Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/07/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 January 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, M. Behr (via telephone), D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, D. Kerwin, J. Larkin, S. McClellan, B. Shearer, T. Hess, j. Hodgson, D. Sherman, S. McClellan, D. Grover, B. Nedde, J. Kirk, D. Kerwin, J. Baird, M. Dean, K. Easton, J. Findlay- Shiraras 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Cota 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-19-35 of Donald and Lois Kerwin to subdivide an existing 2 acre parcel developed with a single family home into two parcels of 1.2 acres (Lot #1) and 0.8 acres (Lot #2) for the purpose of constructing a single family home on Lot #2, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall showed the existing home. He also indicated the line for the subdivision. He noted that the plan that City Council approved the Interim Zoning Application was for a 4-lot subdivision, but at this time they are asking for only 2 lots because of the uncertainty of TDRs. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. 51,700 sq. ft. is the correct number. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 Page 2 2. An updated chart was provided to staff. They have substituted the required setback values with “N/A” and would like to consider this a subdivision without a proposed home. Mr. Cota asked why this isn’t a simple subdivision since there is no house being proposed for the second lot. Ms. Keene read from the regulations that a PUD is required. She noted that the original application showed a house on Lot. #2. This plan has removed that house. Mr. Marshall noted that a PUD allows the Board to waive certain limitations that would be appropriate for a large development instead of a small lot having streets on both sides. He noted the Kerwins want to sell their home and want to create the possibility of a home on the other lot when subdivision occurs. Ms. Keene said they can do a 2-lot subdivision with some restrictions on Lot #2. This would be different from just a 2-lot subdivision. Mr. Marshall noted this is the first time they have ever been asked for information on a single-family home at the DRB. That is usually asked for when they apply for a building permit. No home is currently being proposed on the second lot. Ms. Keene said there is precedent for asking for specific house information in a 2-lot subdivision. Mr. Marshall said they have no problem stipulating these things, but they want to demonstrate it when there is an application for a building. 3. In the future, the building will have to comply with height restrictions. 4. Ms. Keene felt the proposal neither supports nor detracts from the standards. Mr. Marshall said the standards are recommended, not required. They will comply with what is required. 5. Addressed in #3. 6. Ms. Keene said the wastewater allocation has been received. 7. Mr. Marshall said the electrical service will come from Hinesburg Road. 8. The width/depth ratio is not met. Ms. Keene said this will have to be met or have a waiver. Mr. Marshall said they prefer the latter. He cited the challenges creating by the existing home. He also noted the applicant’s desire to come back with the 4-lot subdivision. Ms. Keene asked why they don’t do that now. Mr. Marshall said they wanted this as “clean” as possible. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 Page 3 Ms. Keene noted the regulations for TDRs have been revised to comply with the Court decision. Mr. Behr said he was hesitant to do this when it does not comply with what the Council approved under Interim Zoning. There is a question as to whether the Council would have signed off on a 2-lot subdivision if they knew it didn’t meet the width/depth ratio. Ms. Keene said that is not a criteria looked at under Interim Zoning. 9. No house is planned. 10. Regarding the 20-foot front yard setback, Mr. Marshall said there are 2 standards. The first imagines a sidewalk, and the house has to be within 25 feet of the back of the sidewalk (there is no sidewalk in this neighborhood). The second says you can have stoops/porches, etc. inside the setback. The challenge for them is if they apply the 25 feet, they would have a building on the property with no ability for stoops, etc. Mr. Marshall showed the ditch line (which will be reinforced for a culvert). It leaves limited room for a sidewalk. They can set the building within 25 feet of the right-of-way line, and they would be comfortable doing that. Ms. Keene said they could say the front of the building (which would be stoop, porch, etc.) be within 5 feet of the property line. Mr. Sullivan felt waiving the setback requirement makes sense. Mr. Marshall said that would work for them. 11. They will later comply with the placement of a garage. There was no public comment. Ms. Keene noted comments regarding stormwater. Mr. Marshall said they have already made those changes. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-35. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Master Plan sketch plan application #MP-19-01 of John Larkin, Inc., for an initial master plan for an existing planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 60-unit multi-family building with 17,976 sq. ft. commercial space, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building (1000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office, a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive-through services, a bank with drive-through service and a four-story 47 unit residential building. The master plan consists of adding a 93- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 Page 4 room hotel, 134 units of multi-family housing, 14,266 sq. ft. of mixed commercial uses and an open space of passive recreation and dog park, Fayette Road: Ms. Keene noted that a master plan is optional, and applicant is doing one to make things easier in the future for them and for the City. Mr. Larkin provided a brief “walk-through” of the entire project for the benefit of new Board members. He indicated the existing buildings including the strip mall with McDonald’s, the new Larkin Terrace building, the movie theatre and recently purchased land which was added to the PUD. They are proposing a Marriott Inn which would have a pool, restaurant, surface and underground parking. They have secured an egress from VTrans. Phase 3 and 4 will share a large underground parking facility. It would be a mixed use development with fitness center, restaurants, residential, etc. A pedestrian walkway will be terraced toward the lake with patios, etc. Phase 5 will be a higher-end residential building. An area of open space was indicated for use by residents. It would include a dog run, paths, and a natural area. The hope is to complete the 5 phases in 2030. Mr. Larkin said the previously approved studio apartments will be completed before the hotel. They are now trying to get the Williston Road project done first. Staff notes were addressed as follows: 1. The applicant is OK with this. 2. Ms. Keene said the Board will have to consider the entire open spaces and how they are accessed. The applicant was OK with this. 3. The existing buildings will strengthen the entire PUD so that all parts of the PUD are interrelated. 