Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/21/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 April 2020, at 7:00 p.m., via remote participation MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, B. Sullivan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Eastman, B. Sirvis, D. Reed, J. Stout, L. Lackey, D. Roy, C. Orben, B. Cairns, J. Desautels, S. Vallee, S. Hochner, C. Mack, C. Galipeau, J. Owens, J. Anderson, L. Thayer, A. Torrizo; C. Minadeo; D. Roy; J. Bellavance; M. Collins; S. Ploesser 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Mr. Cota asked that Announcements be moved to item #2 and that the Minutes be considered prior to item #5. 2. Announcements: Mr. Cota noted that this meeting is being recorded and can be re-watched. He asked members of the public to sign the virtual sign-in sheet. Members of the public can also send in written comments. Mr. Cota noted receipt of an email from the City Manager conveying the sentiment of the City Council from their meeting last night. Mr. Cota assured the City Manager and City Council that their concerns are being addressed. This is how the Vermont Legislature is conducting business during the pandemic. City staff is working hard to reach out to interested parties and is opening new means of participation which members of the public may want to continue even when the current emergency situation is over. Mr. Cota urged both those with applications pending and members of the public to be patient with what is a slow, careful process. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: Mr. Cota reminded the public that written comments will be accepted. 4. Minutes of 7 April 2020: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 7 April 2020 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 2 5. Continued Preliminary and final plat application #SD-20-02 of CEA Properties, LLC, to construct two 2-story office buildings of 7,200 sq. ft. each 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. Cota advised that the applicant has asked for a continuation for a month. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-20-02 until 2 June 2020. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-12 of Heritage Aviation, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 24,674 sq. ft. addition to an existing 17,660 sq. ft. hangar, reconfiguring the adjacent parking area, and related site improvements, 1130 Airport Drive: Mr. Cota explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Reed said the goal of the project is to expand the operations of Airport maintenance at the south end of the property. They will be formalizing the parking that is there and eliminating some of it. They will treat existing and new runoff with underground chambers. Mr. Stout said that Heritage Aviation is a Part 145 Maintenance Repair Station. They refuel private jets and also do de-icing there. He also noted that one of the goals of the project is to make the building attractive from the street. Mr. Roy showed building elevations. They will match the elevation of the existing building and carry it west 100 feet. The addition will be one story on the west side of the building and will serve administrative use and have an entrance for the public. There will be different color panels on the building. It will match the height of the existing hangar. The majority of the building will carry through the finishes that are there with the exception of the portion that faces the road which will be upgraded. Mr. Roy indicated where the door will be on the north side. The entire west side will be lawn up to the building with no parking there. Ms. Orben noted that where the building fronts Airport Drive there are now 25 mostly deciduous trees. They are envisioning shade trees all along Airport Drive. This plan will add 7 shade trees to fill in the gaps. These will somewhat obscure the building as well. There will also DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 3 be 2 additional islands constructed with shade trees and an entry plaza. There will be a planting area near the loading dock and one on the west face of the building. There will be a concrete walkway and planting bed to separate from the parking on the north side and ornamental grasses on the west side. At the southwest corner, there will be an employee terrace with picnic benches, a planting bed and a shade tree. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: . Ms. Keene noted that traditionally the Board has asked for only lot coverage since lot coverage is only 34% and the maximum allowable building coverage is 30%. Members were OK with that. . Re: height calculation method: Mr. Reed said the new roof will be about 8 inches higher with a pitch equal to what is there today. Staff and members had no issue if the pitch remains the same. . Staff recommends a combination of materials to enhance aesthetics. Mr. Roy said much of the building will be the same aesthetic as what is there today. The addition is single story with more windows. They are eliminating some parking and drive lanes and adding landscaping. The western part of the building will be a different color to differentiate it from the hangar. Mr. Wilking felt this was an improvement in many ways, but