Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_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 ____. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JULY 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 July 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, J. Moscatelli ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; T. Doyle, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, R. Manning, M. Cosentino, G. Rabideau, M. Aloisi, M. Hall, L. Thayer, Irene, G. Bourne, J. Desautels, K. Mejia, M. McGinnis, D. Burke 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: Ms. Keene said she still has no update on the recruitment of a new member. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-23-10 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two five story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 12 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 sq. ft. of commercial space, and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Philibert advised that she owns a condo in the Hillside development, but does not feel this will prejudice her in any way from hearing this application. Ms. Philibert also noted that the staff report is identical to the one recently approved by the DRB. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JULY 2023 PAGE 2 Ms. Keene reminded the Board that they had approved this application in July 2022, with the condition that the plans be recorded in a timely manner. This did not happen; therefore, this is a new application with everything on the table. Ms. Keene noted the applicant is happy with the previous decision and asked that the decision on this application be identical. Mr. Gill said it was his oversight that the plans were not filed within the proscribed time. He added that they are happy with the original time-line. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert moved to close SD-23-10. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Conditional Use Application #CU-23-01 of Cosentino and Manning to construct a two-story addition to an existing single family home. The addition is proposed to be set back 3 ft inches from the side lot line, 11 White Place: Ms. Keene noted an error in the warning. Typically the Board would keep the hearing open, but since it is her error, this would not have to happen. Members were OK with closing. Mr. Manning said the purpose of the addition is to make his home more accessible following his accident. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked that the plans be modified regarding the external stair encroachment. Ms. Keene noted there is a side setback of 5 feet which the Board can modify to 3 feet. There is no information presented regarding the stairs. Ms. Aloisi said the stair is for access to a partly finished basement. It is an open stair. They could put a roof on it. There will be a drain at the bottom to catch water. Mr. Gillies will check to see if they have to come back to the Board to put on a roof. Mr. Behr suggested a railing around the stair to prevent falling. Ms. Keene said the roof can be no higher than the windows. If there is no roof, there will have to be a railing. Mr. Manning said he can live with that. #2. The applicant was asked to clarify the use of the addition. Mr. Manning said it provides a ground level entry to the house so he can be more independent. Ms. Aloisi said it will also contain exercise equipment. Mr. Behr suggested calling it “unheated storage.” #3. Staff is requiring at least 9 feet of driveway width. Ms. Aloisi said they can do that and will revise the plans to show it. She added that the stairs on the east side can be removed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JULY 2023 PAGE 3 #4. A survey by a licensed surveyor is required. Ms. Manning said a survey was done of part of the property by a neighbor. They will do the other 3 sides. #5. Staff noted that lot coverage is exceeded by 205 feet, and the plans should be revised to show removal of those 205 feet. Ms. Aloisi said they will start by finding out the size of the lot. She noted that they have to provide access to the yard for the applicant. Mr. Kochman said they should see the official survey before making a decision. Ms. Manning said that currently her husband can’t access the backyard to see their children play. Ms. Aloisi asked if the Board would accept permeable pavement or if there is an ability to go over the limit. Mr. Kochman said the Board can address that when they have to. Ms. Keene said she didn’t think the Board had authority to exceed the limit because this is in a site plan. Ms. Aloisi asked about artificial grass. Ms. Keene said staff would like something more enjoyable. She added if the property is under 5000 sq. ft., they are OK; if they are over, there is a discussion. Ms. Philibert added that the Board will do everything it can to allow Mr. Manning to be in the backyard with his children. #6. Staff asked that a piece of roof be removed so it doesn’t appear to be part of the porch. Ms. Aloisi said they can do that. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. McGinnis, the neighbor to the east, said they fully support the proposal and that the Mannings are exceptional neighbors. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to continue CU-23-01 until Wednesday, 6 September. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-23-08 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 2-family homes on 2 private roads, 1170 & 1180 Dorset Street: Ms. Philibert noted there are no staff comments. Mr. Burke said there were some things to follow up on, which they have done. He noted that Public Works had been concerned with the easement over the existing pump station. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JULY 2023 PAGE 4 Burke said that easement was never executed and does not exist. It should be removed from their plan. That pump station is not part of this application. In addition, they now meet the standard regarding landscaping. They added three white pines to the area near Unit 6 and three to unit 14. Mr. Behr asked about a blasting plan. Mr. Burke said that has been submitted. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-23-08. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-23-05 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit Development by re-subdividing three existing lots into three new lots of 0.18 acres (Lot 1), 0.14 acres (Lot 2), and 1.06 acres (lot 3), and constructing a 3,350 sq. ft. financial institution on Lot 1, a 6,480 sq. ft. 2-story mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2, and a 3-story, 27-unit multi- family building on Lot 3, 760 Shelburne Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked for the revised elevations to be reviewed. Ms. Desautels showed the revised elevations. She indicated the windows on the second level which, she said, give the appearance of a second floor. Mr. Behr asked what is behind the windows. Ms. Desautels said just the structure. The will install shadow boxes which can be lit up at night, similar to the 24/7 emergency lights below. #2 and #3. Staff is suggesting a better location for bike storage. Ms. Desautels said that is Chase’s preferred location. Ms. Philibert asked if the applicant is OK with the bike rack location as a condition of approval. Ms. Desautels said they are as phases 1 and 2 will build close together. Mr. Bourne said the hope is that bank employees will bike to work, and it is felt that the break room is a safe place to keep expensive bikes. If the Board wishes, they can put in temporary bike storage during construction and remove it later. #4. The applicant was asked to confirm that there are no changes to the swale under the conveyance. It is not sufficient to say that there will just be a drain. Ms. Desautels showed the location and said it was omitted from the plan in error. Regarding the inclusionary units, Ms. Desautels said the plan shows 7 in the larger building and one in the smaller building. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JULY 2023 PAGE 5 #5. Regarding exterior lighting, Ms. Desautels said the applicant is OK with adjusting to comply with the regulations. Ms. Philibert noted that as they are nearing the point where the Board his information to make a decision, there are still issues with the bank drive-up and the number of inclusionary units, and the Board is leaning toward non-approval. Public comment was solicited. A member of the remote audience identified as Irene asked what the Board is looking for. She thought the plan looked tremendous to her. Ms. Philibert agreed that the current site is in eyesore. She said there are calculations for inclusionary units which are a concern to the Board as is the drive-up to the ATM. She added that the Board has provided significant feedback regarding these issues. Ms. Desautels said this is the first time she is hearing something so definitive. She noted that the applicant has made a number of concessions regarding other requests of the Board. Mr. Bourne expressed his confusion. He said if they had not gone with a PUD, which the Board wanted, they could have the ATM. This was the “sales pitch” they got. They were also told the city wanted housing. The applicant and his group asked for time to confer. This was granted. Following the break, Ms. Desautels asked if the project could be approved with those 2 items being a condition of approval (i.e., the elimination of the drive-thru and agreement to the inclusionary). Mr. Behr said the Board would need to see a plan showing that. Mr. Hall, attorney for the applicant, said the Board has the authority to approve without the ATM and with the inclusionary as a condition. Ms. Keene said that would not be specific enough or show what the site will look like. She added that the Board can take Mr. Hall’s request under advisement. Mr. Hall said the concern is slowing the project down for 2 small issues. He felt those issues could be resolved at the E-Board level. Ms. Philibert said the Board does not consider the issues “small.” Mr. Kochman said the issues are material items. He added that the Court has gone pretty far in allowing changes that are not “material.” He did not feel it was appropriate to have those issues as a condition of approval. He noted the applicant can ask to close the application or ask for a continuance. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JULY 2023 PAGE 6 Mr. Behr said they could close, get an opinion from the City Attorney, and structure their decision based on that opinion. He noted that the inclusionary could be affected by what the City Attorney says. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SD-23-05. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Minutes of 20 June 2023: Members agreed to consider the Minutes of 20 June when more members were present. 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 8:46 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on _____________.