Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_2021-11-16 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 November 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J. Larose, E. Nattrass, M. Breiner, L. Delhagen, Z. Davisson, K. Easton, T. Getz, C. Orben, C. Frank, D. Marshall, E. Langfeldt, S. Homsted, Z. Sadler-Jasmin, L. Farley 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instruction on emergency exiting of the building and how to participate virtually. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: The Board welcomed new member Quin Mann. 5. Continued preliminary plat application SD-21-19 of 600 Spear Street, FJT, LLC, for a planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with a 7000 sq. ft. storage building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of a 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in 4-family buildings; a 1.24 acre lot containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be converted to a duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear Street: Staff noted that the applicant has asked for a continuance to 7 December. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SD-21-19 to 7 December 2021. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 2 6. Continued Miscellaneous Permit Application #MS-21-04 of Larkin Realty for stream alteration and stormwater drainage modifications @ 1195 Shelburne Road: Ms. Philibert advised that the Board deliberated and decided that the application does not qualify for any of the exemptions in the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Albrecht added that though this is a minor project, it doesn’t fit with the regulations. Mr. Marshall said they hadn’t anticipated this and respected Mr. Albrecht’s comments because of his understanding and experience. It is frustrating as the work needs to be done. He said they would try to get this corrected by the Planning Commission. Ms. Philibert said the Board was frustrated as well. Mr. Kochman moved to close MS-21-04. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-21-043 and Conditional Use Application #CU-21-03 of Burlington Tennis Club to amend a previously approved plan for a 2500 sq. ft. indoor recreation facility and outdoor recreation facility. The amendment consists of adding a third platform tennis court at 12-1/2C East Terrace: Mr. LaRose said this is an existing 7.5 acre site off East Terrace. They have a number of tennis courts including 2 platform (paddle) tennis courts. They are asking to add an additional platform court. The courts are made of aluminum and are heated and lighted. They are only used in winter because of the nature of the ball. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. The applicant stated there will be no significant change in the use of the facility. They noted that last year, members struggled for court time, and this will relieve that pressure. 2. Staff noted that the photometrics drawing doesn’t show if the lights can be phased down. The applicant said the higher the light, the less glare because the intensity is less high over existing surfaces. The new lights are an improvement over the existing ones. They are LED and use less electricity. They are also downcast and allow better viewing of the ball. They indicated another plan to show the light does not leave the property. They also showed additional vegetation which buffers light that might reach that far. Ms. Keene said she took photos showing the view from the courts with the lights. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. LaRose said the old lights have been upgraded and are downcast (he showed photos). He also showed the location of homes behind the landscaping. Ms. Philibert asked if there have been concerns raised by neighbors. Mr. Nattrass said there have not. Mr. LaRose said visibility is important for safety. Mr. Nattrass said the latest playing time is 9:30, and the last booking is for 8 p.m. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Reiner, who lives at 22 East Terrace, said the cedars stop at #20. He was concerned with the lights though this year there seems to be less glare. He did note that lights have been on beyond 9:30 occasionally. He said the club has been good neighbors for many years. Mr. Farley of 20 East Terrace said there is a question of noise when 2 courts are operating, and sometimes the language concerns him because of his children. Mr. Nattrass apologized if lights have been on longer than they should and also for the language. He will address these issues. Mr. Kochman asked when the closing time is. Mr. Nattrass said members book a time, and the last time ends at 9:30 p.m. He felt having the lights on for safety until 9:45 was reasonable so members can find their way to their cars. Mr. LaRose said he will check to see if the lights are able to be dimmed. Mr. Kochman then moved to close SP-21-043. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Final Plat Application #SP-21-25 of Green Mountain Development, Inc., for the next phase of a previously approved plan for up to 458 dwelling units and up to 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The phase consists of two 4-story, multi-family residential buildings on Lots 10 and 11 with a total of 94 dwelling units of which 79 are proposed inclusionary units, and 2 city streets, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Wyman noted she works for a company that has previously been hired by the O’Brien’s. She felt this would not impact her decisions. Ms. Philibert noted she lives in an O’Brien property but also felt she can be impartial. Mr. Gill provided a brief overview of the project which began in 2016 with a master plan that is still in effect. The road network is mostly built except for one connection. This application is the first phase of the final buildings consisting of 2 buildings on Lots 10 and 11. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 4 Mr. Getz explained that his is an affordable housing developer throughout the northeast. His company began talking about this project 9 months ago. They would be building 2 buildings, each with 47 units. The inclusionary units would be for people at 60% of median income plus some units for the homeless. The goal is to construct next summer. They are applying for financing now. Mr. Gill noted that most of the single family homes in the overall project will be built or under construction before this project is built. Mr. Albrecht asked how the affordable units would be managed. Mr. Gets said they will be managed by covenant. