Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2023-06-20 DRB Minutes DRAFT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JUNE 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 June 2023, 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, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Senior Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; K. Braverman, A. Rowe, D. Burke, G. Bergeron, T. Doyle, D. DiSano, C. Heffer, J. Rustad 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 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: There were no announcements. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-23-09 of The Snyder Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide an existing 5.86 acre lot developed with a stormwater treatment pond into 3 lots of 3.71 acres (Lot N1), 1.79 acres (Lot N2) and 0.36 acres (Lot 3) for the purpose of developing 3 mixed use buildings containing a total of 213 residential units and 27,000 sq. ft. non-residential space on Lot N1 and a future City street on Lot N3, to be reviewed under separate administrative site plan application, 225 Market Street, 267 Market Street, and 113 Garden Street: Ms. Philibert advised that the Board and the applicant have been provided with a draft decision. The applicant indicated there were no issues with that draft. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JUNE 2023 PAGE 2 Ms. Mann moved to close SD-23-09. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-23-09 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 3 existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in 2-family homes on 2 private roads, 1170 & 1180 Dorset Street: Mr. Burke said this is the 13-unit PUD which is part of the settlement agreement. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked for confirmation that the adjustment of preconstruction grade will not cause units 9 & 10 to look out of place. The applicant indicated that units 9 & 10 are a duplex. The request is for an 18-inch preconstruction grade change as the units are being built in relation to a new road and will fit in with the units on that road. Those units vary in height, so 9 & 10 won’t look out of place. Mr. Behr said he agreed the units won’t look out of place as they will be in line with the other houses on that road that have walk-out basements. #2. Staff is requiring an updated plan to include periodic signs to identify the wetland buffer. The applicant was OK with that requirement. #3. The applicant was asked to confirm that the water flow numbers are correct. The applicant said they are confident that the numbers are correct. #4. The applicant was asked to address the comments of the Water Department. The applicant indicated that this will be done prior to closing the hearing. The received the comments less than a week ago and haven’t had time to address them as yet. #5. The applicant was asked to update the EPSC plan regarding stormwater and agreed to do so. #6. & #7. Regarding blasting, the applicant indicated that blasting will be necessary on the high side of the road. There is a ledge narrative being provided. Mr. Kochman asked if neighbors are being informed and whether there will be specific hours for blasting. Mr. Behr suggested the same mitigation plan as for the other side of the road as it allowed the city to have some control. Ms. Keene will provide the details of that plan for the next hearing. The applicant said there will be at least 25% less blasting than on the other side. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JUNE 2023 PAGE 3 #8. Regarding elevation and floor plans, Mr. Currier said they have been provided. They will provide a narrative, if needed. Mr. Burke added that this was acceptable for the previous development. He then showed the typical elevations. No issues were raised. #9. The applicant was asked to respond to DPW comments and agreed to do so. Mr. Currier noted that sight distances are on the plan. Ms. Keene noted that DPW retracted the comment regarding the rec path. #11. The applicant agreed to break out the utility plan onto specific sheets. #12. Regarding comments 7, 8, and 9 (about the berm) of DPW, the applicant said they will work this out with DPW. Mr. Kochman and Mr. Behr liked having the berm there. #13. The applicant agreed to address comments 11 and 12 of DPW. #14. The applicant agreed to update the plan to show the snow fence that the Water Department has asked for. #15. The applicant was asked to address the comments of the City Arborist. Mr. Currier said they will use the standard protections. #16. Staff noted that the conditions of approval will include a stipulation that the footprint lots do not trigger a requirement for a public road. Mr. Kochman stated his belief that footprint lots are illegal. Ms. Keene said the LDRs do not contemplate lots with zero setbacks. She also noted this application is subject to the old regulations and added that the city does not recognize footprint lots. Mr. Currier said most of the lots in South Burlington are footprint lots. Mr. Kochman asked if the units will have basements. Mr. Currier said they will. Mr. Burke said the mortgage industry created “footprint lots.” Public comment was then solicited: Mr. Bergeron: Was concerned with people on the hill looking down on his property and asked how his privacy will be protected. Mr. Burke said the hedge will be maintained, but because of the force main there won’t be any trees. He suggested the possibility of some more plantings along unit 14. Mr. Bergeron said he would like a large tree, if possible, along his boundary. His neighbor has the same request. Mr. Bergeron said his bigger concern is where wastewater will be pumped. If it pumps into his system, it could be a problem as there is no one maintaining it and there is no viable access to it. Mr. Currier said they don’t piggy-back with any other pump station. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 JUNE 2023 PAGE 4 Ms. DiSano asked for some screening on the south side. Mr. Currier said they will try to show more landscaping. Ms. Heffer was concerned with so much development in the city. Members advised that this is not the responsibility of the DRB and Ms. Heffer should take her concern to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue SD-23-08 to 18 July 2023. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Minutes of 11 April and 6 June 2023: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the minutes of 11 April and 6 June 2023 as written. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. 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 7:58 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ____.