Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/07/2023DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 November 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, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; M & M. Lipson, G. Dixson, M. Buscher, D. Sherman, E. Braco, M. Weissman, G. Titcomb, T. & K. Eaton, L. Smith, D. Goodman, C. Colovos, D. Michhelides, T. Reilly, A. Marquis, A. Glaser, M. Gething, A. Johnson, D. Walrath, L. Kupferman, N. Hellen, M. Turner, J. Larkin, P. Hansen, D. Gurtman, J. Larson, S. Hill, D. Marshall, A. Kulp, E. Bradley, E. Farrell, R. Larson, T. Dowen. S. Milbury, J. Hodgson 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. Continued master plan sketch plan application #SD-23-12 of Eric Farrell for an existing approximately 105 acre lot developed with two single-family homes and six unoccupied accessory structures. The master plan consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent conservation, conveying approximately 1 acre to abutters, and constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single family to twelve units on 28.25 acres, 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Kochman and Ms. Wyman were recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert noted that members made a visit to the site last week. Mr. Farrell said there is a single-lane road crossing the railroad. David Farrell deeded a 60-foot right-of-way to allow that to become a public street. It will be shown as a 2-lane road. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: Members agreed to hold the first 2 comments until the end. #3. Staff recommends the Board review the rec path now shown on the plan. Mr. Farrell said they would support a path from Bartlett Bay Road to Holmes Road then west to the railroad in the Velco right-of-way, then up to Fayette Road. Mr. Gillies noted that the Public Works Director supports the path but prefers not to have a railroad crossing for safety reasons. Mr. Farrell said that would bring the path onto property they have no control over. Mr. Gillies said the city controls that property. Mr. Farrell said some of the property is also owned by the Larkins. Mr. Behr said he always supports rec paths. Whether it is on the east or west side of the railroad will require further study as there are pros and cons each way. #4. Staff recommends the Board discuss the potential redesign of the road. Mr. Farrell said they originally proposed to upgrade part of Holmes Road to public standard (he showed this on the map). It is not clear to him what the preference of the neighbors is, so they have an alternate design which would keep Holmes Road as it currently is. Mr. Farrell said he supports Mr. Conner’s comments. One alternative is to make the Holmes Road Extension a private alley. The benefit of that is that the lion’s share of traffic wouldn’t be on Holmes Road. There is a question as to whether David Farrell has the right to upgrade that road. Mr. Farrell stressed that they want to end up with a plan that the DRB supports and then determine the status of that road. They don’t yet have a sense of what the neighbors want. He felt there could be disparity between the neighbors and the city. Ms. Mann said the status of Holmes Road is critical, and it seems like the original design is more consistent with the regulations. She felt that the sooner the Board can get the status of Holmes Road, the better. Mr. Farrell said his preference is for the city to work it out with the neighbors and tell him what to do. It is their belief that David Farrell has the right to upgrade Holmes Road and dedicate it to the city, but they would like consensus on that. Mr. Behr said he liked the redesign look as it provides a good buffer. The original design completely changed what was there; the new plan is more respectful of the existing neighborhood and is more compact. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 3 Ms. Keene said she was surprised to see the redesign. She expected to see removing only a portion of Holmes Road. It doesn’t solve all the problems Mr. Conner raised (she showed this on the plan). Members then continued with staff comments from the prior hearing: #18. Staff noted that most of the hazards are within lots 2, 3, and 4 which are proposed for single-family lots. Staff is asking the applicant to describe how the regulations regarding hazards will be honored since hazard areas are required to be conserved. The existing conditions were then shown. Mr. Buscher said one regulations says that the conservation area should be as contiguous as possible. They took a step back and calculated. The developable portion of the lots is out of the hazard area. They can’t move the existing home or driveway. There is a little bit of encroachment on lot #2 and one sliver of a steep slope on lot #4, so for the most part they meet the regulations though the developable portion of the lots has decreased. #19. The applicant confirmed that there will be no changes to the flood plain. #20. Regarding steep slopes, Mr. Buscher said the area of very steep slopes is within the Holmes Road Extension. #21. Staff noted that a professional wetland delineation will be needed. Mr. Buscher said it is already in the works. #22. Mr. Buscher said there will be no improvements to that driveway. #23. Mr. Buscher said lots 2, 3, and 4 have been revised to avoid impacts to hazards. Ms. Mann suggested that the applicant may want to show where there could be wildlife corridors. #24. Staff noted that the Board can invoke technical review of the plan for the habitat block disturbance. Ms. Mann moved to invoke technical review of the habitat block disturbance. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Public comment was then solicited. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 4 Ms. Lipson: Thanked the developer and the DRB for thoughtful conversation. She urged careful discussion and considering less impact on the wetland, habitat block and existing neighborhood. She asked that traffic and runoff be considered carefully. Mr. Easton: Wants more of an understanding as to how the new neighborhood will be integrated into the area. The existing neighborhood has been there more than 100 years and considers itself “traditional.” He noted that Mr. Conner felt the original plan dis a better job of integrating the neighborhood. They would also like their existing neighborhood to stay as it is. Ms. Easton: The Board needs to give thought to what the existing community is going through. The quality of their neighborhood deserves to be preserved. They are trying to absorb both this and the Larkin development and are trusting that the Board will do what is right for the neighborhood. She was pleased at how Mr. Farrell and Mr. Buscher are working with them. Mr. Lipson: Noted that there are 2 trucking depots on Holmes Road. He said the more traffic that is allowed, the worse it will get. Mr. Cooper: A Queen City Park resident, noted there are a lot of “moving parts” to this. It is important to consider bike and pedestrian amenities and how this development will tie into the Larkin property. He also noted that debris has been dumped into the wetland for many years. Mr. Glazer: Prefers the revised plan. On the original plan, the road leads right into his driveway, and he would like to avoid that. D. Walrath: Thanked everyone for their sensitivity to this piece of land. Stressed the need to preserve the animal corridor and the Lake. Water quality is going down. He urged going as slowly as possible. C. Klovos: Asked if this has to be a TND. Mr. Bucher said it is a TND because of minimum densities and the constraints on the north parcel. Mr. Farrell asked to continue the sketch plan hearing and allow them to meet more with the neighbors. Mr. Behr agreed with that and hoped they could come back with something that gets more consensus. He liked the idea of keeping Holmes Road as it is now and felt that could be done. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-23-12 to 5 December 2023. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 5 Mr. Kochman rejoined the Board. 6. Master Plan sketch plan application #SD-23-14 of John Larkin, Inc., for an approximately 40-acre existing PUD consisting of 270 residential units in 8 multi- family buildings, a 20,000 sf movie theater, a 22,500 sf restaurant/medical office building, and a 3,500 sf restaurant with drive through. The master plan includes 4 phases and consists of adding approximately 92,105 sf of commercial space including a 110 room hotel, approximately 281 homes in multi-family and mixed use buildings, 6 homes in 2-family buildings, approximately 5 acres of programmed and passive open spaces, and extending a city street, 1185 Shelburne Road: Ms. Wyman was recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Hodgson said they have fine-tuned the plan, but there are no major changes. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff questioned whether the applicant was still looking for a waiver from landscape requirements. Mr. Hodgson said they may need to consider other than plant material. Mr. Gillies asked what non-plant material the Board would be OK with. He noted the applicant is proposing a playground and community garden. Mr. Behr said he would only consider non- plant material when the landscape potential is used up. He would have to see it first. #2. Staff asked what setback waivers the applicant would be asking for and at what stage. Mr. Hodgson said they want a similar relation to the street as the first building (he showed this on the plan). The hotel has a similar relationship. #3. Staff questioned whether the movie theatre will be repurposed. Mr. Hodgson said it would be a much less intensive use, possibly indoor recreation such as hockey or skating, which would require less parking. Mr. Moscatelli asked if there is enough parking for the development. Mr. Hodgson said they are working on that now. He stressed that anything they propose is a step down from what is there now. There is definitely enough parking on the site. #4. The applicant was asked to discuss the rec path connection. Mr. Hodgson said he thought there is the ability for two residential parcels and the public to use the path. They can’t widen it because it is between two wetlands. Mr. Gillies said the city has a road on the official city map between the Farrell development and this development. It is not a critical piece. Mr. Hodgson said they are proposing a widened path down the west side of Fayette Road. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 6 #5. The applicant was asked to discuss the width of Fayette Road where it meets Shelburne Rd. Mr. Hodgson said there might be a potential to narrow it, but they won’t know until they get a traffic person. They could provide more of a meandering way, but they are not sure if VTrans would want to see Fayette narrowed. Mr. Gillies cited the hazard of crossing Shelburne Road at this point. Mr. Larkin said that is not their property. It is a State road. He understands the concern, but there is not much they can do about it. They will provide safety where they can. #6. The applicant was asked to clarify whether the pond is a stormwater feature and to discuss how the 2 wetlands will be integrated into the park. Mr. Hodgson said the pond is a stormwater pond. Mr. Gillies asked how the applicant sees the ponds featuring into the park. Mr. Larkin said they were told it might not be easy to permit something like a footbridge. He didn’t see the use changing much as they can’t impact the grading. Mr. Kochman said he has seen some stormwater treatments with vegetation embedded into the pond. He asked if that was viable. Mr. Larkin said there are a lot of opportunities, but each part of the development will have its own stormwater treatment. There could be more ornamental stormwater treatment in the triangular ponds (he showed these on the plan). Mr. Behr encouraged the applicant to look into that more and possibly use some landscaping money there for vibrant plantings. #7. The applicant was asked to discuss the impact of adding a high-quality park and consolidating the 6 duplexes. Mr. Hodgson said the area is not flat now. Regarding the 3 stand- alone duplexes, Mr. Gillies noted there is a very small percentage of the housing that would be for sale. He questioned the best use of that space. Mr. Behr said those buildings are outliers, an isolated pocket with no plan to continue. He questioned whether that was the best use of the space. #8. The applicant was asked to discuss the orientation of buildings 3 and 7. Mr. Hodgson said they are right on the edge of a major grade change. They would have a southwest facing courtyard which is good in Vermont. Mr. Gillies said staff felt this took away from the urban feel. The applicant noted that parking is on the top of the building. Ms. Keene said this is a big deal as there is no pedestrian street serving the two buildings. Mr. Behr suggested flipping the orientation of the 2 buildings and having frontage on Reel Road. This would create a courtyard effect on the street. Mr. Kochman agreed. The applicant noted that if they flipped the buildings, they would end up with a ramp down to two levels of parking. Mr. Behr felt they both function as public streets. Mr. Kochman asked whether the tenant for the hotel likes the design. Mr. Larkin said they do. Public comment was then solicited: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 7 D. Goodman: Noted that a pedestrian was run down on October 6th. It is critical that whatever is done there, bike and pedestrian safety is considered. He felt parking was critical as well. A Glazer: There is an unnamed stream that meanders behind the theater through his property and comes out at the Lake. It is very polluted on a regular basis. He would like someone to look at that. It is a collection point for Lot 1. He asked that the applicant try to make it better, not worse. T. Easton: He agreed with Mr. Glazer. Between the 2 applicants, stormwater runoff is becoming a concern. That stream runs through his property as well, and there is a lot of sediment. The culvert under the railroad tracks goes into that stream. He questioned how much additional runoff will be generated by the 2 projects. He stressed that all the sediment shouldn’t wind up in the lake. Mr. Gillies said there will be a requirement to treat all stormwater runoff. Mr. Easton said it is important to know where that sediment is coming from. G. Titcomb: The walk from Holmes Road to the grocery store can be harrowing. Cars ignore the crosswalks. Adding so many cars to streets is troubling when we are supposed to be making streets pedestrian friendly. The 3 duplexes would be in direct sight line of Hannaford, and he would like the residents to be able to walk there safely. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SD-23-14 to 21 November. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-13 of Boss Babes, LLC, to subdivide an existing 3.05 acre lot developed with an office into two lots of 1.24 acres (Lot 1A-1) and 1.81acres (Lot 1A-2) for the purpose of developing a 9100 sf veterinary hospital on Lot 1A-2. 