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. The Board was asked to determine if separate zoning permits are needed for lots 10 and 11 and the road. Mr. Gill said that O’Brien is managing everything except the buildings which Mr. Getz will manage. Mr. Getz said they are OK with the permit for the road proceeding under the usual guidelines, with the portion needed to serve the first building permit, which will depend on when the funding source comes through. There is a question as to whether American Rescue Plan Funds are available, and that would determine the timing of the building on lot 10. Mr. Getz said the State is optimistic that the regulations will change to allow this. 2. The applicant was asked to confirm that the units are rental. Mr. Gill said currently they are, but it would be great if that can remain flexible. Ms. Keene said decisions cannot be written for every possible variation. She recommended writing it one way and amending it, if necessary. She noted that the number of required inclusionary units depends on the mix. 3. Staff recommends deferring the decision on whether to allow the additional 32 total units until the applicant demonstrates the project can support them but to allow the increase in inclusionary units. Ms. Keene noted there were 47 inclusionary units, and there are now 32 more. The question is whether there is room for the offset units for those additional units. The applicant will have to show this will work. Mr. Gill said they understand and are fine with that. 4. Staff said the Board needs to decide whether the applicant meets the physical integration of the inclusionary units. Mr. Getz said they were originally proposed all on lot 12. They are now in 2 buildings on lots 10 and 11 and are more DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 5 integrated than before. Mr. Kochman said he has noted a tendency to get away from the integrated concept which he felt is critical. He felt the Board should question and push back on the economic pressure to “condense” because of financial efficiency. Mr. Getz said the new proposal has 71 of the 94 total units as affordable. Mr. Albrecht said he understands Mr. Kochman’s point but felt this building is integrated into a multi-building project. He also noted the 2% vacancy rate in the city. Mr. Getz said there could be a lower number, depending on financing. He suggested saying a minimum of 51 inclusionary units, which is the requirement. Mr. Gill was OK with that as long as it did not preclude adding the additional units and the offset at a future hearing. Ms. Keene said she will look to see if they can retroactively count the affordable units. 11 through 13: Regarding appearance and design: Ms. Philibert noted that what is being presented is a different design from what she remembers from preliminary plat. Mr. Gill said they are absolutely getting more urban in design. Mr. Getz said the goal is to have a design of high quality materials, transitioning from the single family homes. He noted they did 2 projects in Winooski with the same concerns and showed photos of these. Mr. Kochman asked why the flat roof has become almost universal. Mr. Getz said it is a more urban feel, and they felt that was what staff wanted. Mr. Langfeldt added that there is rooftop equipment instead of it being on the ground. Mr. Getz said heating is with efficient “mini splits.” He showed the Winooski development photos and noted the mix of sidings and also the way they have dealt with the parking garage at street level. Mr. Albrecht asked what amenities there will be in the buildings. Mr. Getz said there will be a gym, “work at home” space with computers, etc., laundry, storage units, and underground parking. Mr. Gill said they have a good idea of where the 2 other lots are heading, and the brick will be complementary to the ones on lots 10 and 11. Ms. Keene noted that the applicant had previously proposed corner towers which no longer appear. She also noted that what is required regarding entrances is not showing up in these plans. The main entrance is to a stairwell with no lobby. The lobby is to the rear off the parking lot. Mr. Getz said the key requirement in the minutes was for high quality construction and design. He stressed that they didn’t make changes without thinking them through. Mr. Getz said they do have a street door and they can improve the door. There are only 23 parking spaces. They could have a walkway, but they would lose parking spaces. Ms. Keene asked why the lobby can’t be in the front for people coming in with groceries. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 6 Mr. Getz said this is the only place parking can go. Mr. Gill added that they would have to move the elevator to the front of the building. He also noted there is no grocery store nearby, and people with groceries would be using the parking. Ms. Hall noted that at preliminary plat the applicant stressed common space and that the 4 corners would enliven the neighborhood. That is why there was similarity at the 4 corners. Mr. Gill said they still believe that. They will have thousands of dollars in landscaping and amenities at the corners. There are fully glassed in areas, pavers, planters, bike racks, etc. Mr. Getz said they have to comply with Efficiency Vermont’s efficiency track, and there can be no more than 20% windows. They are now at 19%, so they can’t add more and still comply. The only thing they could do is to take windows away from the garage and add them at the corners. Mr. Kochman said that why the applicant showed at preliminary is a much nicer looking building. He cited variations of depth and heights of roofs and said that now there is just a massive block. Mr. Getz said they were not in the project at preliminary plat; they just read the minutes and are trying to build a building they will be proud of. He invited members of the Board to visit the Winooski buildings. Mr. Langan said if they are not going to propose what the Board saw at preliminary plat, the Board has to get past that. Ms. Keene said they did get a height waiver, and preliminary plat established the standards for this project. Changing what was approved should not be done without cause. Mr. Kochman said the Board should tell the developer what it wants since it granted the waiver based on reasonable conditions. Ms. Philibert asked what the Board should do at this point as the application is substantially changed from what the Board approved at preliminary plat. Mr. Gill said deviation is not always bad. They now have more inclusionary units spread out in 2 buildings, and that is better. Mr. Langfeldt