Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 03/04/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 4 March 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Acting Chair; M. Behr (via telephone), J. Langan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, S. McAllister, S. Dopp, C. Frank, J. Anderson, S. Hochner, O. Hansen, S. Homsted, C. Galipeau, J. Duncan, N. Pion 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Ms. Philibert provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: It was noted that Agenda Item #9 would not be heard at this meeting as there was not a quorum of members present who could hear the item. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: Ms. Dopp asked about a building that appears to be going up on the high end of the Auclair Farm. She didn’t remember a project regarding that building. Ms. Keene said she would look into it. 4. Announcements: No announcements were made. 5. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-20-04 of Scott McAllister to subdivide an existing 1.23 acre parcel developed with a single family home into three lots of 0.63 acres (Lot #1), 0.28 acres (Lat #2) and 0.28 acres (Lot #3) for the purpose of constructing a new single family home on each of Lots 2 and 3, 1430 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Homsted advised that the 2 remaining items have been addressed. They now have a signed TDR option agreement which will be reviewed by the City Attorney. They have provided additional information from the Agency of Natural Resources that show very high well yields. Mr. Homsted said they are fine with the stipulations regarding TDRs. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 2 No issues were raised by the Board of members of the public. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-20-04. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-20-02 of CEA Properties, LLC, to construct a two-story office building totaling 7,200 sq. ft. and a one-story 4,070 sq. ft. veterinary hospital on an existing 3.1 acre lot currently developed with a 7,200 sq. ft. office building and 1,000 sq. ft. storage building, 10 Mansfield View Lane: Mr. Marshall noted that the project had been warned differently than it was currently proposed. Ms. Keene said it would have to be re-warned but the Board could review it, and have a future hearing for public comment. Mr. Marshall showed an overhead of existing conditions and identified the existing buildings and parking lots. He noted that in 2007, a 5-year Master Plan was approved with a similar layout to this. The veterinary use has chosen not to proceed. Mr. Marshall said the biggest change in the plan is the introduction of a more formal common open space area based on Form Based Code standards. He showed the location of this area and noted that it takes advantage of views of Mount Mansfield and Camel’s Hump. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Is the applicant asking for conditional use approval of both buildings? Mr. Marshall said they are. The conditional use is for the use of a cupola. He showed a building concept with a cupola and showed a picture of the existing building, also with a cupola. The conditional use would allow them to add to the building height. Mr. Behr felt the cupola needs to be bigger. He also asked if they have met with the neighbors now that they are building 2 stories. Mr. Marshall said they met with Tim McKenzie. They will ask him to provide a statement to the DRB. b. Mr. Marshall said they already have their preliminary water and wastewater allocations. Ms. Keene said the question is whether they have been held for this long. Mr. Marshall said the will look into that an reallocate if needed. c. Mr. Marshall said they will agree to the stabilization method. d. The issue of the access between buildings being for emergency use only: Ms. Keene said this does not comply with regulations. Mr. Marshall noted that at the time of the easement, the agreement with Eye Laser was the access be for emergency use. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 3 The concern is with cut-through traffic. There is an agreement for a traffic signal, when needed. He suggested this be dealt with when Blackrock comes in for their second phase as there is also concern with traffic from Blackrock and from the eastern part of the development. Ms. Philibert read from the staff recommendation to remove the gates and then re-apply for them at a later stage. Ms. Keene said staff’s idea is “let’s see what happens.” Mr. Langan said he was OK with “kicking the can down the road.” Mr. Behr said this is a classic example of where connectivity is wanted between properties. Normally, the Board would say “build to the property line.” Mr. Behr noted that as proposed, the geometry conforms to the LDRs and that the restriction to emergency vehicles only is the issue. e. Mr. Marshall said they would comply with requests of the Fire Department. f. Mr. Marshall showed where Public Works asked about the rec path alignment. He noted it is “bent” to preserve existing trees. The Board was ok with the alignment as proposed. g. They will comply with comments from the Water Department. h. They will comply with comments from the Stormwater Department. i. Regarding offsite improvements re: stormwater: Mr. Marshall showed 2007 plans and then the current path of stormwater. He clarified no additional improvements are needed any longer. They will clarify this with the stormwater department. j. Whether benches can replace trees as part of the landscape requirement: Mr. Marshall showed the landscape plan including the location of sitting benches and shading trees. Benches will allow for views of the mountains. Members were OK with this. k. They will comply with bicycle parking requirements. l. They will work with staff regarding addresses. No other issues were raised by the Board or the public. Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD-20-02 to 21 April. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 4-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 4 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-19-39 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to demolish the existing structures at 907 Shelburne Road and a portion of an existing service station at 793 Shelburne Road and construct an expanded service station with two additional fueling positions for a total of ten and an associated 4,265 sq. ft. retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: Mr. Hochner said he feels they have a good project and that they got good direction at the last meeting. He hoped they can now get Board support. Mr. Behr stressed that nothing has been “locked down” yet. Ms. Philibert added that the Board’s job is to be sure the project is compliant with the regulations. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Staff continues to recommend the Board review the application but not close the hearing until the hearing on the subdivision is closed. The applicant had no issue with this. b. The Board determined the addition of a fuel pump to be an expansion of a nonconformity. The Board was asked to review the application as if there wasn’t a 5th pump; however, the compliance with several standards would be different. Staff recommends the Board make its decision based on 5 pumps. Mr. Anderson said they were hoping not to need a second application. Mr. Behr said it’s not “just a number.” It involves circulation, lighting, etc. He didn’t see the 5th pump as viable. He asked if this turns out to be the majority opinion, whether the applicant will come back with an application for 4 pumps or is the Board just wasting time reviewing the 5-pump application. Mr. Anderson said in their mind, nothing really changes. He questioned whether the Board wants them to present both a 5 and a 4 pump application. Mr. Behr said the issue for him is that 5 pumps is a non-starter, and why go through the application if this is the case. Mr. Anderson said they need a “sufficient decision” so they can appeal it. They don’t know how to get that without a full application. Members agreed to proceed. c. Staff recommends that the Board find the criteria for parking and internal circulation not to be met. The applicant requested getting legal review and the Board supported that. d. The application should be updated to provide correct dimensions. The applicant agreed to do this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 5 e. The applicant’s statement that VTrans approves the project is incorrect. Staff recommends the Board not allow the evaluation of the proposed driveway configuration to be influenced by the issuance of an LOI. Mr. Anderson said the LOI has been issued. If there are changes they would have to get approval from VTrans. If any changes are made because of issues with the Water Department, those would also need approval. f. There is no evaluation of why the applicant believes safety will be improved enough to allow left turn movements out of the site. There is also no evaluation of roadway capacity or capacity for left turn lanes. Ms. Keene said the Board has the authority to ask for a second technical review; however, the applicant has been unwilling to pay for this. The Board can still request it. Mr. Anderson said they don’t know how big the check is for this. If a price can be negotiated, they are OK with it. Ms. Keene suggested the Board authorize it and see if an agreement can be reached. Members agreed to authorize a second technical review. g. Staff requests that the applicant demonstrate how the connection to the south will work both in terms of topography and in terms of impacts to functionality of the adjoining site. Ms. Keene showed the grading plan. Mr. Galipeau said this will be part of a second site plan application for the project. Members agreed to “let it fall where it will” and not keep the present application open pending the site plan amendment for the adjacent property. Mr. Galipeau said it is at their risk. h. The applicant was OK with offsite mitigation. i. Ms. Frank said the Bike/Ped Committee was pleased with the design of the crosswalk. There is a jog that may have to do with an electrical box. Mr. Galipeau said this is the alignment VTrans approved so the road can be crossed in one full motion, not having people stop halfway. j. Regarding the reconfiguration of the building entry to make it