Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/21/2023 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 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; F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; G. Dixon, E. Braco, T. Reilly, K. Easton, K. Pidgeon, J. Carswell, A. Culp, S. Bean, A. & D. Manning, E. Preston, T. Dowhan, D. Marshall, Mr. Clifton 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: Some city systems were down this week. If members couldn’t access meeting materials, an application can be continued to allow them to do so. There were no requests to do this. 5. Continued sketch plan application #SD-23-14 of John Larkin, Inc., for an approximately 30 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 a 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 multifamily 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 recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 2 Members were asked to consider the impact of potential uses on the Master Plan that could require a Master Plan amendment. Mr. Gillies noted that the last meeting on this plan was the first time staff heard of the potential change of use or the movie theater to an ice rink. The LDRs require a Master Plan amendment for a “substantial change.” This includes a change in peak hour trip ends. Ms. Mann said it sounded like there would be a decrease in trip ends. She questioned whether there are any other changes that might trigger a Master Plan amendment. Ms. Braco said that is the only potential one she is aware of. Mr. Kochman noted the applicant would be leaving a large part of the theater building unused, but if they later change to another use, they could come back to the DRB. Mr. Gillies said staff agrees that just changing the inside use wouldn’t trigger a Master Plan review. Members then continued to address staff comments: #9. Regarding crosswalks, members were asked to consider the optimal distribution of crosswalks across Fayette Road. Mr. Dixon said they will have a traffic study that will help determine that. #10. The applicant was asked to address whether the turn-around would become public. Mr. Dixon said they intend Reel Road to become public. It will go into Slip Road and then onto Rt. 7. They do not see the need for a turn-around. Mr. Gillies said the city will plow Reel Road, and the DPW was concerned with a turnaround in the interim. Mr. Dixon said they are happy to work with the DPW on that. Mr. Kochman asked whether it matters to the Board whether it is built to public standard. If they want it to be public, they will have to build it to public standard. Ms. Keene said if they want to do only one stretch of the road, there would have to be a turn-around. Reel Road does have to be to city standard. Ms. Keene also noted the city will not accept a road with “head-in” parking, so Slip Road would never be public. #11. The applicant was asked to discuss opportunities/challenges of the topography of the public park and what changes, if any, should be made. Ms. Braco said they are happy to think about opportunities the topography allows. There will likely be a community garden which would be shifted slightly so it isn’t shaded by the evergreens. Mr. Larkin recommended the Board make a visit to the site. Members agreed to go individually to look at the site. #12. The applicant was asked to discuss architectural features and whether that discussion should be at the Master Plan level. Mr. Gillies said there are several buildings proposed; some will relate architecturally, but there are several themes going on. Mr. Kochman said he would be looking for “harmony.” He asked whether the height waivers should DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 3 be at Master Plan or site plan level. Mr. Gillies said the Board can grant the setback waivers at this time; anything else can be at the site plan level. Members were OK with this. Mr. Kochman said he would be concerned with a mass of buildings close to Shelburne Road and whether they would be of the same quality as the existing building. Mr. Larkin said they haven’t decided on an architect yet. Mr. Moscatelli said they should look to the building on the corner as a model, not the movie theater which is “just a box.” #13. The applicant was asked to discuss the requirement for a wetland delineation to be recent. Mr. Dixon said the wetland delineation was done this summer. #14. Regarding street design, Ms. Braco said they are open to expanding the sidewalk north of building 3 to 10 feet in width. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Easton: Was concerned with stormwater from the park area. She said they are the recipient of all water that runs downhill. She also asked whether a DRB meeting had to be warned for the site visit. Members pledged to go on their own so there was no potential “open meeting” issue. Members agreed they had enough information. 6. Continued master plan application #MP-23-01 of John Larkin, Inc., to establish a master plan 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 multifamily 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. Keene said the DRB needs to determine when to hear the master plan. Mr. Dixon suggested the 3rd week in January. Mr. Gillies noted that could be 16 or 17 January, depending on a decision the Board will make later in the meeting. Mr. Kochman moved to continue MP-23-01 to the second regularly scheduled meeting in January 2024. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 4 7. Continued 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 (Lot1A-1) and 1.81 acres (Lot 1A-2) for the purpose of developing a 9,100 sf veterinary hospital on Lot 1A-2, 10 Mansfield View Lane: Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. Mr. Gillies explained that there are 2 issues. The first is the connection between lots. Lots are typically connected by building to the property line. In this case, however, since the adjacent lot was built, there is no value to building to the property line since it won’t connect to anything. The second issue is that there is some discord between the applicant and the neighbor to the north regarding traffic going through the Hinesburg Road curb cut. Mr. Gillies showed the project location on the plan and indicated Hinesburg Road, Meadowlands View Lane, and a stub off Meadowview (Randall Road). There is also a stub off Randall Road. Staff believes this application is best served by having the applicant connect to the stub off Randall Road. Mr. Gillies also showed a potential connection to Randall Road which does not now exist. He noted that the owner of the property to the north believes they can restrict the number of cars using their curb cut. Mr. Moscatelli asked how does a person’s “legal right” affect what the DRB can do. Ms. Keene said if there are “rules” in effect that make it impossible for the applicant to meet the LDRs, the Board can deny an application. Mr. Kochman said he has never seen this resolved in 40 years. He added: “If there’s a train wreck, there’s a train wreck.” Mr. Marshall agreed with Mr. Kochman and said the DRB’s job is to apply the rules. Mr. Marshall said their level of comfort is high. They believe they are well under what the legal agreement requires. The question is whether the connectivity concept can be put aside. As a point of interest, Mr. Marshall noted that the northeast corner of the property was approved with 2 buildings. One was built, and the approval has expired. So they would have to come back to the DRB to build the second building. There is also a lot that is undeveloped, and there that. Mr. Wyman also noted there is a question of requiring someone to build something on someone else’s property and who would be responsible for stormwater in that case. The applicant was asked to work with staff to address the cross-lot connection. Mr. Marshall said they have met the rules by bringing the road to the property line. Mr. Kochman agreed. Ms. Keene said she found a plat in the records (she showed this). There are easements between Lot 1-C and 1-E, also a sewer easement. It does not appear the Board required an easement to the benefit of the CEA properties. She felt that this project should provide an DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 5 Easement to Lots 1C and IE. Mr. Marshall said they should get some legal advice on that. #5. The applicant was asked to address the rationale for removing the 2 cottonwood trees. Mr. Marshall said the City Arborist looked at that. One tree is dying and the other is close to its full age. The Landscape Architect said that the challenge with cottonwoods is that their droppings clog filters. He then showed the new landscape plan. There is ample room on the north side for a pocket park and a bird garden on the east side of the building. He showed the location of the existing cottonwoods. #6. Mr. Gillies noted that the City Arborist is concerned with the 2 maple trees, not the cottonwoods. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Lambert is concerned with the extension of the walk-way system. They will invite him out to see if they can get the sidewalk past those trees without harming them. #7. The applicant was asked which street type best suites this project. Mr. Marshall said they favor “Neighborhood Street Narrow.” He noted that Public Works is asking them to design the street without curbs. #8. Regarding site amenities and civic space, Mr. Marshall said this space has grown to 15,000 sq. ft, so they felt a pocket park was a better idea. It creates more open space, and everyone around it can benefit. #9. The applicant was asked to discuss DPW comments. Mr. Marshall said they have no issues. It will take some “talking,” and they will meet with Mr. DiPietro to discuss what makes sense. Mr. Marshall said they will extend the walkway to Hinesburg Road. #10. With regard to resolving stormwater issues, Mr. Marshall said this is a complex situation. They will work through it with the Stormwater Section to see if any additional mitigation is required. #11. The applicant was asked to discuss conformity with the 2024 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marshall noted there is a goal of including residential development which is not in the plan now. Mr. Kochman said that plan has not been adopted yet. Mr. Marshall said you need to have completed preliminary plat in order to be fully vested. Ms. Keene said the Comprehensive Plan is not “regulations.” The Planning Commission is looking at a few amendments to the LDRs, but she didn’t think any of those would apply to this plan. #12. Regarding noise, the applicant said they walk one hospitalized dog at a time on a leash. There is no noise from this. Patients also get some “fear-free” medication. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 6 Mr. Moscatelli asked about parking. Mr. Marshall said they have had no further contact with the neighbor to the north. They have an agreement with the owner of Lot E to bring in construction equipment via that lot. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Dowhan: The footprint of the building seems to violate the view easement. Mr. Kochman said that was a private agreement which is outside the Board’s purview. Mr. Marshall said the building is lower than proposed, and Rand has signed off on it. Mr. Dowhan: Is the applicant required to file with VTrans? Ms. Keene said the Board cannot provide final approval without a letter from VTrans. Mr. Dowhan asked if a traffic study has been done. Mr. Marshall said there will be a traffic study. Members were OK to conclude the meeting. 8. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-23-036 of Engineers Construction, Inc., for after-the-fact approval for a contractor’s yard and alteration of grade. The project consists of authorizing the continued use of a contractor’s yard to place fill materials, 24 Berard Drive: Ms. Philibert left the meeting at this point. Ms. Mann chaired the remainder of the meeting. Ms. Keene noted the Board had a question regarding the access drive. The applicant has now worked this out and there is a new plan. A second issue arose this week regarding planned open space on the east side of the property in relation to the official city map. This has also been worked out. Mr. Carswell explained that they have moved the driveway 150 feet to the north so it is no longer across the road from the Clifton entrance. This will be a 2-way access. The plan was shown. Ms. Mann noted that 7.2 mph is the optimal turning speed and asked if this is what trucks would be using. Mr. Carswell said their dump truck said they could make the turn at a “reasonable speed.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 NOVEMBER 2023 PAGE 7 Mr. Moscatelli asked how natural is it for a driver to swing into the oncoming lane. Mr. Carswell said that is “human nature.” Mr. Kochman said he felt the applicant had helped to mitigate that by moving the access away from the curve. Mr. Clifton said where the entrance is now planned, it is visible to drivers coming from both directions, so the line of sight issue has been solved. Mr. Kochman asked what will happen to the other entrance. Mr. Carswell said they will remove it and put in a continuous curb. Ms. Keene asked if the entrance could be narrowed since no one goes north from there. Mr. Carswell said possibly to 25 feet. They are flexible on the north side. Ms. Keene said that can be a condition of approval. The applicant acknowledged they were OK with the official city map issue. Mr. Kochman then moved to close SP-23-036. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Minutes of 7 November 2023: The minutes were not presented for approval. 10. Other Business: Members discussed the meeting schedule for the upcoming year. They agreed to hold the 2 January meetings and the meeting following the Labor Day Weekend on Wednesdays. The remainder of the conflicted meeting dates with the City Council would continue to be held on Tuesdays. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:02 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on January 3, 2024.