Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/17/2024 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday,17 January 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom 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, Planner; E. Braco, G. Dixon, R. & O. Birgisson, K. & N. Wright, K. & T. Bailey, David, J. Draper, B. Truchon, Skip’s iPad, Keith, Shane, A. & Z. Smith, D. Sherman, T. Reilly, J. Dubuque, N. Ely, K. Rozendaal, R. Pierce, A. Truchon, J. Larkin 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 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 2 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 I 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. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. No comments were made. #2. Staff recommends the Board confirm whether any projects impact natural resources. The applicant said they do not impact natural resources with any part of their project. Mr. Gillies indicated they need to coordinate with flow restoration projects in the area. Mr. Dixon said the stormwater people don’t have a design yet, but they have met to make sure there weren’t conflicts, and there will be continued collaboration with them. #3. A subdivision plan will be needed prior to closing of the hearing. The applicant indicated they have no proposed subdivisions. Staff noted that under current LDRs, each principle structure must be on its own lot. Most of the proposed lots are, except for the duplexes. The applicant indicated they will provide a conceptual subdivision plan. #4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to waive Preliminary Plat Review for one or all phases of the proposed development. Board members were inclined not to waive Preliminary Plat. The applicant was OK with this. #5. Staff recommends the Board waive preliminary and final plat for projects not involving subdivision of land, and instead allow site plan review. The applicant was OK with not waiving the preliminary and final plats. Mr. Kochman said there usually is not enough detail in the Master Plan to go to Site Plan. Mr. Behr felt there typically is a lot of detail in the Master Plan. He noted it’s the applicant’s risk to go to Site Plan, and the Board isn’t removing any details they have control over. Ms. Keene said that going right to Site Plan is the “carrot” for doing a Master Plan. Ms. Mann said the applicant could still come in with a sketch plan or preliminary plat if they had questions about something. Mr. Hodgson said it’s helpful to have the option to come in for sketch or to go directly to site plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 3 #6 The applicant indicated they are not requesting a “process waiver” to skip to the zoning permit stage. #7. The applicant was asked to identify any further aspects of the Master Plan that should be vested (a list of what is currently vested was shown). Mr. Kochman said that according to his understanding, everything that is shown is vested. Mr. Gillies said there is latitude to waive/amend certain regulations in a PUD. Ms. Keene explained that characteristics of the project can be approved, such as street layout, can be approved at this level of review. Mr. Behr said this allows the developer the assurance that what is approved is what they can build. Mr. Kochman said that the LDRs that were in effect on 5/15/23 are what they can build to. Mr. Behr said the master plan is a conceptual design that is driven by the LDR, the Board is approving the conceptual design. Ms. Mann said that what they’ve proposed are under the umbrella of the regulations, and the list of things are more specific of what is presented as part of the master plan application. #8. and #9. Staff advised that reduced front and side yard setbacks are appropriate in this case and recommended the Board and applicant identify a distance to which each of those minimum setbacks should be reduced. Ms. Braco said they are asking to waive the internal side setbacks, also a 10-foot minimum setback from Shelburne Road and Fayette Road in order to align with existing buildings. Along Reel Road they’re asking for a 1-ft setback. They can abide by external side yard setbacks. Members were OK with that. Ms. Keene said there is a maximum setback waiver. Mr. Gillies said he will look into it. Ms. Mann said she didn’t have any concerns with the request. #9. Staff considers the increased front setback coverage is likely needed and recommends the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this maximum coverage should be increased. Mr. Dixon said they’d like 90% coverage. Mr. Behr said he can see why they are asking for 90%, but wants to know why it’s so different from what is in the LDR (30%). Mr. Hodgson said it’s because the front setback is so small so they’ll have less green space. Mr. Dixon said they’ve allowed for 90% coverage in the State stormwater permit. Mr. Gillies added this is something like a City Center type “vibe,” which has no front setback coverage maximum. #10. Staff considers the increased overall building coverage is likely appropriate in this case and recommends the Board and applicant identify an amount to which this maximum coverage should be increased for individual lots DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 4 within the PUD. Mr. Dixon said there will be some areas that they’re asking for 90% coverage. Mr. Behr