Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2021-10-05 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, October 5, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Albrecht, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, A. Klugo, L. Lackey, J. Ilick, J. Page, S. Mowat, K. Wagner, C. Frank, D. Roy, R. Groeneveld, C. Gendron, T. Duff, N. Hyman. 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Mr. Albrecht provided instructions on exiting the building in the event of an emergency. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: The approval of the Minutes was moved to follow Announcements. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Approval of Minutes of 8 September 2021: Mr. Behr noted he was not present at that meeting. Ms. Wyman moved to approve the Minutes of 8 September as amended. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Continued Miscellaneous Permit Application #MS-21-04 of Larkin Realty for Stream alteration and stormwater drainage modifications, 1195 Shelburne Road: and 7. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-21 of Donald & Lois Kerwin to amend a previously approved planned unit development of 2 lots. The amendment is DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 2 to subdivide Lot 2 (0.83 acres) into 3 lots of 0.28 acres each in order to develop a single family home on each, 1420 Hinesburg Road: Staff advised that there are requests to continue both item #6 and #7. Mr. Kochman moved to continue MS-21-04 of Larkin Realty until 2 November, and to continue SD-21-21 until 19 November 2021. Mr. Behr seconded. The motion passed 5-0. 8. Site Plan Application #SD-21-039 of South Village Communities, LLC, to provide a replacement plan for trees and shrubs that were improperly removed. The plan consists of installing a heavily landscaped passive recreation area and walking path between Aiken Street and Spear Street, east of the existing paved recreation path, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. Marshall said that a hedgerow that separated buildings from the street was “overcut.” This plan seeks to correct that and to create more organization and a walking path in that area. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. The applicant was asked to address dimensional requirements and provide corrected lot coverage. Mr. Marshall said there will be no impervious. The walking path will be woodchipped. He suggested a condition of approval that the coverage is compliant. 2. Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) standards require the applicant to have a maintenance plan for the natural area. Mr. Marshall said they would like to use portions of the current document as the basis for a management plan. They would be comfortable getting staff approval for the plan that is submitted. Ms. Keene said that would be a little vaguer than what they usually have. Conditions cannot be open-ended. Mr. Kochman agreed. 3. The applicant was asked to provide a narrative regarding construction access and to modify the plan for this. Mr. Marshall said they are OK with that. 4. The applicant was asked to comply with site plan review standard 14.06 and show how the plan provides equal compliance with the standard that the previous landscaping did. Mr. Marshall showed the plan and indicated the part of the proposed “infill.” He said that with the management plan, they can create a healthy environment for plantings to thrive and survive. Mr. Marshall said they understand that some goals relate to screening. They propose to have variety and create interest, but it will take time for the height to take effect. Mr. Kochman asked the starting diameter of the trees. Mr. Marshall said depending DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 3 on the type of tree, 2 to 2-1/2 inch. Shrubs would be 30-36 inches in height. Ms. Keene noted that the Arborist says it’s harder to get a successful transplant with a larger tree. She noted that some of the trees do remain and showed a picture of what is there today from the South Village side. She felt that in time the proposed trees will fill in nicely, and the path is an amenity. She also felt there is a nicer transition than there was before. 5. Staff recommends deciding which of the criteria in 13.06C are met (e.g., screening, minimizing runoff, etc.). Members were OK with this so far. 6. Staff noted that the Board may wish to allow removal of any remaining dead, dying or diseased trees with written approval of the Arborist. Mr. Behr said if they clear out any more, the appearance of what the Board is approving will change. Mr. Marshall said they are not looking for wholesale changes. If work can be done that maintains the character of the area, they can address Mr. Behr’s concerns and allow for removal of any remaining invasives. Mr. Kochman suggested a condition to have the approval of the Arborist and City Administrative Officer, consistent with the approved plan. Mr. Marshall suggested not removing any invasives until other plantings have taken hold. 7. Staff requests that if the Board grants flexibility, it should require replacement with plantings of the same size, shape and nature and also require approval by the zoning administrator. Mr. Marshall said they are OK with the condition. Returning to comment #4, staff asked whether the Board felt criteria have been met. Mr. Behr said he had enough information. Mr. Kochman was concerned it will be a long time before 2- 1/2 inch caliper trees provide any screening. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Mowat raised the question of maintenance. He liked the plan but asked what the long- term maintenance requirement would be to keep the plantings healthy. He noted the area was free of maintenance costs before. Mr. Marshall said he did not know. Mr. Mowat also asked if the area will be mulched. Mr. Marshall said he didn’t know but would like to see it fully mulched. Mr. Mowat asked that answers be provided to the Stewardship Committee. Mr. Marshall said he would see to that. Mr. Behr said the applicant should take the opportunity to meet with the Stewardship Committee and create an acceptable maintenance plan. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue SP-21-039 until 2 November 2021. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 4 7. Site Plan Application #SP-21-038 of Beta Air, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of changing the approved exterior materials, adding a mezzanine, and minor site improvements for an existing 61,062 sq. ft., 3- story hangar/office building, 1150 Airport Drive: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Klugo explained that this is an amendment to the original approval. It includes trees being removed and the remedy for that. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Staff asked the area of the mezzanine. Mr. Klugo said it is 435 sq. ft. It is outside the building and is to be used to raise some equipment. 2. Staff asked the Board to decide what uses are appropriate. All of the proposed uses are allowed. Current uses are office and hangar. Mr. Klugo said that today, hangar use is 25%, office use is 50%, and R & D is 25%. He noted that manufacturing is done elsewhere. Ms. Hall said that with an umbrella permit, Beta could just send a notification if those percentages change. Ms. Keene asked about the traffic budget. Ms. Hall said that is based on the use, this should be calculated as the “worst case” scenario. Members voiced no objection to this. Ms. Keene asked about FAA approval. Mr. Gendron said the only reason they needed FAA approval, which they have, was because part of the building jutted into the airfield. They had to attest that they would not impact air space, and they have done that. 3. Staff noted the change of materials and said the Board should review elevations and determine the criteria are met. She noted they are changing from corten steel mesh to aluminum mesh. Mr. Behr said he had no issues. Mr. Klugo noted they have extended that feature on the site (he showed a picture). They still have a corten frame. 4. Staff noted the fence realignment changes the circulation and felt the previous configuration was safer. The Board was asked to decide. Mr. Gendron said Building #36 is owned by BTV, and they want to continue to be able to use it. They will extend the fence around the building. Beta will leave that open, so BTV can do the work. The access was shifted to allow that work to happen. Mr. Behr asked if there isn’t a compromise of crossing on the diagonal. Mr. Klugo said they did provide an alternate layout until the sidewalk is available. He showed the alternate proposal and said they are happy to move toward Option 1. 5. Staff asked for a specific location and screening of the dumpster. Mr. Klugo showed a rendering of the dumpster and materials. Members voiced no objections. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 5 6. Staff noted the landscaping requirement is $2300 plus replacement of removed/damaged trees. Ms. Keene said 3 elements are required: the minimal landscaping requirement, replacement of removed trees that were to be retained, and replacement of trees to be removed near the dumpster. Ms. Keene asked whether the Board felt they are doing enough new landscaping and enough to replace removed/damaged trees. Mr. Wagner said 6 trees were removed or damaged. There was also one tree they had planned to transplant but cannot. Proposed replacement trees as a 4” caliper crab apple, three 12-14 foot spruce, a 4” pear, and a 4” honey locust. The total cost of those trees is $14,629. The total value of the removed trees is $22,349 which results in a $7,720 difference. Mr. Wagner suggested Ms. Keene and Ms. Orben “regroup” on this. Mr. Klugo said Beta is committed to adding trees to the Airport Master Plan based on what is decided. Mr. Kochman asked whether Staff agrees with Beta’s value. Ms. Keene said she will do what she usually does and check on the values. She also wants to talk with the Arborist. Mr. Wagner said he knows exactly what the trees cost. Mr. Klugo said they can probably get them cheaper, but asked if that is what the community wants them to do. Mr. Klugo stressed that any deficit will be made up with plantings in the Master Plan. He also noted he felt the required minimum landscaping for the building expansion should be charged at 2% and they are being charged at 3%. Ms. Hall said staff typically considers building additions as separate from any other calculation. Mr. Behr said he hears both sides. He said he follows Mr. Klugo’s argument and said he would look at this as an amendment, at 2%. He added he is comfortable with the proposal for the $7720. He said the question is whether the Board feels the project is adequately landscaped, then determine whether the additional money can go to the Master Plan. Mr. Kochman agreed with the 2% for a project that is in process. Mr. Wagner said they feel they have put as many trees and shrubs on site as possible. They are making an effort to do the right thing and make this a handsome site for Beta. 7. Staff noted that the plantings on the south side of the building are not feasible, and the provided replacements have not yet been reviewed. A continuance is requested to allow that review. Mr. Wagner explained where those plantings were relocated to give them a better chance to survive. Mr. Behr was OK with this. Ms. Keene said she will have the Arborist review the plans and approve the multiplier prior to issuance of a zoning permit. Mr. Behr then moved to close SP-21-038. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9.Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-23 of Greenfield Capital, Inc., to consolidate 3 existing lots into one lot of 19.8 acres for the purpose of constructing a 133,777 sq. ft., two to three story office and light manufacturing building, 419 parking spaces, and associated site improvements, 443 Community Drive: Mr. Groeneveld explained the company history of making industrial computers. The business is growing rapidly, and they expect that to continue. They currently have 36,000 sq. ft. and need DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 6 a larger facility. They are planning for 400 employees in the new building over 10 years with a focus on high-paying jobs. The building will be energy efficient with solar power. It will be close to the Interstate, and they want it to be a beautiful building. Mr. Ilick showed the location of the just finished FedEx building. He said the proposed building will be an outstanding piece of architecture, more visible from the Interstate than from Community Drive. Mr. Kochman asked about a rec path. Mr. Ilick said there is an exercise/walking path. They relocated the path during the FedEx project and will have to do that again. It will still be a full use path. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Regarding building height, staff asked the Board to determine if they would allow the proposed height. Mr. Roy said there is only one portion of the building which reaches the 46’ height. Mr. Ilick added that they are in the Airport approach cone district and have to get approval for the building height from the FAA. This includes the height of the construction crane. He also noted the height is compatible with the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Keene noted the Board can approve the additional height with added setbacks. Mr. Ilick said they more than meet that criteria. They are probably 300 feet back from the Interstate. There were no FAA issues. Mr. Behr asked the height of the Fed X building. Mr. Ilick said it is about 30’, but the proposed building is so far away, the height difference won’t be noticed. 2. Ms. Keene noted that all the proposed uses are OK. 3. Staff noted that the applicant is proposing 2 driveways and asked why the western driveway is where it is. Mr. Roy said they are segregating car traffic from truck traffic. They are also going from the allowable 3 curb cuts down to 2. Both are at grade and are 880 feet apart. Mr. Roy noted they are close to what would be a Tilley Drive connector, and that will involve coordination when it occurs. The driveway will be 200 feet from that connector. 4. Staff recommends an independent traffic review. Mr. Ilick said they are commissioning a traffic study and will have it for the next hearing. Preliminary findings don’t suggest any offsite improvements needed. Mr. Behr moved to require technical review of the applicant’s traffic study. Mr. Kochman seconded. The vote was 3-1 with Mr. Langan opposing and the motion was deemed to have DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 7 failed as it did not receive support of a majority of the Board. Ms. Keene noted the Board can invoke technical review later if circumstances change. Mr. Albrecht asked how many employees are in the complex. Mr. Ilick said approximately 2000. Mr. Albrecht asked if there are any plans for “in-house transit.” Mr. Ilick said UVM does run buses, and there is public transit. He wasn’t sure what else could be done. 5. Staff asked the Board to consider the parking reserved for future use. Mr. Ilick explained the phases of the building. He said everything has been designed with the 400 employees in mind. They are asking now to build phase 1. He indicated what the future phases will be and noted that once they are built, that will mitigate the front yard parking. Mr. Ronfled said they now have 100 employees and not enough parking. Ms. Keene noted with the approval of the future parking, the applicant could add it without having to come to the Board. Mr. Ilick said if it will be needed within 3 years, it should be built now. Since they won’t occupy the building for 2 years, they will then need the parking. Mr. Kochman asked if they have considered subterranean structured parking. Mr. Ilick said that would triple the cost as it is more expensive to go down rather than up. 6. Staff noted that use of the lot cannot accommodate all parking to the side and rear of the building. Mr. Ilick said there are plans for the future; in the interim, they would have less than 25% of the parking in the front yard. The height difference from Community Drive will make the parking less visible. Mr. Ilick noted an easement exists to allow any potential shared parking with the FedEx building. Ms. Keene questioned whether there is actually a conflict that would allow the parking in the front. Mr. Roy said they definitely need to keep truck traffic and cars separated. Mr. Kochman questioned possibly building the “dark grey” portion of the building first even though it is more expensive. Mr. Roy said, if you do the light grey now it is easier to do the dark grey later. The reverse does not work as it would interrupt traffic flow significantly. Mr. Behr said there is a lot the Board hasn’t seen yet, and he was not worried about the building’s architecture. The question he did have was whether it is possible to move the building a little closer to Community Drive and put one strip of parking behind the building. Mr. Roy said in the stormwater management plan, that would be where there is a stormwater management facility. Mr. Albrecht urged the applicant to try to get closer to the regulations regarding parking configuration. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 OCTOBER 2021 PAGE 8 7. Staff noted that if parking is to the front, 4200 sq. ft. of open space should be provided. Mr. Ilick showed the walking approach to the building through a “lovely outdoor courtyard.” Mr. Roy said they will try for a better illustration. Staff felt that a more direct sidewalk alignment would provide more safety for pedestrian access. Mr. Roy said they would have to cut through or go over a berm to get more direct alignment. Mr. Kochman said he likes the sidewalk where it is. Mr. Roy noted it connects to the rec path. 8. Staff asked about a solar canopy over the parking lot. Mr. Ilick said they are proposing a rooftop solar array (500,000 kw hours). It will provide a great amount of the building’s power. He added that solar canopies are very challenging in this climate, and stanchions would have to be in the islands which would preclude any landscaping there. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Hyman asked if any hazardous materials would be used or stored here. The applicant said there will be not. Mr. Hyman then asked if there will be any negative affect on the environment. Mr. Roy said they don’t anticipate any. Mr. Ilick said that has already been addressed as part of Act 250. 9. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted the Council will be interviewing for a replacement for Ms. Eiring at the next Council meeting. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on _____