Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/07/2017 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 NOVEMBER 2017 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REIVEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 3 MAY 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday,7 November 2017, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; M. Cota, J. Smith, J. Wilking, M. Behr (via phone), F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; C. Gottfried; K. Braverman; M. Dorey; N. Farrell; A. Blow; D. Bombardier 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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. Sketch plan application #SD-17-24 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by constructing a 25-foot by 25-foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. restaurant, 1696 Williston Road: Mr. Gottfried explained that the addition will be behind the diner and is intended to make things more efficient and safer for patrons and staff. The exhaust system in the restaurant is “fighting” the other systems, and is wasting money. The new exhaust system will be run out the window while the new system is being installed. This will keep employees working during the renovation. Mr. Gottfried gave members pictures of the existing diner and the proposed look of the building and parking area. Mr. Kochman asked if there will be additional seating. Mr. Gottfried said there will not. Ms. Keene said there is a question as to whether the project qualifies as a PUD. It needs to be considered a PUD because it is within the 62-foot setback from the existing Williston Road right of way. There is a question as to whether the project increases the non-conformity. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t think a setback waiver is needed. The front of the building will stay where it is, and it doesn’t matter if there is more within the setback. Mr. Miller said he believes this qualifies as a PUD because it meets the “viability of infill development” criteria. Mr. Behr agreed. Ms. Keene said 35 parking spaces are required. The Board can waive up to 25% of this amount (to 26 spaces). Mr. Miller noted 26 is the lowest number the Board can approve. Ms. Keene said there can be off-site parking through an agreement with a neighbor. Mr. Gottfried said he would find the 26 spaces. Members were OK with the project being considered a PUD. Mr. Behr noted that there is 99% lot coverage and suggested removing some pavement up front and converting the area to grass, if possible. Mr. Belair noted that70% is the allowable coverage. Two neighboring residents said the support the project 100% and have never seen a parking problem at the diner. No other issues were raised. 6. Presentation by Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning, on the DRB’s role in reviewing projects within the Form Based Code district and in appeals of the Administrative Officer’s decision: Mr. Conner reviewed the basics of the City Center Form Based Code District as follows: a. Nearly all uses are allowed in new buildings b. Residential use is not allowed on the first floor in the T-5 district c. Focus is on building form rather than use d. There is generally an administrative review rather than a DRB review e. Parking requirements are reduced f. Residential use must include affordable housing (80%-120% of median income) for developments of 12 or more units; affordable units can be banked g. There is a “quality” rather than “quantity” approach to open space. Mr. Conner noted that there are a few uses that are not allowed, mostly those that generate heavy truck traffic. Mr. Kochman asked if there is anything to prevent a parking lot in the middle. Mr. Conner said 80% of the width of a lot must have a building on it. Parking can go behind a building. There are also regulations for parking garages. Mr. Conner explained the “primary” and “secondary” streets and block standard applicability. He also indicated a property on which the city has an option for a City Hall/Community Library. Mr. Conner then explained the particulars of the review process as follows: a. Form Based Code is designed to be largely “black & white,” based on maximums and minimums b. There must be a pre-application meeting with staff c. In practice, there will also be multiple meetings and review of site plan, building arrangement, landscape, design elements, open space, parking, stormwater, site features, etc. The DRB can become involved in the process in the following ways: a. Subdivisions – determining whether proposed new parcels are developable b. When a new public street is being created c. Intersection location (the DRB can approve a modified intersection location) d. Street type determination (when an applicant proposes a street that is not on the official map e. Impact on streams, wetlands, interstate buffers f. Public buildings g. Alternate compliance for doorways (the applicant must demonstrate their spacing of doors better meets a need. The DRB can also act as an appeal board as follows: a. They may hold hearings b. They may consider proposed stipulations Mr. Braverman said their company worked closely with staff on the Cathedral Square project, and the system worked pretty well. He noted that some developers don’t like it because it takes some of the creativity out of the process, but he felt “predictability” is good and will streamline the process. Mr. Braverman said they do struggle with the lack of a waiver provision (e.g., 80% of the first floor must be glazing, and 70% would be denied with no mechanism for relief). Mr. Kochman asked about the parking element. Mr. Conner noted that a successful restaurant and an unsuccessful restaurant of the same size would have the same parking requirement even though they have different parking needs. He said there will be on-street parking on Market Street. There are also many bike/pedestrian paths which can reduce parking needs. A developer can dedicate land for parking. Mr. Wilking was concerned with people using other businesses’ parking lots when there isn’t adequate parking in City Center. He has had this problem with his business. He stressed that this is Vermont where people can’t ride bikes in January. He said he only voted for City Center because of the promise of parking garages. He cited buildings in Winooski that can’t be filled with tenants because of the lack of parking. Mr. Conner said nothing precludes parking garages which would make parking a “revenue generator.” 7. Minutes: No minutes were presented for review. 8. Other Business: There was no other business. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:27 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on December 5, 2017. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. SD‐17‐25  Staff Comments 1 1 of 4  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD    DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: October 31, 2017  Plans received: September 29, 2017  COREY J. GOTTFRIED                 SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD‐17‐25  Agenda Item #5 Meeting Date: November 7, 2017  Location Map          SD‐17‐25  Staff Comments 2 2 of 4  PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐17‐24 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by  constructing a 25‐foot by 25‐foot addition to an existing 1,500 sq. ft. restaurant, 1696 Williston Road.    Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed  the plan submitted on September 29, 2017 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the  Board’s attention are in red.    PERMIT HISTORY  The Project is located in the Commercial 1 – Airport district.  In 2007, the Property obtained site plan  approval to construct a 200‐square foot addition to the then 1,300 square foot restaurant, for a total of  1,500 square feet (SP‐07‐45).  The addition was subsequently constructed as permitted.      CONTEXT    The current application is to construct a 25‐foot by 25‐foot addition to fill in the “L” shape of the existing  restaurant building.  The proposed addition will be located to the rear of the existing building, but will  be located within the required planned 50‐foot right of way (“ROW”) setback from Williston Road.   Because the proposed addition is within the require ROW setback, the Project will deviate from the  dimensional requirements as established in the Land Development Regulations (“LDRs”).  Therefore, the  applicant must seek Development Review Board (“DRB”) approval for a setback waiver.  The Project also  will not be able to provide the required minimum number of parking spaces within the subject parcel,  requiring either a parking waiver or a off‐site parking agreement with a nearby property.  The available  DRB waiver mechanism is to classify the Project as a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) therefore this  application has been made an application for subdivision sketch plan review.     The proposed addition will consist of additional kitchen space, and will not result in increased restaurant  seats or employees.  The purpose of the addition, as stated by the applicant, is to create a safer and  more efficient environment for guests and employees by improving exhaust systems and climate control  systems, updating kitchen layout, and refurbishing with respect to its age and historical presence.  The  proposed addition represents infill development.  The stated purpose of PUDs in the LDRs is as follows    To encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill  development and redevelopment in the City’s Core Area.  …  The Development Review Board  shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated  development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety,  health and welfare of its citizens.    The definition of a PUD is as follows.    One or more parcels of land to be developed as a single entity, the plan for which may propose  any authorized combination of density or intensity transfers or increases, as well as the mixing  of land uses. This plan, as authorized, may deviate from bylaw requirements that are  otherwise applicable to the area in which it is located with respect to the area, density or  dimensional requirements or allowable number of structures and uses per lot as established in  any one or more districts created under the provisions of these regulations. The specific  requirements of a PUD and the area, density and dimensional provisions that may be modified  are defined in each district in which PUDs are allowed.  SD‐17‐25  Staff Comments 3 3 of 4    1. The Board must determine if this Project qualifies as a PUD.  If qualified, the Board must  determine whether to grant a setback waiver allowing the proposed addition.    COMMENTS    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    The project will require a waiver for front yard setbacks.  The minimum front setback for Williston Road is  50‐feet from the edge of the planned ROW, which is equivalent to 62‐feet from the edge of the existing  ROW.  The existing building is located 19‐feet from the existing ROW and the proposed addition will be  located to the rear of the existing building.        PUD STANDARDS    Open Space    The open space standard for PUD’s pertains to maximizing opportunities for contiguous open spaces  between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.  The parcel has an existing overall lot coverage of  99% and a building coverage of 10%.  The proposed Project will increase building coverage to 14% but  will not affect overall lot coverage.  The existing and proposed building coverage is within the allowable  range for the district.    SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    Parking & Circulation    There are 24 existing parking spaces on the previously approved plan for the subject property.  The  proposed addition will remove at least two of the existing parking spaces.  The addition will result in a  gross floor area of 2,124 square feet. Parking requirements are based on 18 spaces per 1,000 square  feet of leasable area.  The 2007 decision did not include the walk‐in cooler as part of the leasable area,  therefore the net leasable area would be 1,924 square feet, requiring 35 parking spaces at a rate of 18  spaces per 1,000 square feet of area.  The Board has the ability to waive up to 25% of the required  parking spaces, yielding a minimum of 26 spaces which can be approved by waiver.  The applicant may  be able to reconfigure parking to provide adequate parking on the subject parcel.    The applicant also has an informal agreement with the property owner to the west to allow overflow  parking on the adjoining parcel.  In order to be used for off‐site parking, the adjoining property would  need to apply for site plan review and the applicant and adjoining property owner would need to record  legal documents, reviewed by the City Attorney, to ensure that the off‐site parking spaces would be  available to serve the applicant’s property.    2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the calculated number of parking spaces  versus  the  number  of  parking  spaces  the  applicant  actually  needs to determine whether a  parking waiver request or formalized off‐site parking agreement better addresses the situation.   Off‐site parking requires a PUD but does not require the off‐site parcel to be part of the PUD,  though the off‐site parking would be subject to site plan review prior to being allowed.    SD‐17‐25  Staff Comments 4 4 of 4  Landscaping    The Project will be required to comply with Section 13.06G which provides a required landscape value  proportional  to  the  cost  of  building  improvements.    The  landscaping  must  be  in  addition  to  the  landscaping required as part of the prior approval.    ADDITIONAL STANDARDS    Bicycle Parking    The Project will be required to comply with Section 13.14 as it pertains to the number and type of  bicycle parking spaces.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,    ___________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner