Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/04/2019DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 June 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. O’Rourke, D. Crawford, P. O’Leary, T. Cairns, R. Kielman, R. Gaulin, P. Kahn, D. Seff, S. Dopp, C. Peters, C. Miller, R. Schmucker, R. Greco, C. Montgomery, B. Bartlett, R. Brinckerhoff, A. Easton, R. Rushford, W. & K. Hays, B. Balon, J. Palmer, A. Shields, B. Gerlack, P. Ziporyn, other members of the public. 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. Final Plat Application #SD-19-15 of Robert Gaulin to subdivide a 0.57 acre parcel into two lots for the purpose of construction of a new single family residence, 400 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Gaulin said they plan to subdivide his parents’ property. They will put up a cape style single family home on the second lot. It will have a porch in front. No issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-15. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2019 PAGE 2 6. Site Plan Application #SP-19-13 of the City of South Burlington to amend a previously approved plan for a recreational complex. The amendment consists of constructing an 8,900 sq. ft. building addition to an indoor recreation facility between the two wings of the existing building, and associated stormwater and site improvements, 600 Swift Street: Mr. Kielman noted that the 2 skating rinks are now linked by a “slender thread.” They have been hoping to create a new entry between them, and they now have a plan to do that. They will be adding some administrative offices, larger cafeteria, and 2 new locker rooms as well. The connection will be a one-story structure. On the outside, there will be a small pull-off on the connector drive. The sidewalk will go from the current door all around to the rear. There will also be a small gravel wetland to treat stormwater as well as additional trees, shrubs and a rain garden. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Materials will consist of concrete/concrete block. They are still working on the selection and finishes. Mr. Kielman showed samples. They are considering a smaller scale horizontal siding of a silvery color to contrast with the existing green. The building will have a flat roof. Mr. Kielman also showed artist’s renderings. b. Staff questioned whether the sidewalk could be connected between the 2 northern- most entrances. Mr. Kielman said the 2 rink elevations are 6-1/2 ft. different. The challenge would be a 4-foot grade change, and there would have to be stairs involved which could be an issue for the disabled athletes who play there. The smaller sidewalk is mostly for the service entrance for deliveries. Members didn’t feel the connection was necessary. c. Regarding staff’s request that parking not be assigned, Mr. Kielman said that has never been the case. d. Regarding landscaping, Ms. Keene said the Board can provide relief if the standards of 13.06 are met, which they are not. She asked that the applicant come closer to meeting those standards before allowing amenities other than landscaping. Mr. Kochman asked why they do not require full compliance. Ms. Keene said because the applicant is not affecting areas that are non-compliant. She suggested some perimeter shade trees to the north which would not require removal of any pavement. The applicant noted the solar array to the north and said they do not DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2019 PAGE 3 want to throw any shade on those panels. The applicant said they would find a place for a few more trees to meet staff’s request. e. The City Arborist recommends something other than sugar maples. Mr. Kielman suggested the Arborist visit the site with the applicant. f. Snow storage will be added to the plan. g. There will be bike racks near the front door. h. The applicant did not feel any addition waste water flow will be required. i. Signage will be removed from the plan. Mr. Kielman then showed a floor plan which will include a viewing area for rink #2 in addition to administrative offices, locker rooms, cafeteria/kitchen and storage. Mr. Crawford said that the access road creates issues because the rinks are so successful. He appreciated the attention to trees. Mr. Cairns noted that the rinks were built in 1995 and 2001. As the park has developed, there has been pressure on how they operate. They now have to get to rink #2 by going through #1. The problem arises when both are in use at the same time. The central entrance will allow people to go to either rink and will solve the problem of how to charge people. Mr. Cairns added that the maintenance of the trees is provided by the city. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-19-13 to 2 July 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-18-01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD- 18-29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on 2 lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two-family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.0 acres on-site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off-site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2019 PAGE 4 Messrs. Wilking and Sullivan recused themselves due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota served as Chair for this application. Mr. O’Leary said they have gone back to the original phasing plan that was approved. He noted there was a question regarding the multi-family units that face Dorset St. These units have been relocated so there is now a minimum of 20 feet from the future Dorset St. right-of-way. Ms. Keene showed the building envelopes. Two of the duplexes have issues where they are very close to the area where the regulations of the NRP would apply. The applicant is willing to angle those homes to create more space. Mr. O’Leary said they will also put in a split rail fence to delineate the property limits. Mr. Behr felt this was pushing too much to fit the 4 units into this location. Mr. Kahn said they could move units 90 and 91 to the north and redesign units 88 and 89. Ms. Smith recalled that the applicant had earlier talked about boulders behind these units. Mr. Kahn said they prefer boulders because they are easier to maintain. The developer and Board were OK with a minimum 10-foot setback for these two units. They also agreed to removal of the building envelope lines from the multi-family units. Public input was then accepted. Ms. Keene noted receipt of written comments which Mr. Cota enumerated. Ms. Peters – Questioned why, if the DRB is there to enforce the rules, they are reviewing a project with TDRs which have been found to be illegal. Mr. Kochman said it is up to the developer to consider that. The city has made the decision to follow its own regulations while the case is in appeal. Ms. Miller – Noted that the regulations required protection of existing natural resources and that primary conservation areas are off limits for development. She didn’t understand why those rules are not being followed. Mr. Schmucker – Was disappointed at the “erosion of land use promises.” They had been told the Southeast Quadrant was for “large lot development” only. Ms. Greco – Noted that studies done for the city outlined natural communities in this exact area and recommended these be protected. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2019 PAGE 5 Mr. Seff - Spoke to the 2 issues of TDRs and the primary conservation area and also questioned whether the Board has the jurisdiction to hear this application. He said the Court’s decision regarding TDRs is the law unless/until it is reversed by the Supreme Court. He didn’t feel the Board had the right to hear an application that includes TDRs. He also cited the “primary conservation area” as the “elephant in the room.” He noted the applicant denies a large portion of the project is in the primary conservation area. He asked the Board’s view on this. Ms. Dopp – Noted that this field has been a lake most of the spring. Areas on either side are spongy. She said she wouldn’t buy a house there. Mr. Kochman said he feels Mr. Seff is wrong regarding TDRs. They are being used at the developer’s risk. He agreed with Mr. Seff regarding the conservation area. Mr. Behr agreed with Mr. Kochman regarding the TDR process. Mr. Miller noted that the maps are explicitly not trustworthy. Maps 7 and 8 need to be re- drawn every time there is an application based on field mapping. Mr. Cota added that the Board has to rely on field mapping. There are no lot lines shown on map #7. He also noted that the applicant has been made aware of the TDR risk. Mr. Kochman then moved to close MP-18-01 and SD-18-29. Mr. Miller seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Wilking rejoined the Board, and Mr. Miller resumed the Chair. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-19-11 of Edward G. Hoehn III, to renew a condition of a previous subdivision approval which required a zoning permit to be obtained within six months, 1700 Dorset Street: Mr. O’Rourke said the applicant felt the condition of approval had been met. Staff has said that one condition was not met and needs to be renewed. No issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-19-11. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-19-12 of Mary Jo Capotrio to renew a condition of a previous subdivision approval which required a zoning permit be obtained within six months, 1408 Hinesburg Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2019 PAGE 6 Ms. Keene noted the same situation applies to this application as to the previous one. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-19-12. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-16 of Snyder Braverman Development Properties, LLC, to subdivide an existing 21.74 acre lot into five lots of 0.42 acres (Lot M2), 1.89 acres (Lot M1), 1.35 acres (Garden Street), 5.86 acres (Lot N) and 12.22 acres (Lot L), for the purpose of constructing a project south of Garden Street on Lots M1 and M2 which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 0 Market Street: Ms. Keene noted the applicant has requested a continuance. She suggested 2 July. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-19-16 to 2 July 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Other Business: As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:24 p.m. These minutes were approved on July 2, 2019