Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/15/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 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; A. Derry, A. Strong, A. Dotolo, A. Rowe, B. Duncan, C. Frank, C. Huston, C. Snyder, D. Seff, D. Marshall, D. Hernberg, G. Farrell, J. Illick, L. Murphy, M. Byrne, S. Beall, S. Savell, S. Theriault, S. & D. Mowat, D. Morrissey; P. Scoffield 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 reminded those attending the meeting to sign the virtual sign-in sheet and other options for noting their presence. This is necessary in order to attain party status should a person wish to appeal a decision of the Board. 4. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-20-37 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 three-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 outstanding issues relate to stormwater and to access. With regard to access, Mr. Marshall said the issue is whether to use the existing access at Farrell Park Drive. The entrance to 99 Swift Street shared that access, and the curb cut for that access was a requirement when that property was developed. Mr. Marshall said this development proposes to redevelop the single-family house lot with a 20-unit building with an additional new curb cut onto Swift Street. This will minimize the queuing on the Farrell Park Drive access. This plan was recommended by a traffic study. The access to Farrell Park would become a one-way ingress. He estimates that this would eliminate 55-60% of the traffic using that curb cut to egress onto Swift Street. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 2 Mr. Marshall said they met with the Fire Marshall who told them to absolutely leave that access in place. Staff wanted to eliminate that access altogether. The concern is that eliminating the access will disrupt the circulation for the existing office building and will make the building’s parking lot less efficient. If there are no spaces available in the lot, people would have to back out of the lot, creating a dangerous situation. Mr. Cota said the three options are: leave it as is, go with the developer’s plan, or neck down the access for use of fire trucks (would lose 2 parking spaces). Mr. Marshall showed a diagram of what they want to do. They would neck down the curb cut with a mountable curb and make it a one-way ingress only. They would work with Public Works to put in a center line. There would be no egress from this curb cut. Mr. Cota said the Board has heard from staff about the advantages of closing the curb cut. Mr. Morrissey said one major concern is that many elderly patients use the Retina Center at 99 Swift, and there is a safety concern if they have to back out of the lot if there are no spaces available. There is also a concern with patients walking through the parking lot to their cars if someone is backing out when no other spaces are available. Mr. Cota asked if people are backing out would they use the “ingress only” to egress. Mr. Morrissey said that could happen. He stressed that they would prefer to leave it open entirely as they were originally asked to put it in, and they laid out their building and entry based on that. Regarding stormwater, the applicant would be required to provide a dewatering plan approved by the Stormwater Department as a condition of approval. Mr. Marshall said they have no issue with that requirement. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-20-37. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously via a rollcall vote. 5. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-20-41 of The Snyder Group, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development on 25.93 acres consisting of 18 single-family dwellings, ten 2-family dwellings, three 3-unit multi-family dwellings, and an existing single family home. The amendment consists of changing the unit mix to twelve single-family dwellings, thirteen 2-family dwellings, and three DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 3 3-unit multi family dwellings and an existing single family home, and relocating the recreation path from off-street to on-street, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert noted that Mr. Murphy and his wife are good friends, but she didn’t feel this would be a conflict of interest. Mr. Cota explained the nature of preliminary and final plat and reminded the members and the public that the Board heard a sketch plan of this proposal in October. Mr. Snyder then provided an overview of this modification to a previously approved plan. There are 3 items being requested: a. Relocation of the bike path along the eastern border of the property b. A “no-cut” requirement for some trees c. Shifting the proposed carriage homes to the other side of the road and adding 2 more duplexes Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Re: reduced setback on lot 57. A minimum of 5 feet is allowed, and the plan shows 4.2 feet. Ms. Keene noted the standard setback is 10 feet, but the Board can allow up to 5 feet but no less. Mr. Snyder said they can make it 5 feet or 10 feet by just moving the property line. Ms. Keene suggested just moving the homes a bit closer together. Mr. Rowe said they could do that as well though they do like to keep 20 feet between buildings. b. Re: the “no-cut” covenant for mature trees, staff noted the applicant is suggesting relocating the rec path. Staff feels that just shifting the rec path slightly would accomplish the same thing. Mr. Rowe said the request is to have the rec path follow Vail Drive to distance it from the habitat block. Mr. Behr suggested an alternate path route, partly along Vail Drive and then along the originally proposed route beyond private drive “B”. Mr. Wilking agreed. c. Staff suggested the Board should consider whether the mature trees represent a “unique natural feature” and suggested Board members visit the site. Mr. Murphy said the