Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/17/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 November 2020, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive 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; B. Bouchard, B. Duncan, C. Orben, C. Frank, C. Knauf. D. Marshall, C. Gendron, J. Page, L. Lackey, P & C. Lussier, S. Beall, S. Theriault, D. Morrissey 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 asked people to sign the virtual sign-in sheet or email their presence at the meeting to Ms. Keene. This is imperative if a person wishes to appeal a decision of the Board. Mr. Cota also explained how members of the public can comment during the meeting. 4. Annual Re-organization: Ms. Keene presided over the reorganization portion of the meeting. She opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Wilking nominated Mr. Cota for Chair, Mr. Sullivan for Vice Chair, and Ms. Philibert for Clerk. Ms. Portman seconded. There were no further nominations, and via a rollcall vote, Mr. Cota, Mr. Sullivan, and Ms. Philibert were elected 6-0. Mr. Cota noted a request to move the meeting on 2 March (Town Meeting Day) to the next night. Members agreed to do this. Members also agreed to have their annual recess on what would have been the second meeting in August. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 2 Mr. Cota presided over the remainder of the meeting. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-20 of Beta Sir, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 762 sq. ft. second-story addition to an approved 60,300 sq. ft., 3-story hangar/office building, 1150 Airport Drive: Mr. Cota explained the nature of a sketch plan and stressed that no binding decision would be made at this stage. Mr. Page then showed an overview of the site. He said the project proposes to install a second story in order to bring the office area up to the same standard as the work just finished on the rest of the building. He indicated where the second story would be placed at the south end of the building. They will create a steel mezzanine for mechanicals and containers that they manufacture. Mr. Page showed a conception of this and indicated a gutter to handle runoff and protect the equipment below it from snow and ice. Mr. Page noted the “containers” are actually 3 shipping containers that will be cut open and have a finished appearance on the interior. Other containers on the site are for storage and manufacturing. They are also proposing a container for a bike storage facility. Mr. Page noted that Beta has a number of electric bikes. The parking will be reconfigured to make it more organized. One space will be eliminated for a total of 14. There will also be 8 electric vehicle charging stations. Entrances will be formalized with a canopy over the sidewalk. The pavement edge will also be redefined. At the east end of the site, the patio will be expanded and will have more pavers and additional landscaping. There will also be steel planters. The dry well in the center of the parking area will be improved on. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Staff is unclear about the configuration. Mr. Gendron said the overhang will go out 10-12 feet. There will not be parking under it, but there will be utilities there. Ms. Keene noted that some of the site features aren’t labeled and asked to see the existing conditions plan. Mr. Gendron said they will have that for the next submission. Mr. Sullivan felt the compatibility was excellent. b. Re: waste disposal, the dumpster is not shown on the plan. Mr. Gendron said there is an existing dumpster that Beta uses. Construction waste will be managed by the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 3 contractor. Ms. Keene said the existing dumpster will have to be enclosed as part of this application. c. Ms. Keene noted that the minimum landscaping value required is $2500. The Master Plan allows for landscaping on site. She asked if the Board is OK with the steel planters. Ms. Orben explained that the there will be 5 planters, 2’x4’. They will be planted with grasses. She estimated $4750 in value plus the plants. Members were OK with the planters. Pubic comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert left the meeting at this point. 6. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-20-37 of Ninety Nine Swift Street Associates, LLC, to create a planned unit development of 2 lots at 99 Swift Street and 105 Swift Street and construct a 3-story, 6,800 sq. ft. 20-unit mixed rate residential building, and associated site improvements on the lot at 105 Swift Street, 105 Swift Street: Mr. Cota explained the nature of preliminary and final plat applications, noting that the DRB will issue a decision on the application. Mr. Marshall showed an overhead photo of the project. He noted that 2 properties are involved. The property on the left is accessed by the Farrell Park access. He then showed renderings of the proposed building. Each residential unit will be 600-700 sq. ft. Two of the residential units will be affordable. For the exterior of the buildings, different materials will be used including fiber cement siding, some wood siding, and slate siding above the entrances. There will also be some vertical siding. Materials will relate to the commercial building. The stairwell will have slate tiles. Each floor will have a central corridor and balconies for residents to enjoy. Two entrances will face Swift Street. Rooftop equipment, including condensing units for air conditioners for each unit, will not be visible from Swift Street because of the angle of the slope of the street. On the interior, bedrooms will have a large window, and living rooms will have paired windows. The window pattern will also be energy efficient. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Re: screening of rooftop equipment, the applicant showed a view from Swift Streets that made the building “invisible.” They also showed an eye-level view in which the roof equipment was also not visible. There will also be DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 4 more trees planted there which will make it harder to see the building. They felt that screening would be more visible than the equipment. Members were OK with the presented screening. b. Staff asked that the 6-foot high privacy fence be removed in favor of additional landscaping for a buffer. Mr. Marshall noted they worked with the arborist on what is to be removed (including all the ash trees). There will be 8 to 12 new trees on the east side for screening and urban wildlife. Ms. Knox said the focus of the landscaping plan is native plants, which live a lot longer. They will also plant pollinators and native berry shrubs. There will be as much diversity as possible and a lot of year-round interest. Ms. Knox indicated the area for terraces which will have a grill and seating area and green space. Accessibility will be by stairs or the public sidewalk. Mr. Marshall said the retaining wall is a buffer between land uses. The 6-foot high fence is to create separation from the single family house. It was requested by the Lussiers. Mr. Lussier said that was the only thing they asked for. They like the project as designed. Members had no problem with the fence and felt that animals could get around it. c. Re: glazing, Mr. Marshall said he felt they have a balance between the commercial and residential buildings. The high windows in the residential building allow for more light. Mr. Wilking felt they could have juliette balconies but were otherwise attractive. d. Re: landscaping budget, Ms. Keene said this may have been met, depending on the adjustments made to the presented plan. e/f. Staff questioned whether the large oak and maple trees can be kept. Mr. Marshall said the Arborist said the oak is in the way of the sidewalk, and there would have to be a jog to get around it. Public works said to remove it as jogs hamper snow removal. Ms. Keene said staff can further look into that concern. Ms. Knox noted that the maple had no leaves on it during the summer, and the assumption is it is not alive. The arborist did not feel it was worth saving. g. Re: snow storage, Ms. Keene noted the applicant must have State approval to use the wetland. Mr. Marshall said they have removed it from the wetland buffer. There will also not be snow storage in the access drive. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 5 h. Re: perennials, staff is asking to replace them with plantings up to at least the minimum landscaping value. Ms. Keene noted perennials are hard to keep track of. Mr. Wilking felt this was not a situation where perennials make sense. Mr. Marshall said they haven’t taken credit for existing trees. The new budget is $40,105. Even without the perennials they meet the minimum. He felt, however, that the perennials were important to the landscaping plans for variety and as pollinators. Ms. Keene said they’ve included the fence in the minimum, which is not allowed, and without the fence they do not meet the minimum. i. Ms. Keene said there is a question of whether the stormwater design is adequate to meet a 1” storm. Mr. Marshall said they complied with what is written in the rules. He also cited frustration with changing rules. He said the LDRs call for them to design for 0.9”. The State now requires 1”, but they don’t need a state permit. Ms. Keene said the LDRs say they should meet the “quality volume” which is now 1”. Mr. Marshall said they will meet that. j. Staff is questioning the Farrell Park access and why it is beneficial. Mr. Marshall noted they have now made it one-way in. He showed the current drive to Farrell Park and said the Fire Marshall preferred that it be kept open. He didn’t feel people going to the new building would use that access. Mr. Wilking was fine with staff’s suggestion to neck it down, but he was also OK as it is. Other members were OK to allow it as is. k. Re: sewer service. Mr. Cota asked if they discussed collaborating with the neighbor to bring sewer service. Mr. Lousier said it is prohibitive for them at this point. Ms. Keene said the applicant is not required to extend the sewer to the adjacent property. l. The applicant noted they have provided for downcast, shielded light fixtures. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Keene suggested continuing to get input regarding removal of the oak tree from the arborist and Public Works. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-20-37 to 1 December 2020. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0 via a rollcall vote. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 6 7. Sketch plan application #SD-20-38 of Pizzagalli Properties to amend a previously approved Planned Unit Development consisting of a 151,266 sq. ft. shopping center (including outdoor garden center), a 55,000 sq. ft. supermarket, a 3585 sq. ft. bank with drive-through service, a 3,014 sq. ft. standard restaurant and a 4,116 sq. ft. short order restaurant. The amendment consists of resubdividing the existing parcels containing the 55,000 sq. ft. supermarket and the roadway, abandoning a future city street, and constructing a commercial parking lot for the purpose of a shuttle lot, 218 Hannaford Drive: Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Cota explained the nature of a sketch plan and noted there would be no decision rendered by the Board. Mr. Bouchard showed an overhead photo of the site. He noted that Pizzagalli was asked by the Medical Center to help with a parking problem. This is one of a few sites they found. It is a 2.8 acre parcel east of the former Hannaford market. The property is currently vacant. They were recently informed by staff that a portion of the property is controlled by the City via a warranty deed. Had they known this, they would not have submitted the plan. They have now sent in some revisions to the plan which do not involve any city-controlled property (extension of Fayette Drive shown on the official city map). They would have to get City Council approval to remove that road, and they are not going to go that route. Mr. Bouchard then showed a plan of an amended PUD and where the new parking lot is proposed. It eliminates the City-controlled property. The project property is now 2.3 acres and does not put them over lot coverage. There is a setback to the City-controlled property. Mr. Cota asked if there is a shelter on the site for people waiting for transportation. Mr. Bouchard said the Med Center said “no” to that. There is a bike rack. Mr. Cota also asked about the possibility of using the former Hannaford parking lot. Mr. Bouchard said Hannaford is trying to release that site to another user and won’t release it to the Med Center. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Re: Fayette Road: Approval for the PUD says the roadway must be constructed prior to occupancy of the first building on lots “D”, “E” or “H”. Mr. Cota said the applicant is just adding impervious, not a building. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 7 Sullivan said there are no buildings on “D”, “E” or “H”. He also noted that ambiguity or omissions on those drafting decisions favor the applicant. Mr. Wilking said the road would not be going anywhere without a building “H”. Building the road would be a waste of money. b. Staff asked the Board to consider whether a commercial parking lot is a fitting use. Mr. Cota asked if the lot is only for Med Center use. Mr. Bouchard said it is. c. Staff questioned whether there still could be a building on the lot consistent with PUD approval. Mr. Bouchard said there could. Some pavement would have to be torn up and there would have to be appropriate setback from the city-controlled property and landscaping. d. Re: traffic generation, Mr. Bouchard said they still fall under the total allowable traffic generation for the PUD. There will be a traffic study for preliminary and final plats. Ms. Hall asked if it would be a 24/7 use. Mr. Bouchard said he believes not be he will check on that. Ms. Keene asked if there will be a gate. Mr. Bouchard said there could be. The property will be secured, but they don’t yet have those details. Ms. Keene asked about a cross-lot connection to the lot to the left. Mr. Bouchard said they will look into that. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Minutes of 20 October and 4 November 2020: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 20 October and 4 November 2020 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. 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 9:42 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on 12/15/2020. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 NOVEMBER 2020 PAGE 8