Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_2021-10-19 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 October 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; J. Rabidoux, Public Works Director; M. Simoneau, D. Read, B. Sirvis, E. Milizia, L. Ravin. L. Yankowski, A. Frost, D. Hanley, J. Larkin, M. More, S. J. Palmer, S. Goodwin, S. Gardner 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Keene provides instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Announcements: Ms. Keene noted there are now accomodations for the hearing impaired. Ms. Philibert reminded members of the public to sign in as this is a requirement should anyone wish to appeal a decision. 4. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-21-19 of 600 Spear Street, FJT, LLC, for a planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7000 sf of 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 1.23 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 St. Staff advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 16 November. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-21-19 to 16 November 2021. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 2 5. Reconsideration of Miscellaneous Application #SD-21-01 of the City of South Burlington Dept. of Public Works to construct a dog park on the northwest corner of Wheeler Nature Park. The project involves impacts to Class III wetland and wetland buffers, 1100 Dorset Street: It was noted that the Board decided to reopen the application to determine whether the incursion into the wetland and buffers in justified. Mr. Rabidoux said to address concerns on the impact to the wetland, the plan has been revised to reduce the area of the park by 12% , the wetland impact by 65% and the buffer impact by 33%. Mr. Rabidoux noted there are 2 wetlands involved, and they are very different. One is more like an ordinary backyard while the other has wetland functions. The latter has been removed from the plan and is no longer part of the dog park. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. The applicant was asked what it means to “smooth out” the ground. Mr. Rabidoux said they expect to find some “ankle grabbers” in the lower areas of the park, so they will bring in some soil and fill those areas. He noted the park will be used by people with all levels of ability, and the aim is to keep it safe. All work will be done with hand tools, and the area will be hydroseeded before the dogs come in. 2. This comment was already addressed. Ms. Wyman asked about what looked like a 3rd entrance where she though a dog might get trapped. Mr. Rabidoux said if the fenceline moves, there would be a narrower chute. He said the committee wants as wide an area there are possible. He suggested widening the two entrances so there wasn’t an area to be trapped in. Members agreed. Mr. Kochman asked where the parking will be. Mr. Rabidoux said people will use the existing lot off Swift Street. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Milizia, Chair of the Common Area for Dogs Committee, said the Committee supports this revision. Mr. Simoneau, a Committee member, recognized the concerns the Board had with the wetland. He also supported enlarging the entrances as discussed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 3 Ms. Yankowski, also on the Committee and on the Natural Resources Committee, highly endorsed this plan. Ms. Sirvis, on the original Dog Park Committee, felt the new Committee has done an extraordinary job. Mr. Behr then moved to close MS-21-01. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-21 of Donald & Lois Kerwin to amend a previously approved planned unit development of 2 lots. The amendment is to subdivide Lot 2 (0.83 acres) into 3 lots of 0.28 acres each in order to develop a single family home on each, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall noted the board had requested the PUD address wetland impacts and also wanted additional street trees. Retaining existing vegetation was a challenge as it is of poor quality. There is also a very poor quality wetland which the consultant said had absolutely no function and was manmade. Mr. Marshall said the applicant will construct a rain garden between 2 of the buildings for the short term collection of stormwater. He showed the location on the plan and also indicated robust street tree planting. The Kerwins will not build the homes, just sell the lots, so they are looking for flexibility to create building footprints. Mr. Marshall did, however, show a possible design in order to comply with the regulations. A buyer will see that design, and if there is a substantial change, will come to the DRB. Staff comments were then addressed: 1. Staff asked the applicant to modify the planting plan to indicate a minimum of 2- 1/2” caliper trees. Mr. Marshall said they were fine with that. 2. The applicant was asked to describe the intent of all the plantings. Mr. Marshall said there are three components: there will be a streetscape, a planting plan for the raingarden, and “prettying” up around the buildings for marketing purposes. Their intention is to commit to the first two components, while the third is simply illustrative. The raingarden will be planted before occupancy of the second home. This will involve cross-easements and a maintenance obligation. Mr. Behr asked how the city can guarantee this happens. Ms. Keene suggested a stipulation that it has to be built within 3 years. Mr. Marshall said that’s the best they can do. He added there can also be a “landscape escrow.” Ms. Hall said the escrow can be for 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 4 years, and they would get it back when the plantings are in. Mr. Kochman asked why this is a PUD. Ms. Keene said all subdivisions in the Southeast Quadrant have to be a PUD, but that will end with the new LDRs. 3. Staff asked about the drainage ditch. Mr. Marshall said they are fully committed to doing what Mr. Rabidoux recommends. He said they are OK with a stipulation that they will be in agreement with doing something similar to what has been recently done in the neighborhood. Ms. Keene said that staff considers that requiring 35% of the south façade to be glazed will result in too much glazing and the standard is for 35% of the glazing to face south. The Board was inclined to require compliance with the standard. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-21-21. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-21-042 of University of Vermont & State Agriculture College to add stormwater treatment to a previously approved plan for a research and educational facility. The plan includes encroachment into a Class II wetland and wetland buffer, 705 Spear Street: Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Wyman noted she had worked on a solar project on this parcel but did not feel it would affect her judgment. Ms. Ravin said this is part of UVM’s obligation in the Potash restoration plan and is a joint project with the City of South Burlington. It will require clearing of one tree and some brush. The ground area will accept water from a shared use path and nearby parking lot. Staff comments were then addressed: 1. Staff asked that the plans be revised to show screening of the dumpster. Ms. Ravin said they will do this. Screening will be either vegetative or a chain link fence. The dumpster will be in its current location. Because it’s on pavement, Staff noted the screening will have to be a chain link fence. 2. Staff asked the applicant to discuss the preservation of mature trees. Mr. Read said they will have to eliminate one tree. The second tree at the bottom of the swale they will not touch. Members were OK with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 5 3. Staff asked about snow storage. Ms. Ravin said one snow storage area will be near the dumpster. Mr. Read showed other storage areas on the plan. He said these will be shown on a revised plan. 4. Staff asked why there is a liner. Mr. Read said it is so the roots can stay wet as the soil doesn’t allow for much retention. 5. Staff noted that because this is an educational facility, they need to provide bicycle parking. Ms. Ravin said they are happy to put in a bike rack. The existing one will be replaced with an 8-space unit which will cover the number of students they get there. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SP-21-042. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Langan rejoined the Board. 8. Miscellaneous application #MS-21-05 of Champlain Apartments Partnership to amend a previously approval for encroachment into a Class II wetland buffer. The amendment consists of changing the purpose of the encroachment, 1068 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Wyman, representing the applicant, then presented the plan which is located at the Dorset Street/Williston Road Exit 14 Interchange Holiday Inn project. The wetland buffer is a lawn area and impervious patio. The existing conference center lobby has been torn down to make way for a new hotel and mixed use building. Ms. Keene noted the DRB previously approved the impact, but there will now be a building there. Ms. Wyman noted they have received a wetland permit. She then showed the area of impact and said there is no impact of the wetland. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close MS-21-05. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 6 9. Minutes of 5 October 2021: Ms. Wyman noted that the minutes should show she was recused from item #6, MS-21-04. Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 5 October 2021 as amended. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.