reviewed staff comments. He noted that a proposal for a path usually follows a scoping study process which would indicate what kind of path there should be. It would do traffic counts, look at the existing land, utilities, the presence of ledge, and also go through a public process. Mr. Mack also noted that the grade on both proposed routes is the same, so the grade issue is non-existent. He said that people now walk on Old Farm Road. He said they might prefer to be off the road entirely, and the route proposed by the developer is not much longer. He again stressed the need for a community-driven scoping process to see what is appropriate here as there are a lot of complexities involved. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 5 Mr. Langfeldt stressed that this is not a question of cost. They will put in the Tilley Drive path regardless. They want to be sure this is the right improvement for the location. Ms. Keene said the Board can ask for a design which they can review at Final Plat, and they can set the parameters in the decision. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Armstrong said the neighbors support the applicants right to develop. He agreed with Mr. Mack that there needs to be a major scoping study. He said if the landscaping that is there is removed for the path, lights will come into people’s homes. He added that dead-ending the south end of Old Farm Road is the only way to mitigate traffic on that road. Mr. Armstrong said neighbors are considering taking legal action because there has not been proper scoping. He noted there is ledge at 2 inches deep on his front lawn that would have to be blasted and could damage homes. He felt the city has used a “side door process” to get a path through and said that if the City were proposing the path, they would have to go through a whole scoping study. He said if the city wants to build this path, the city should file the application. Ms. Weiner supported Mr. Armstrong’s points. She noted that for many years residents had been assured there would be great weight put on dead-ending Old Farm Road to protect the neighborhood. She felt that should have been part of the plans for this development. She could not understand why this rural type of street need to be “thrown under the bus” when there is an alternative. She said there is no reason why everyone should be able to walk every inch of South Burlington. Ms. Gates said she did not want to see the destruction of Old Farm Road. She said there is hardly any bike traffic now. She felt there are alternatives to keeping pedestrians safe. Mr. Armstrong said if this was a proper process, why did he just find out about it a few weeks ago. Mr. Gates said he is an abutter and received no notice at all by mail. Mr. Gill suggested a flexible decision as there is no consensus from the Board and the community. He suggested the possibility of a fee instead of construction. He also was concerned about having immunity if private property is destroyed. Mr. Kochman then moved to close SD-20-40. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 6 Mr. Behr noted the Board has 45 days in which to render a decision. He said there may be several deliberative sessions in order to provide clear information to the developer as to what the Board wants to see at Final Plat. 7. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-19 of 600 Spear Street FJT, LLC, for a planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7000 sq. ft. storage building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in 4-family buildings, a 1.24 acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear Street: Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. Mr. Kochman recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Albrecht disclosed that he knows the applicant but doesn’t feel a recusal is needed. Mr. VonTurkovich advised that the Council has given them Interim Zoning approval to move forward. They also presented a sketch plan and are not presenting the Preliminary Plat. They have resolved a number of technical issues brought up at sketch, but not much else has changed. Ms. Dery then showed a site rendering. She noted they will connect a new city street to Spear Street at the location of the existing driveway. In the future, it would connect to the UVM parcel. There is also a new private loop road with on-street parking. It is 2 feet narrower than a public road. Ms. Dery noted the project has 8 quadplex buildings with 61 on-street parking spaces or in small lots. The project also uses municipal water and sewer. Ms. Dery then showed a rendering of the style of buildings and the location of trees. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Mr. VonTurkovich said the existing single family house was acquired this year. The plan was to convert it to a duplex. They have separated the house from a suite over the garage which will become a full unit. They will address this immediately with the city whichever way works best. Ms. Keene recommended a straightforward zoning application. #2 and #3: Staff requested updated computations. Ms. Dery said they can provide separate computations for Lots A and B at final plat. They feel they will meet coverage on an overall basis. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 7 Regarding the commercial building, Mr. VonTurkovich said it is the intent that in the future it could be for commercial uses. Ms. Keene noted that it is an existing nonconformity and if they stop using it, it cannot go back to industrial use. Mr. VonTurkovich said it could provide work space, storage space, bike maintenance area, etc. Mr. Behr suggested they seek approval for an array of uses. Ms. Keene noted there are very few allowable uses, and they have to pick a use at this stage. They would come back to the city for a change. Ms. Keene suggested it be for “accessory residential use.” She said there may be allowable commercial uses; they would just have to be vetted. Ms. Hall added that the commercial use would have to be continuous. If it is discontinued for 6 months, that use is lost. #4. The applicant was asked to provide architectural elevations demonstrating compliance of the existing building to