Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 05/19/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 May 2020, at 7:00 p.m. via remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. Stewart, D. Stewart, A. Conolly, B. Sirvis, B. Irons, B. Foser, C. & A. Long, C. Orben, C. Frank, D. Long, J. Dooley, E. Burti, E. Langfedt, F. Kochman, C. Gendron, J. Kochman, J. Simson, K. Kritikos, L. Lackey, L. Nadeau, M. O’Brien, M. & M Smiles, J & M. Cronin, P. O’Brien, R. Jeffers, S. Homsted, S. & D. Mowat, T. Forest, T. Barritt, D. Marshall, D. Shenk, Z. Laboy, S. Dopp, B. Newton, J. Morway, C. Jenner, K. Clark 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Announcements: Mr. Cota reviewed the guidelines for remote meetings. He noted that items from tonight’s meeting may be continued to allow an opportunity for further public comment. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-20-016 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a shared driveway. The amendment consists of relocating the driveway, 362 Meadowland Drive: and 5. Continued site plan application #SP-20-017 of Booska Commercial, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 25,560 sf, 31 ft high warehouse. The amendment consists of relocating the previously approved shared driveway, 430 Meadowland Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 2 Mr. Cota noted that both of these items had been continued from 5 May 2020 to allow for any additional public comment. No public comment has been received. Mr. Cota then asked if anyone present would like to comment. No comments were offered. Mr. Cota then moved to close SP-20-016 and SP-20-017. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 6. Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-16 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The phase consists of six 4-story multi-family residential buildings with a total of 322 dwelling units and underground parking, and a 1,100 sq. ft. accessory structure, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Philibert noted that she owns a town home in the Hillside development. She didn’t feel this would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Wilking noted that he is recused on the Kimball Avenue portion of this development but didn’t believe he was conflicted on this part. Mr. Cota explained that this application is part of a previously approved Master Plan which was approved in 2017. It is not related to the sketch plan that was heard at the last meeting. Mr. Langfeldt said this is the second phase of the Master Plan and is in the multi-family zone with egress onto Kennedy Drive. Mr. Cota read the project description and noted that it is not as warned. Ms. Keene said it will be rewarned correctly for the continuation of this hearing. Mr. Cota said an hour’s time will be allotted for this presentation as there is a long agenda and a time limit for the remote meeting. There will be time for public comment in the continued meeting. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. The lot boundaries for lot #11 should be updated. Mr. Gill said that he thought what happened was that a proposed hammerhead has been pushed closer to Old Farm Road and is no longer on lot 11. They will clarify that. b. Regarding lot coverages being met on a zoning district by zoning district basis: Mr. Langfeldt said there are 3 zoning districts involve, and they will meet all the coverages. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 3 c. Clearly show the limit of project plans: Ms. Keene said there is a line on the plan showing a 50-foot adjustment of a zoning boundary. The LDRs allow the rules of one zoning district to be applied up to 50 feet in an adjoining district. She felt it wasn’t clear that this is what they are asking for. Mr. Gill said they thought the zoning district line was moved in a previous approval (finding #1 of the Master Plan). They can make that request again and create a plan to show where. The adjustment allows parking and the building to fit where it is programmed on the lot. d. Amend building heights, frontage, and breakdown and update the number of stories of each building: Mr. Gill said each building is 5 stories counting the parking garage. Ms. Keene said more information is needed to see if the garage counts as a story. e. Enumerate where additional setback waivers are requested: Mr. Cota recalled there had been a list. Mr. Gill said they tried to create a simpler method. There was an exhibit to show minimum setbacks on every side of every building in the plan. He added that it is hard to determine what is the front/back of buildings with several frontages. Ms. Keene said that their plan was received and understood but setback limitation is tied to the number of stories. When the number of stories is determined, staff can assist in interpreting setbacks. Mr. Gill noted that some waivers won’t be necessary. f. Review whether the applicant has compensated for the requested height waiver by providing varied and complimentary architecture for all buildings and landscaping to determine whether the Board can preliminarily grant