Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2021-04-20 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 April 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring, D. Albrecht ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, S. Homsted, A. Dery, K. Braverman, C. Snyder, A. Rowe, S. Dooley, C. Frank, T. McKenzie, Wayne, C. Trombly, A. Dotolo, J. & J. Gates, M. Biama, J. Langan, 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. Albrecht noted that he is currently doing some work for the Town of Shelburne. He did not feel this would be a conflict. Ms. Philibert reminded members of the public to sign the virtual sign-in sheet as this would be a requirement in order to appeal a decision of the Board. 4. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-12 of Snyder-Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of 9.4 acres (Lot L), 1.0 acres (Lot M4), 1.2 acres (Lot M5), and 0.4 acres (Lot M6) for the purpose of constructing projects on each of Lots M4, M5 and M6, which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 311 Market Street: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Braverman said the lots are on the south side of Garden Street, across from the Garden Apartments. They have laid out some of the building footprints (Mr. Braverman showed a plan). The lots are located in the T4 transect district which has a lower density than T5. T4 also allows a curb cut on Market Street. Mr. Braverman noted there is a wetland (Tributary 3) to the south of these lots. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 2 Staff comments were then addressed as follows: a. Staff recommends the applicant provide a plan to show that what is planned can be supported by one additional curb cut on Garden Street, none of Market Street. Ms. Keene showed the location of the existing Garden Street and Market Street intersection. She noted the applicant proposes another curb cut less than 400 feet from the next curb cut. She felt this was a challenging situation: 3 new large multi- family buildings all accessed from one curb cut on Garden Street. Staff is recommending a second curb cut on Garden St. which could also serve as an alley to the T5 area. Mr. Rowe said they understand the explanation. He noted that T4 standards require a minimum 400 foot distance between curb cuts on Market Street, not counting intersections. He felt they comply with that for a second curb cut on Market St. He added there was a positive finding on that for another application. Ms. Philibert said it makes sense to have the curb cut on Garden Street which is more of a thoroughfare. She asked the applicant to think about it. b. Since the site plan will be done administratively, Staff asked the applicant to discuss the number of dwelling units and peak hour traffic. Mr. Rowe said there will be a total of 4 buildings, one of which is approved. There could be 259 dwelling units plus 1800 sq. ft. of non-residential space (possible coffee shop). They anticipate 145 peak hour trips. They are subject to the transportation impact fee (or an in-kind credit, as previously). Mr. Albrecht asked if there will be underground parking. Mr. Rowe said there will be, when possible. He acknowledged that surface parking is limited. The goal is to have 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Mr. Braverman added it is attractive to have covered paring. They need to ramp down to get to it, which has to be considered. c. Staff recommends asking the applicant to describe the boardwalk path. Mr. McKenzie said South Burlington Realty owns the property. He reviewed the history including the TIF plan and a wetland donation. In 2015, 4 design alternatives were produced. They integrated S. Burlington Realty land with park land. A “project definitions report” was produced which outlines benefits, etc., of the park and also refers to a boundary line adjustment to be done after the wetland permit is received. In 2016, the City Council adopted a Resolution which Mr. McKenzie read from and showed Exhibit B from that Resolution. It defines the park as including South Burlington Realty land with design features including the boardwalk. Mr. McKenzie stressed that these are park features. In 2018, the wetland permit was received. Mr. McKenzie said it seems the city is using the zoning process to get South Burlington Realty to pay for park improvements. He stressed that the boundary line adjustment should go through. South Burlington Realty is happy to make the connection show in Exhibit B (he indicated where this is) from the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 3 edge of the wetland to Garden Street. Mr. Albrecht cited the need to get together with Ms. Blanchard and others to see what they recall. Ms. Keene suggested a second sketch plan hearing. She suggested the boundary line adjustment should be part of this application if South Burlington Realty is giving land to the city. Members then agreed to continue the sketch plan hearing to the next meeting, 4 May, in order to get more information. 5. Continued preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-40 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to create a planned unit development of 6 existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family, duplex, and three-family dwellings on nine lots totaling 21.8 acres, nineteen commercial development lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single family home, and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert noted she owns property in the Hillside development next to this proposed development, but she did not feel it would influence her judgment. Ms. Philibert also noted this is a very large, complex project which will be continued to 18 May as some issues will not be resolved at this meeting. Members then continued to review staff comments as follows: #32. Since sketch plan and preliminary plat are not being required for individual buildings, staff is concerned that there has been no concept provided for commercial buildings. Ms. Keene said that although the Board can grant waivers for sketch and preliminary plat hearings, staff feels that PUD review should be required, not just site plan review. Mr. Gill noted that their waiver request #18 is that sketch plan review be voluntary within the PUD. He said the multi-family building is required to be reviewed as a PUD; other buildings are not. They are requesting that “mini PUDs” not be reviewed within the overall PUD as it creates “uncertainty.” Waiver request #19 is for final plat only for commercial elements within the PUD. Mr. Gill said this was previously done. Waiver #20 is a request for site plan only for a single structure within the PUD. Mr. Gill said they are making broader commitments across all lots, and don’t feel they should have to review at each stage. Mr. Behr said he would defer to staff. He liked seeing everything at sketch plan review and was leaning toward requiring a sketch for each site. Mr. Albrecht agreed. Ms. Keene suggested deferring decisions on those 3 requests to final plat when designs are more solidified. Mr. Gill said they appreciate being able to move projects forward, and they lost opportunities when they can’t get through the permit process expeditiously. Ms. Keene said the time is related to the scale of the project. Mr. Gill was OK with deferring the decisions on the waivers and said they can perhaps provide more DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 4 information. Mr. Langfeldt said having the waivers wouldn’t preclude them from submitting a sketch plan if they felt it was needed. Mr. Gill said waiver #24 is to OK putting landscaping inside the cul de sac. Ms. Keene said that is a “hard no” from the Fire Department. She said if the applicant can work something out with the Fire Chief, staff would support it. She said no one has yet shown the Fire Department something they would accept. #35. The Board was asked to consider whether to condition light-colored roofs. Mr. Gill said they looked into this issue. The reason for the request is that light colored roofs reflect energy away from the home. They looked into shingles that would meet the requirements, and they are basically white and not very attractive. There are dealers that sell “cool roofing shingles,” which they are willing to use if they work. There is only company in Vermont where they can be obtained, and they will be used if they meet the standard. Mr. Albrecht said he would refer to stormwater staff on this. There may be standards regarding temperature requirements. He felt cooling sounds like a good idea, but unless the city has standards, he would like to know what the stormwater people think. Ms. Keene said the draft LDRs don’t include reflective standards, and all projects are approved under the LDRs at the time. A stipulation could “encourage” but not require. #36. Staff asked the applicant to show how they meet the requirement for parking to the side and rear of buildings. Staff also recommends this discussion be deferred until the 18 May meeting. #37. Staff felt this item has been addressed. Mr. Gill explained that they re-oriented the IC road to move it up against the buffer in consultation with the Tilley Drive neighbor. The road can now continue and avoid the wetland straight to Tilley Drive. This creates a buffer between the IC and Residential uses, and they can now have a layout with a better street presence. They will consolidate driveways, per staff recommendation, and hide parking behind buildings. This also creates a connection point with the spur road. Mr. Gill showed a plan indicating this. #38. This item was deferred to the 18 May meeting. #39. This item was deferred to a later staff comment. #40. The applicant was asked to contact the Affordable Housing Committee for feedback regarding the inclusionary units. Mr. Gill said they proposed 12 or 13 inclusionary units, 8 in the triplex, others in the cottage home on the north side of the loop phase. With the added number of units, the number of required inclusionary units was increased to 15. Every 3- bedroom unit counts as more than one unit. They now propose that all inclusionary units be 3- bedroom units. Mr. Trombly of the Affordable Housing Committee said the committee was DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 5 encouraged by the diversity of housing types and the larger number of bedrooms. Ms. Dooley added that all amenities will be available to residents of the inclusionary units. #41. Included above. #42. Regarding energy efficiency, staff asked the Board to ask how energy standards will be met. Mr. Gill said all 146 homes will be built to 2020 Stretch Energy Code standards which are beyond the previous code. He added that they are enrolled in the Efficiency Vermont program which will certify all homes in the development. There is no additional cost from the base price on all models for such things as increased insulation, instant hot water, etc. Solar panels would be additional. Specific energy improvements for a specific buyer would be provided. #43. Staff asked about unfinished space. Mr. Gill said all basements will be unfinished but can be finished at the request of the buyer. #44. Staff recommends a condition that 25% of the inclusionary units be built no later 25% of market rate units are built. The applicant’s proposal will result in this being done. Mr. Gill said they build homes when they are sold. He suggested that the first phase of infrastructure is where all of the inclusionary homes are, and they will be built when sold. Mr. Langfeldt added they will all be available in the first phase, but they can’t guarantee when they will be sold. Ms. Keene noted the regulations were written to avoid the South Village situation where the inclusionary units are being constructed last. Mr. Langfeldt said he thought the 25% was manageable. He said they will try to craft some wording for the next hearing. #45. Staff asked the Board to request detailed ledge removal information. Mr. Gill showed the site plan and indicated where there is ledge. They are working to figure out the extend of it and will have more detail at Final Plat. Mr. Gill showed where the IC Road connects with Kimball Avenue. He noted there is a big knob of ledge there which they will blast and use the material from there within the project. This will save thousands of truck trips. Ms. Keene asked how they will comply with regulations 13.16. Mr. Gill said they don’t feel 13.16 applies because they are not proposing resource extraction. They will only use the materials for buildings and roads on the site. They will produce plans, etc., to address 13.16 at Final Plat. Mr. Langan said he believes 13.16 does apply, but he will look closer at it. Mr. Albrecht supported providing the information at final plat. Ms. Philibert asked big rocks will be ground up as at Hillside. Mr. Gill said “yes.” He noted they are hoping to use lots 38 and 39 as a staging area with off-road access to all areas being built. They anticipate staging will last 5-6 years. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 6 #46. This item was covered previously. Other items regarding ledge removal were deferred to when the applicant submits the required information. #47. The applicant was asked to address the final comment of the Energy Committee. Mr. Gill said homes will be certified and will demonstrate compliance with the 2020 stretch code. This will be put in the deeds and recorded at every home closing. They don’t know in advance how each home will meet the RBES standards. Previously-discussed staff comments were then revisited. #1. Regarding phasing, Staff is recommending constructing Old Farm Road, the connection to Hillside, and improvements to Old Farm Road concurrently with the first phase. Mr. Gill provided the following chart of triggers and phasing: 1. Construct staging area 2. Meadow Loop 3. Parkway 4. Stockpile fill area 5. Legacy Farm Avenue, Village Green, etc. 6. Old Farm Rd. improvements 7. Barn improvements, Village Green 8. Old Farm Rd. gateway 9. Relocation of Old Farm Rd. 10. Old Farm Rd. cul de sac 11. Old Farm Rd. extension 12. Open space park 13. Open space park and playground 14. Old Farm Rd./Kimball Avenue intersection 15. K. Road 16. K Road/Kimball Avenue Intersection 17. Open space amenity/trail phase Mr. Gill said the phases are lined up to work with the availability of materials, and stressed that they shouldn’t have to start with a revenue neutral phase. Ms. Keene asked at what point the Board would not have approved the project without the associated infrastructure improvements? That is the point at which this infrastructure should be required. Alternatively the Board could require the infrastructure to be bonded. Mr. Behr said the project should be viewed as a whole project. He understood the need for funding to build some parts, but he did not want to see a partial project. He was particularly concerned that the realignment of Old Farm Road doesn’t happen sooner. Mr. Gill noted that all the infrastructure will be done before DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 7 any commercial buildings. Mr. Behr said he didn’t want this to feel like this project and Hillside are 2 separate neighborhoods. Ms. Eiring felt it was important to put roads in first, especially the relocation of Old Farm Road. Mr. Langfeldt noted the problem of investing in infrastructure when there is nothing to support it. Mr. Behr said he understands that, and it is up to the developer to get creative when they hear the Board’s concerns. He agreed with Ms. Eiring regarding the issue of having people living in a neighborhood and then having road construction starting. Mr. Langfeldt said they will have a conversation with Mr. Rabidoux regarding bonding capacity, which is another cost. He didn’t know if the city can be flexible on such requirements. Mr. Gill said perhaps there is a middle ground. Their intent is not to build all the single family homes before the first commercial lot. Ms. Philibert directed them to figure out the infrastructure before the next hearing. Members agreed to stop here and continue with the agenda. Mr. Albrecht moved to continue SD-20-40 until 18 May 2021. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-200-035 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 Park Way: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a site plan. Ms. Dotolo said they propose to add 59 parking spaces on lot 2 of Technology Park and change the use of the building from “vacant” to “general office.” Ms. Dotolo noted they worked with the State wetland Department and have a draft wetland permit and a draft Act 250 approval. There will be a heavy landscaping plan, and they will upgrade all stormwater to meet the standard. Ms. Dotolo indicated an area that will be planted with wetland mitigation plantings and also the demarcation of the wetland buffer area. Mr. Behr noted the Board previously saw the entire campus development site. He asked if the wetland mitigation will impact that. Ms. Dotolo said it will not. The only impact is to lots 1 and 2. Lot 1 is almost all wetland and was never scheduled for development. There can still be the “campus style” development. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 8 Ms. Philibert noted a lot of people are now working remotely. She asked if the parking is needed. Mr. Biama said they have made several attempts to get the company to reduce its request, but they are not willing to do so. They also want construction completed by the end of August. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Regarding parking in front of the building, staff noted that the Board did not provide any conclusion at the December 15 hearing. Ms. Dotolo said she understood a campus-style development was approved. She asked if there is anything they need. Ms. Keene said it was conceptually presented but there is no decision that requires or even references it. The Board needs to decide if they will allow the parking under Exception #4. Mr. Behr noted parking was originally allowed in front because of powerlines. That is also the reason the rec path with extensive landscaping was built. He didn’t see where conditions have changed since then, and wasn’t sure how the Board’s position would change from the original review. Ms. Philibert said given the history and the fact that the tenant is not willing to budge, it would not be good to “throw the baby out with the bath.” Mr. Albrecht asked if the Board can require any landscaping. Ms. Dotollo said they are infilling and not moving any closer to Kimball Avenue. Mr. Behr said the original approval was based on exception #3 with a trade-off of more landscaping than the minimum requirement. He was OK with this request. 2. Staff asked the applicant what has changed on the plans. Ms. Dotolo said they have enhanced the planting area, there has been demarcation of the wetland buffer, they will cease mowing within the wetland and buffer, and there will be some smaller wetland plantings. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-20-035. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Minutes of 6 April 2021: The Minutes of 6 April 2021 were not presented for review. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 APRIL 2021 9 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:57 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on ________.