he noted that the mass is being brought closer to the street so it will look larger. He had no issue with that. He asked if the passenger area to the north is staying. Mr. Roy said the building to the north houses the crew for the helicopter. There will be no changes to that. He added that the western façade will be 130 feet from the street edge. Mr. Behr felt the closeness to the street will be mitigated by increased design and landscaping. Mr. Sullivan said in the context of an airport, he felt this was appropriate. . Re: undergrounding of utilities – Mr. Reed said all new utilities are proposed underground. Mr. Roy said they are not opening any pavement in the area where there are overhead lighting wires, and they are trying not to disturb that area. Members were inclined not to require existing utilities to be underground. Mr. Wilking said that when the parking area is redone in a few years, it would make sense to underground those utilities then. . Regarding landscaping: Ms. Orben said that regarding the landscape budget there is a Master Plan in the works. It looks like the entire landscape budget for this project will be spent on site as there are gaps to fill in on this property. She said they could possibly add more islands at the edge of the parking area. Mr. Behr said as this is a major redevelopment of this DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 4 site, he would prefer to see the landscape island requirement met, if possible. They are already close to meeting it. Mr. Lackey thanked the DRB for continuing the process as it will lead to lots of jobs in the coming years. No other issues were raised by the Board or the public. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-13 of Bacon Street Properties, LLC, to consolidate an existing 0.48 acre lot and an existing 0.2 acre lot into one lot and construct a two and a half story building of 12,000 sq. ft. to be used as bank, restaurant and general office, 510 Shelburne Street: Mr. Cota explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Cairns said that the owner of the property, Alliance Energy is not part of the application. The project will combine 2 lots into 1 so that lot can be developed into a new mixed-use building. The site previously had a gas station and auto repair business. The underground tanks have been removed. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: . Re: coverages – Coverages will decrease and they will not be at the maximum. Ms. Desautels said they are developing a site plan package, and they didn’t feel they would have an issue with compliance. They would like to slightly increase the impervious coverage along Bacon Street. They were under the assumption that they were in the Urban Design Overlay District which would allow the 20-foot setback. Ms. Keene said the DRB could interpret that this is in the Urban Design Overlay District; however, there are certain requirements that go along with that including glazing, entrances, etc. The other option is to request coverage as a PUD to waive the setbacks; however, the Board can request other improvements to compensate. Ms. Desautels said they did feel this should be in the Urban Design Overlay District, and they are prepared to meet the additional requirements. Mr. Wilking said this building reminds him of the Pizzagalli building nearby, and he has no issue with the 20-foot setback. Mr. Behr agreed and said he wants the building to have good connectivity to the street. Mr. Sullivan was OK with the 20-foot setback. . The applicant agreed to comply with glazing standards. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 5 . Regarding the traffic budget, Ms. Desautels said they are finalizing a traffic memo. They are under the budget for allowable trips. Currently the site has 112 trips, and they are proposing 105 trips. Ms. Keene said staff will confirm this. . The applicant said that at this time they are not proposing a PUD. . Regarding access, staff feels the alterations are a significant improvement. Mr. Cairns said they are closing 2 curb cuts. He showed the points of entrance. Bacon St. will be the ingress and egress with an “entrance only” from Shelburne Road. Ms. Desautels showed pictures of the current conditions with a wide, open uncontrolled access. Mr. Cairns said there will be 2 entrances to the building, and there will be a pass-through from Walgreens to the back parking lot. Mr. Wilking said this is a vast improvement. . Ms. Desautels said they understand the wastewater requirements. . The applicant will have to comply with the regulations regarding relationship to existing buildings and roads. Mr. Cairns said they envision a 2-1/2 story brick building with stone façade and large windows. There will be a front patio on the west side. It would be a “modern factory-looking building.” They should have a rendering for the next meeting. There is interest in the ground floor from a bank and restaurant. Floors 2 & 3 will be offices. Mr. Behr asked that the look be kept somewhat traditional as this is a gateway to South Burlington. Mr. Cairns said “definitely.” . Regarding screening to the east, Ms. Desautels said there are mature trees that may provide screening between the residential and commercial buildings. They will come in with a full landscape plan of what is existing and what is proposed. Mr. Cairns said Eric Farrell has seen a preliminary plan which is very similar to this. . Ms. Desautels said they will provide calculations for interior landscaping, snow storage, etc. . They will provide cut sheets for exterior lighting at the next phase. Members were pleased with the proposed restaurant use and also felt this was a good infill project. Ms. Keene said any public comments that are received will be forwarded to the applicant. Mr. Cota reminded the public that they can submit comments in writing. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 6 8. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-19-31 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, 703 and 907 Shelburne Road; and 9. 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 703 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: Messrs. Cota and Sullivan recused themselves due to a conflict of interest. There were no staff comments on the Final Plat Application. Members addressed staff comments on the Site Plan as follows: . The hearing will not be complete until the Final Plat hearing is closed. . The applicant’s statement that VTrans has approved the project is not correct, and the DRB should not be influenced by this. Ms. Keene said the Board is not obligated to accept another evaluation of the proposed driveway. The applicants said they understand this. . Regarding safety concerns of the “in and out” north curb cut – Mr. Galipeau said they met with VTrans which issued the LOI. The State has no issues with the curb cut. Ms. Keene said this issue is with the northern curb cut which the applicant says the striping will ensure safety. Mr. Galipeau noted that VTrans asked for a “no left turn” sign which they have added. Mr. Mack said there is not much they can do at that site. The State won’t allow a median there, and signs are the best way, but it will be very challenging to get people to understand. There also can’t be an angled curb cut because of truck entrances. Mr. Behr said he would want “Right Turn Only” signs. He felt people would use the other access/egress as a “learned behavior” if there is signage. Members said they would appreciate anything that would prevent left turns from the northernmost curb cut. . Regarding the southern curb cut – Ms. Keene noted that a left turn is shown from this curb cut. Staff suggested having a right turn in and out only to support reduced pedestrian crossing width and to limit vehicle movements opposing the flow of traffic. This would also reduce the front yard coverage. Staff also recommends narrowing the curb cut. Mr. Galipeau said it is a standard approved curb cut which the State allows. They feel it is the safest to go in and out. Mr. Mack said the Traffic Impact Study revealed no safety concern and that there have been only rear-end crashes in the past which has no relationship to left-turning traffic. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 7 . Regarding a sidewalk to connect to the Tire Warehouse – Mr. Galipeau asked where it would go on the Tire Warehouse parcel. Ms. Keene suggested striping. She also indicated where to find the information in the LDRs. Mr. Galipeau suggested that the existing sidewalk would be the safest path. Mr. Mack said it is not good to route pedestrians through the property when there is already a sidewalk. He also noted that it can be a separate path or a striped lane. Mr. Behr said he agrees with Mr. Mack that the sidewalk on Shelburne Road is the connection to the Tire Warehouse; but this LDR is a “must” not a “should.” Ms. Philibert said she isn’t sure “double-dipping” makes sense. Other members had no issue with considering the Shelburne Rd. sidewalk to be the pedestrian walk to and from the Tire Warehouse. . Revisiting the number of trips requested for offsite mitigation now that the number is established at 139 trips. Ms. Keene said there is a question of “other improvements” to reduce the number and whether these improvements are worth the 139 extra trips. Mr. Behr asked how the DRB can evaluate that. Mr. Mack noted that 139 is different from the Technical Review which didn’t give credit for the traffic through the Hannaford lot. He added that the land use is not changing and that this is a cleaner project. He cited the 3 off-site mitigation items and that the whole site is being cleaned up. VTrans is replacing signals along the whole corridor to maximize the capacity of the roadway. Mr. Behr asked if there is collaboration that Datillio is reducing their pumps and narrowing the curb cut. Mr. Vallee said he has an agreement. Mr. Behr asked if it has been submitted. Mr. Vallee said he doesn’t usually do that. He added that he would agree to a condition that the 2 pumps will be eliminated and the curb cut narrowed. Mr. Anderson noted that the ordinance does not have a means of quantifying improvements. Mr. Mack added that the Bike/Ped Committee supports the new, safer crossing. . Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to reconfigure the proposed sidewalk at the west end of the crosswalk by replacing and expanding the final section of pavement to reduce the angle required of bicycles using the crossing shown on an accompanying diagram. Mr. Galipeau said they have no problem with that, but it is probably safer if there is a bike dismount there. Mr. Mack thought bicycles will probably stop there anyway. . Improve the front entrance to the building to better meet the criteria. Mr. Behr said what is currently proposed doesn’t come close to making the building look “fronted and centered” on Shelburne Road. The plan looks like it is centered on the pumps. Ms. Philibert agreed. The eye goes right to the setback area, and that doesn’t accomplish what the Board wants to accomplish. Mr. Behr said it doesn’t meet the regulations. Mr. Wilking agreed. Mr. Vallee said they’ll take another stab at it and come back with something more substantial. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 8 . Regarding parking in front as seen from Queen City Park – Mr. Wilking said that due to the pitch up to these spaces, they are already screened from Queen City Park Rd. Mr. Behr agreed. . The same issue as seen from Shelburne Road – Staff feels this could be addressed by increasing the width of the building or some other solution. Mr. Wilking said if the building is turned to face Shelburne Rd. and was wider rather than deeper, the problem would disappear. Mr. Galipeau said the width along Shelburne Rd. is what it needs to be. Ms. Keene said there was a misinterpretation of the regulations. If you project up against the front lot line, that is the width of the building. The width of the parking has to be 50% less than that, and this plan doesn’t meet that. She read from the regulations. Mr. Behr noted there is 99 feet for the building, and parking is at least 75 feet. That is well over the 50%. Mr. Vallee said he is not going to redesign the site. They have been to 7 meetings. Had they known this 7 meetings ago, it would have been redesigned. Mr. Wilking said you can’t view more than 50% of the parking from the street. Mr. Anderson said they will see how they can answer this. Mr. Wilking noted this is a problematic site. Mr. Behr added there is no screening of these parking spaces by the fueling canopy. . Ms. Keene showed a rendering that was received after the Board’s packet was completed. The Board had not issues. . Regarding stormwater comments, Mr. Torrizo said they have responded with a memo regarding ground water and confirmed that they excavated the soil and could verify they were looking at that native soil. Regarding the discharge at the connection to the Hannaford system, they were able to reduce the discharge to below the predevelopment level. They did not model the capacity of the downstream system because they reduced the flows. Ms. Keene said the hearing should remain open to allow the City stormwater section to respond to Mr. Torrizo’s answers to their questions. . Regarding circulation for delivery vehicles, Mr. Behr asked if this will be a 24/7 facility. The applicant said it will. Mr. Behr asked how they will control occupancy and customers when delivery trucks take up 5 spaces and the handicapped space. Mr. Galipeau said they have a lot of sites smaller than this one, and they manage delivery during the “low patronage times.” Customers turn over quickly, and employees don’t use those spaces. Ms. Philibert asked how often they get deliveries. Mr. Valley said 2 to 3 times a week probably. If a car impedes the truck exit, he will wait. They try to have deliveries at off-peak times. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 APRIL 2020 PAGE 9 . Regarding emergency access – Mr. Galipeau said the have tried to meet with the Fire Chief. He showed a plan and said they aren’t worried about getting a fire truck onto the site. The Chief is very busy with the COVID19 situation and hasn’t responded. Mr. Galipeau felt that fire trucks could also access through the Hannaford site. Mr. Behr said that is another reason to leave the application open. Ms. Keene said she thought the Fire Chief did not prefer what the applicant is showing. Mr. Galipeau said they will be happy to do what he wants. Ms. Keene recommended they send the fire chief some additional turning movements. . Regarding the lighting technical review memo – Mr. Behr asked if the light spill issue onto Shelburne Rd. has been resolved. Ms. Keene said there has been some modification to the plans. Some strict standards are not met, but they have done the best they can. . Regarding noise – Ms. Keene noted that noise from the site is not measurable relative background noise. . Regarding the water issues with CWD – Mr. Galipeau said they continue to work with CWD and their consultant. There are a couple of options, and they are looking for the best one that will satisfy CWD. He felt they are close to knowing which path they will choose and will submit that information. They need CWD to sign off or there is no project. Mr. Vallee suggested conditioning an approval on CWD’s agreement. Ms. Keene said the Board already indicated they want to see that CWD is satisfied before closing. No other issues were raised by the Board. There was no public comment presented. Mr. Behr moved to continue both SD-19-31 and SP-19-39 until 2 June 2020. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:19 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on 5/5/2020.