Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/05/2023 PAGE 1 Minutes DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 December 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; K. & N. Wright, N. McGovern, K. McGovern, G. Rabideau, G. Bourne, J. Desautels, G. Winslett, T. Easton, K. Easton, L. Kupferman, D. Walrath, Shane, M. Turner, S. Dooley, N. Gingrow, R. Bourne, J. Bellavance, D. Goulette 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 2 single- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 2 family homes and 6 unoccupied or 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 12 units on 28.25 acres, 1195 Shelburne Road: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 3 January 2024. Ms. Mann moved to continue SD-23-12 to 3 January 2024. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Ms. Wyman abstaining due to a potential conflict of interest. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-15 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately 10.0-acre lot developed with 3 homes into a general PUD consisting of 11 single-family home lots ranging from 0.38 acres to 1.14 acres and one 1.0 acre open space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan and the process. Mr. Wright explained that this 10 acres is what is left of a family farm. One house was left to each of his grandfather’s children. He said he would now like to add houses so that his children can come back and raise the fifth generation of Wrights on the property and allow his sisters to have lots as well. He said he does not want to sell any of the lots. His sisters do not want to build at this time, but his children are “ready to go.” The applicant explained that the property is in the I-O District. Prior to Act 47, they were looking at a 3-lot subdivision with one acre civic space. With Act 47, they went back because they can now create lots for their children because the Act allows development at 5 units per acre with municipal water and sewer. He showed the original plan and a new alternative layout. There are 11 lots proposed. All can be served by municipal water and sewer. There is stormwater mitigation on site. They are considering a narrow private road. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked whether the Board agrees this project is in “an area served by municipal water and sewer” thereby being subject to the applicable provisions of Act 47. Mr. Kochman indicated a preference to not answer this question on a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 3 case by case basis. Ms. Keene recommended the Board make decisions on a case-by-case basis until the Planning Commission changes the LDRs. Mr. Kochman said the intent of Act 47 is to allow for more density. He added that he had no problem allowing this, so long as the Board is comfortable with the idea that they are not going to have the privilege of allowing “Mr. Tophats” come in and keep their large lots. Mr. Moscatelli noted that Act 47 would permit 50 units on this property. In this case, he said, it makes sense to say the parcel is served by municipal water/sewer. Ms. Mann agreed that this is the type of area Act 47 was looking at. Other members agreed. #2. It was noted that Act 47 may supersede the LDRs regarding setbacks insofar as reduced setbacks are necessary to achieve the permitted density. The applicant noted that they were trying to bridge the current regulations and Act 47. Mr. Goulette said they were proposing to apply as a PUD. Ms. Keene said she didn’t know why they were proposing a PUD when it is not required and not needed and is more complicated to do. Mr. Kochman asked if the setbacks are waivable. Ms. Keene said they are. Mr. Kochman asked whether everything on Hinesburg Road is existing and remaining. The applicant said it is. #3. Regarding delineating the wetland, the applicant said if they can get onto the neighbor’s property, they will do that. There are no wetlands on this property, but the setback from the wetland does fall on this property. #4. Regarding phasing and timing they applicant said they are contemplating a one to two year buildout for the first houses. With regard to the road buildout, they are suggesting a possible “loop road” to start with. Ms. Keene asked if they would be building the northern lots first. Mr. Wright said they would. The others are not ready to construct. If they never got built, that’s OK. Ms. Keene said given that those lots may not be built now, she asked if the Board wanted to see phasing for the loop. Members said they did. #5. Staff recommended discussion on how the applicant proposes to meet the requirement for contiguous open space with several lots. The applicant said they feel the open space desire relates to the property on both sides, which are large commercial lots. They feel they meet the 10% open space requirement on this lot with their planned open space. Mr. Kochman agreed and said Act 47 detracts from the purpose of the I/O zoning. He felt the 11 houses creates a lot of nice open space with a nice area in the middle. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 4 #6. Without a dedication of a future right-of-way to the adjacent property, the proposed development wouldn’t meet the requirements. Private roads are limited to 200 feet in length, and this restriction does not include a provision for looped dead end streets. Mr. Kochman asked what the adjacent properties consist of. Ms. Keene said Dynapower is to the north and east, Lane Press is to the rear. She indicated the property to the south which could be proposed for 30 units. She noted the right-of-way would extend into an existing driveway. The applicant said they are willing to include a future right-of-way to the property to the south. Mr. Wright asked if it would be better as a “U” turn instead of a dead- end street. It will be a private road, and the driveway actually will access a couple of houses. Ms. Keene said what the applicant proposes is “interesting.” Mr. Kochman asked if the proposed ROW satisfies the requirement. Ms. Keene said “with a little twisting.” Mr. Kochman said that the requirement is awkward at best. Ms. Keene said if the Board can live with that road not being built, if the next property develops, they would have to connect. Mr. Johnston said that would make it the burden of the person on the next property. Ms. Keene said the City would accept the private road at that time. They have done something similar in the past, even though precedent is not binding. Mr. Johnson was concerned with having the next property’s developer build the road. Mr. Kochman said if that developer feels he was mistreated, he can appeal. There is no purpose to building the road in this case; there would be for the next property developer. There was also a public benefit in the other case the Board heard; in this case there is not. #7. The applicant has modified the design to have th civic space in the center. The Board likes it better. #8. & #9 These comments have been addressed by the change to having civic space in the center #10. Staff asked what street types are anticipated. The applicant said a “narrow neighborhood street.” Ms. Keene noted this is a 2-lane road with no parking on either side and a sidewalk on one side of the road. The other potentially applicable type would be neighborhood, which would have on-street parking. The Board was OK with neighborhood narrow. #11. The applicant is showing a sidewalk along Hinesburg Road and the road in the development. Staff asked if the applicant intends to provide a rec path or to set aside space for one. The applicant said they have no problem with an easement on Hinesburg Road where there is 15 feet between the house and the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 5 road. Ms. Keene questioned whether that is enough room. She will talk with Public Works about that. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Winslet asked if the DRB would require a deed restriction to make lands required to be restricted to family. Mr. Kochman said it is a potentially vulnerable restriction and is challengeable. Mr. Wright said his plan is for his family, but he didn’t know what his kids would want to do in the future. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-16 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit Development by re-subdividing 3 existing lots into 3 new lots of 0.18 acres (Lot 1), 0.14 acres (Lot 2) and 1.06 acres (Lot 3), and constructing a 3,350 sf financial institution on Lot 1, a 6,480 sf 2-story mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2 containing 2 market rate and one inclusionary rate units, and a 3-story, 27-unit multi-family building on Lot 3, of which 9 units are proposed to be inclusionary, 760 Shelburne Road: Ms. Philibert asked whether this is a totally different plan from the one that was denied. Ms. Desautels said it is the same corner (Shelburne Rd. and Swift Street) redevelopment. The lot previously had a gas station, auto repair, and Pizza Hut development. The proposed project is similar to the one the Board previously saw (she showed the plan) with the major difference being the elimination of the ATM. She indicated the reconfiguration of that area. Ms. Philibert asked why the current “eyesore” hasn’t been demolished. Mr. Bourne said at one time they were prohibited from demolishing it by Act 250. They do have a city demolition permit; if they get an approved plan, they will demolish. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff was asked to consider whether the elevations give the appearance of 2 stories, which is a requirement. Mr. Kochman noted one “solid wall” in back. Ms. Mann thought some parts looked like a second floor, but the entrance doesn’t. Mr. Rabideau said not all bank spaces get windows; that wall may have bathrooms. He added that the bank has its own architect, and they have to go back to Chase with every proposed change. He felt what is proposed makes a strong gesture toward a second floor. Mr. Kochman said he does not like the blank wall and thinks it is very unattractive façade for Shelburne Road. Ms. Philibert said there is no connection between the blank wall and the rest of the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 6 building. Mr. Rabideau said he would take that to Chase. Mr. Rabideau noted the rest of the bank has a lot of