the requested height waiver. Mr. Behr said that from what he can see, the applicant has complied. Ms. Philibert noted the architecture is different from the other end of the project. She asked if this is the current style. Mr. Langfeldt said they were looking for a midway between “modern” and “classical” styles. Buildings will front on Kennedy Drive, and the aim is to make them handsome with a lot of glass. They are also bigger than other buildings. g. Regarding Inclusionary units, staff said the calculation in the regulations require the applicant to provide 3 additional inclusionary units. They will be able to add 51 offset units which would make the 390 units allowable without amending the Master Plan. Mr. Langfeldt said they are providing the inclusionary units even though they are not yet approved by the City Council, and some of the units will have more than three bedrooms which would allow them to count as more than one unit. They are working with Champlain Housing on this and will comply with the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 4 final requirement when it is made. Ms. Keene said the applicant will be subject to the regulations when they are adopted. h. Regarding the 48 inclusionary units being provided in one building. Mr. Langfeldt said these units will be across the street from the market rate units. They will not be of a lesser quality. Mr. Gill added that they worked with the Affordable Housing Committee to allow the units to be in one building. They have also submitted a letter from Champlain Housing in support of this. Exterior materials will be just about identical, and sizes will meet all the requirements including the number of bedrooms (1, 2 and 3 bedroom options). Mr. Wilking said he had no objection. Ms. Dooley said she was on the Board of Champlain Housing Trust for 9 years. While disbursement of affordable units is the ideal, there are times when one building is preferable. Mr. Simson supported the one-building provision and noted that perpetual affordability is a requirement. Members felt additional testimony from CHT was required. i. Regarding phasing, the regulations require that the affordable units not be the last ones built. Mr. Langfeldt said they have asked Champlain Housing how they have done this in the past. Mr. Gill said the goal is to come up with an arrangement that will make it happen in a timely manner. Mr. Langfeldt said part of the timing depends on Champlain Housing receiving funding. They are committed to this site. Mr. Cota asked if they are building all the buildings at the same time. Mr. Langfeldt said 2 market rate buildings will be built first, and the affordable building will be built before the last market rate building is built. He added that they will try to have someone from Champlain Housing present at the next presentation. j. Wastewater allocation must be received before final plat. The applicant was OK with this. k. The applicant said they will comply with the comments of the Water Department and they will be noted in the final plat. l. Regarding circulation, staff noted that fewer trips are anticipated. Mr. Langfeldt said the original Master Plan has the full number of residential units plus 45,000 sq. ft. of commercial. The commercial square footage is no longer proposed (the affordable units took the place of the commercial). This has significantly reduced the number of trip ends. Ms. Keene indicated the additional turn lane on Kennedy Drive and an “in and out” driveway on Kennedy Drive. She asked if this geometry is still OK with DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 5 the reduced trips. Mr. Gill said they will get a recommendation from the traffic engineer, hopefully before the next presentation. j. Staff is asking that “head-on” parking on Two Brothers Drive be removed. Mr. Gill said he believes those spaces are approved in the existing final plat. They are under construction now. There are just 6 such spaces. Ms. Keene said she would check on this. If they are not approve, staff would like them removed as there is a safety concern with cars backing onto the road. Mr. Cota said it would require an amendment to change them, but he saw the safety concern. Ms. Philibert added that guest parking is an issue. k. Staff is asking that protection be shown for the trees that will remain. The applicant was agreeable to this. L. Regarding the pool, staff is asking the Board to discuss the need for open space compatible with an urban format. The pool must meet safety requirements. Staff is also asking who will be able to use the open space on Lot 13. Mr. Langfeldt said this was discussed at length at the Master Plan hearing. There will be a lot of landscape money being used for things other than traditional landscaping. The pool will be for use of the market rate buildings being retained by O’Brien Brothers. Landscape money would not be used for construction of the pool. Mr. Gill said they haven’t done a full landscape plan. There will be some small areas for things like a barbeque grill, etc. He noted the lots were approved for 90% coverage, but they will still find spaces for those uses. Mr. Langfeldt added that the stormwater area will have paths and open areas. Mr. Gill also noted there is a park being planned in the newly submitted Master Plan across the street from this location. Mr. Behr noted that there was not a lot of green space for 6 large apartment buildings, and he didn’t see a lot of recreation space. Ms. Philibert said the Lancaster property green space is heavily used, and it would be great to incorporate that concept. Mr. Gill said he thought they could do that and will indicate where. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-20-16 until 7 July 2020. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 7. Continued Master plan application #MP-20-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to amend a previously approved master plan for a planned unit development to develop 39.16 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The amendment is to add 0.60 acres to Zone 2A without changing the approvals or use for that zone & remove 0.60 acres from Zone 7, 255 Kennedy Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 6 Mr. Cota asked the applicants if they were comfortable closing this application. Mr. Gill said they would prefer to continue it. Mr. Cota then moved to continue MP-20-01 to 7 July 2020. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-20-020 of South Village Communities, LLC, to construct a twelve-unit, three story multi-family building with underground parking on an existing 0.53 acre lot (Lot 4A), 64 Aiken Street: and 9. Site Plan Application #SP-20-021 of South Village Communities, LLC, to construct a twelve-unit, three story multi-family building with underground parking on an existing 0.52 acre lot (Lot 4B), 96 Aiken Street: and 10. Miscellaneous application #MS-20-03 of South Village Communities, LLC, for alteration of existing grade on an existing 5.6 acre lot developed with an existing recreation path and stormwater management features. The alteration of grade is associated with construction on adjacent lots, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Jeffers said they are back with lots 4A and 4B on Aiken Street. These are now 2 vacant lots. The previous approval expired, and they are back to get them re-approved. Ms. Keene noted the lots had been approved in 2011. Mr. Cota said the Board will be looking at them as if it is the first time. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Regarding coverage: Ms. Jeffers said they are in compliance on both lots 4A and 4B. b. The applicant agreed to comply with stormwater comments. c. Water and wastewater allocations must be gotten. The applicant agreed. d. Comments from the Fire Department must be addressed: Ms. Jeffers said she has spoken with the First Department and will install hydrants as requested. The Fire Dept. is OK with the turning radius, but is asking for a mountable curb which Ms. Jeffers said they agreed to do. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 7 e. Regarding having translucent windows oriented to the south, Ms. Jeffers noted a letter from Efficiency Vermont indicating that less than 20% of those windows should be oriented to the south. Ms. Jeffers also noted that the requirement is a “should” not a “shall.” Mr. Wilking commented that the requirement makes for a “very odd looking building.” f. Facades should vary from one building to the next, and buildings should be oriented to the street. Ms. Jeffers noted that all the historical comments from the DRB have said that multi-family buildings should look alike and have the same coloring. The proposed buildings were approved by the architecture review committee. She also noted that the buildings are mirror images. Mr. Behr was OK with mirroring and the harmonious feel. Mr. Wilking and Ms. Philibert liked the design, and Mr. Sullivan felt that in this case symmetry was better than asymmetry. g. Regarding pedestrian movement and parking areas: Staff questions whether a single entrance building is compatible with other South Village buildings. Ms. Jeffers described the entry to the buildings. There are flats on each floor, and you can’t have a separate door to each unit. The buildings are essentially the same front and back. Other South Village buildings are all walk-ups with separate entrances for the units. Ms. Keene asked if each ground floor unit could have a separate entrance. Mr. Behr said that would have an odd feel to it. He felt the buildings are meant to have a front door, a lobby, an elevator, etc. He wouldn’t want each ground floor unit to have an entrance door. Mr. Wilking agreed. h. Staff requested detail of the retaining walk and railing: Ms. Jeffers said they submitted detail of the black iron railing. There is significant landscaping in front of it. A picture of the railing was shown. i. Ms. Jeffers show a combination of yews and arbor vitae to screen the transformer. j. Regarding added landscaping, the applicant agreed to this. k. Re: Stormwater comments, Mr. Marshall said they are subject to an existing permit and will have to comply. All that is needed to control stormwater is to create a modified swale. They will be continuing with already approved infrastructure. Mr. Marshall said the hydrology plan has been shared with staff. Mr. Cota asked about the possibility of stormwater flooding the rec path. Mr. Marshall said the swale to the north will protect the rec path. That is still to be installed and will be. Mr. Cota asked about the parking lot. Mr. Marshall said there will be no drains in the garage. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 8 l. Regarding the curb cut that does not align with the driveway, Ms. Keene showed an area of “little breaks.” Mr. Marshall said these should be smooth, and they will fix that. m. They have submitted a new plan with the recommended radius. The staff comments for the second building were essentially the same. Regarding the Master Plan, Mr. Cota noted receipt of a letter from neighbors (Fosters). Ms. Jeffers read a response that was sent to the Fosters indicating that these buildings were always planned, and the 3-story design has always been in the plan and received earlier approvals. That information was given to purchasers. In previous public hearings, neighbors had no objections. Many residents want to live in a one-level option. The buildings also allow them to meet the affordable requirements. Mr. Foster thanked Ms. Jeffers for the response. He still had a concern with traffic as the area is widely used by pedestrians and a lot of children. He asked about plans for the corner lots. Ms. Jeffers said lots 5 and 5A are planned for single family units. Ms. Irons asked about guest parking for these units. Ms. Jeffers said there is underground parking for 2 vehicles per unit and parallel parking along the sides and rear of the buildings. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SP-20-020, SP-20-021, and MS-20-03 until 16 June. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 11. Sketch Plan Application #SP-20-14 of Jennifer and Robert Morway for a planned unit development on an existing 15.0 acre lot developed with a single family home and barn. The planned unit development is to consist of 8 single family homes and one existing single family home, 1751 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Cota explained the nature of sketch plan. He noted that he lives nearby and has looked at the property. Mr. Marshall showed the view protections zones located on the property. He also showed a photo of existing conditions. There are no streams or wetlands on the property. There are some steep slopes which they will design around (these were shown on an overhead photo). They will come in from the north between the 2 steep areas. Mr. Marshall then showed a plan with a proposed intersection at Nadeau Crest Drive. It will be a road that curves with the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 9 contour of the land. They are proposing 8 lots which will meet the minimum standards. All but one unit will be close to the street. There will be a conservation easement to encumber the land against further development. There will be a pedestrian path in the middle of the site in addition to a sidewalk. Mr. Cota asked why they didn’t have more density. Mr. Marshall said they didn’t feel it was appropriate, and this plan keeps them under Act 250 review. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Staff feels the configuration detracts from the goals of the Southeast Quadrant (SEQ). Mr. Cota noted it is a unique piece of property. Ms. Keene felt that denser development would result in more open space and less infrastructure. The road is twice the length of other development roads which increases the cost of maintenance. Mr. Cota noted it cannot be a private road. Ms. Keene noted that upcoming regulations may allow a private road with this many units. Mr. Behr agreed this is a unique parcel, and the applicant has presented a minimum amount of development for a 15-acre lot. He said he would be nervous about a private road that could become a stand-alone dead end road. There is also no neighborhood connectivity and no ability for open space pathways. Mr. Wilking said he understands the concern, but looking at the contours he didn’t see the potential for higher density. He did have a problem with the lack of connectivity, but other than that, he was OK with it. Ms. Keene suggested possibly getting 9 homes on the flat area. Mr. Wilking said he wouldn’t do that. b. Regarding compliance with residential design standards, Mr. Marshall said they don’t usually show single family homes until ready to build. They do have building envelopes. He stressed that the applicant has a personal relationship with the area, and this is what she wants. Mr. Cota noted this is a PUD, and the Board has an obligation to know what it will look like. Members said they would want to see houses oriented to the street, related harmoniously to each other and to the site, setbacks, parking, etc. Ms. Keene said it needs to be a PUD because every subdivision in the SEQ must be a PUD. Mr. Cota asked if the property falls under Interim Zoning. Ms. Keene said it does not. Mr. Behr also expressed concern with the pedestrian trail loop which