4. Ms. Keene noted that Mr. McClellan has corrected the city’s map so there are no zoning issues. 5. Regarding setback waivers, Mr. McClellan noted the road will one day be a city street and they would want the same waivers for that road as for Shelburne Road. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 Page 5 Mr. Behr asked whether the public road goes out to Shelburne Rd. Mr. McClellan said it does not. It goes straight to the south, to the next property. The east-west segment would remain private. Mr. McClellan said they would also need a waiver for front setback coverage. The Larkin Terrace Building is more than 30% front yard coverage. 6. The applicant will provide accurate calculations for each zoning district (e.g., area, number of units, etc.). Both C1Auto and C1-R15 allow 15 units per acre. Ms. Keene noted that typically you can’t move density from one zone to another, but because the densities are the same, this may be possible in this instance. Ms. Keene also noted a proposed amendment that will allow density to be moved around as well as the possibility of allowing TDRs outside of the Southeast Quadrant. Members were OK with allowing density to shift between districts. 7. The applicant was OK with bringing any change in the collector road to the DRB. 8. The applicant will identify the perimeter and size of the open space area at the next review. 9. The applicant is requesting to use a portion of the landscape budget for other amenities (e.g. benches). This was done for Larkin Terrace. Ms. Keene said if it is in the Master Plan approval, the applicant won’t have to ask for this at each stage. Members had no issue with this as long as the DRB gets to see what is proposed and it is phased. 10. Ms. Keene noted the project will generate 542 trip ends with everything built. But there is some uncertainty as to what could be built (e.g., art studio or medical office?). The applicant wants to add a 70% contingency to the trip budget. Mr. Grover noted that a lot of the 542 will be “building entering,” with people walking from one building to another, and the actual vehicle trips would be 268, with the 75% contingency added to that number. They are concerned that different uses could have different trip generations. Mr. Cota asked if there is a drawback to the 70%. Ms. Keene said there could be too many lanes. The applicant said they don’t want to get there and just want as little surface as possible. 11. The applicant is OK with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 Page 6 12. Regarding elevations, the applicant noted the idea is to “step down” the buildings as you go down the terraces. Buildings will all be 4-story. This will allow for views and will stay within the building codes. 13. The applicant is looking for a way to “lock in” a set of regulations to deal with the possibility of changing regulations as the project proceeds which could result in the loss of waivers, credits, etc. 14. They will show the limits of each phase. 15. Each phase will have communal elements. Public Works comments were also addressed. Mr. McClellan said they have talked with Mr. Rabidoux and explained how they could narrow the pedestrian crossing to address turning radius issues. Mr. Rabidoux is OK with this. Mr. McClellan noted that the islands that appear to be outside the parking lot are actually within the parking area. Mr. Grover noted they’d like to be involved in the decision making for bike lanes on Fayette Road because they’re interested in seeing on-street parking retained. Mr. Shearer said he supports the project 100% but is concerned with traffic. It is worse on Fridays and terrible in the summer. Ms. Keene noted there will eventually be a connection to the road at the Eagles Club. When the property to the south is developed, there will be a requirement to connect there as well. Mr. Shearer noted he has been talking with the DMV about changing the timing of the lights to address bottlenecks that prohibit people from getting out of Holmes Road. He is particularly concerned with customers picking up cars are 5 p.m. Mr. Hess noted a lot of jobs created by this development will be service jobs. He felt it would be good to have some affordable housing so some of those employees won’t have to travel to work. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-36 of John Larkin, Inc., to amend a planned unit development consisting of 210 residential units, a 60-unit multi-family building with 17,976 sq. ft. commercial space, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater building (1000 seats), a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office, a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive-through services, a bank with drive-through service and a four-story, 47-unit residential building. The amendment consists of constructing a 93-room hotel, 1195 Shelburne Rd. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JANUARY 2020 Page 7 The applicant explained that the hotel will tie into Larkin Terrace for parking and circulation. It will have the same elevation, façade and sidewalk as Larkin Terrace. A rendering was shown. Staff comments were addressed as follows: 1. Members had no issue with waivers. 2. Staff suggests possibly connecting the 2-way drive to the north to the parking lot to the north. Mr. McClellan showed the area. He showed existing connections and the route for entering the parking lot. Pavement will be varied with pavers. Ms. Keene suggested talking to the Fire Chief as to how he wants to access the building. 3. A traffic study will be provided at the next stage. 4. There will be a path for hotel guests to access the open space area. Mr. McClellan noted that today the right-of-way for what is being called Reel Road is offset. They are asking to align it properly. Members felt that makes sense. There was no public comment. 8. Minutes: No minutes were provided. 9. Other Business: No other issues were raised. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:55 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on January 22, 2020.