Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/06/2024 PAGE 1 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 February 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: Q. Mann, Acting Chair; F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; T. Reilly, G. Dixson, E. Braco, L. Ravin, M. Murray-Clasen, D. Read, T. Librot, J. Larkin, D. Messier, C. Perron, A. Halpern, L. Kingsbury, Gordon F., A. Duren, Claire, L. Hillman, Cynthia, S. Homsted, J. Smith, Sarah C., Choate, A. Gill, E. Langfeldt, L. Ravin 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Mann 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. Announcements: There were no announcements. 4. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 2 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 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 application due to a potential conflict of interest. Members reviewed several staff comments that were not part of the original list of comments. #1. Staff noted that a subdivision would be needed for buildings to be on their own lots and that lots should be rectangular. Mr. Gillies showed the plan and indicated where a lot is not squared up to the street. The applicant said it was drawn that way because of the parking lot, but it can be squared off with no problem. #2. Ms. Mann noted that the Board was not approving a waiver of the preliminary plat application process for subdivision application including the subdivision of land. Members agreed they still would hold to that decision. #3. Members were asked to discuss whether the applicant’s proposal to provide an appropriate range of building heights and include that range as part of the Master Plan was acceptable. The applicant showed a building Master Plan enlargement with building heights indicated. Mr. Gillies noted that the applicant has proposed a 44-foot to 76-foot range of building heights. Mr. Kochman said he tended not to give that waiver in order to avoid a solid block of 76-foot buildings which would be objectionable to him. Mr. Gillies noted the maximum height for this district is 76 feet, so there is no request for a waiver. Ms. Keene said the request is to set parameters for the proposed building in Phases 1 & 2 to be DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 3 between 44 feet and 76 feet. Mr. Kochman said he was not comfortable exceeding the height of the building on the corner, but if it is within the regulations, he was OK with it. Other members were comfortable with that range. #4. The applicant was asked to describe the anticipated heights for the remaining phases of the development. The applicant indicated 22-44 feet for the town homes. The Old Orchard buildings will be the same as the existing Old Orchard buildings. The others will be similar to building #1. #5. The applicant was asked to review the list of what can be vested. Mr. Gillies showed the list which included: phase geometry, phase timing, open space areas & civic space areas, natural resource impacts, proposed recreation path, sidewalk and transit route layout, building locations and footprints, and maximum peak hour trip generation. Mr. Larkin said he was fine with this. Mr. Gillies suggested adding the range of building heights for phases 1 and 2. Members agreed. Discussion then returned to the previous list of staff comments as follows: #28. The applicant was asked to discuss the impact of the requirement for rooftop solar. The applicant indicated the wish to discuss this at site plan review. Mr. Kochman asked whether solar installations count toward building height. Mr. Gillies said they do not. #29. The applicant was asked to discuss the timing of civic space and site amenities. Ms. Mann noted that the dog park has been moved and increased in size. The applicant indicated they had reorganized the neighborhood and dog parks. Only the dog park is in phase 1 now because of changes to stormwater. Ms. Keene said minor changes that don’t change substance are OK. Members were good with that. The applicant noted there will be more plantings around the stormwater area, and the playground has been moved closer to where most of the housing is located. #30. The applicant was asked to discuss the timing of the completion of the streetscape improvements along Fayette Drive. The applicant said they were trying to spread out the improvements. Fayette narrows down, so there isn’t much room for bike access. They are trying to distribute it so it is easier to finance. They also noted there is already a sidewalk along Fayette. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 4 #31. Mr. Gillies suggested possibly considering consolidating the 3 phases. There is a question as to whether the rec path should be complete prior to phase 4. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t think it was a game stopper, but felt sooner is better than later. The applicant said they did not want to build something that would later have to be torn up to do a later phase. Members agreed that was rational. #32. The applicant was asked to discuss the construction timelines with specific focus on how likely it is that the entire project will be completed within 6 years. The applicant said it is possible Phase 4 won’t be built within the 6-year timeline. Mr. Gillies said that stretching to 10 years would be OK. Mr. Larkin said they feel they will have roads, etc., in the right places, but the buildings might not necessarily be done within 6 years. Ms. Keene said that phases 1-3 could be vested, possibly not phase 4. Mr. Larkin said the aim is to build as quickly as possible. Mr. Moscatelli said the Board doesn’t need as much detail on phase 4 as on phases 1-3. Even if phase 4 is vested, the applicant might have to come back. Mr. Gillies said Mr. Conner wanted the specifics of the list of vested items to