windows. He also noted that this is a look that is a trend. Mr. Moscatelli agreed with Ms. Philibert. He said if the wall wasn’t going to be seen, he would be OK with it, but it is right on Shelburne Road. He agreed the rest of the building does give a second floor appearance. Ms. Desautels asked for specific feedback on what needs to be changed for the Board to be happy with it. Ms. Keene said it should have windows or in some way better complement the rest of the buildings. The Board was in agreement that with the exception of the blank wall, it has that appearance. #2. Staff noted the front setback coverage is limited to 30%. The driveway width on Swift Street is 24-ft. Staff asked whether it could be reduced to 20-ft and then determining whether the coverage meets the standard. Ms. Desautels said the driveway width is the result of a conversation with the Fire Chief to accommodate the fire truck. It has to do with the “swing” of the truck. Ms. Keene said she would talk with the Chief. #3. The applicant was asked to address the overage on coverage on Shelburne Road. Ms. Desautels said the coverage on Shelburne Rd. is 36.1%,. Ms. Keene said this still sounds high when looking at the plans. Ms. Desautels said she would revisit the calculation. #4. The applicant was asked to widen the walkway to the 8-foot standard. Ms. Desautels said this was discussed before. They hoped they could keep the width because of the stormwater feature there. It doubles as a nice landscaped area. There are also some bird sculptures. Mr. Kochman said he is with the applicant on this. The sidewalk goes to Swift Street, which is a low use area. Ms. Keene said there is a rec path on Swift Street, and there will be 27 homes connecting to Farrell Park. Mr. Kochman said he walks there frequently and is usually the only one there. He felt 4 feet was more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Keene noted the Board has no authority to modify the standard (15CO7A). Mr. Johnston noted there are 2 walks that go to Swift Street. One is 5 feet wide. Ms. Keene said only the one going to the building entrances needs to be 8 feet. #5. The applicant was asked to describe the glazing transparency; it appears some glazing is not proposed to be transparent. Ms. Keene indicated the area in question. Mr. Rabideau said there will be a chart to explain the percentages. They will meet the requirement. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 7 #6. Staff asked how the inclusionary units will meet the standard. Mr. Rabideau said market units will have 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms; inclusionary units will have 2 bedrooms and 1 bathroom which will make them 100 sf smaller. They will be above the minimum required size. Ms. Keene said this seems like it will be fine. #7. The applicant was asked if they intend to waive master plan review. Ms. Desautels said they are not. It will be a future application. Mr. Rabideau said there will be 2 phases of development. All paving and driveways will be done in the first phase. Ms. Keene explained the difference between a construction phase and an approval phase. If everything is approved, there may be no need for a master plan. Ms. Philibert asked if all demolition would happen before anything starts. Mr. Bourne said it would depend on the contractor. The Board was OK with no master plan provided all phases are approved as one final plat. #8. Regarding the mix of bedrooms, Staff said the proposed mix is not acceptable. Mr. Rabideau said that is confusing as to how it applies to a single building. They could take two 2-bedroom units and turn them into a one and a three-bedroom unit. Ms. Mann said there should be some mix, even if majority are 2 bedroom. The bedroom mix for inclusionary units should be similar. Mr. Kochman agreed there is no proportion prescribed; he'd be happy with 2 1- bedroom and 3-bedroom, one of each market and inclusionary. Ms. Philibert said her experience is there is a lot of demand for one bedroom units. Public comment was then solicited: Mr. Winslet stressed the seriousness of the housing shortage. He said he and his wife would like to live in South Burlington but can’t afford anything to buy. He teaches in Middlebury, and his wife is in orthopedics at the Medical Center which is already short-staffed. If they have to leave the area, it will get worse. He cited South Burlington as the commercial epicenter of Chittenden County and suggested there may be too much emphasis on open space and aesthetics. He said what is there now is a blighted Pizza Hut. This project would create a lot of places for people to live, and he felt Mr. Bourne should get a “thank you” and “a medal.” Ms. Philibert said Mr. Winslet is not the first person they have heard this from. But some people want more open space. She explained the DRB’s job is quasi- judicial, and they have to adjudicate an application as to whether it meets the existing regulations. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 DECEMBER 2024 PAGE 8 8. Other Business: Ms. Keene said she will let members know if there is to be a second December meeting. 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 March 5, 2024.