10 Mansfield View Lane: Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. The applicants explained that this is a woman-owned business that has grown from a 2-doctor practice to a 9-doctor practice. This is a very good area for patients and clients and is needed in the area. People are having trouble getting their pets seen. This facility would be like a walk-in urgent care. They recognize that noise is a concern with any pet facility. They keep pets sedated so they are peaceful. It is not a “play outside” situation. Pets are walked one at a time on a leash. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 8 Mr. Marshall showed the plan and identified the roads in the area. This lot is 3.1 acres which he felt was good for an infill project. Ultimately, there will be a different circulation pattern than what was there before. He noted the extension of the road to the property line for connectivity to meet the regulations. What hasn’t been flushed out are the open space amenities which they will do. Mr. Marshall then showed the plan of the overall business park and identified the existing buildings and the undeveloped lots. Staff Comments were then addressed: #1. The applicant was asked to discuss their request to waive master plan review. Mr. Marshall said it is a very small lot. Mr. Gillies said staff is OK with that as the lot is under 4 acres. Ms. Keene noted that Meadowlands Business Park is a large factor in why master plans are now being required. But there is no issue in this case. Mr. Marshall reviewed the history of the business park. It was originally a subdivision plat which is all that exists for a “master plan.” Mr. Moscatelli said it appears they are creating non-conforming lots. It was noted that this is allowed with a PUD. Mr. Kochman asked what subdivide it. Mr. Marshall said the LDRs say you cannot have multiple buildings on one lot. What was originally proposed is no longer allowed. #2. The applicant was asked to address connectivity and the implication of building a road extension on an unowned property. Mr. Marshall said they are comfortable complying with the rules. Mr. Behr asked when the city gets the ability to make the connection from where the road stopped short. Mr. Gillies said probably never. He showed this on the plan. He said it is unlikely the applicant would need additional parking which is what could trigger the connection requirement. Mr. Gillies asked about the dash lines on lot 1C. Mr. Marshall said when lot 1E comes in, there will be an ability to connect. It was emergency access for South Burlington Realty and a second access for the residential development. Mr. Behr asked there can be a requirement for the road to connect at that time. Mr. Larson noted that he owns the property they are talking about going across. #4. The applicant was asked to discuss the dichotomies between the IO standards and PUD standards. Mr. Marshall said he is comfortable this is an approved us and can move forward. Mr. Gillies said they will have to state that they are meeting standards of the IO district as well as PUD standards. This could take some wordsmithing so there is no contradiction. Mr. Gillies noted that the IO district involves large, contiguous open space, which this clearly isn’t. Public comment was then solicited: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 9 R. Larson: Dr. Julie Larson and the other physician in the eye care building support this development. He noted that in 2006, when they planned their building, they took into account the needs of the largely elderly clientele (e.g., sheltered parking in winter). The concern is that with 25-30 surgeries a day as well as the eye-laser business, it is very important to minimize traffic. They see up to 110 patients a day. They agreed to share the driveway because the other building had only 6-8 people coming a day. There is a turning lane up the street. If this development were to use their driveway, it would be an issue for the elderly patients. The road is not very wide and is up against a wetland. T. Dowen: He has a practice in the same building. He felt there would have to be a traffic study and an Act 250 hearing before that curb cut cold be used. He was also concerned he had no notice of this application being heard today. Mr. Behr said they need to do some research as to whether the city has the right to require that connection. Ms. Keene said she has no person to contact for that. Mr. Larson said their agreement is to allow only the 8-10 employees to use that driveway. There is a turning lane that would serve the applicant’s business and make things safer for everyone. He offered to get information to staff. Mr. Marshall said they will be supplying a traffic study. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SD-23-13 to 21 November 2023. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 19 September 2023 and 17 October 2023: The spelling of Mr. Moscatelli’s name was corrected in the 19 September minutes. Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 19 September and 17 October as amended and written. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. 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 10:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on January 4, 2024.