be “tightened up,” but this could be discussed in deliberation. Ms. Mann said she thought they had enough information to vest phase 4 except for the building heights which are vested only for phases 1 and 2. #33. Staff said the applicant should be required to provide phase by phase construction plans to identify construction areas, temporary parking, etc. The applicant asked that this be handled as part of Site Plan review. Ms. Mann noted it is in the LDRs as part of phasing plans. The applicant said they do not have that level of detail now. Ms. Mann suggested more of a narrative description. Ms. Keene indicated an area where there is a question of where people would park during construction. The applicant said there are lots of other areas for parking on the site. Mr. Gillies said this is a required element of a Master Plan. The applicant said there would have to be a plan for each building. They could put something together, but they would not guarantee that is what would happen. Ms. Keene was nervous about not addressing this as staff has seen developers “build themselves into a corner.” Mr. Kochman said he felt they have to require it. Mr. Larkin said they will work with staff on it. #34. Staff recommends revising the management plan to address items for public dedication and when they will be proposed for dedication. The applicant agreed to discuss this when the hearing continues. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 5 Ms. Mann moved to continue MP-23-01 to 5 March 2024. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the board. 6. Master Plan Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-01 of University of Vermont & State Agricultural College to establish a master plan for an existing 87.6-acre lot developed with a parking lot, supporting driveways, and a helipad. The master plan consists of 275 units of housing in two 5-story buildings over 2 phases, and associated site improvements on 5.7 acres, 0 Catamount Drive: Ms. Kingsbury said that UVM and AAM15 are doing this project. The land is owned by UVM. The public/private project will house upper class and graduate students. Mr. Librot, representing the ownership of the hotel, said they are happy to be providing housing for UVM students. The hope is to pull students out of the residential community to make more housing available to the public. He added that the parking garage and expansion of the hotel fall under the Form-Based Code. Mr. Hodgson said the project is at the northwest corner of the interchange. He identified the rugby pitch and heliport and showed where the apartment building would sit (the current parking lot). Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to describe the proposed phasing and indicate whether they will seek approval for all of the project. Ms. Ravin said the plan is that the rugby field housing would occur in 3-5 years, but the subject application will focus on the main building. The new hotel will be completed by December 2025. The demolition of the old hotel wing and parking garage would happen by December 2025. Construction of Catamount Woods would occur by July 2026. The Master Plan includes phase 2, but they have no details of that as yet. #2. The applicant was asked about the stormwater treatment associated with phase 2. Mr. Hodgson said the plan is to expand the “Main Street Pond.” They already have funds for that. They will be revising the river corridor line. He DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 6 showed the plan that is being worked on with the State. Mr. Kochman said that would have to be part of an approval. Ms. Keene said they would have an update by then. The Board is willing to include a condition that the stormwater can be approved if it appears ANR is going to allow the river corridor to be modified. #3. Since buildings must front on a street, the driveway would have to be changed to a street. The applicant said the driveway is 24 feet wide. They are proposing a multi-use path on the west side and a sidewalk on the east side. They want to call it a “local neighborhood street” and have it be 12 feet instead of 10 feet to allow for a bus. A 25 mph speed limit seems reasonable. The aim is to have no parking on the street; otherwise a bus could not go through. They asked if it would be possible to make it a “rural connector” and decrease the speed. Mr. Kochman said the DRB should see how much discretion they have. He felt it makes no sense to have a street be similar to something a mile away. He asked staff to look into that. Members agreed. #4. The applicant was asked to describe the management structure. Ms. Kingsbury said the ownership is a partnership between UVM and a subsidiary of AAM15. AAM15 will operate the building. UVM will be an intended user in the initial phase. There is a 20-year intended use for students which could then change to the general public. The University’s legal counsel said the land lease agreement does actively involve UVM, and UVM will have total say in some things. That information will be provided to the City. Mr. Librot added that AAM15 is not involved in phase 2. #5. It was noted that the applicant is not requesting any process waivers at this time. Staff asked if this is OK. Ms. Kingsbury said they would like to do Master Plan and Preliminary Plat together and then do Final Plat and Site Plan. Ms. Keene said this is permitted by right. Ms. Ravin said they would like to know what is customary. Ms. Keene said “not much”, as the Master Plan review process is relatively new. She added that what could be reviewed administratively would fall under this. Ms. Kingsbury said they might want a more streamlined process. Ms. Mann said they should bring that information to the DRB at the Master Plan hearing. #6. The applicant was asked to indicate what they want to vest at the Master Plan level. Ms. Ravin said they don’t know enough about Phase 2 so they don’t think there is anything they'll request to be vested. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 7 #7. Regarding buildable area, staff noted it looks like 11 buildable acres. That would allow only 130 units without consideration of affordable units. Ms. Ravin said that State Statute 24VSA, Section 4413 indicated that UVM is not subject to density restrictions because it interferes with functional uses. Mr. Kochman said this is student housing, and he felt they would have a hard case to make. Mr. Collins said student housing is recognized as an educational use. UVM will provide case law to support this. Mr. Moscatelli said the fact that it might not be student housing in 20 years raises a question as to whether it is strictly speaking an educational use. The attorney said that will be addressed in writing. Ms. Keene said if the Board disagrees, there is another path forward. A Conservation PUD could be created with a transfer of the allowable units from the Conservation area to get the density. #8. Staff noted that zoning district boundaries should be shown on the plan, particularly as it pertains to Phase 2. Ms. Ravin said that will be done at the next stage. #9. The applicant was asked to discuss the plans with the Bike/Ped Committee prior to submission of the master plan application. Mr. Moscatelli stressed the need to have adequate indoor bike parking. Mr. Ravin said they are fine with that. #10. The applicant was asked whether they prefer a general or conservation PUD. Ms. Ravin said they are planning on a general PUD. #11. The applicant was asked to address the reduced parking and reduced setbacks. Ms. Ravin said there will be “green courtyards.” She added this is a dense site with limited parking. There will be shared accessibility. Regarding setbacks, the project is just north of the Form Base Code area, and they are trying to align with that standard. It would be a continuous view as you come through. #12. The applicant was asked to address how the development complements the context. Ms. Ravin said there are mostly large buildings and parking lots. They feel the new building will fit in this context. #13. Staff noted that civic spaces must meet one of the listed types. Mr. Hodgson said they are looking to designate multi-use path as a greenway and Centennial Woods could also qualify under the “green,” and courtyards satisfy the site amenities. There is also a possible pocket park opposite the conference DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 8 area. Ms. Keene noted that 10% of the space must be civic space. She also noted that this is the first proposed “greenway.” #14. This was not addressed at this meeting. #15. The applicant was asked to confirm that an exemption to inclusionary zoning applies. Mr. Librot said it is clear that if the building were to become used by the general public, they would have to comply with the inclusionary regulations. Ms. Keene said this will have to be a condition of the permit. The applicant was also asked to address the mix of bedroom numbers. Ms. Ravin said they are still working on that and are considering 1 through 4 bedrooms. All will be self-contained apartments. She stressed that this will not be a dormitory. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-03 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development of 155 homes in single family, duplex, and 3-family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres, 24 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces. The amendment consists of adding a 0.17 acre battery storage microgrid in an area previously approved or open space, adding 14 units in 2-family homes, replacing 2 large single-family homes with 5 detached cottage-style units, and other minor amendments, 500 Old Farm Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff expressed concern with the open-ended phasing request and asked if the Board would accept that. Mr. Gill explained the “monsoon nature” of lot #18 and said that weather can impede the ability to complete a project. They are looking for the ability to extend things when they are working in good faith and things go wrong. Mr. Gill added they have been trying to deal with one conduit for over a year and a half. They are asking to give the administrative officer the ability to extend for a few weeks or so. Mr. Kochman said if staff can fashion something regarding seasonal conditions, he was OK with that; with other problems he felt the applicant should come back to the DRB. Mr. Langfeldt added that they have been waiting for things from the city for months as well. Mr. Kochman said he is limited to “seasonability.” He added that the DRB is reasonable about other issues. Mr. Gill said the problem is the time it takes to get something through the review process when they have to come back to the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 9 Board. Mr. Kochman asked whether they can be given a 2-week notice to get on an agenda. Ms. Keene said she couldn’t give a “yes” to that. Ms. Mann said “seasonability” is cut and dry, but doesn’t want Staff to have to decide what constitutes as “good faith effort.”