Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/04/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 August 2020, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting remote technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; B. Sullivan, J. Wilking, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. Gill, B. Sirvis, B. Bouchard, B. Duncan, D. Marshall, J. Desautels, J. Diemer, K. Wagner, D. Stewart, L. Lackey, K. Wagner, L. Lackey, N. Rock, S. Beall, S. Theriault, T. & K. Philips, T. Cote, D. Morrissey, D. Stewart, L. Thayer, B. Cairns, B. Wheeler 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Cota explained the procedure for remote meetings. He urged those attending to sign the virtual sign-in sheet. This is necessary in order to appeal a decision of the Board. Mr. Cota also outlined the opportunity for public participation including sending written comments to Marla Keene. 4. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-2021 of Beta Air, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 23,500 sq. ft., 3 story, addition to an existing 39,200 sq. ft. hangar/office building, reconfiguring the adjacent parking area, and related site improvements, 1150 Airport Drive: Mr. Stewart gave a summary of the project. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Re: 39% of the landscape budget for “grasses”: Mr. Cota noted the Board has approved grasses before. Mr. Wilking was concerned with the large percentage for DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 2 grasses, but said it won’t stop him from approving the application. Mr. Wagner said he felt the grasses were appropriate for the site as they can withstand the drier soil and require almost zero maintenance 2. Re: Including bollards as part of landscaping: Mr. Wagner said they were selected as an extension of the architecture and were an aesthetic consideration. Mr. Wilking said the problem is not this project but the potential for future project where it is not appropriate. Mr. Cota said he was OK with the grasses but suggested adding to the Master Plan. He asked if there would be no bollards if they aren’t part of the landscape budget. Mr. Sullivan said he would be OK with the landscape credit though he under-stands Mr. Wilking’s concern. Ms. Philibert said approving these bollards doesn’t mean the Board would have to approve “vanilla” bollards in the future. 3. Ms. Portman felt that grasses were ok but bollards were not. Mr. Wilking compared the architecture to the Burton factory. 4. Re: compliance with Master Plan MS-20-01: Mr. Stewart said he felt they have done what is required in the first stipulation of MS-20-01: provided a detailed landscaping and plant list along with hardscape details. He noted they are not proposing any plantings beyond the project area. The segment of fence is being installed on this project site as are the street trees. The fence is a separate item in the budget, and they will provide a separate item for the street trees. Mr. Lackey said they are above what is required on this site. 5. Regarding the price/value of trees and whether the spruce and apple trees will be lost for this development. Mr. Wagner said the spruce and apple trees could survive; if they fail, they will be replaced. 6. Re: curbing: Staff noted that curbing at the ends of the parking areas needs to be shown. This can be a condition of approval. Mr. Stewart said there is a 6-inch concrete curb at the entrance. It will be installed as part of the plan. He was agreeable to this being a condition of approval. 7. Re: Height of the transformer and screening: Mr. Wagner said it is 6 feet tall. They are using 12 red chokeberries as screening. They will grow to be 6-8 feet tall. They are not using grasses as screening for the transformer. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 3 8. Transformer not shown of landscape plan: Mr. Stewart showed the location of the plan. Mr. Wagner noted they have changed the elm tree to comply with the arborist. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-20-20. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0-0 via a rollcall vote. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-20-23 of Thomas & Kimberly Philips to subdivide an existing lot of 2.02 acres developed with a single family home into two lots of 1.12 acres (Lot 1) and 0.90 acres (Lot 2) for the purpose of developing a single family home on Lot 2, 1430 Spear Street: Mr. Philips said he thought they were buying two lots. They have fixed up the house on Lot 1 and want to build a single family home on Lot 2. Mr. Cota noted that this is considered a PUD because it is located in the Southeast Quadrant. Staff notes were then addressed as follows: 1. Re: the need for information to calculate building coverage on Lot 2 and overall coverage for both lots: Ms. Philips said they had sent an email with the coverages. Ms. Keene said that those coverages are OK. 2. Re: compliance with building height limitations: Ms. Philips said any house that would be built will comply with height restrictions. 3. Re: view protection: The applicants were OK with the 44-foot height limit. 4. Because of Open Space/view Protection standards, no structures can be east of the building envelope. The applicants were OK with this. 5. Re: the driveway in regard to wetland limitations: Staff stressed that the applicants are incorrect in assuming they have a permit for the driveway. They have put unauthorized fill in for the driveway, and the Board needs to decide whether it will allow the driveway across the wetland. There is also a question as to whether there should be one driveway or two. The applicant wants 2; staff notes the regulations indicate a shared driveway with only one curb cut. Mr. Philips said they couldn’t find the wetland on the State maps and have had Public Works come out. They found a sewer manhole and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 4 stub, and it made sense to have the driveway there. Public Works said they could do it. Ms. Philips added that they would have dig up where the cable and utilities are. She said everything will be running to the second lot where there will be less disturbance to the wetland. They went over this with the engineer, with Green Mountain Power, Vermont Gas, etc. Mr. Wheeler said this is a Class 3 wetland which provides no functions of a wetland at a significant level and would not have significant future functions. The city requires a 50-foot buffer. Ms. Keene said it is up to the DRB to decide and noted they wanted one driveway at sketch plan review. Mr. Cota noted the Board could allow this if the encroachment doesn’t limit the ability of the wetland to store water. It could be offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering and other mitigating measures. 