reasoning for relocating the rec path is not only to save trees. He reviewed the history of the property and the settlement DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 4 agreements. He also noted that there have been a number of city hearings regarding habitat assessments, and this block and the adjacent woods have been identified as significant habitat blocks. The consultant also noted the importance of connections between habitat blocks and that even small patches can be critical for those connections. The Planning Commission had a study done to identify parcels to conserve, and this is one of those blocks. The city also did a study of open space parcels, which he stated this was adopted by the City Council as city policy. The wildlife corridor identified in that study runs along the east side of this property. Mr. Murphy said they feel that putting the rec path next to the connector makes it very difficult for animals to use the connections. He could not understand why staff feels it is more important not to cross driveways than to protect trees. Mr. Murphy also noted that it took a lot to bring everyone together to a settlement, and it is quite discouraging for staff to say we’re no going to recommend this as it discourages settling of differences. Mr. Cota said that the Arrowwood and other studies are not regulations, and the DRB has to go with what is in the regulations. Ms. Keene added that the reports are just that and not policy documents. The City Council specifically noted that the Open Space Committee report is not a regulatory document. The DRB can make its decision based on best practices, and that means considering all things. Mr. Cota said the DRB wants to encourage people to work together, but it can’t ignore the regulations as written. He than asked Ms. Frank of the Bike/Ped Committee to comment. Ms. Frank said the Committee discussed it thoroughly. They feel that putting the path in front of houses and forcing walkers and bikers to go across all the driveways makes it hard on people backing out. There will be families using the path, and it could be dangerous for them. The Committee didn’t feel the path would discourage wildlife from being there. Ms. Frank also said she personally liked Mr. Behr’s suggested route for the path. Mr. Behr said he agrees with Ms. Frank regarding safety of cyclists. He noted that people on the path just want to go and don’t always look for people backing out. He felt his concept was a good compromise. d. Staff noted that the Fire Chief has a concern with making the corner on Vail Drive and noted a fire truck was recently damaged in a similar situation. The Fire Cheif asked to widen the road to 20 feet to address this concern. Mr. Rowe noted that 18 feet had been suggested for traffic calming and reducing wetland impact, the same as at Pinnacle at Spear. Ms. Keene noted that 18 feet is a guideline for wetland crossing. Mr. Behr said this is a long stretch of road, as contrasted to a wetland crossing, and he felt 20 feet would be fine. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 5 He didn’t think there would be a concern with cut-through traffic. He felt they need to go with the Fire Chief on this one. Mr. Wilking agreed. Ms. Keene noted that public safety “in an instant” can be different from public safety “over time.” e. Mr. Cota read the staff comments against relocating the rec path. Mr. Murphy said he agrees with following the LDRs. What is competing are reports, and the question of the weight of evidence as to what is the better approach. f. Re: the relocation of 2 homes, Ms. Keene noted this changes the plan from a mix of single family homes and duplexes to all duplexes in that area. The plan now does not intermix housing types within each block. Mr. Cota said he doesn’t have any strong feelings about that. Mr. Behr said he doesn’t have much of an opinion here but would agree with staff that there are blocks of housing types. He felt he could live with that, though he preferred the previous iteration. Ms. Philibert said it seems that a lot of thought was put into having unifying elements and that it could be very interesting with different materials making it look less “blocky.” Ms. Keene asked if there are any variations from the one elevation type shown. Mr. Snyder said along Elm Street and Vail Drive, there is one type of duplex. Along Halcyon Lane there is a different type of duplex. Units 3-12 are carriage homes. Then there are triplexes leading to the bike path. Ms. Keene showed the Elm St. elevation. Mr. Wilking said he had no problem and found it very attractive. Mr. Behr noted the houses on Market Street really look alike despite different colors and roof lines, but he was not sold one way or the other. Mr. Cota agreed. He found the previous design more dynamic. He wouldn’t ask them to change it. g. Re: Landscaping around utility cabinets: It was noted that there can be a mix of evergreen and deciduous or a solid fence. There can’t be just deciduous. Mr. Rowe said they went with deciduous because the paved path will be salted, but they will add in some evergreens. h. The Arborist has asked that the percentage of maple street trees be reduced. Mr. Snyder said they will comply with that. i. Staff questioned whether they will landscape each phase or do the whole thing at one time. Mr. Snyder said landscaping will be phased. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 6 j. Staff noted that that the “no cut” area should be left in its natural state, but a provision for removing invasives and/or dead trees should be included. The applicant agreed to this. k. Regarding stormwater: Ms. Keene noted that the comments from the Stormwater Department are significant. The applicant noted that under the previous rules, the wet pond was approved; now it would have to be replaced with a gravel wet area. Mr. Cota asked whether the previous decision exists once a decision is made on this application. Ms. Keene said the previous decision goes away only if the Board approves this application and the applicant finalizes it by recording the mylar. If the Board denies this application, the previous approval stands. Mr. Cota said he would deny the project with the rec path in front of the houses, which should give the applicant an idea of whether to invest in stormwater design. Mr. Behr agreed. With the rec path away from the driveways, he could support the application. Mr. Wilking said he had no problem with the project as a whole, but he agrees with Mr. Behr and Mr. Cota about the location of the rec path. Ms. Philibert agreed with Mr. Wilking. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Cota moved to continue SD-20-41 until 20 January 2021. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 via a rollcall vote. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-20-035 and Conditional Use Application #CU-20-02 of ReArch Company to amend a previously approved plan for commercial parking and a vacant 54,459 sq. ft. building. The amendment consists of converting the use to general office and expanding the existing parking lot, 124 Technology Way: Mr. Wilking noted he owns the building across the road but didn’t feel he needed to recuse himself. The applicant was OK with Mr. Wilking continuing. Mr. Sullivan did not rejoin the meeting. Ms. Keene noted there is no Conditional Use Application needed for this project. Mr. Savell said the building was built in 2012 for GM Coffee Roasters. They were recently bought out and got out of their lease. GSA Services has requested to lease the building for customs services. They require 316 parking spaces. The building had only 191 spaces. GSA subsequently reduced their request to 250 spaces. Mr. Savell said they were able to fit those DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 7 spaces on the site. There will also be a new stormwater system under the parking lot. He noted GSA will be creating many new jobs. Ms. Philibert asked whether the fact that more people are working from home affect the parking need. Mr. Savell said it won’t. From April to July, they will be at full capacity. Staff notes were addressed as follows: a. Wetland impact: The applicant’s State wetland permit is in the review process. Ms. Dery said they didn’t anticipate an issue with getting that permit. Ms. Keene said staff feels the Board should see the State permit before making a decision. She noted that because this is a direct impact on the wetland, the Board cannot make receipt of the State permit a condition of approval. b. Staff is questioning whether the wetland impacts are worth adding parking when there already is parking. Ms. Dery said this wetland has been and will continue to be used for stormwater treatment. The “finger” being impacted occurred because of the use for treatment. She noted that other parts of the wetland have been protected. Mr. Wilking added that this is a mowed area, not a tributary of either brook. He said the site is very well used and traversed every day. c. Staff is asking that the applicant provide a “quad” plan to qualify for placing parking in front of the building. Messrs. Wilking and Behr recalled seeing the quad plan when this was originally approved. Mr. Savell said it is private land, but public use is allowed. There are only 2 buildings on the quad now. With the next buildings, they will add to the quad. There are still 6 or 7 buildings to go to create the full quad effect. Mr. Behr asked if there is anything in the lease to prevent development of the quad. Mr. Savell said there is not. Ms. Keene noted that the City Stormwater Department needs more information before they can recommend approval. There are concerns regarding ground water entering the system as backflow. The elevations are Ok, but they may be treating some ground water, and that would be expensive. The applicant noted that Technology Park is part of the new stormwater permitting requirements. They will bring the whole site up to the regulations, not just the development area. They are proposing a “fancy” underground chamber that will discharge into the wetland. This will be an improvement for the whole property. There have been no backflow issues in the past. Ms. Keene asked if the manhole has a “name.” The applicant provided DMH#4A and said it can be called a “flap gate.” Ms. Keene said this addresses the comments of the Stormwater Manager. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 DECEMBER 2020 PAGE 8 Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Scoffield said he lives in the closest residential building to this facility and rides his bike to work every day. He asks who will maintain the stormwater system. It was also noted that the parking lot at the other building is never completely full. Ms. Keene said the city has a Stormwater Utility that does more inspections than the State, and the applicant must maintain the system. Mr. Savell said they will maintain it and have their own team to do that. He noted they do not own the other building, and the owners said they need all the parking. GSA has also said they want all their spots on their property for safety reasons. Members were not comfortable closing the application with having the State Wetland Permit. The applicant said they are expecting to have that permit by the end of January. Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-20-035 until 2 January 2021. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Minutes of 5 March 2019, 17 November 2020 and 1 December 2020: Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 5 March 2019, 17 November and 1 December 2020 as written. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Other Business: Ms. Keene reminded members that they need to watch the Open Meeting Law Training video. Mr. Cota said he will get the DRB’s annual report written. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on January 5,2021.