HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-23-05 - Supplemental - 0760 Shelburne Road (38)1
Marla Keene
From:Janet Bellavance <janetbellava@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 8, 2023 9:16 PM
To:Marla Keene
Cc:Paul Conner; dphilbert@sburl.com; Quin Mann; John Stern; swyam@sburl.co;
fcochman@sburl.com; Mark Behr
Subject:'EXTERNAL'public input for DRB
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
March 8, 2023
Dear DRB Members,
My name is Janet Bellavance and I have lived at 25 Brewer Parkway for 30 years. Last night I attended virtually the DRB
meeting to learn more about the preliminary and final plat application #SD-23-05 of Gary Bourne to create a general
PUD by re-subdividing three existing lots into new lots on 760 Shelburne Road. Since I live near the area, (and frequently
pass the abandoned/graffitied Pizza Hut and vacant gas station) I was curious to learn more about where the proposal
was at. I was excited to see the plans and hear the applicant's vision for the mixed commercial and residential
redevelopment of the site.
I think their proposal for a one story commercial building (bank) on the corner would fit well into the area and overall
design. I am confused and troubled at the DRB's comments that the plan needs to go back and be redesigned as a two
story building for "aesthetic reasons". I listened to the architect's rationale for a one story building:
addressing climate action plan goals (why add extra nonfunctional space that requires the owner to use more
energy to heat and cool?)
avoid blocking the light of the residential apartments directly behind them (why block natural light and view for
no functional reason?)
I agree with their reasoning. My concern is that the DRB's discretionary request to change the building to two stories to
look better, adds no function or value to the project. Rather, it will hold up the process, and force the owner to make
the building taller which will compel the owner to heat and cool unused space. This seems counter to our climate action
plan.
Also, as the architect stated, the second story will block more light from the three story apartment building behind,
resulting in a negative impact on the quality of life for the apartment dwellers. Rather than have natural light from the
west coming in, they will be facing the wall of a building.
Using your discretion to require a two story commercial building for aesthetic reasons only, at this location, seems
arbitrary. There are many one story buildings nearby.
As for the ATM at the bank, I understand the new LDR's prohibit drive through services, which this clearly would be. It
seems basic for any banking institution to provide a stand alone electronic ATM. This use would be permitted in the
underlying zoning district, but not in the general PUD. Does this unreasonably damage the site? Yes, it would create
cars driving through, but no more than the many cars that drove through the preexisting gas station from all directions.
2
In summary, I would respectfully request that you consider using your discretion to accept or modify the above issues so
that the project can move forward. Thank you for the time you dedicate to service our City.
Janet Bellavance