said the goal was always to have 4 strong corners, and they can strengthen the corners. Mr. Kochman said he would like to see them come back with something closer to what was approved at preliminary. Ms. Philibert said there is a “tipping point” where it seems like a different project. It now seems that way to her. Mr. Kochman agreed and asked the applicant to get closer to what was approved at preliminary. Mr. Getz asked for something more specific. Ms. Philibert said the 4 “cornerstones” around the 4 corners. She asked whether the other 4 buildings would be like these 2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 7 proposed buildings. Mr. Gill said that is a good question. Having all the buildings the same is “kind of institutional.” He felt they would propose something closer to what was seen at preliminary. Ms. Philibert said she didn’t want 6 identical buildings but did want some cohesion. Ms. Wyman asked what elements the Board wants in each building. She felt it could be the entry towers, and then other things can be varied. Mr. Kochman agreed that the new proposal isn’t as nice as the preliminary plat buildings and restoring the vertical tower would be good. He’d like to see them add an entry into common space. Mr. Langan felt the preliminary plat is a list of things you can do to satisfy the LDR. Mr. Kochman noted that the list of things in the preliminary plat is the premise on which they got their approval. Ms. Philibert agreed. Mr. Getz stressed that they can’t get financing if they don’t meet the energy requirements. He noted that the tower went as high as the Board allowed. Ms. Keene said possibly having something lower next to the tower would make it seem higher. Members then agreed to discuss the road issues beginning with staff comment #14. Mr. Gill said the traffic study code used for the duplexes changed because a new code was added to the 11th edition of the traffic manual. The result of adding duplexes is to reduce the number of trips, according to an updated traffic study. Regarding the question of the driveway out of lot 12, they can address the sight lines by having landscaping without low hanging limbs. Regarding the safe crossing concerns across 4 lanes of Kennedy Drive in conjunction with the rec path, the applicant was asked if they will be installing a signal as designed or other temporary measure (e.g., flashing beacon). Mr. Gill said they will not install the crosswalk until everything else is complete. There is another signal further on within walking distance. He showed a plan indicating that intersection and noted that when they apply in a few weeks for the next 2 buildings, they will be putting in the signal. He proposed that the crosswalk not be installed until the signal was installed. Mr. Kochman said that seems reasonable. Regarding staff comment #16, Ms. Keene said staff will provide review prior to issuance of a zoning permit. They have not yet heard from Public Works. Staff suggests a condition to incorporate those comments. The applicant was asked to describe the use of the pocket park area which does not seem to serve lot 11. Mr. Gill said the intent is that it is connected to the street and is not DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 8 exclusive to residents. Mr. Getz noted that the buildings would be non-smoking, but the pocket park area on lot 11 would allow smoking. Ms. Wyman questioned whether non-smokers would use that area. Mr. Kochman felt a complete prohibition on smoking was almost punitive for low-income people. In staff comment #18, the applicant was asked to provide missing information in the photometric computations. Mr. Gill said they will provide that. Staff asked whether there will be lighting on the building. Mr. Gill said they will follow up on that. There will be some exterior building lighting. Ms. Keene read a letter from the Bike/Ped Committee which has endorsed the plans for the updated plans for buildings 10 and 11. In comment #21, staff asked the applicant to present the streetscape design to determine which goals, #a through #e are met. Staff feels those goals are met. Mr. Gill noted they worked with a consultant and included those recommendations. There is a 10-foot rec path on Two Brothers Road down to Kennedy Drive to get bikes off the street. There is also an 8-foot rec path from the town homes into the intersection. That now transitions from asphalt to concrete. They will also start putting in tree grates along the path (he showed this on the plan) and colored concrete bands. The intersection will be raised and dark grey. Ms. Keene said her one concern is the perennials in the right-of-way as the city doesn’t have the resources to maintain perennials. Mr. Gill said they could maintain them or remove them. Mr. Albrecht asked if there are examples of colored concrete squares and whether they become eyesores over time. Ms. Orben said the color is part of the concrete mix and won’t change. She noted there are some at the Davis Center which are driven over all the time. Mr. Gill added that they are also in the new City Hall Park in Burlington. Ms. Orben said the coloring is the same as on the sidewalk. They will be shades of grey with red brick. Staff indicated that there can be only one reserved parking space per unit. If a tenant has 2 cars, there can be only one reserved space. In staff comment #26, staff asked how the design of lot 10 accomplishes the objective of transitioning from the single family and duplex area. Mr. Getz said they pulled the building back from the property line which allows for more lawn and added plantings along the edge of the driveway. They feel this is a better transition from the single family homes. The applicant saw no issue with having a curb break for lot #11 to allow for maintenance vehicles. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 2021 PAGE 9 Staff comment #28 required better access to the solid waste disposal area. The suggested is to use the space next to the garage door for a “person door” for this use. Mr. Getz said there is a “person door” shown coming out of the garage on each building to access the trash area. He showed this on the plans. Ms. Keene asked that it be more clearly indicated. Members agreed to stop here due to the late hour. Ms. Wyman moved to continue SP-21-25 until 4 January 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Minutes of 2 November 2021: Members agreed to postpone approval of the minutes due to the late hour. 10. 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 10:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___.