. Mr. Gill noted that some playground equipment has taken more than a year and a half to show up. Ms. Keene suggested “uncontrollable factors.” Mr. Gill said they would accept that language. Mr. Kochman said he would accept a particular list, including things like “a supply chain issue.” Mr. Gill said they will provide specific examples. #2. Regarding matching the Act 250 approval, staff asked for a plan to show this. Mr. Gill said they will do that. #3. The applicant was asked to provide information regarding the height waiver for 14 homes. Mr. Gill said they will provide that. #4. The applicant was asked to describe the height waiver being requested for pre- and post-construction grade. Mr. Gill explained the area is next to the commercial district. They feel the 14 homes will fit in well. They will be 3 stories, facing the street and 2 stories on the uphill side. A preliminary plat was approved with those houses. At final plat, it was realized that they were not permittable, and they were removed from the plan. They would like to add them back now that there are new rules. The design is the same as in the previous plan. Mr. Gill showed photos of existing similar homes. Mr. Langfeldt said they feel those homes provide a better transition to the more commercial area. Ms. Keene said the DRB can grant the height waiver under current regulations. #6 (heard before #5). Staff indicated the garage placement was OK under the previous regulations but is not OK now. Ms. Keene said she believes the façade requirement can be waived by the Board. Mr. Langfeldt said this is the lowest price home they have been able to offer. Ms. Keene said the Board can modify standards with the exception of 5 (she showed a list of those), provided the modification meets the intent of the PUD and doesn’t have an adverse effect on anything in the area and better meets the purpose of the PUD. The issue is the width of the garages. Mr. Gill said the homes are very dense, and the design allows them to get more homes on that stretch of road and increases affordability. The applicant agreed to write a narrative on how those homes meet the requirements. Ms. Wyman said she thought there is a continuity with what is already built. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 10 #5. Staff noted that Lot 36 homes do not meet orientation standards and asked the applicant to revise the design to have the homes face a central courtyard. This was shown on the plan. Mr. Gill said they thought it made more sense to amend the plan to have more and smaller, lower-price homes. The approved alleyway would serve 5 more cottages. They have added more landscaping. This increases the total homes by 3. #B610 may be removed so it doesn’t get “shoe-horned.” Mr. Gill said they would like a waiver. Mr. Kochman asked for a written statement as to how they meet the modification criteria. #7. The applicant was asked to find another location for the on-site battery storage. Ms. Keene showed the parcel dedicated to the city. Any change to the land or use would require city approval. Mr. Gill showed the Energy Standards Certificate for a home. They spent a lot of time as to where the battery storage would go. Mr. Gill argued that the playing field size is not reduced, it is just the shape of the field that has changed. He said the potential size of the playing field in the approved drawings was incorrect or incomplete. The area of the battery storage is a 12% slope with “garbage trees,” buckthorn, etc. Mr. Gill was confident the City Council will allow it. Ms. Keene said the biggest change to the playing field is the grading. This is the only relatively level area, and taking away from that is a concern. Mr. Langfeldt said there is a one-acre level park just down the hill from this. Mr. Gill showed a photo of the area. Mr. Moscatelli asked why this site was chosen for the battery building. Ms. Murray-Clasen of Green Mountain Power said there were 4 concerns: proximity to the mainline distribution system, access for maintenance, the level site, and aesthetic screening. The building will be enclosed by “sonaguard” fencing. He showed a rendering of what the enclosure would look like. Mr. Kochman said there would also have to be an amended deed. He asked if the reduction in 17,000 useable sq. ft. would leave a usable area lot. Mr. Gill didn’t think the sloped area was unusable. He suggested it could be used for a picnic, throwing a Frisbee, etc. Mr. Gill said there may be room to expand the area to have a larger useable area by grading the back more steeply, but that would make the hill not useable. Ms. Keene said staff would defer to the opinion of the Recreation Director. Mr. Moscatelli said it seems to be a good place to put it. He favored recommending the change. Mr. Kochman asked what the battery serves. Ms. Murray-Clasen said it is part of the microgrid for homes in the neighborhood and provides additional layers of resiliency with a fully electric neighborhood. Homes can have high usage times, etc. It'll be an enclosure not a building. 10-ft tall. 1,700 sf, roughly the size of a single family home. Mr. Kochman suggested having it as an easement and not reducing the acreage. Mr. Gill said there are benefits to having a lot, including insurance issues. Ms. Murray-Clasen said she was OK with an DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 FEBRUARY 2024 PAGE 11 easement. Ms. Quinn felt the Board was OK with the location of the battery storage but asked the applicant to get input from the Recreation Director regarding final grade, etc. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Keene noted a written comment from the Weiners who are neighbors. They are opposed to the location of the battery storage building and want assurance there will be no sound impact. Ms. Murray-Clasen said there is some ambient noise, between 60-65 dbs in the area. He didn’t believe that level would be increased due to the battery building. He added that a sound analysis would be part of the permitting process. Mr. Kochman noted the nighttime performance standard is 45 dbs. Ms. Murray-Clasen said she didn’t believe they would exceed that. A study will be done to determine that. 8. Minutes of 5 December 2023 and 17 January 2024: Due to the late hour, members agreed to postpone approval of the minutes. 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 10:41 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on March 19, 2024.