makes people feel they are walking in someone’s backyard. c. Staff feels the roadway is warranted through the middle of the property for connection to the existing road. Ms. Keene showed where the extension of the road DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 10 goes into the property that doesn’t have a “game plan.” She felt the road should be aimed toward Hinesburg Road earlier on. Ms. Philibert asked if the abandoned farm will be demolished. Ms. Keene said it is intended to be at least partly conserved. The northern portion is the least likely to be conserved. Mr. Marshall said the Agency of Transportation won’t allow the connection to Hinesburg Road. The plan is to extend to the south property line to facilitate that owner’s future plans. d. Regarding access, Mr. Cota noted a lot is dependent on Cider Mill 2 which hasn’t yet pulled a permit. He asked whether this application is dependent on Cider Mill 2 for wastewater, etc. Mr. Marshall said definitely for infrastructure. Mr. Cota said water would have to be private. Mr. Marshall said they are comfortable with that. Mr. Marshall said they will work to orient the buildings to the street. One lot won’t meet that standard. He noted there are no maximum lot requirements in the SEQ, and they are trying to keep with the spirit of the regulations. Ms. Keene noted the Board can modify the regulations of a PUD to meet the goals. Public comment was then requested. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota said he agreed with Mr. Wilking about the size of the lots. He wasn’t sure about the road, and “public” vs. “private” could change his mind. Mr. Wilking suggested the possibility of a looped road. He had no problem with the concept. Mr. Behr noted the road would be as much as 950 feet. If it become public, taxpayers will have to pay to maintain it. Cluster development would reduce the length of the road. The plan may make sense regarding topography but not for a PUD. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-20-14 until 16 June. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 12. Continued sketch plan application #SD-20-15 of Don Stewart to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 17,200 sq. ft. two-story addition to an existing 39,200 sq. ft. one-story existing hangar- office building, reconfiguring the adjacent parking area, and related site improvements, 1150 Airport Drive: Mr. Cota noted the applicant has presented parking alternatives. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 11 Mr. Stewart showed the existing plan and parking lot. There are 85 parking space (39 in front). He said they were looking for a unique way to present the front of the building. He showed the original plan with a curved access to the Beta building. Mr. Clark, representing Beta, said they were asked to meet the letter of the law. He said one thing was obvious: the curved parking area made it not look so linear and ugly. They wanted to look more like the circular entrance to the Airport to which they are adjacent. He felt the right thing to do is to provide greenness up front that feels good to be in. Mr. Stewart said staff’s concern is the removal of mature trees. He acknowledged that is true, but they will be planting a significant number of new trees, so the total number of trees will be more than what is there now. He then explained the two option they considered to try to meet the regulations, one provides a 10-foot buffer in front of the building and has 93 parking spaces; the other has a 15-foot buffer and provides 87 parking spaces. Mr. Stewart did not feel these plans were a wise approach regarding maintenance of the building. He felt both options were very linear and not creative. He noted that if they reduce the number of parking spaces in front of the building, they are decreasing the non-conformity. Ms. Keene said the Board has interpreted “parking area” not “parking spaces.” Mr. Stewart asked if the roadway was part of the parking area. Ms. Keene said that in her interpretation it is. Mr. Wilking said he felt the original plan was the most attractive, though he understood the concern with expanding the non-conformity. Mr. Sullivan agreed. Mr. Behr said that everything the applicant is doing is improving the site. He asked if they could eliminate a few parking spaces in front. Mr. Stewart said there is no parking requirement for the building and suggested eliminating 2 spaces at either end. Mr. Behr said eliminating spaces in front of the entrance would be a “trade-off” for him. Mr. Cota said the Board understands why they are proposing this plan and encouraged them to come to the Board with that plan. Public comment was then asked for. There was no public comment. 13. Minutes of 28 April and 5 May 2020: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 28 April and 5 May 2020 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a voice vote. 14. Other Business: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 19 MAY 2020 PAGE 12 No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:50 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on June 2, 2020.