Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2024-05-21 DRB Minutes DRAFT PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 MAY 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 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, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; E. Sample, N. Pion, J. Duncan, T. DiPietro, G. Fortune 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 21 MAY 2024 PAGE 2 5. Site Plan Application #SP-24-17 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an outdoor storage yard. The amendment consists of constructing a 1.02 acre paved parking lot and changing the use to commercial parking facility, 1877 Williston Road: Staff has advised that commercial parking facility is a conditional use in this zoning district; therefore, the application has been postponed and will be re- warned as a conditional use application on 18 June 2024. 6. Conditional use application #CU-24-05 of Consentino and Manning to amend a previously approved conditional use approval for a single family home. The amendment is to increase the amount of the building that is proposed to be set back less than 5 feet from the side lot line, 11 White Place: Staff noted that the applicant has indicated the intention to withdraw the application; however, a written request to withdraw is not been submitted. Staff recommended the Board allow staff to provide an update, and if there is no formal withdrawal submitted, to allow the Board to deny the application. Ms. Keene advised that a written request to withdraw has not been received. She recommended closing the hearing. Staff will then advise how to proceed. Ms. Wyman moved to close CU-24-05 of Consentino and Manning. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-24-19 of the City of South Burlington to amend a previously approved plan for a 2.1 million gallon water storage tank. The amendment consists of constructing a second 2.1 million gallon water tank that will be identical to the existing water tank in height, diameter, and capacity, and modifying the existing landscaping plan, 1215 Dorset Street: Mr. Duncan explained that CWD will build a second water tank as the city had utilized all the water in the existing tank. The new tank will serve the city for the next 50 years. Staff comments were addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 MAY 2024 PAGE 3 #1. Staff noted that the tank is higher than what is normally allowed in the district. They asked whether applying the existing height limit would interfere with the use of the tank. Mr. DiPietro said it absolutely would. Mr. Duncan added that the water pressure is driven by the height of the tank. Mr. Kochman asked the source of the water. Mr. Duncan said Shelburne Bay. The pipes to transport it are underground. The pump is in the CWD building. Mr. Duncan invited DRB members to visit CWD and see the operation. #2. Staff questioned whether the tank location is appropriate. Mr. Duncan said the site was purchased for its ability to accommodate a second tank. The site also is the location of the city’s radio service tower for emergency services to the city. The only place to locate the second water tank is on the southwest corner. Mr. Kochman asked the factors that determine capacity. Mr. DiPietro said it is usage and water allocation for new buildings. When a tank reaches 90% capacity, the city has to start the process for additional capacity. #3. Staff asked about snow storage. Mr. Duncan said CWD manages snow. It is pushed down the road toward the east side of the property. He showed the location on the plan. #4. Staff asked about replacing landscape features. Mr. Duncan said there is limited land area that is not in conflict with uses. They can relocate some trees along the west property line, but they were not sure they can get them all in there. They are willing to work with staff on this. Mr. Gillies noted that $11,000 worth of plantings is the requirement, and there are a number of options. Mr. Duncan said a bench has been located at the entrance to the site. They could do a water- related sculpture. Mr. Gillies suggested the possibility of a mix between plantings/sculpture. Mr. DiPietro said there may be some space on the right side of the road for some trees. Mr. Duncan said they also have to keep away from the new hydrant and be sure there is adequate visibility of the site for safety reasons. Members agreed to word an appropriate condition. #5. The applicant agreed to comply with stormwater and an erosion control plan. #6. Regarding the barbed wire fencing, Mr. Duncan said that is a standard practice for security measures. They will match the existing fencing. Members were OK with this. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 MAY 2024 PAGE 4 Mr. Behr moved to close SP-24-19. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-24-07 of Eric Sample to subdivide an existing 1.37 acre lot developed with a single family home and detached accessory dwelling unit into 2 lots of 1.00 acres and 0.37 acres, for the purpose of establishing the existing single family home and accessory dwelling unit on Lot 1, and constructing a new single family or duplex home on Lot 2, 25 & 55 Highland Terrace: Mr. Sample said they just want to draw a line to divide the property. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked if the allowable density will be increased with a TDR. Mr. Sample said it will be increased with one TDR. #2. It was noted that the proposed future house would face south. Mr. Sample said that is the rhythm of existing homes, and they are keeping that pattern. It is also more aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Keene noted that future LDRs will allow up to 11 homes. If future owners of the land want to go that way, the Board can require a layout to allow that. Mr. Moscatelli asked if that applies even if the property is not served by water and sewer. Ms. Keene said that is correct. Mr. Sample said he does not intend to build; he just wants it as “an asset.” Mr. Behr asked if what Mr. Sample is proposing would be allowed under future LDRs. Ms. Keene said it would. She added that the Board could require a building envelope that is not in the middle. Mr. Behr noted that as long as the applicant has a completed application before the new regulations are warned, what they are proposing is OK. Ms. Keene stressed the need to get a completed application in 2 weeks in advance to be sure it is complete. Mr. Behr said he liked having the corner undeveloped and keeping with the pattern. #3. The applicant was directed to demonstrate that the plan is in accordance with the State’s potable water supply program as part of an application for final plat review. Ms. Keene said the applicant’s engineer can help with this. #4. Staff questioned whether the Board should require street trees to be planted. Mr. Sample said there are 3 willows that will be left, and they have DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 MAY 2024 PAGE 5 added 10 trees to the property which will remain. Ms. Keene reminded members that they cannot govern trees on single family lots. Members were OK with the plan as is. #5. The Board was asked to determine the need for a master plan. Members were OK with the plan as is. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 9. Minutes of 7 May 2024: Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 7 May 2024 as written. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted that applications for the DRB are due by 3 June. Mr. Kochman and Ms. Wyman are up for reconsideration, and Ms. Wyman has indicated that she will not be seeking another term as she is a “victim of the housing crisis” and has been priced out of South Burlington. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 7:51 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ________.