Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 05/07/2024 PAGE 1 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 May 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; M. Behr, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; A Librot, L. Ravin, C. Silvey, D. Read, E. LaPlante, A. Macilwaine, D. Messier, M. Pasanen, A Mitchell, C. Ferber, J. Smith, P. Carlaccini, G. Dixon, L. Kingsbury, J. Collins, C. Forbes 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 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 2 5. Site Plan Application #SP-24-10 and Conditional Use Application #CU- 24-04 of Heritage Automobile Sales, Inc., to amend a previously approved approximately 40 acre master plan for 551 residential units in housing types ranging from duplex to mixed-use, multi-family, a 110- room hotel, a 22,500 sf restaurant/medical office building, a 3,500 sf restaurant with a drive-through, a 21,380 sf mixed use commercial building, and approximately 5 acres of programmed and passive open spaces. The amendment consists of using 82 parking spots in the existing parking area to the south of the 21,380 sf commercial building as commercial parking for new and used vehicle inventory for an off-site auto dealer, 17 Reel Road: Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Dixon explained that this is an attempt to use existing infrastructure so the property owner can make some income from the land while it isn’t being used. The surface is paved. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff is recommending a time limit. Mr. Behr said he didn’t see a reason to limit time until the site is rendered obsolete. He suggested just calling it “Master Plan limits.” Mr. Gillies showed a plan and indicated the area in question. He noted that part of the plan goes over the property line. Mr. Dixon said the construction of Real Road will probably be more in phase 2. He added that they could limit the use of the parking spaces that are over the property line. He noted that the parking area will be used to offset parking during construction. When it is needed for that purpose, the parking agreement will end. #2. Regarding the impact on traffic, Mr. Dison said they have agreed not to move vehicles during the peak hours. #3. Regarding the time limit for renewal of the approval, if needed, Mr. Behr said he had no issue if the parking agreement ends before the land is needed for the construction project. Mr. Moscatelli said that is a contract issue. He suggested a 6-year renewal schedule, which is when the Master Plan expires. Mr. Dixon said that is agreeable. Mr. Johnston noted the 3 spots at the end of Reel DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 3 Road are in conflict with the end of Phase 1. Mr. Dixon said they can discuss that with Heritage. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to close SP-24-10. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 6. Master Plan Application #MP-24-01 of AAM Catamount Woods, LLC, 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 an estimated 275 units of housing in two five-story buildings over two phases, and associated site improvements on 5.7 acres, 870 Williston Road: Mr. Librot identified himself as the owner of the Double Tree and one of the managers of the Catamount Woods project. He stressed that AAM is involved in only the residential part of the plan. The project will consist of 550 beds for University of Vermont housing. Units will 1, 2, 3, and 4-bedrooms. Each apartment will have one bathroom. The concept is to provide a transition from dormitory housing to “the real world.” Students will sign leases with each bed being leased separately. The building will be managed by AAM, not by the University. Ms. Kingsbury, Associate Planner at UVM, said a number of groups are working on this project and are trying to address the housing shortage. She noted that their first project will be opening this fall which will provide housing for upper class students. Ms. Kingsbury noted that students have expressed an interest in this type of housing as it is near campus, bike-able, and safe. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked why the stormwater upgrade is a separate plan. Mr. Read said the pond is a restoration improvement project. It is not related to this project and will be completed in 2026. It takes UVM flows from the UVM campus and probably Staples Plaza as well. The treatment for this project will be on site. #2. The applicant was asked to provide a more simplified plat plan that clarifies each of the 3 lots of the project. Staff now has 2 subdivision plats and an DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 4 easement plan. Ms. Ravin said this was sent to staff yesterday. She also noted Phase 1 is now 192 units. #3. Regarding the need for minutes of the neighborhood meetings, Ms. Ravin said they have a complete recording of the meetings. Two residents from Burlington spoke as well as an East Terrace resident. South Burlington’s residents declined to say anything. About 120 invitations to the meeting were sent out. Not many South Burlington residents attended. #4. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that now new development areas be established within the land included in the present Master Plan. Ms. Keene showed the Master Plan area photo and indicated the entirety of the Master Plan. Ms. Ravin said UVM agreed not to add any new developable areas to the Master Plan during the duration of that plan. #5. Staff cited the need for an updated map of the Habitat Block area. Mr. Read said that has now been provided. #6. and #7. Regarding the deliberative session related to the applicability of 24V.S.A.4413, staff questioned what “primary use” means. Mr. MacIlwaine said they understand the importance of the LDRs, but it is important to balance that with the importance of Statute 4413 which identifies land uses that can have limited regulation. Those uses include educational uses. There are also “component uses” which are also covered by that Statute. The use here is for student housing which has been deemed a “primary use” by the Courts. Mr. MacIlwaine noted that Massachusetts has a similar law, and those Courts have employed “primary use” and determined that student housing is a “primary use” even if all the units are not occupied by the university students. Statute 4413(A)(1) sets out a list of what can be regulated as a qualifying use (e.g., location, size, height, density, loading facilities, traffic screening, etc.). Mr. Kochman asked what “density” means in terms of this project and why density of uses does not apply to density of units. Ms. Keene said density in area is based on the area of a parcel located in hazards, level 1 resources, rights of way, etc., the entire outlined area. If the city can’t regulate those, then the applicant can use those areas. Mr. Kochman said the argument is what can be stripped from the allowable density. The applicant then showed a plan which included wetlands, habitat blocks, etc. Mr. Behr noted development is not occurring in those areas. Ms. Keene said some very steep slopes appear to be in the development area. Mr. Moscatelli asked if with a Conservation PUD the applicant could develop at the proposed DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 5 density. Ms. Keene said they could. Ms. Ravin noted that UVM has conserved a large portion of the area with the Vermont Land Trust. Mr. Kochman asked if density of buildings excludes density of units. Mr. MacIlwaine said density is how buildings are regulated for density. Mr. Kochman said that includes the number of units. Mr. MacIlwaine said the Environmental Court has made it clear that location refers to the general location of the project, not various locations within the project. Section D14 provides municipalities the ability to regulate agriculture and forestry. That has no relation to this project. He then noted a court case in Charlotte regarding impacts on wildlife and agriculture in which the Court said those are not part of the statutory list, so the DRB cannot consider them. The municipality can regulate only what is enumerated. The project is not near a river corridor, so that does not apply. Mr. Kochman asked if the DRB finds they can regulate the number of units, would going back to the original 184 units be a violation of “functional use.” Mr. MacIlwaine said it would. Mr. Kochman said it is absurd to say reduction of the number of units interferes with the “intended functional use.” Mr. Collins said UVM has asked to meet with South Burlington’s City Attorney who will advise the DRB. Ms. Keene said she wasn’t sure the City Attorney can have a direct conversation with the DRB. The DRB can consult its own attorney. Mr. Moscatelli noted that if UVM were building a dorm, all this problem would go away, but this is outside University owned channels. 49% of the units can be outside rentals. It seemed to him this is a way to enrich an outside group. He had no problem with dorm spaces. The question is how much is educational use if 49% is outside use. Mr. MacIlwaine said the Supreme Court has said student housing is an educational use. Mr. Read said there are a few things going on. There is a 60-year land lease. There is a 60-year agreement between AAM and UVM. For the first 20 years, UVM guarantees that 90% of the beds will be student housing. The 50+% begins in year 21. Mr. Read said they will certify to the DRB how many students are living in the building and that the majority of beds are being used for UVM students. He added that they can also house students from other universities and still meet the test. Ms. Keene said the number of units if there are habitat blocks can be regulated. There are also steep slopes. If 4413 is applicable, that goes away. If they can build on habitat blocks, there will be a need for more site amenities as the buildable area will increase. Mr. Behr asked if there are any other issues determined by 4413. Ms. Ravin said there is a question as to how civic space is determined. There are also some uses in the Preliminary Plat. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 6 #8 and #9. The applicant was asked to be more specific as to what they mean to be a plant substitution that does not affect the project. Ms. Keene said the applicant is asking to allow 10% of the landscaping to be on the adjoining Form Based Code lot. Mr. Behr said he is generally comfortable with moving landscaping. He would like to see a plan. Ms. Philibert said she favors flexibility but wants the plan to be unified. Mr. Behr said he is also OK with things that are not specifically plantings. #10. Staff asked for consistency about each described area. Ms. Keene cited the need to know what is and what is not being developed. She hoped this was clarified in the revised materials. The applicant showed an overhead plan to address this concern. #11. Staff cited the need for a clear map to show how the Master Plan interacts with adjoining space. The applicant said this has been provided. #12. Staff asked about the pedestrian connection to Centennial Woods. Ms. Ravin said that connection is just over the boundary in the City of Burlington. It is easy walking distance. UVM is willing to see if there can be another trail head in South Burlington. There is a sidewalk that connects to the entrance. Ms. Ravin indicated a conserved area and noted that much of Centennial Woods is conserved in Burlington and South Burlington. Ms. Philibert asked what will happen to the parking lot. Ms. Ravin said it will not be affected by this project. It is leased to the Medical Center and has other University uses. #13. Staff noted the need to require a review of required public transit. Mr. Read showed how pedestrians can reach public transit. The project will also be served by CatTrans, the UVM service. Ms. Keene said the DRB can condition this approval on the other project moving forward. Mr. Read said they are more than willing to meet with VTrans, Green Mountain Transit, South Burlington Public Works, and the City of Burlington regarding connection of the proposed roadway to Williston Road. Many improvements will take place on the hotel project land, and UVM is willing to have that as a condition of approval for this project. They are OK with the DRB imposing that condition on the hotel expansion. Mr. Read stressed that the hotel project has to happen. It is replacing rooms that don’t work anymore. They also have to build the structured parking. Ms. Keene said staff is comfortable with a condition that ties the 2 projects together. Mr. Read noted that the hotel project is moving very fast. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 7 #14. Staff cited the need for an A&R determination regarding the river corridor. Mr. Read said it is deemed a “perennial stream.” They went to the River Management people who told them this needs more study. It must be maintained as a stormwater facility. Mr. Read said they are not increasing the impacts. There will be a multi-use path in that area. He felt they meet the regulations. He also noted there is no longer a meandering stream, so it doesn’t meet the “river corridor” definition. There is also a pipe that bypasses everything. They could intercept that pipe so some storm pipes could get eliminated. #15. Staff asked the location of the geothermal heating. Mr. Librot said 90% of it is on UVM land. He showed this on the plan. Some wells may be on the hotel parcel and will be part of the permanent plan. Ms. Ravin said it is not yet determined in which phase the geothermal will occur. Ms. Keene said they will have to designate the land to be used for renewable energy, but it can be located under another use. Ms. Ravin said they will want to do that. Mr. Moscatelli asked if it will cover 100% of the building. Mr. Librot said it will. #16. Staff noted solar installation requirement. Mr. Librot said they will not be required because geothermal is already on the parcel. Ms. Keene said it would be required for Phase 2, if geothermal is not done. #17. Staff asked how the building designs will be complementary to each other. Mr. Librot said the 2 buildings will be roughly the same size and are being designed to complement each other. The same is true of the landscaping. #18. The applicant was asked to coordinate the bus stop with Green Mountain Transit and asked if there is potential to move the bus stop. Mr. Librot said the bus stop will not be moved. It is used by a lot of their employees. They will agree to go along with whatever the larger discussion comes up with. He noted they would be giving land to the city. Ms. Philibert asked the rationale for moving the bus stop across the street. Mr. Librot said it is a safety concern, but they are willing to go along with what the combined group decides. Ms. Ravin said they did a study which showed that not many students would be using Williston Road or East Avenue. #19. Staff noted the need for an updated traffic study. Ms. Ravin said they have done that. She added they will take recommendations from Green Mountain Transit and the Public Works Department. Mr. Behr asked whether the Board should invoke technical review. Ms. Keene said they feel they are OK in-house so far. Mr. Kochman asked whether in 20 years there could be 250 cars going in and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 8 out. Ms. Ravin said this is an area that will always depend on public transit. Mr. Kochman noted there will not be a parking space for each unit. Mr. Read said they will be accommodated in the parking structure. #20. Staff noted the DRB has to determine whether the proposed block length is acceptable. Ms. Keene said the LDRs said block length should not exceed 500 feet. From Catamount Way to Williston Road is about 950 feet. In a flat green field, they would need another road in between, but there is not a place for another road. Mr. Kochman said it is obvious the DRB can waive that. Ms. Ravin said they agreed. #21. Staff asked the applicant to work with them on driveway locations. Mr. Read said they have updated the plans to meet staff requirements. #22. The plan should be revised to indicate the buildable area. Mr. Read said they have done this and will continue to work with staff. #23. Staff cited the need to know the total gross floor area. Ms. Ravin said that has been provided. #24. The applicant was directed to provide a table regarding clear rights-of- way. Mr. Librot said they will work with staff to do that. #25. This was already addressed. #26. The applicant was asked to estimate the wastewater use for Phase 2. Mr. Librot said they will do that. #27. The applicant was asked to address Public Works comments. Mr. Read said they are comfortable doing that. #28. Regarding staff’s request for parallel parking on one side of the road. Mr. Read said that will inhibit tractor trailers and buses, so they are asking to waive that. Ms. Keene said staff is comfortable waiving it, but feels more delving is needed. Mr. Librot said this is a dense site, and there is a lot going on in the area including Cat Transit. They need to create safety. Parallel parking would make one site very tight. It is also a winding road to keep speeds down. Ms. Ravin said parking could also hide the main entrance to the building. She felt they have enough off-site parking. Mr. Librot said they will provide a sketch to show all of this. Mr. Read said parallel parking would also eliminate trees which they DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MAY 2024 PAGE 9 feel gives a better look. Ms. Keene said the Board can waive parallel parking. The applicant was asked to submit a document showing why then can’t meet the parallel parking requirement. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Johnston moved to continue MP-24-01 to 4 June 2024. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-24-06 of AAM Catamount Woods, LLC, for the first phase of a concurrent master plan for an estimated 275 units of housing in two five-story buildings. The first phase consists of a 184-unit, 5-story multifamily building, and associated civic spaces and site improvements, 870 Williston Road: Mr. Kochman moved to continue SD-24-06 to 4 June 2024. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 16 April 2024: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 16 April 2024 as written. Mr. Moscatelli 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 10:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on May 21, 2024.