6. Regarding protection of resources if there is a second curb cut: The applicant noted that Public Works doesn’t feel the second curb cut would be an issue. 7. Re: a conservation plan for the wetland: Staff is asking for a split rail fence to delineate the wetland and that there be no mowing or turning that area into a lawn. The applicant was OK with this. 8. Re: obtaining preliminary water and wastewater allocation: This has been done. 9. The applicant will be required to comply with requests of the Fire Chief. The applicants were OK with this. 10. Re: Consolidation of curb cuts: Mr. Wilking didn’t see a down side to a second curb cut. Ms. Philibert agreed. 11. Re: compliance with residential design criteria to be addressed at the time of a zoning permit: The applicant was OK with this. 12. The building must be at least 25 feet back from the sidewalk. Ms. Philips said it will be about 160 feet. Members were OK with the waiver request. 13. Re: compliance with standards for garages/parking, to be dealt with at the time of zoning permit. The applicant was OK with this requirement It was noted that any home built on Lot 2 will have to comply with the stretch energy code. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 5 Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-20-23. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a rollcall vote. 6. Miscellaneous application #MS-20-04 of Ninety Nine Swift Street Associates, LLC, for grading and placement of fill. The purpose is to preload the soils and establish a building pad in the location of a future building, 105 Swift Street, and 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-25 of Ninety Nine Swift Street Associates, LLC, to create a planned unit development of two lots at 99 Swift Street and 105 Swift Street and construct a 7,300 sq. ft. 20-unit residential building, of which four are proposed to be inclusionary units, and associated site improvements on the lot at 105 Swift Street, 105 Swift Street: Mr. Marshall identified the property east of Swift/Farrell which used to be the site of a single family home. The intent is to place soils to compress the soils on the site for future development potential. He indicated the limits of where the soils would be placed. Mr. Cota said staff’s concern is that this has to be part of a plan for what you are going to do, not a separate application. Mr. Marshall said he would agree if this were permanent fill, but this is temporary fill and can be removed if the project doesn’t go forward. Mr. Wilking asked if the existing soils are unstable. Mr. Marshall said they are, and the recommendation is to provide this preloading. If there is no development, the soils would be removed and the site would be restored to its original state. If the there is development, the soils will also be removed prior to the development. Mr. Wilking asked if a preconstruction grade has been determined. Mr. Marshall said it has. Mr. Cota noted that staff feels this should not be done as a separate permit. If it is allowed, there should be a detailed plan for returning the site to its original state, and there should be a bond provided to insure this happens. Mr. Marshall said they would agree to that. Staff questioned the maximum time the fill would be there. Mr. Marshall said 1-2 years. They could live with a one-year stipulation. They would establish a pre-construction grade. Mr. Cota said the bond and the one-year timeline make him more comfortable. He suggested possibly getting input from Public Works as to whether $20,000 is sufficient for a bond. Mr. Wilking said that he was inclined to give them 2 years as the soils are unstable. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 6 Ms. Keene said the project looks OK to move forward, and it looks like they are asking for more than preloading the soils. Mr. Cota said he is inclined to agree with Mr. Wilking. Mr. Wilking said there is a lot of uncertainty in the investment world these days, and he saw no reason to tie the applicant’s hands. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota then moved to close MS-20-04. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. Members then considered the Sketch Plan application. Mr. Duncan noted it is located in the Swift Street zoning district. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Re: project description and explained why it is innovative and suitable for the area: Mr. Duncan said there will be 2 affordable units with 2 offset units for a total of 20 units, 18 at market rate, 2 affordable. Parking will be in the rear with access through the existing access. They will also share parking with 99 Swift St. There is maximum solar exposure, and the roof will be structured for solar panels. Balconies will face east and west. The building will have a mix of materials with accent siding of slate tiles. Windows will be grouped. They are working with the topography of the site, so there will be 3 stories on the west and 2 on the east. Mr. Duncan showed a view of the site to show how the building height fits in. 2. Re: Circulation: Mr. Duncan said the project will improve safety by eliminating the entrance to 99 Swift and using this curb cut. They will also improve the visibility of the entrance to Farrell Park. Mr. Marshall noted that Roger Dickenson is looking into traffic issues, accident history, etc. He also noted that they are competing with Vermont Gas traffic. There is one downside to eliminating the 99 Swift access in that it creates a dead end for parking at that site and people have to back all the way out. They will have a transportation expert look at it. Ms. Keene said that from the city’s p0erspective, the concern is a “weird” driveway to Farrell Park. Mr. Wilking asked whether an “exit only” would work for the applicant. Mr. Marshall said they need to look at that as there are queueing issues at times. He didn’t think it would be a game changer, but they would need more information. Mr. Langan suggested getting input from the Bike/Ped Committee because the bike path in that area is heavily used. Ms. Keene said she would put it on that committee’s agenda. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 7 3. The applicant agreed to provide information on stormwater construction at the next stage. 4. This item was already covered above. 5. Staff asked that landscaping on the east side be done in conjunction with the forested space. Mr. Marshall said they are working with a consultant and will address that. 6. Re: working with the City Arborist to retain trees: the applicant agreed to do this. 7. Address Public Works comments prior to the next review: the applicant agreed to do this. 8. Address Water Dept. comments prior to the next review: the applicant agreed to do this. 9. Re: comments from CWD: Mr. Marshall noted there is a discrepancy between CWD and the City of South Burlington. They will try to work this out with them. It involves service connecting. 10. The applicant will work with Public Works re: the sewer line extension to the east boundary of the property. 11. Re: on-site pedestrian circulation: Ms. Keene noted that people will walk to Farrell Park from this building, and it will be best to do this in a controlled way. 12. Re: architectural relationship between this building and others: Mr. Duncan explained the change from 3 to 2 stories in deference to residents to the east. He noted that the heights of other buildings are actually taller because of grade changes. They are looking at residential scale materials to go with the change of zoning districts. 13. Re: dumpster location: Mr. Duncan said they are looking to consolidate with 99 Swift. 14. Re: front setback waiver from 58 feet to 30 feet: Mr. Marshall said the city has thought of widening streets in the past. Now, instead of open space in front, the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 8 city’s intent is to bring buildings closer to the street. The 30 feet would still allow for widening of the road. It also allows for parking in the rear. Mr. Cota asked about the setback of 99 Swift. Mr. Marshall said there is an extra 60 feet to allow for parking in front. Mr. Cota said he was fine with the setback waiver unless Public Works has an issue. Mr. Marshall said he would talk with them about their vision for Swift St. Other members had not issue with the setback. 15. Re: supplemental landscaping on the east boundary of the property: Mr. Marshall said they will discuss this with the Arborist. 16. Staff asked whether the Board needs additional information regarding inclusionary zoning: Mr. Cota said he had no issue as the units are in the same building. 17. The applicant agreed to show how the affordable units will comply with the regulations. 18. The applicant will provide information re meeting the criteria for the affordable housing bonus at the next stage of review. 19. The applicant will provide information on addressing bicycle requirements at the next stage of review. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-20-26 of O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, to subdivide four existing parcels ranging in size from 7.23 acres to 64.51 acres into seven lots ranging from 0.51 acres to 37.29 acres for the purpose of establishing separate ownership in anticipation of future development on the lots, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert and Mr. Wilking noted they reside or own property in the area. The applicant had no issue with them continuing to hear the application. Mr. Gill noted that the plan matches what was said at Sketch Plan review. They will be taking 5 existing lots and turning them into 8 smaller lots so they can be transferred to different entities. No construction is proposed at this time, just the subdivision. No issues were raised by staff or the DRB. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 9 Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Gill asked about the timeline for recording. Ms. Hall said they have 6 months which can be extended up to one year. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-20-26. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-20-24 of Champlain Oil Company, LLC, to consolidate an existing 0.48 acre lot and an existing 0.32 acre lot into one lot, 510 Shelburne Street: and 10. Site Plan Application #SP-20-029 of Champlain Oil Company, LLC, to construct a two and a half story building of 13.818 sq. ft. to be used as a bank, restaurant and general office, 510 Shelburne Street: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota disclosed that his job is in the fuel industry, but Champlain Oil Company is no longer in the fuel business and did not feel there was a conflict. Mr. Cairns noted this is the site of the former Kaigle’s gas station. The pumps have been removed. They are looking to build a 2-1/2 story building with retail on the lower story and offices above. Staff comments for the Final Plat were addressed as follows: 1. Regarding coverages: Staff noted this plan will reduce the nonconformity. They also noted that this application would not be approved unless the Site Plan (SP-20-029) is approved. 2. Staff noted the uses are allowed. No other issues were raised, and staff comments for the Site Plan were then addressed as follows: 1. Re: Allowing with non-residential use: Staff feels the overall coverage is allowable as there is a reduction of the nonconformity. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 10 2. Re: reduction of setback coverage on Bacon Street compared to existing conditions: Ms. Desautels said they have been working on addressing this issue and feel this layout is the best for the site and for the client. They are trying to save the pine tree, but the Arborist thinks it could come down. They also don’t want to lose the sidewalk and parking space. Ms. Desautels also noted the potential for outdoor seating which could be in conjunction with the restaurant use on the first floor. She noted that they are reducing the impervious on the site compared to what was there. Mr. Cota noted they are at 79% of setback coverage on Bacon St. Ms. Desautels said they did reduce that everywhere by there. Mr. Cairns said they felt the patio was a good addition and would add value to the site. Ms. Portman asked if the patio is contingent on there being a restaurant. Mr. Cairns said probably. Ms. Keene said she understands what the applicant is saying but doesn’t think this is allowed as it is an expansion of a nonconformity. Ms. Desautels said they thought it would be allowed if they were reducing the overall nonconformity. Ms. Keene said this would be a Board interpretation. Mr. Langan said he wasn’t sure he’d have a problem if the overall non-conformity is reduced. Mr. Cota agreed. 3. Re: adequacy of sidewalk to meet the regulations: Ms. Desautels said they feel the connections from Shelburne Rd. make the most sense. They didn’t want excessive sidewalks. Ms. Keene asked if the sidewalks can be moved to the entry instead of to the ends of the building. Ms. Desautels said they could but they feel this makes more sense. Mr. Cairns said they need sidewalks on the ends of the building and they didn’t want too many. 4. Re: landscaping obscuring the Shelburne Rd. entry: Ms. Desautels said this isn’t the case. What is pictured isn’t the exact location of where trees and shrubs will end up. Mr. Cody said it depends on your perspective as to whether the entrance is obscured. Mr. Cota said he is OK with it. 5. Staff is questioning whether the sidewalk on Bacon St. meets the regulations. Ms. Keene said that instead of a sidewalk there is an “interruption.” The urban design overlay requires a sidewalk. Ms. Desautels said additional sidewalk doesn’t make sense (“a sidewalk adjacent to a sidewalk”) and just adds to the impervious. 6. Re: glazing: Mr. Cody said the agree to meet the standard. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 11 7. Re: using finishing material on the elevator tower to match the building: Mr. Cody said the tower won’t be visible from the ground. They could put on siding to hid it. 8. Re: technical review for traffic: Members agreed this was not needed. 9. Removal of one problem parking space: Ms. Desautels said they would, if it is necessary. 10. Removal of widths of parking spaces on plan: The applicant agreed. 11. Re: Dumpsters: the applicant agreed to have screening equal or exceed the height of the dumpster. 12. Re: landscape budget: Staff noted that $30,500 is required. Ms. Desautels said they will be closer to $34,000. 13. Re: screening of parking area: Ms. Keene noted there is no proposed screening from Bacon Street. With screening it would reduce the setback coverage. Ms. Cairns asked if they can plant more in the island instead of losing parking spaces. Ms. Keene said the Board would need to see a plan. Lucy said they can put a single row of regoso across that section of Bacon Street. 14. The applicant agreed to modify the plant list to have 2-1/2 inch caliper trees. 15. Re: stormwater standards: The applicant agreed to address stormwater comments including: dewatering practices, stabilized construction entrance, silt fencing, isolator fabric, details for peastone, connections to the structure, soil phosphorus testing, etc. 16. Re: lighting: Staff noted that one light in the right-of-way is above the allowable level. Ms. Desautels said it will be removed. 17. Re: free-standing fixtures: staff noted the levels are too high and should be adjusted to 3-foot candles. Ms. Desautels said they will do that. 18. Re: bike storage: Mr. Cody showed the location of the bike storage room. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 AUGUST 2020 PAGE 12 19. Re: fire safety and fire truck access: Ms. Desautels said they met with Chief Francis. He asked for additional mountable curbing which they will do. She showed the location on the plan. 20. Re: contaminated soils: Ms. Desautels said they can show they have a cap by the end of the month. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Diemer said they are a potential new neighbor to this property and support having something better there that what exists now. They are concerned with the contaminated soil not getting to their property. They don’t support moving the building forward as it will block their building. They are concerned with a restaurant creating traffic on Bacon St. and also noise from people hanging out on the patio. She suggested switching the restaurant to the other side of the building. They are also concerned with the Shelburne Rd. entrance so close to a right turn and the crosswalk. Ms. Keene noted that the Burlington Public Works Department also commented and asked for removal of slip ramps on Shelburne Road, closing the Shelburne Rd. curb cut or extending the concrete sidewalk across the driveway (Mr. Cairns said they would extend the sidewalk). Mr. Cairns said the restaurant won’t be a late night situation, and it makes more sense to have it where it is proposed. Mr. Cota then moved to close SD-20-24 and SP-20-029. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0 by a rollcall vote. 11. Minutes No minutes were presented for review. 12. Other Business: It was noted that the next DRB meeting will be on 1 September. 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 September 1, 2020.