said he was fine with what he is seeing, but they’re not showing 90%. The applicant said they can provide a calculation of what is being shown instead of 90%. Members agreed to approve what they were seeing. Mr. Johnston suggested it be reviewed on a site by site basis. Members agreed. #11. Sheet C-3 should be updated to include planned and existing transit routes. The applicant will do this. #12. Staff feels the vehicle drop-off area is not in keeping with the LDRs. Ms. Braco said what is shown is a concept & they understand the concern. Mr. Behr said he would like some of the details hashed out so the Board doesn’t see something very different at site plan. Mr. Hodgson noted they do not yet have an architect chosen. Ms. Mann said this will need more attention when they come in for that particular parcel. #13. The applicant was asked to identify protection for steep slopes. Mr. Dixon said that steep slopes are around the natural resources. Mr. Dixon said the biggest protection is avoidance. They will address erosion control at Site Plan. Mr. Gillies said that the requirements are that steep slopes be shown. Mr. Dixon said the analysis has been done, and most steep slopes are in the river corridor area. Mr. Gillies suggested a separate sheet indicating that. Ms. Mann said this was important in order to vest natural resource impacts. #14. The applicant agreed to get street name approval prior to Site Plan. #15. The applicant was asked to discuss the viability of an informal east- west bike and pedestrian connection between the subject PUD and the proposed development to the west. Ms. Braco said they are happy to have the Inn Road used as an informal bike path. Mr. Gillies noted that they can’t develop additional impervious in the natural resource, and Public Works does not want another railroad crossing. #16. Staff questioned whether above-ground infrastructure will be needed for utilities. Mr. Dixon did not anticipate a substation; there will be pad-mounted transformers & communication vaults. #17. Staff questioned whether blocks are proposed. Mr. Dixon said there is an existing block, and they do not propose any others. Mr. Gillies showed what DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 5 could be considered new blocks and the subdivision standards would apply. It looks like the measurements are fine. Mr. Hodgson agreed. #18. The applicant agreed to change a designation. #19. Staff noted the need for trip generation data. Mr. Dixon said they can provide updated existing data. #20. The applicant was asked to clarify wastewater vs. water amounts. Mr. Dixon indicated that the amounts will be identical. #21. Staff noted that stormwater will be reviewed on a case by case basis. The applicant was OK with this. #22. The applicant was asked to discuss whether the level of analysis to determine the area reserved for stormwater treatment is sufficient. Mr. Dixon said the buildings 1, 2, 3, 7 and portions of 6 are already on an existing pond. The stormwater system they’ve provided meets the additional coverage. The applicant said they meet the current State standards with the existing treatment. #23. Staff questioned what elements of the conceptually proposed park should be required to be included in the design of the park. Ms. Braco said they’d prefer to discuss this at site plan review. The park is split between phases 1 and 2. #24. The applicant was asked to address the dimensions of blocks. They indicated they meet the required dimensions. #25. Regarding the minimum lot size waiver request, the applicant was asked to what size the lots should be reduced. Mr. Gillies suggested getting back to this with the conceptual subdivision. #26. The applicant was asked to discuss reasonable limitations to building heights. Ms. Braco stated that town houses will be 22’ to 44’ in height and all other buildings will range from 44’ to 76’. Mr. Kochman asked if more of a setback should be required for a building of 76’ in height. Mr. Behr asked how 76’ would fit and where it is proposed. He didn’t want it to change the feel of the development. Mr. Hodgson said they don’t have an architect yet and will bring in the heights of existing buildings at the next hearing. Mr. Larkin said they don’t intend to build three 76’ buildings. Mr. Hogson said the buildings would be 44’ in height minimum. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 6 #27. The applicant was asked to address parking spaces and the lack of a turnaround. The applicant said they marked off a turnaround at the end of Slip Road, but there is not enough room for a truck or fire engine. If someone drives there looking for a parking space, they can turn around. There will also be a turnaround at Reel Road. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue MP-23-01 until 6 February 2024. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 6. Variance application #VR-24-01 of Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity for approval to modify the dimensional standards applicable to an existing residential building lot. The modification consists of the minimum that will afford relief from the unique conditions that preclude4 development in strict conformity with the Land Development Regulations, 58 Wright Court: Ms. Philibert was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Mann chaired this portion of the meeting. Mr. Pierce indicated that Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity provides affordable housing by selling homes at their costs. They want to bring good people into the community. With Act 47, they can now have a duplex on this lot. The scale of the building will be the same as most other properties in the neighborhood. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked the Board to determine that there is a unique physical circumstance to this property that creates an unnecessary hardship. After viewing pictures of the property, the Board agreed that there is such a circumstance. #2. The Board was asked to determine whether the property could be developed in strict conformance with the LDRs. Ms. Mann noted that the building envelope would have to be 5’x170’ to be in strict compliance. Staff also believes the property cannot be developed in strict conformity with the Regulations. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 7 Kochman asked whether the lot size meets the city’s minimum. Mr. Gillies said the city’s minimum lot size is not compliant with Act 47. This is also an existing lot, so it is developable. Members agreed that the property cannot be developed in strict compliance with the LDRs. #3. Staff asked the Board to determine whether the hardship was created by the applicant. Members agreed that the hardship was not created by the applicant. #4. The Board was asked to discuss whether the variance will alter the character of the neighborhood, be detrimental to public welfare, impair development of adjacent property or reduce access to renewable energy resources. Mr. Gillies noted that comments #1 – 3 establish whether the property is eligible for a variance, and now that they Board has determined that it is, the Board has to decide what variance to grant. The variance has to be the minimum needed to allow use of the property without altering the character of the neighborhood. The applicant proposed to rotate the front lot line to be the west lot line. He showed the concept of what the variance would look like. Mr. Gillies noted the building has to face the front lot line. Mr. Pierce said they want to the building to face the west similar to contiguous properties. He said they will put it as far back at they can from the front lot line and still build the house. There is a 20% building coverage maximum. The side setbacks would be 5-ft. Members discussed whether a lot coverage waiver was necessary. In reviewing the criteria for a variance, members felt that the criteria were being met. Mr. Gillies explained that the west of the lot is being used as a through-way but is not part of the actual right of way. Mr. Pierce said there is no intention to create an easement but they want to be good neighbors. Mr. Behr asked if this project would be cutting off a historic easement. Mr. Pierce said the access is signed “Emergency Vehicles Only.” They will accommodate as much as possible. #5. The Board was asked to confirm that the variance request is the least that can afford relief. The Board agreed that what is being requested is the least needed to afford relief. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Mr. Smith: While he supports Habitat, he did not feel the lot was large enough to support a duplex. He noted that when the lot was sold in 1956, it was not sold as a building lot. He also felt the proposed house is not in keeping with the character DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 8 of the neighborhood because others have 15’ and 17’ side setbacks, and this house will have 5’. He also noted that his home is 50 feet from Wright Court Extensions. His neighbor is 40’. With the proposed 30’ setback, this house would be 40’ in front of existing houses. He also felt the project was detrimental to public welfare as the “pass-through” has been used for emergency vehicles, UPS, etc. It appears there is a right-of-way that was in the deed to the Dumont Brothers. If that is true, the setback would have to be 30’ back from that, which would reduce the lot size. Mr. Gillies noted there is a difference between a “right-of-way” and an “easement.” Mr. Kochman noted that neither one of those reduces a lot size. Ms. Truchon: She echoed Mr. Smith’s comments. She said the deed shows that lot is not a strict rectangle. She was also concerned with the impact to the right-of-way and the alteration of the character of the neighborhood. She said if the road is interrupted or discontinued, emergency vehicles could not have access. She added that Wright Court does not have a sidewalk or access to rec paths. Residents use Wright Court Extension because it is safer. It is not a “pedestrian neighborhood.” Ms. Truchon also noted that the land closest to that lot has recently been cleared. Mr. Kochman asked if the variance were conditioned to eliminate the impact to the right-of-way, would that eliminate the neighbors’ concerns. Mr. Behr asked the applicant the envisioned depth of the house. Mr. Pierce said 35 feet. Mr. Behr asked whether the house can be positioned so it is not pushing up against the pass-through. Mr. Pierce had no problem with that. Mr. Behr felt that would minimize the concern. Mr. Kochman said the pass-through would have to be maintained. Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Pierce said it is not their intent to stop people from using the pass-through. Mr. Moscatelli asked who maintains Wright Court Extension. Ms. Truchon said the city plows to a certain spot, then the resident of 300 Hinesburg Rd. plows from there. Mr. Ely was concerned that whoever buys the property could impede the right-of- way. Mr. Behr said that would be a condition of an approval. Mr. Ely said he agreed with moving the house back to be in line with other houses. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 9 Ms. Dubuque: Noted that it is hard for large trucks to turn around on Wright Court, and they have to use the extension. She said it would look odd if the house sat 40’ in front of Mr. Smith’s house. She added a concern with traffic and parking. Following public testimony, Mr. Behr moved to close VR-24-01. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Philibert rejoined the Board and assumed the role of Chair. 7. Master Plan Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-02 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately 10.0 acre lot developed with three homes into seven single family home lots ranging from 0.67 acres to 3.0 acres and one 1.0 acre open space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: The applicant noted the request is for 6 single family lots and one open space lot. They have also changed the plan to have a 5-ft setback for accessory structures. They are no longer planning on doing development on the southern two lots within the master plan approval period. The existing house would be on its own lot. The 2 lots down below would have an access road. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The Board was asked to confirm that their position that this area is served by municipal water and sewer is unchanged. Staff noted the Planning Commission has not changed intention since the last meeting on this lot. Members agreed their position is unchanged. #2. The applicant was asked what type of open space is anticipated. Ms. Wright said they are planning a community garden. #3. The applicant was asked how the proposed civic space will be accessed and how that access will be visible from the street. Mr. Wright said a private drive will give a right-of-way to the community garden. He showed the location of the garden on a plan and indicated access from all units. Ms. Keene said there will be need to be clarification as to whether the garden will have community access or serve only residents of the development. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 10 #4. The applicant was asked to address the issue of having all homes fronting on a street. Ms. Keene said houses have to front on a street or a civic space. Mr. Wright said there is a slope, and houses are at different levels. The view to the east is beautiful, and it would be nice if houses could face that way. Mr. Kochman asked if the driveway were made to be 20’, which is the width of a street, could that qualify as a street. Mr. Wright said they’d be doing 14’ width, and could go to 20’ if they needed to. Ms. Keene said streets have to go to the property line. If the Board finds it infeasible for the street to go to the property line, the street would have to be less than 200 feet. Ms. Keene indicated the house on the plan that does not front on a street or civic space. Staff is suggesting continuing the private street to the third home with a future right-of- way reserved to the adjacent lot to the south. If the lot to the south were to be developed and the two southern lots wanted to subdivide, they would use the future right of way. That would allow all lots to front on that street. Ms. Wright said if they adjust the property line on Lot 1 to allow Lot 2 to be a larger lot, then only 2 homes are served by the private road. Ms. Keene noted that the middle lot then wouldn’t front on a street, unless they made the middle lot have a triangular shape at the front. Ms. Keene felt that extending the road is easiest, but there may be another path forward which would be more difficult. Mr. Johnston suggested it would be easier to provide a ROW now to accommodate development much further down the road. Mr. Wright said that they wouldn’t do future development within the length of the master plan. Mr. Wright said that would take a lot of money to do additional development, and his sisters, who own the other lots, have no plans to do anything with them. Mr. Moscatelli said they could extend the private road to the end of Lot 2, and then just reserve a future ROW across the remaining lots. Mr. Wright had no problem making the driveway 20 feet wide. #5. This was already addressed. #6. Addressed with #4. Ms. Keene noted this item includes a PUD option which the applicant has no interest in. #7. Already addressed. #8. Staff assumed this will be a 2-phase project. Mr. Wright said the second phase would be into the future, and there are no plans for that. #9. This item was resolved. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 JANUARY 2024 PAGE 11 Mr. Behr said he loved the idea of having some development but still keeping the character of the property. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Minutes of 3 January 2024: Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 3 January 2024 with the correction of the spelling of Mr. Johnston’s name. Mr. Behr 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 9:42 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on March 5, 2024.