Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 07/02/2024 PAGE 1 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 July 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, C. Johnston, J. Lesko ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; Derek, K. Marchessault, T. Aten, N. Brown, S. Homsted, E. Sample, M. Scanlan, C. Fortune, J. Wilking, A. Gill 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: The Board welcomed new member Jody Lesko. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 2 5. Site Plan Application #SP-24-17 and Conditional Use Application #CU- 24-06 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 advised that the applicant has asked for a continuance. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SP-24-17 and CU-24-06 to 6 August 2024. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-09 of John Wilking for construction of a new 5,100 sq. ft., 1-story office4 building on an existing 1.88 acre lot, 40 Kimball Avenue: Mr. Philibert noted that Mr. Wilking had previously served on the DRB. She and Mr. Kochman, who had served with him, stated they could evaluate the application without prejudice. Mr. Wilking said he is the owner of the property and also owns the adjacent property at 30 Kimball Avenue. 40 Kimball Avenue has been used as a parking lot since 1987, first by IBM and then as overflow parking for 30 Kimball Ave. He has been approached to build a building for a large dental office with a large parking requirement. In order to meet these needs, the building needs to be moved slightly toward the street. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff recommends the Board consider the interpretation of front setback coverage and discuss whether they can concur that calculation should be measured with respect to the actual front building setback, not necessarily the 30- foot setback required in the LDRs. Mr. Gillies added that calculations show over 30% front yard coverage. The applicant is asking for 15 feet due to site restraints. Mr. Johnston noted the Board did this for a Shelburne Road project a few months ago for the same reason. Mr. Marchessault showed the plan and said they will be grading back from the front sidewalk. They will show the calculations on the plan. Mr. Wilking added that the sidewalk will go all around the building to provide good pedestrian access. Mr. Marchessault said they have done 8 layouts trying to meeting the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 3 regulations. This is a tough parcel. Mr. Kochman asked if the amount of parking can be reduced. Mr. Wilking acknowledged the parking is high, but there will be 14 dental chairs accommodating 14 patients at a time with 14 people working on them and 14 more coming in for the next appointments. With the 40 parking spaces, there will be overflow going both ways. Mr. Aten, representing the dental facility, said they now have 3 dentists and 10 hygienists. They are now booked out in the other locations for 6 months. #2. Staff recommends asking the applicant how the 3 criteria (ensure public health and safety; meet the purposes of the zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan; is the minimum needed to achieve what is needed) apply to the request for modification. Mr. Marchessault said they are trying to limit the impact on the Brook by moving 15 feet forward. The further away from the Brook the better. #3. If the Board indicates modification of the front yard setback may be appropriate, staff recommends the Board articulate improvements necessary to mitigate the reduced setback. Mr. Wilking noted that the rear setback requirement is 30 feet. They are providing 200 feet. They are prepared to landscape, put in sidewalks, etc., to make this as comfortable as possible. They are actually set back from the curb 30 feet. Ms. Quinn suggested coming back to this item when tree removal is discussed. #4. The applicant was asked to articulate how the setback relates to other buildings/properties. Mr. Wilking said almost all of the buildings on Kimball have parking in front which is now not allowed. This will not look the same as those buildings; it will look more like the O’Brien buildings across the road. All the buildings on this side of the road look different; there isn’t “a look.” This building will probably have a pitched roof similar to 30 Kimball Ave. There are 10-12 white pine trees that will have to come down. The 2 oak trees will remain. Mr. Kochman said that will eliminate screening. Mr. Wilking said they are saving hundreds of trees to the rear. #5. Regarding the abrupt contrast between buildings, Mr. Kochman asked how far 40 Kimball Ave. will be from 30 Kimball. Mr. Wilking estimated 100 feet. There is a grassy section between the buildings which will remain. They will probably add some trees to address the need for landscaping. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 4 #6. Regarding a street presence for pedestrians, Mr. Wilking said the main entrance will be to the west of the building. There will be the required bike parking. #7. Regarding landscaping, the applicant was asked to discuss compliance with the parking area standard. Mr. Wilking said they will comply. He added they are not yet at the stage of providing details. #8. Already discussed. #9. The applicant was asked to address the comments of the Stormwater Section. Mr. Wilking said they will meet with them and already have some good comments from them. They will satisfy all concerns. Mr. Wilking said that not having a curb cut at 40 Kimball is “reason to celebrate.” Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 7. Final Plat Application #SD-24-10 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 and 55 Highland Terrace: Ms. Keene said staff has provided a suggested decision and findings of fact. Mr. Sample said he had no issue with what was provided. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SD-24-10. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Site Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-24-17 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 subdividing a 0.17 acre lot for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 5 the purpose of a battery storage microgrid in an area previously approved for open space, adding 14 units in 2-family homes, replacing 2 large single-family homes with 4 detached cottage-style units, modifying the approved phasing, and other minor amendments, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert noted that she owns property in an O’Brien development. She did not feel that it would influence her judgement of this application. Mr. Gill noted that the main focus of the application is the replacement of buildings which could not previously be allowed because of height limitations but which under the new regulations can be approved. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the potential granting of an extension, Mr. Gill said if there is a deadline, they want to be sure an extension will be granted if there is a delay beyond their control. Members were OK with this. #2. Staff questioned whether to allow the infrastructure to be considered complete if it were eligible for a temporary C of O and subject to standard tests. Ms. Keene said in this case, there is some work not in the applicant’s control, and she asked if it can be treated in the same way as if it were. Ms. Lesko asked what the risks are. Mr. Gillies said the aim is that public infrastructure keep up with the number of homes. The applicant could run out of rocks and not build the road when there is added traffic. There could also be torrential rains. Mr. Kochman said that could be treated as a “seasonal allowance.” Mr. Gill said these are enormous projects of great cost that take more than a year to build. Zoning permits affect people who have purchased homes. He noted they began Leo Lane and had to put up a large bond. They can’t bond for $10,000,000 at one time, and any number of things can delay the start of a phase. This ties up bonding capacity so a new phase can’t begin. There are complicating variables (e.g., they can’t install water mains from November to May). Mr. Kochman said that reasonably falls under “seasonable limitation.” Mr. Gill said that things like concrete, a water main, top soil, landscaping, fall under that limitation. Ms. Mann asked if there are any other situations that affect construction. Mr. Gill said there can be supply chaind delays that are outside of his control. They also can’t do some construction until there are agreements with the city because there is a city right- of-way through the middle of the road, and they can’t get financing from the bank while that right-of-way exists. They have a year to deal with this, but this is the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 6 type of issue that can arise. Mr. Kochman said they can come back if that becomes an issue. He was also OK with “stretching” the seasonal situation. Ms. Mann said seasonability and supply chain issues make sense. #3. and #4. These items were skipped and will be reconsidered if there is an issue. #5. The applicant was asked to calculate and update the buildable area. Mr. Gill said 155 is still the number of units; that is what was approved. Ms. Keene acknowledged the number they had used was an error. Mr. Gill added they just want to add the 14 units back in to get to the 155 number. He believed this was a vested number. They are throwing out the request for the cottage units. He was unclear as to how to recalculate density. #6. The applicant was asked to update the building coverage chart to include those 14 homes and to verify coverage. Mr. Gill said they will do that. #7. The Board was asked to consider whether granting the height waiver is contrary to the purpose of the regulations. Mr. Gill showed a concept of a building. Ms. Keene said the Board can grant the height waiver if there are physical site limitations or if it is more appropriate for the site and conforms with the regulations. Mr. Gill said this is similar to adjacent uses and is a better transition from the adjacent development. 28 feet is allowable, and the maximum waiver they are asking for is 3.6 feet. Actual heights would range from 27.9 feet to 31.6 feet. Members were OK with this waiver. #8. No longer appropriate. #9. The Board was asked to discuss whether the transitions are appropriate. Ms. Keene said this is in regard to the transformer. She showed the plan. Mr. Gill said they have created a landscape plan if GMP builds the battery building. It is his understanding that GMP will get their permits through a different process. It is not a building the O’Brien’s are proposing. Mr. Gill noted the City Council has an offer of dedication for that lot, and GMP will have to go to the Council. By subdividing the lot, Mr. Gill said they are allowing that building to go in. The O’Brien’s will guarantee the landscaping. He added that the lot may always remain in city ownership. Mr. Kochman said carving off that lot compromises the open space requirement. Mr. Gill said they can provide for that as they are still over the requirement. He added that they only thing that would reduce the civic DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 7 space is the City Council deciding to do something else with the land. Ms. Keene stressed that the City has not yet accepted that land. #10. No longer relevant as those buildings are not being done. #11. Staff noted that elevation drawings are needed. Mr. Gill said they have been provided. Ms. Keene noted the plans do not meet the new garage requirements (setback minimum of 8 feet and garage not to exceed 40% of the linear width of the building’s front façade). Mr. Gill noted that Section 13.17 does not apply to buildings on lots greater than 1 acre, and these lots are greater than 1 acre. Ms. Keene said this may be where “alternative compliance” can apply. Mr. Gill read from the regulations regarding “alternative compliance.” He said they believe there are unique site characteristics (e.g., the rear slope, bridging 2 zoning districts). The road will be extended to this new development, so it will be identical to the surrounding area. These are unique homes, some of the lowest priced homes in the plan. He felt they meet the “alternative compliance” standard. Mr. Kochman agreed. #12. Staff asked for a computation of buildable area and civic space. Mr. Gill said they can do this but are hesitant to because of the way this interacts with the previous PUD regarding roadways. He was hesitant to amend vested rights. Ms. Keene said there are no vested rights. Those plans were submitted before there were vested rights. Mr. Gill said they will provide the calculations. #13. Staff asked if an HOA or O’Brien Brothers be willing to retain ownership of Lot 18 (the battery storage lot). Mr. Gill said they would consider that though he thought GMP might want it. If everything fails, it can go to the HOA. #14. The applicant was asked to address DPW comments. Mr. Gill said they will. #15. Regarding the noise level of the battery, Mr. Gill said they are not proposing this, so it is hard to give testimony. He did note that this is a wooded area. Ms. Mann recalled that GMP provided testimony that satisfied the Board. #16. The applicant was asked to provide stormwater management system computations. Mr. Homsted said they will send them. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2024 PAGE 8 #17. The applicant was asked to relocate the batter storage building to 5 feet from the property line instead of 4 feet. Mr. Gill said they can probably do that. This conceptual, and the sketches seem to accommodate a foot. Ms. Keene said this can be a stipulation. Ms. Keene noted the things that will need to be addressed: details of the rec path and stormwater. Open space can be a condition of approval. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SD-24-17 to 6 August 2024. J. Lesko seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 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 9:15 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on July 16, 2024.