Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/01/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 DECEMBER 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 1 December 2020, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive 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; B. Brown, Planning Department; H. Rees, Recreation Department; S. Beall, D. Marshall, D. Morrissey, B. Duncan, S. Theriault, E. Knauf, C. Lussier 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Keene advised that Item #5 on the published agenda had been withdrawn. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Ms. Keene noted that at a joint meeting of the City’s Natural Resources, Bike/Ped, Energy and Recreation and Parks Committees last night, the next phase of the O’Brien development was presented. There were some good questions and comments. The committees will now review the presentation at their next meetings and provide feedback to the DRB. 4. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-20-37 of 99 Swift Street Associates, LLC, to create a planned unit development of two lots at 99 Swift Street and 105 Swift Street and construct a 3-story, 6800 sq. ft., 20-unit mixed rate residential building and associated site improvements on the lot at 105 Swift Street, 105 Swift Street: Mr. Cota noted that the remaining items were: the entryway, trees, landscaping, and stormwater. Mr. Marshall began by addressing the entryway issue. He noted that just off Swift Street there is an existing curb cut which has been there for 30 years. It provides access and egress for 99 Swift Street. It then continues to provide access to Farrell Park to the south. Mr. Marshall said this project will allow better control from that access onto Swift Street. He noted it is difficult DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 2 to egress from 99 Swift Street at certain times of the day. The new access will allow people the opportunity to enter Swift Street further from the Farrell Street intersection. The recommendation at the last meeting was for the existing curb cut to be narrowed to allow one- way enter only. Mr. Marshall noted that they met with the Fire Marshall who wanted to keep the existing curb cut for emergency situations, and that is how the project was planned. They then got some pushback. Mr. Marshall said one option would be to neck down the curb cut to deter people from breaking the “do not exit” rule. There would then be a mountable curb for the northern half of the entry. Ms. Rees said that from her point of view, the chaos at that corner is significant. There is a breakdown in bike/ped connectivity. She noted there is a path past the dog park, and it would be great to provide a connection for pedestrians and cyclists. She wasn’t sure it would make much of a significant difference having just an entryway there. If there wasn’t the shared access, the bike path connection could be improved. Without getting rid of the entrance all together, she doesn’t feel there is a safe option available. There is currently too much fragmentation of the recreation path. Mr. Marshall said they feel that at least half of the traffic will use the new curb cut. He acknowledged it is a balancing act, and any improvement is better than what is there now. Ms. Rees said she appreciates the mitigation. She also wouldn’t go against what the Fire Chief wants. but there are a lot of people trying to make a connection to the bike area. She noted that a lot of people park in Farrell Park and walk to their businesses because of the lack of required parking for the businesses. There is a lot of vehicle traffic when there is little league. She noted that the bike/ped committee has data on accidents and near misses at that corner. Mr. Marshall suggested possible striping to provide guidance for bikers and walkers. He was not sure where the property lines are; if they are on land owned by the city, he felt they could do some striping. Ms. Rees said the bike/ped committee could provide recommendations. Mr. Cota asked if it is known whether the fire truck can turn around with the new curb cut if that were the only access/egress. If it can’t, the answer is clear. Ms. Keene said if it is a radius issue, some parking spaces could be eliminated. The question is what is reasonable. She suggested possibly having a technical review to have an engineer look at it. Mr. Wilking said he is of two minds. He felt 99 Swift has inadequate access today. He also felt that if it weren’t 99 Swift doing this project, Mr. Marshall would be saying ‘we need an access.’ Because housing is something the city needs, he was OK with both entrances. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 3 Mr. Behr agreed with Mr. Wilking, but he felt that in the long term if the single curb cut works for the Fire Department, he favored one access and having the other access for bikers and pedestrians. Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Portman agreed with Mr. Behr. Ms. Philibert agreed with both Mr. Wilking and Mr. Behr. Mr. Langan felt the one way is an improvement, and said the driveway needs attention but isn’t sure closing the entrance is the help it needs. Ms. Rees emphasized the need for better connectivity regardless of what this project decides. Regarding the trees to be lost or saved, Mr. Marshall said that Justin had looked at the oak tree and felt it would be unacceptable to jog around it. Mr. Cota felt the Board shouldn’t make it unsafe or burdensome for Public Works. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Marshall said what prevents them from reaching the required amount is a decision about the wood fence and the inclusion of perennials in the countable budget. He also asked for some credit for existing trees to be saved and for some of the cost for the patio area. Mr. Theriault said the pavers in the patio area will cost $4,400, and the retaining wall $3,600. That would get them to $34,000 without credit for existing trees. Ms. Keene said that their landscaping budget is deficient by $5,365 counting just trees and shrubs. There could be some value given for the pavers and retaining wall as well as for existing trees to be retained. Mr. Behr said he was sorry to lose the oak tree, but understood the Public Works concern. He didn’t like the idea of using the hardscape as landscaping budget. He noted that the site is pretty well landscaped, but suggested some possible landscaping on the west side of the site to replace some of the trees to be removed. Mr. Wilking said he hesitates to over-landscape with apartments which could wind up being dark if trees block the light. He was OK with counting the hardscaping of the patio. Mr. Duncan said they are leaving the existing cedars on the west side of the site and added some trees there. Ms. Keene asked about credit for perennials; they’re difficult to account for but do have some value. Mr. Duncan said they could put tags in the ground to identify the plantings. He noted that they have pollinator value and should be counted. Ms. Hall said the labels may not be there in 3 years when she has to attest to them in order to release the bond. Mr. Duncan said there could be a condition to replace the perennials that don’t survive. Mr. Sullivan noted that the Board did credit pollinators at the Airport project. Ms. Knauf cited the importance of DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 1 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 4 pollinators, which is a number one goal for landscapers. They provide great variety of texture and color. She noted that all of what is proposed on the north side are pollinators, and all of them have blooms. On the south side, most of the perennials are native and pollinators. Members felt there was enough to cover the landscaping budget. Regarding stormwater, Mr. Marshall said they have created a way to address all the concerns and will comply with all the comments from the stormwater utility. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota said the Board still needs to make a decision regarding the 2 access points, so they need to continue the application to hear from the Fire Chief. Mr. Marshall said he would provide options for the Chief to review. Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD-20-37 until 15 December 2020. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 5. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-20-35 of TPG Architecture to amend a previously approved plan for a 101,838 sf shopping center in two (2) buildings. The amendment consists of constructing a detached 3,354 sf financial institution with remote drive-up ATM and canopy, 570 Shelburne Road. This application was withdrawn. 6. Minutes of 17 November 2020: The minutes were not available for action. 7. Other Business: No other business was presented. These minutes were approved by the Board on 12/15/2020.