more prominent as it does not meet the criteria: The applicant showed a new concept with the door in the middle of the street side. The walkway is shifted to approach the new door location. Mr. Behr suggested an architectural detail (e.g., awing). Mr. Galipeau said they would have a sign over the door and lights to illuminate the sign as well as the path. Ms. Keene DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 6 noted that only 2 signs per building are allowed. The applicant said they will work to limit it to 2. k. Regarding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Ms. Keene reminded the Board that this is a criteria that should guide their decision. Ms. Portman said the plan will facilitate bike travel to Red Rocks Park. Ms. Portman said it is more consistent than what is now there. l. Staff notes that parking can’t be in front of the building except with certain contingencies. Parking has to be screened, and screening can’t interfere with sight distances. Mr. Galipeau said that parking screening was proposed. He showed a landscape plan. They will listen to any comments from the City Arborist. Mr. Behr questioned whether the “canopy” is a “building” for the purposes of screening. He asked whether a 4-pump plan will have a minimum parking requirement. Ms. Keene said it will not. Mr. Galipeau said parking is very important to them. m. There is a question as to whether the 3 front parking spaces in the tank area are allowed. Mr. Anderson said they feel the 2 spaces where headlights face Queen City Park are OK. They asked for a waiver for the 3 spaces facing the apartment building. Mr. Galipeau said they propose to maintain parking to the north of the building but shift it slightly to the west. They don’t feel those 3 spaces will change the appearance, and they are valuable. Ms. Keene noted there are at least 3 parking spaces between Queen City Park Road and the building. Mr. Galipeau said that parking in front of the building is allowed with certain criteria, and he felt they meet those criteria. Mr. Behr said he had no objection if it is screened. n. Mr. Anderson said they will address the situation on Queen City Park Road. Mr. Galipeau said the question is whether the portion of the parking area overlapping the canopy is counted as “aisle” or as “building.” Ms. Keene said it involves the width of the parking area. If you don’t count under the canopy, they don’t have enough parking area. She added it is up to the applicant to find a solution. Mr. Anderson said he didn’t see anything that says circulation areas can’t be partly under cover. Mr. Behr said the issue is whether that meets the intent of the standard. It’s like looking for a loophole to get around the LDRs. o. The applicant indicated they would provide a rendering of the wall. Mr. Galipeau said they will provide new renderings for the Board to review. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 7 p. Regarding the requirement for 10% interior landscaping and indicating this criterion is met. Mr. Anderson said that if there are 28 contiguous spaces, they have to meet that requirement. They don’t have the 28 contiguous spaces. Members agreed. Mr. Langan said the applicant memo said they would have planters and that would be nice. q. The applicant said they will provide 2-1/2 inch caliper trees. r. Mr. Galipeau said they have added curbs around all plantings. s. Staff feels landscaping is deficient because it is coincident with the location of snow storage and because the applicant hasn’t demonstrated that runoff to the adjacent property will be appropriately treated. Mr. Galipeau said there will be an understanding that if there is a significant snow event, snow will be hauled away. There is now no stormwater treatment. The project will collect and treat all stormwater. They will indicate where snow will be placed on site. Ms. Keene asked that a note be added to the plan that “additional snow will be trucked off.” t. A printed rendering of the view from the attached residential property was provided. Mr. Hochner said this will be an improvement over what is there now. u. Mr. Anderson said they feel they can address the remaining comments of the Stormwater Department. v. Staff asked the applicant to demonstrate that there is adequate circulation for all vehicles including delivery and fire trucks. Mr. Galipeau said the delivery trucks will be smaller. They are still trying to meet with the Fire Chief who wants to see the plans so he can measure with their templates. w. Staff requests that the south driveway be narrowed to a right turn in and out to support reduced pedestrian crossing width and to limit vehicle movements opposing the flow of traffic. Mr. Galipeau said they need the width and that it is important to maintain access at the south curb cut. Mr. Hochner said 95% of exiting traffic goes south. Mr. Galipeau said they want to maintain both ways. He said it would be OK at night to turn left. He felt the width was necessary because of the potential for a pickup truck with a trailer, etc. Mr. Hochner said those vehicles now have to back out. This is DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 8 better. Mr. Behr agreed that left turns would be