Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2024-11-05 DRB Minutes DRAFT PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 NOVEMBER 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 November 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, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; K. & N. Wright, D. Marshall 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. 5. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-24-03 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately 10.0 acre lot developed with 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD5 NOVEMBER 2024 PAGE 2 homes and an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility into 10 single family home lots ranging from 0.26 acres to 2.05 acres, one single family home lot with an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility on1.52 acres, and one 1.0 acre civic space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1: Staff asked that the Board require the applicant to update the plat and revise the right-of-way to be more typical. Mr. Marshall said they have smoothed the edges of the right-of-way and will update the plat as part of the Preliminary Plat Application. #2. Staff noted the applicant must offer the road as public infrastructure. There must be in irrevocable offer of dedication as part of Phase 2 of the project. Mr. Marshall said that is acceptable to them. Mr. Kochman asked how much of the road will be completed as part of Phase 1. Mr. Marshall showed the existing road and where the remainder of the road will be in Phase 1. He estimated it to be about half of the final road. Mr. Kochman asked what happens if Phase 2 is never built. Ms. Keene said it would be “somewhat awkward,” but the purpose of a master plan is to get a phased approval. She noted this has been done elsewhere, and the Board has allowed the road not to meet city standards until the full master plan is completed. Mr. Marshall said the road is designed to comply with city standards including the turnaround at the end. It meets the design requirements. What is not compliant deals with the upgraded water main and sidewalk, but what they have will support both of those. Ms. Lesko asked if there is a condition the Board can place that would bring this into compliance in the future. Ms. Keene said there is not. Mr. Behr said he OK for Phase 1, but asked what happens at the end of Phase 2. Mr. Marshall said they would make the final connection to the private roadway. Mr. Behr said he is comfortable with what they have. Ms. Philibert suggested not closing the hearing until they can close both the master plan and the Preliminary Plat together. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD5 NOVEMBER 2024 PAGE 3 Mr. Moscatelli moved to conclude the review of MP-24-03. Ms. Lesko seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-24-08 of WGM Associates for phase one of a concurrent master plan for a development consisting of 11 single family homes and an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility. The phase consists of the creation of 7 lots, 3 containing existing single family homes, 2 to contain new homes, one to contain an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility and hew home, and one civic space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The Board was asked to consider the impact of delaying improvements and whether to approve this. Mr. Marshall said there are a number of alternative compliance requests. It also means the city won’t get 100% of the new road on day1. All the improvements will have to be in place for Phase 2. Ms. Philibert asked if this isn’t at the applicant’s risk. Ms. Keene said “yes and no.” She explained that this property will be zoned Commercial in the future. When this plan expires, the cost of the road could fall on a residential or commercial entity and could be new owners. She added that there are several of these in the city. Mr. Kochman said it is a potential “non-compliance,” and he didn’t see how that could be OK. Mr. Behr asked whether Phase 1 would be allowed without Phase 2. Ms. Keene said it would not. Mr. Johnston asked if they are supposed to view these applications as if the later phases don’t happen. Ms. Keene said that is a good question as the Board will be seeing more future plans that are “very fuzzy” because of the requirement to show a plan 10 years out (e.g., a plan from the Airport). Mr. Moscatelli asked the applicant how they will handle firefighting. Mr. Wright said the houses will be sprinklered as required by the Fire Department. Mr. Marshall explained that normally a 2-inch service is used. It knocks a fire down enough to save lives. It is a domestic design. He added that there is a significant grade change that allows them to overcome the water pressure issue and allows them to use a 1-1/2 inch line. This has been done in conjunction with the Water Department. For the future houses, there will be an 8-inch line. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD5 NOVEMBER 2024 PAGE 4 #2. The plans should be modified to reply to the questions of the Water Department. Mr. Marshall said they are fine with this. #3. Already covered. #4. The applicant was asked to reply to comments of the Stormwater Department. Mr. Marshall said they will do this. #5. Staff questioned whether the solar requirement was met with the existing ground array. Mr. Wright said they have not had to buy power for 7 years and are actually providing power back to GMP. This will continue with the project, and the system will be expanded. He would just have to buy more panels. Members agreed that this met the intent of the requirement. #6. Staff questioned whether the criteria allow the conversion of lawn to garden. Mr. Wright said it is now a lawn. This is not wetland but wetland buffer.. They might like to do some kind of garden. Ms. Keene read from the regulations as to what is allowed and said she could go either way on the garden proposal. Mr. Kochman said the question is whether it meets the intent of the regulations. Ms. Philibert said she couldn’t imagine a garden or trees would compromise the wetland. Mr. Johnston asked if they could limit a garden due to potential runoff into the wetland. Ms. Keene said the wetland buffer is only 10% of the civic space area. She suggested saying “lawn or more vegetative lawn.” Mr. Johnston suggested adding that it will not increase runoff or erosion into the wetland. Members were OK with this. #7. The applicant was asked to address the comments of the City Arborist at Final Plat. Mr. Marshall said they will do so. #8. The applicant was asked to provide documentation of existing access at Final Plat. Mr. Marshall said they will do so. He noted that utilities will be on a utility parcel with access to the utility companies. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Moscatelli moved to close MP24-03 and SD24-08. Seconded by J. Lesko . Motion passed unanimously. 7. Minutes of 1 October 2024 and 15 October 2024: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD5 NOVEMBER 2024 PAGE 5 Ms. Lesko moved to approve the Minutes of 1 and 15 October 2024 as written. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Ms. Philibert abstaining. 8. Other Business: Ms. Keene drew attention to the 2025 DRB calendar. She noted there will be only 2 days (President’s Day and Labor Day) when DRB meetings will be moved to Wednesday night due to the City Council meeting on Tuesday night. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:02 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on _________________________.