Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_2024-04-16 DRB Minutes DRAFT PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 April 2024, 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, Development Review Planner; Andrew, Allyson and V. Bolduc, B. Currier, K. Mejia, L. Thayer, G. Bourne, G. Rabideau, J. Desautels, J. Nick, E. Goldberg, C. Ruggiero, C. Scott, M. Sides, M. Cannon, B. Leonard. 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. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 PAGE 2 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-05 of Allyson & Vincent Bolduc to subdivide an existing 16.46 acre lot developed with a single family home and accessory structures into 2 residential lots of 2.0 acres and 14.46 acres, and retain the existing single family home and accessory structures on the 14.46 acre lot, 252 Autumn Hill Road: Mr. V. Bolduc reviewed the history of the property. He also noted that he serves on the Affordable Housing Committee which has determined that 51% of the city is no longer developable. The proposed plan is to use 2 acres for housing and an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) for family housing. Mr. V. Bolduc said he is working with a forester to protect forestry practices on the property and to determine access to the proposed housing. The location of the house will be designed for the least impact on the environment. Mr. V. Bolduc added that he believes the plan meets the goals of the City Plan. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff notes that it appears the habitat block is incorrectly shown and asked for it to be corrected. Mr. Currier showed the corrected plan and indicated the habitat block and the wetland buffer. #2. Staff feels the acres are not eligible for exchange. Ms. Keene said if a lot has a habitat block on it, you can modify the habitat block under certain circumstances. #3. Staff notes another way to modify a habitat block is if it is substantially covered. Ms. Philibert said that seems applicable in this case. Mr. Kochman said if the LDRs mean these people, who have been such good stewards of the land, can’t carve out 2 acres, there is something wrong with the LDRs. #4. Staff notes that the Board should direct the applicant to prepare a map indicating areas selected under each criteria prior to concluding sketch plan. Mr. Currier showed where they are defining the 30% buildable area and envelope. He identified the straightest path to get a driveway. They are not proposing it to be a public road; it is part of the buildable area. They are also proposing 3/10 of an acre less developable area than what is allowed. #5. Staff recommends combining preliminary and final plats review. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 PAGE 3 #6. There will have to be a detailed plan for development of the land including the residence and ADU. Mr. V. Bolduc said they haven’t yet decided whether the residence will be a town house or a single-family unit. Mr. Currier noted they can accommodate a duplex with water and sewer. #7. Staff recommends the Board require a “cleaner” building envelope. Mr. Currier showed haw the building envelope gets more standard to the north. They will demarcate the wetland buffer with boulders or a fence. #8. The applicant was asked to demonstrate how a home could be located within a reasonably cleared area buffer and the appropriate driveway. Mr. Currier shoed the 100x300 lot area. #9. Staff believes the “carve out” exempts the plan from a Master Plan. Board members affirmed this. Staff noted that any future subdivision would require a Master Plan. 6. Conditional Use Application 3CU-24-03 of Allyson M. Bolduc Trust & Vincent L. Bolduc Trust to develop a single family home and accessory dwelling unit on 0.70 acres of an existing 6-acre lot located entirely within the Southeast Quadrant Natural Resource Protection zoning district, 1780 Dorset Street: Mr. V. Bolduc said their daughter wants to build the home in this location. He indicated the city’s water treatment facility nearby. The land is primarily pine trees on one side, deciduous trees on the other side, mostly dying ash trees. Mr. V. Bolduc indicated where the lot would go. It is .7 acres which is needed to keep the house away from potentially falling trees and to allow for a solar installation. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to explain why this specific site was chosen and whether there could be a better location. Mr. V. Bolduc said there is a right- of-way through the wetland to Dorset Street. It makes no sense to go there. To go further up the hill would be impractical. The forester said this site makes the most environmental sense. #2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the building envelope should be sized at .7 acres, keeping in mind the minimum lot size in the zoning DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 PAGE 4 district is 9500 square feet. Mr. Kochman said he is impressed with the falling tree concern. He cited half of a willow tree which fell in the yard next to his house. Had the children been playing in the yard at the time, there would have been a tragedy. Mr. V. Bolduc said he has had similar experiences and will be taking down a tree which is leaning toward their house. Mr. V. Bolduc also noted he has planted thousands of trees, though he realizes this is not relevant. #3. Staff considers the access drive to be minimized in length but considers the circular drive increases the area needed. Mr. Currier said the circular drive fits well and is more reasonable than a hammerhead. Mr. V. Bolduc said utility trucks don’t appreciate having to back out of the existing drive to his home. Members were OK with the circular drive and felt it was aesthetically better. Ms. Keene noted that because of the location, the Fire Department will require a sprinkler system. #4. Staff recommends the Board require a map showing how this approach has been applied for each of the 4 criteria. Mr. Currier said they went through the 4 steps. 