rare. He did wonder about the width and noted that the width of the access to Hannaford is narrower. Mr. Galipeau said they don’t anticipate delivery vehicles going that way. Ms. Keene read from the Public Works comments that left turn movements should not be allowed as they are unsafe. Mr. Galipeau said it is a state road and the state should determine this. x. The applicant said they will address the remaining comments of the Fire Chief. y. Regarding the possible elimination of housing units, Mr. Anderson suggested this be discussed at a future time. He said they are not proposing to eliminate any housing use. The building being demolished was permitted as a hotel use, and that was never changed. Ms. Portman agreed. Ms. Philibert noted they had also paid rooms and meals tax on that building. z. Possible technical review of proposed lighting plan: Mr. Anderson suggested a 2-step process as there are “mixed signals” regarding more/less spill lighting. They will meet with staff to “negotiate an amount for the review.” Mr. Behr moved to invoke technical review of the lighting plan. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 4-0. aa. Regarding meeting of noise performance standards: Mr. Anderson said they have now provided a noise study. It indicates that any delivery noise is de- minimus to Route 7. Mr. Hochner said they have never had a noise complaint. Mr. Hanson said they get deliveries at various times of day. bb. The applicant will remove signage from the plan as the Board cannot approve signage. cc. The comments from CWD are substantial, and there can be no approval until all of those issues are satisfied. If they are not, Standard #14.07B would not be met. Mr. Galipeau said they have met with CWD several times. There is no project without their blessing as they can’t get a water permit without them. The goal is to get through the “deal breakers,” then work on the civil components. There is a question of the cost of a new line around the building and more. Mr. Pion and Mr. Duncan of CWD indicated they have met with the applicants. The biggest concern is the thrust block under DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 9 Shelburne Road. The main through the property is one of CWD’s main water mains as more than 4.5 million gallons goes through there each day to numerous transmission systems. The sleeve protects the water line. Where the connection is shown is close to the sleeve and needs a very substantial thrust block. CWD also wants further analysis of thrust restraints. They feel the line under Shelburne Rd. will have to be replaced. Mr. Duncan added that they normally don’t do anything like this. If there are issues, they don’t want to compromise the system. He noted that some things in the LDRs are counter to what CWD wants (e.g., placing landscaping over CWD installations). He stressed they need to protect the final product that goes in. Mr. Galipeau noted the cost involved and said they are looking at options. They will work with CWD. Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SP-19-39 of R. L. Vallee until 21 April. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-07 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to consolidate two lots of 0.36 acres and 0.59 acres into one lot for the purpose of constructing an expanded service station and retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: Mr. Galipeau said the purpose is to dissolve the property line between 793 and 907. Staff comments were addressed as follows: a. Preliminary water and wastewater approval has not been obtained. Mr. Galipeau felt this is a site plan issue. He noted that there will actually be a reduction in water and wastewater. Mr. Duncan noted that CWD is South Burlington’s water agent. They assume the site plan has both wholesale and retail water use. Ms. Keene noted these are both site plan and subdivision criteria and need to be submitted. b. Regarding compliance with Fire Chief’s needs: Mr. Galipeau said this is a site plan condition. c. Mr. Anderson said there will be a formal hearing on the site plan. He suggested they back with a subdivision plan on 21 April as well, instead of on March 17th as now scheduled. Ms. Keene said this will have to be voted on at the 17 March meeting as it has already been warned, but the Board was generally OK with the request. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MARCH 2020 PAGE 10 9. Sketch plan application #SD-20-08 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to subdivide five existing lots totaling 85.44 acres, one of which is developed with an existing barn, into seven lots ranging from 0.51 acres (Lot 18) to 37.3 acres (lot 5) for the purpose of transferring ownership and better aligning parcel boundaries with zoning districts, 500 Old Farm Road: This item was postponed to March 17 as there was not a quorum of members who could take action. 10. Minutes of 19 February 2020: Mr. Langan moved to approve the Minutes of 19 February 2020 as written. Ms. Portman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12 Other Business: As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:40 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on April 7, 2020