Development Review Board

10/19/2023 - Minutes I. Call to Order Members Present: Matt Bacewicz, Chair; Elsie Goodrich, Secretary; Aaron Guyette; David Weissberger; Jordan Matte; Emily Morse City Staff Present: Eric Vorwald Guests Present: Cory Irish, Antonio Federico-Coppola, Gina Buchanon, Diane Layne, Denis Hudon, Don Welch, Eric Pauquette, Greg Dixon, Steven Ploesser (on-line), Nathaniel Eisen (on- line) Call to Order by: Matt Bacewicz Meeting Start Time: 6:31 PM Minutes Recorded by: Eric Vorwald II. Changes to the Agenda None III. Public Comment None IV. Approve Previous Meeting Minutes Decision: 4 – 0 – 1 Motion by: Mr. Matte Second: Ms. Morse Minutes/Notes: Mr. Matte made a motion that was seconded by Ms. Morse to approve the July 20, 2023 minutes as presented. Ms. Goodrich abstained as not being present at the meeting. V. Public Hearing on Conditional Use Request – 67 Union Street At 6:34 PM Ms. Goodrich made a motion that was seconded by Mr. Matte to open a public hearing on all three matters before the board. All were in favor. With that, a public hearing was opened. Mr. Vorwald indicated that Ms. Morse had a conflict so she would be recusing herself from this discussion and deliberation. Ms. Morse exited the room. At this time, Mr. Vorwald provided an overview of the application. He indicated that this was a pre-existing non-conforming structure. As such, it could undergo changes through review and approval of the Development Review Board under the conditional use provisions. Mr. Bacewicz swore in those persons looking to provide testimony on this matter. Mr. Welch, representing the applicant provided an overview of the project. He indicated there were two dwelling units that were previously converted to office space. This application would change these spaces back to dwelling units. No other changes were proposed with the exception of  Board under the conditional use provisions. Mr. Bacewicz swore in those persons looking to provide testimony on this matter. Mr. Welch, representing the applicant provided an overview of the project. He indicated there were two dwelling units that were previously converted to office space. This application would change these spaces back to dwelling units. No other changes were proposed with the exception of exterior windows. The DRB asked questions related to water and wastewater capacity; possible impacts to traffic; and similar questions. Mr. Welch indicated that traffic may go down since there will not be employees or clients coming and going from the space as it will be residential. Following this discussion, Mr. Bacewicz asked if there were any comments or questions from those present. No additional comments were offered. With that, Mr. Bacewicz thanked the applicant and informed him that deliberations may take place following the meeting. Mr. Vorwald provided the applicant with the exhibit list for this matter and stated that the exhibits would be included with the formal record for this matter. This discussion concluded at 6:47 PM. VI. Public Hearing on Conditional Use Request – 133 Elm Street At 6:48 PM Mr. Bacewicz opened testimony on the conditional use request for 133 Elm Street. Mr. Vorwald indicated that Ms. Goodrich had a conflict and be recusing herself from this discussion and deliberation. While Ms. Goodrich was exiting the room Mr. Vorwald provided an overview of the application. He indicated that the proposed use, as described in the application, would be categorized as commercial recreation and entertainment per the City’s Unified Land Use and Development Regulations. He noted that this use was considered conditional for this zoning district. Following Mr. Vorwald’s introduction, Mr. Bacewicz swore in those persons interested in providing testimony on this matter. Mr. Federico-Coppola provided an overview of the proposed use and stated that this would be a semi-private gym/training facility. He stated that there would be approximately 3 to 4 classes per day, Monday thru Thursday from approximately 4:00 PM until 8:00 PM; and classes on Sunday mornings only. He indicated that classes would include approximately 10 to 12 students aged 5 to 18. Next, Mr. Federico-Coppola provided an overview of the space and changes that would be proposed. He indicated the majority of the space would remain unchanged and only minor alterations would be proposed, such as removing the ceiling tiles to raise the interior clear height. The Board discussed access to the space and the relationship to other spaces that were recently approved by the Board including a commercial catering kitchen. The applicant provided information on this. The Board asked several questions related to possible noise, traffic, and future plans for possible expansion of the space. Mr. Federico-Coppola provided information related to these questions and indicated that, while there would be music playing it would be low volume since the intent would be to interact with the students and provide direct coaching therefore communication was necessary. There was also discussion about whether or not Winooski students were involved at this time and possible concerns about pedestrian access from Elm Street. Finally, the board asked about ADA accessibility to the space and how that may be addressed. Mr. Vorwald noted that this would be reviewed with the building permitting for any needed improvements or upgrades. Following the discussion with the Board, Mr. Bacewicz invited members of the public to present testimony. Mr. Hudin asked questions about possible noise and traffic. He indicated that the applicant had addressed most of the questions he had, but reiterated that this was a concern for him and his neighbors. Next, Mr. Ploesser stated concerns related to traffic, pedestrian access, and noise. He also referenced comments that were submitted in writing on this matter that identified other concerns related to this property in general. Mr. Vorwald stated that Mr. Ploesser’s written comments would be entered into the record. After this discussion, Mr. Bacewicz asked if there were any other comments or questions from those present. No additional comments were offered. With that, Mr. Bacewicz thanked the applicant and informed him that deliberations may take place following the meeting. Mr. Vorwald  and noise. He also referenced comments that were submitted in writing on this matter that identified other concerns related to this property in general. Mr. Vorwald stated that Mr. Ploesser’s written comments would be entered into the record. After this discussion, Mr. Bacewicz asked if there were any other comments or questions from those present. No additional comments were offered. With that, Mr. Bacewicz thanked the applicant and informed him that deliberations may take place following the meeting. Mr. Vorwald provided the applicant with the exhibit list for this matter and stated that the exhibits would be included with the formal record for this matter. This discussion concluded at 7:22 PM. VII. Public Hearing on Final Planned Unit Development – 205 West Allen Street At 7:23 PM Mr. Bacewicz opened testimony on the Planned Unit Development for 205 West Allen Street. Mr. Vorwald provided an overview of the application. He indicated that this project was previously reviewed in November of 2022 as a sketch plan and again in June of 2023 as a preliminary plan. He stated that tonight’s hearing was for the final plan. He also stated that, due to comments from the Winooski Fire Department, the applicant was requesting a waiver to the western sideyard setback. The purpose of this was to increase the size of the access drive thereby pushing the western building closer to the property boundary. Following this information, Mr. Dixon provided additional information on the project and the progress that had been made. He highlighted changes that were considered or included based on the information from the DRB’s preliminary plan decision. Regarding the waiver request, Mr. Dixon indicated that the setback would remain at approximately 10.5 feet, which is greater than what is required in this zoning district if the property were to be developed in a traditional manner. He also stated that the intent was to condominiumize the project. Because of this, the applicant wanted to keep all of the dwellings as similar in size as possible to create consistency in percentages of property levels for future owners and reduce one owner having more control than the others. The Board asked several additional questions related to design of the new dwellings and the proposed fence. Mr. Dixon referred to a detail in the plan set for the fence and stated that it would be used on the east, west, and north property boundaries. Finally, the Board confirmed that the concerns from the adjacent property owner regarding landscaping had been addressed. Mr. Dixon indicated that it had been. After this discussion, Mr. Bacewicz asked if there were any other comments or questions from those present. No additional comments were offered. With that, Mr. Bacewicz thanked the applicant and informed him that deliberations may take place following the meeting. With no other hearings, Ms. Morse made a motion that was seconded by Ms. Goodrich to close the public hearings. All were in favor and the hearings were closed at 7:41 PM. VIII. City Updates Mr. Vorwald provided updates on several proposed land development projects and several court cases involving land development projects. IX. Other Business Mr. Vorwald stated that the next meeting, if necessary, would be on November 16 th . He also noted that the December meeting was scheduled for the 21 st , which may conflict with holiday schedules. He asked that the board provide information on their availability for this meeting if one was needed. He stated that he would send an email to solicit this information at a future date. X. Adjourn Motion by: Mr. Weissberger Second: Mr. Matte X. Adjourn Motion by: Mr. Weissberger Second: Mr. Matte Meeting End Time: 7:47 PM