be retained. Mr. VonTurkovich asked to address this when they know the use of that building. He noted that there are issues such as window placement. Ms. Keene noted that the regulations require compatibility of the old and new buildings. Mr. VonTurkovich said he sees the value of keeping the metal building which has been there a long time, and it relates to buildings on the UVM farm. The houses relate to the existing house on Spear Street but also have something of a farmhouse look. Ms. Keene asked members if this meets the criteria. Mr. Albrecht said it appears to be a “farm landscape.” He felt the steel building could be somewhat modified to be less intrusive. Mr. Behr agreed. He noted that without a designated use, the Board would need more information as to how it will fit harmoniously in the development. He wasn’t sure that has to be worked out a preliminary plat. Ms. Philibert agreed. #5. Regarding a dumpster, Mr. VonTurkovich said the plan is that each building will have its own bins which will be serviced weekly. There will be a route for the trash company through the project. There will also be a larger area for trash behind the steel building. Members felt that made sense. Mr. Behr asked about composting. They will need to figure that out. #6. Regarding screening to protect the enjoyment of the adjacent lot (agricultural lot), Ms. Keene said the standard is to screen dissimilar uses, and this lot should no rely on the presence of landscaping on the adjoining lot for screening. Mr. VonTurkovich said they would like to explore that further with staff. They would like the farmland to be visible so people in the development have a nice view. He said there is a buffer to the north, and there is interior landscaping. Ms. Philibert said it looks like there is a lot of screening there. Ms. Keene said most of those trees are on the abutting property, and it doesn’t seem appropriate for an abutter to have to retain trees because of an adjacent project. Mr. Behr asked if there is room for more screening there. Ms. Thayer said there are challenging site conditions on the north side. Mr. Behr said he didn’t see the necessity of a line of trees, just something to soften the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 8 development. They should imagine the UVM parcel was clear cut; what would they want to be seen? #7. Regarding stormwater and the need to consolidate the stormwater system and what that would look like: Ms. Thayer said that Public Works supported a larger “community” system. They would keep 3 of the larger areas and add another large system in the northeast or northwest corner of the site. She noted there are a lot of utility crossings, and fewer stormwater facilities would help with that. Ms. Keene said that having 30+ small areas creates conflict and takes away from it being a pedestrian neighborhood. Mr. Behr said he liked the consolidated areas. Ms. Wyman said she agreed with 4-6 systems and noted that stormwater areas don’t always get maintained, therefore fewer are better. Mr. Albrecht asked if the consolidated areas can be designed to be an amenity. Mr. Von Turkovich said the will present something at final plat. Mr. Albrecht asked if there are any outdoor amenities for the project. Mr. Von Turkovich noted a common area in the center. There will be balconies or walk-out decks for each unit. They could also have picnic tables and other community uses. They are also looking at an extension of the new private road for gardening (fenced in garden plots). Ms. Wyman asked if they would have a conflict with snow storage in that area. #8. Staff notes that only 19 dwelling units should be accessed by a private road, and there are 30. Mr. Von Turkovich said they were surprised by this. They had looked at many configurations and are limited to 4 units per building. Mr. Behr suggested rotating building #6 and making building #4 a duplex. That would only lose 2 units and would meet the ordinance, and would allow more landscaping buffer to the north. Ms. Keene said the Board should decide whether the 19 units is “waivable.” Mr. Behr said if they have the authority to do that, he would support it. #9. Staff asked the Board to determine whether to ask the applicant to quantify level-of-service at the intersection. Ms. Dery said they will generate 25 peak hour trips, distributed between north and south, so the impact is negligible. Mr. Von Turkovich reminded the Board that the idea is people could bike/walk to close by employment (e.g., UVM). Members did not feel it was significant impact. #10. The applicant was asked to work with Public Works for the location of a flashing beacon light. Ms. Dery said they will show this on the plan. Members were fine having this at final plat. #11. Regarding wetland impact, Ms. Dotolo said they do have a small proposed impact to class II buffer for stormwater, that may continue. Board was ok with the impacts to Class II DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JULY 2021 PAGE 9 because its for stormwater. Mr. Albrecht asked if this would be subject to new regulations. Ms. Keene said it would be subject to the existing regulations, now and forever. #12. Regarding bike storage, Mr. Von Turkovich said they will provide covered bike storage at each unit and electric outlet for e-bikes. They will make provisions for eight bikes per building. Ms. Keene said it was uncertain whether they could apply excess long-term bike parking towards required short term bike parking minimums, but if they could not, they would have to put one single inverted-U rack at each building. #13. Mr. Von Turkovich noted the steel building may include storage for the units, which they could choose to use for bike storage. it would also have a bike workshop area. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SD-20-19 until 8 September 2021. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Minutes of 15 June 2021: Mr. Behr noted that at the bottom of p. 1, the word “being” should be “begin.” Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes o 15 June 2021 as amended. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted the conflict of DRB and City Council meetings on 8 September. She said she will “negotiate” for a big space. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:25 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Development Review Board on ___. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 AUGUST 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 3 August 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; C. Frank, J. Dagesse, L. Lackey, P. Friberg, F. Rustad, S. Kilambi, T. Ewell 1. Welcome: Ms. Philibert welcomed members and public to the first DRB meeting in the new City Hall building. Ms. Philibert also noted that following this meeting, the DRB will take its annual break and will meet again on 7 September. Ms. Keene then explained the procedure for evacuation of the building in the case of an emergency. 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: Ms. Philibert explained the necessity of signing in either live or in the chat box or via email to Ms. Keene. 5. Miscellaneous permit application #MS-21-03 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades on Spear Street. The upgrades consist of constructing a gravel wetland in an existing Class 3 wetland and wetland buffer, 239 Spear Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 AUGUST 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Albrecht and Ms. Wyman noted they had worked with Mr. DiPietro in the past, but they saw no reason they could not participate in this application. Mr. DiPietro said this is a stormwater management project to address state regulations. Water will be diverted from Spear Street to the wetland and will then be discharged further to the south. It will remove over 10 kg of phosphorous a year and result in a 97% reduction in flow from a one-year storm and from 64 to 21 feet per second in a 10-year storm. Mr. Albrecht asked how much of the drainage comes from the Country Club. Mr. DiPietro responded that about 1 acre comes from the BCC and 1.7 acres from private lands. All are contributing to the cost. Ms. Keene said all are co-applicants and will be noted in the final decision. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding which of the 10 functions and values of a wetland this project provides. Mr. DiPietro said they worked with the State and a consultant on this, and the State has prepared a report. The functions being provided include water storage and water quality (both treatment and retention will be dramatically improved). Other functions and values are not provided. #2. Staff asked about tree removal and noted plantings being provided in the wetland and a cedar hedge. Mr. DiPietro said there is a wooded area of smaller trees, 2 of which are over 10 inches and the rest smaller. These will be removed for the wetland. There will be a cedar hedge to screen the rec path and a variety of plantings in the wetland. Mr. Kochman asked why it is necessary to decimate the wooded area. Mr. DiPietro said they are creating a larger area and need a depression to store the water. This is the location that worked. Mr. Behr confirmed this project does not involve a permanent fence. Mr. DiPietro said it does not. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to close MS-21-03. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-21-026 of Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 AUGUST 2021 PAGE 3 constructing an expansion of the existing taxiway “K” for the purpose of improving safety at the runway and taxiway intersection, 1200 Airport Drive: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Lackey indicated the runway on the plan. It is 25 feet wide and 800 feet long. They will relocate the pathfinder from one side of the runway to the other as a safety feature. They have received a construction stormwater permit and are in technical review for a operational stormwater permit. There were no staff comments. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to close SP-21-026. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-20 of Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC, for the 3.6 acre “Park Road Area” phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre Golf Course and 354 unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in two-family homes on two private roads, 1170 and 1180 Dorset Street: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Burke noted this was originally 2 lots. The property is currently vacant, but it is part of the Master Plan for Vermont National and is designated for 15 units with nothing larger than a 4- plex. There was a plan in a few years ago with 15 units, but Mr. Burke said they didn’t feel 15 works, so they are going with 14. They have gotten Interim Zoning approval. The project will be served by municipal water and sewer and 2 private roads, one on the west side and a lower road, each 20 feet wide. There was a suggestion when the plan was previously presented to include an internal path which is shown. There is also a connection to the Dorset St. path. Both roads have turnarounds for emergency services. Each unit will have a 2-car garage and parking for 2 cars in front of the garage as well as on- street parking. Mr. Burke noted how the property slopes away from Dorset St., creating 2 “plateaus.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 AUGUST 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Albrecht asked about the landscaped berms on Dorset St. and asked if they are required. Ms. Keene said they are not required. Mr. Burke said there was discussion when this was heard before that there should be landscaped berms. There is berming to the north of the park as well. Ms. Keene noted that a while ago there was a trend to screen homes on Dorset St., but that is no longer in vogue. Mr. Burke said they kind of like them, and they will serve to deflect sound. Mr. Albrecht said he didn’t want to see a wall. Mr. Behr said the berm softens the corner and provides some privacy. Mr. Kochman noted that water flows easterly and asked what impact that will have on the units. Mr. Burke said they will require a State Stormwater Permit. Units will have foundation drains for the basements, and there will be grading away from the buildings. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding whether to allow individual lot coverages higher than the maximum in the zoning district based on the overall golf course being lower. This is what has been approved in the past. Mr. Burke said every parcel has exceeded the number, but they are lower than most. The overall property is well below the requirement. He stressed that the trade-off is clustered development. Ms. Keene noted that there is only one development left of the golf course. She read from the regulations and Master Plan and asked members if they want the applicant to prove they are within limits for the whole golf course. Mr. Burke said they have had this discussion before, and he will look for that information. Mr. Kochman said it seems rational to apply coverage limits on the total basis. He asked whether it is possible other owners will get shafted because the development before them has eaten up the coverage. Mr. Burke noted the remaining development parcels are owned by Jim McDonald. He indicated the remaining parcel but didn’t know if it will be developed as suggested. #2. Regarding switching the eastern road and the homes. Mr. Burke felt this plan works best for this property as with the other plan you would be looking at the backs of units 7- 10 as you’re coming down Park Rd. Mr. Burke also noted that staff indicated the small backyards. He acknowledged this is true but he felt that as they are condos, they don’t need backyards, and they do have privacy. There is also a lot of ledge, and flipping the road and drive would require significant blasting. Units 9 and 10 will have downhill sloped driveways. They are planning stormwater in the north eastern corner. Ms. Keene noted that on the right side there is a wetland with buffer, and backyards are negligible. There is also a concern that the 2 curb cuts are only 115 feet apart when 400 feet is preferred. Mr. Albrecht asked if there is a way to configure this so there is only curb cut. Mr. Burke said you would lose units and have to navigate the grade change, and it would also have to be a public road. He said the real issue is the “hand” they were dealt. Mr. Behr also had a concern with the 2 curb cuts, but he DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 AUGUST 2021 PAGE 5 didn’t see an alternative. Mr. Kochman asked if the eastern entrance could be pushed east. Mr. Burke felt that geometry wouldn’t be as good. #3. Staff notes that even on private roads residents clamber for sidewalks, and it often falls to the city to provide them. Mr. Burke noted there is an existing crosswalk. He didn’t think they should increase the impervious area with a sidewalk. He was OK with a compromise to put a sidewalk between the 2 entrances within the city right-of-way and a crosswalk across Park Road at the western road. Mr. Kochman said he has memories of very narrow sidewalks, and asked what the standard is? Ms. Keene said 5-ft sidewalks with a 5-ft green strip but it is flexible. Mr. Burke noted there are no possible connections to other properties. Mr. Burke said he will follow up with Pubic Works. He wanted Mr. Rabidoux to understand that there are pedestrian amenities and there is a way to get to the multi-use path. Mr. Langan said he wanted to see at minimum a connection between the two private roads and a crosswalk on Park Road. Mr. Burke said he wouldn’t use a sidewalk on the road if he lived on the side without a sidewalk. Mr. Albrecht said an internal sidewalk could be overkill. Mr. Behr said on the eastern road going north/south there could be a sidewalk on the street parking side as it is a long, straight run and creates a loop. Mr. Burke said they have 4 parking spaces per unit, and the sidewalk would make sense if they eliminated on-street parking in that area, but that was discussed in 2016, and asked how the Board felt about the amount of parking proposed? Ms. Wyman noted that people will park wherever they can. It was then discussed whether the road could be narrowed in order to get a sidewalk. As shown, there is a 20-ft road and 8-ft of parking. The total width could be reduced to 26-ft. Mr. Burke indicated he would like to continue to have delineated parking instead of just 26-ft of pavement. Mr. Albrecht liked Mr. Behr’s suggestion with a 4-foot sidewalk, not 5 feet. He noted the point is to create safety and encourage circulation within the development. Any sidewalk on Park Road would have to meet City standards. Members returned to the question of 2 entrances. Mr. Behr felt it was a safety issue, but it may be the best you can get in this location. Mr. Burke said he also liked more distance between entrances, but if they mirrored the road and homes to solve the safety issue it would be at the expense of all other considerations, and they need to take the project in context. He felt there will be very little traffic from the development and he didn’t see a safety concern. Mr. Kochman said he was persuaded by the reasonableness of the layout as there are only a few units. Ms. Wyman said the alternatives are to have the driveway at the top of the hill or at the bottom of the hill. Ms. Keene said future reviews will be looking at architecture and the look of the homes. They will be looking for elevations. Ms. Wyman said they will need fencing to prevent wetland incursion. Mr. Burke said they will probably have a split rail fence. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 3 AUGUST 2021 PAGE 6 Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Bossange expressed concern with 2 curb cuts on a curvy road, and other residents will be very concerned. He felt safety is a huge issue. He asked if the development can be accessed from the southern side. Mr. Burke said that is private property and there is no right-of-way left. Ms. Keene said staff looked at the deeds. There are no public easements or rights-of-way to the south. Mr. Bossange said neighbors may be open to one curb cut but not 2. No other issues were raised. 8. Minutes of 6 July 2021: Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2021 as written. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Albrecht moved to adjourn. Ms. Philibert seconded. The motion passed 6-0, and the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.