Development Review Board

3/18/2021 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Kevin Lumpkin, Chair; Matt Bacewicz, Vice-Chair; David Weissberger; Elsie Goodrich; Kaitlin Hayes City Staff Present: Heather Carrington, Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Andy Rowe, Matt Parisi, Zach Zilius, Chuck Seleen, Chris Snyder, Rob Leuchs, Trinh Pham, Sam Russo Call to Order by: Kevin Lumpkin Meeting Start Time: 6:31 PM Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment Mr. Russo asked if the DRB had any involvement in determining where sidewalks would be located in the City. Mr. Lumpkin indicated that the DRB’s charge was narrow in scope and only included reviews of development proposals as outlined in the City’s land use regulations. IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 5 – 0 Motion by: Mr. Weissberger Second: Mr. Bacewicz Minutes/Notes: Motion to approve the minutes as presented. V. Sketch Plan Review – 32 Malletts Bay Avenue Minor Subdivision Prior to the start of the discussion, Ms. Goodrich indicated she would be recusing herself from the discussion due to a conflict of interest between her employer and the applicant. Ms. Goodrich was removed as a panelist for the discussion. Also, Mr. Weissberger indicated he had a previous working relationship with Mr. Rowe, but do not currently work in any capacity together. The DRB did not have concerns and Mr. Weissberger stayed in the meeting to participate in the discussion. Following the disclosures, Mr. Vorwald introduced the sketch plan for the subdivision of property at 32 Malletts Bay Avenue. He indicated that as a sketch plan, the DRB’s comments were advisory, and would inform the official submission which would include a duly warned public hearing. Mr. Vorwald also provided an overview of the zoning for the property and outlined the standards including lot sizes, setbacks, and buildable areas. Next, Mr. Vorwald introduced the design team that was present. After Mr. Vorwald’s introduction, Mr. Snyder gave an overview of the subdivision. He also provided information on the proposed development that would occur on the property if  hearing. Mr. Vorwald also provided an overview of the zoning for the property and outlined the standards including lot sizes, setbacks, and buildable areas. Next, Mr. Vorwald introduced the design team that was present. After Mr. Vorwald’s introduction, Mr. Snyder gave an overview of the subdivision. He also provided information on the proposed development that would occur on the property if subdivided. He also indicated that work was still being done to finalize the specific language for the proposed easements on the property. Mr. Snyder also requested the DRB consider allowing the applicant to come back with a combined preliminary/final plan for review and approval. Ms. Carrington also provided information from the City’s perspective on the project and the process that has been on-going with City staff and the City Council. Following the presentation, the DRB members asked questions related to parking and easements for the property. Mr. Vorwald indicated that that parking questions would be addressed during the land development process and that no formal applications had been submitted so a formal evaluation has not been done. There were also questions related to the impervious cover and impacts the subdivision would have on existing tenants. Ms. Carrington indicated that outreach has occurred and is on-going with the existing tenants at the O’Brien Community Center to ensure their concerns are understood as the project moves forward. Mr. Lumpkin reiterated the charge of the DRB being limited to the subdivision of the property. Following discussion and questions by the DRB members, Mr. Lumpkin opened the meeting to the public for comments or questions. Several tenants of the O’Brien Community Center were present and commented on concerns related to parking. Additional questions or comments included information about the existing bus stop, pedestrian connections to Malletts Bay Avenue, and future plans for the overall site. Following these questions and discussion, Mr. Lumpkin indicated that deliberations would occur in a closed session after the meeting. With no other questions or comments Mr. Lumpkin thanked those in attendance. VI. Sketch Plan Review – 206 West Canal Street Planned Unit Development Mr. Vorwald provided an overview of the application and indicated this was also a sketch plan review. Mr. Vorwald further discussed the past review of this property by the DRB indicating it was approved for a detached cottage in June of 2020. He provided additional information on future improvements that were planned and why the improvements couldn’t be done without the conversion of the property to a planned unit development (PUD). Mr. Vorwald also indicated that one of the questions for the DRB would be to recommend if the proposal should come back as a preliminary and final plan, or a combined preliminary and final plan. Mr. Parisi provided an overview of the project and indicated his intent was to sell the detached cottage and retain ownership of the two-unit structure on the property. He noted that legal documents for the ownership interest were included, as well as other documents governing the potential common spaces. Mr. Parisi also provided information on the future plans to add a bedroom and bathroom on the first floor of the cottage. He stated that the space already exists and is part of the garage, but would result in approximately 400 square feet of additional living space without reducing the available parking in the garage. Following the introduction and overview of the project, the DRB members asked questions of the applicant. Specific questions related to the intent of the PUD and if this proposal meets the standards. Mr. Vorwald indicated that, since the applicant wanted to add additional square footage to the cottage, the only option was to establish it as a standalone structure, which would be accomplished through the PUD process. Questions were also asked related to additional development potential of the property. Mr. Vorwald indicated that, based on the PUD standards, three more units could be developed, however a new proposal would need to be submitted for that. Mr. Parisi stated he has no intention of adding more units and that the property drops off significantly south of the cottage. Next, members of the DRB asked questions related to the requirement for a variance to the setbacks. Mr. Vorwald indicated that the standards for PUDs require that the rear setback for the zoning district be applied to the entirety of the property. In this case, the required setback would be 15 feet. Based on the location of the existing structures, the two-unit structure would  significantly south of the cottage. Next, members of the DRB asked questions related to the requirement for a variance to the setbacks. Mr. Vorwald indicated that the standards for PUDs require that the rear setback for the zoning district be applied to the entirety of the property. In this case, the required setback would be 15 feet. Based on the location of the existing structures, the two-unit structure would be approximately 7.5 feet from the western property boundary and the detached cottage would be approximately 5 feet from the eastern property. Since the maximum relief from setbacks that could be granted by the DRB through the waiver process is 50%, the reduction of setbacks to 5 feet would require a variance. Following the questions from the DRB, Mr. Lumpkin opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Zilius indicated concern for the conversion noting that the cottage was only 5 feet from his property boundary and, while a fence was installed, the size of the cottage looms over his property and blocks the views. He acknowledged that the PUD would not change this, but worried about the precedent that may be set by using the permitting process for the cottage as a way to have a structure closer to the property boundaries than may otherwise be permitted. After additional discussion with the DRB, the applicant, and the adjacent property owners, Mr. Lumpkin concluded this agenda item and indicated the DRB would discuss any comments in a closed deliberative session. VII. City Updates Mr. Vorwald provided information on the departure of the City Manager and that the City Council had begun the hiring process. Mr. Vorwald also provided updates on past projects that had been reviewed by the DRB. VIII. Other Business Mr. Vorwald indicated that the next meeting would be on April 15th and that a request had been submitted to consider an amendment to an approved PUD for 64 LaFountain Street. He also stated that a second application was anticipated for consideration. IX. Adjourn Motion by: Mr. Bacewicz Second: Ms. Hayes Meeting End Time: 8:10 PM