30% would allow 1.88 acres, and they are doing this with .7 acres. Members were OK with the approach. #5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the building envelope to have easily measurable dimensions, right angles, etc. Mr. Currier said they could square it up and add 1/10 or so to the buildable area, but they feel there is less impact this way. Mr. Kochman suggested having the building envelope line up with the lot line which would save 20 feet of road pavement. Ms. Keene felt that makes sense. Mr. V. Bolduc said he would be glad to do that. He showed where there is a stone wall along the boundary. Mr. Currier said they can also square off the corners. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Scott, Ms. Goldberg, and Mr. Ruggiero all spoke in favor of the application and noted that Mr. V. Bolduc has been the best steward of the land. Mr. Bolduc’s daughter said she will steward the property as her parents have taught her. Mr. Johnston moved to close CU-24-03. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 PAGE 5 7. Combined preliminary and final plat application #SD-24-04 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 units, and a 3-story, 27-unit multifamily building on Lot 3, of which 9 units are proposed to be inclusionary, 760 Shelburne Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked why there were no changes made to the plan. Mr. Rabideau said the measurements for glazing were submitted. Ms. Mejia said the elevations are the same because the Board had said the appearance of 2 stories had been met. The transparent glazing requirements are also met. The one façade without windows has security concerns (e.g., the safe), and the bank needs to maintain a secure area. Mr. Kochman said that is a reasonable answer. He asked if the applicant would consider a mural to “spice things up a bit.” Mr. Rabideau said there is nothing wrong with a solid surface in a building. Ms. Thayer said there are also plantings in front of that wall, so it is broken up. #2. Regarding the width of the walkway, the applicant was asked to provide an 8 foot walkway from Swift Street to the multi-unit building. Ms. Desautels said they can achieve that by moving the road 3 feet to the west. She showed this on a plan. #3. Staff asked for the percentage on transparent glazing. Mr. Rabideau said that is provided on the elevation sheets. #4. Staff asked about long-term bike parking inside the bank building. Ms. Desautels said the applicant would like to locate that in the break room. Mr. Kochman suggested modifying the entrance to be more convenient for employees. Ms. Mejia said she can discuss that with the Chase designers. She did know that the employee lounge is secure. Ms. Desautels asked if that can be a condition of approval. Ms. Keene said it can, provided the applicant doesn’t say “absolutely not.” #5. Regarding temporary bike parking until permanent space is available, Ms. Desautels said they would like a waiver for that, but they can provide the space. Mr. Rabideau said phase 1 would be done immediately. Phase 2 will DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 PAGE 6 depend on the economy. He said it was reasonable to provide a temporary space, and they have done that. Ms. Desautels showed this on the plan. #6. The applicant was asked to provide information regarding areas of the proposed inclusionary units. Mr. Rabideau said that information is in the drawings. #7. The applicant was asked to clarify the computation of housing cost to include rents and utilities. Mr. Rabideau said they provided calculations for each size unit. He stressed that “affordability” will change over the life of the project. He showed the 2023 income limits. #8 and #9. Regarding the affordable units, Mr. Rabideau noted that the city will promulgate the annual reporting form. Ms. Keene asked if the Board was OK with submitting the documentation from the previous application. She showed the original document on the screen. Members voiced no objections. #10. Regarding the mix of bedrooms, staff said no changes were made. They showed 29 2-bedroom and 1 1-bedroom unit. Mr. Rabideau showed a plan and identified a 3-bedroom unit and a 1-bedroom unit. Mr. Kochman said he was OK with this as it is a market judgment and meets the regulations. Ms. Philibert noted that people are taking studio and 1-bedroom units because it’s all they can afford, even if they would prefer a 2 or 3 bedroom unit. #11. Regarding landscaping in the parking lot, Ms. Desautels provided documentation that they meet the requirement. She showed the plan. She also noted they have a tremendous amount of landscaping, and the site is tight. Ms. Thayer said they could remove the northern drive aisle landscaping from the calculation. She added if the numbers don’t work, they can remove a parking space and make it an island with landscaping, but she was confident the numbers are OK. Board members were OK with this as a condition of approval. #12. Regarding snow removal and the need to protect sensitive vegetation, Ms. Desautels said they plan is to remove most snow from the site. Ms. Thayer said they are also using salt-tolerant plantings. Ms. Keene noted that if parking spaces are not kept clear, they will not be in compliance with the law. #13. Staff noted the lighting plan is not compliant with regulations. Ms. Desautels said the new plan is compliant. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2024 PAGE 7 Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Desautels noted the plan now meets all Public Works and CWD requirements. Regarding indoor bike parking, members asked about having bike access from a side door. Ms. Mejia noted the area where the bikes will be stored also houses the IT Room, and there are rules that have to be followed for safety of that room. There can’t just be a decision about that access; it is not an easy yes/no. That access is exit only. Though members felt this could discourage bike usage, they were not willing to kill the project because of it. Mr. Moscatelli moved to close SD-24-04. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Minutes of 20 February, 5 March and 19 March 2024 Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 20 February, 5 March and 19 March 2024 as written. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0 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 9:36 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on _______________.