HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2021-12-07 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 DECEMBER 2021
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7
December 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; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman,
Q. Mann
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Hall, Administrative Officer; P. O’Brien, B.
Denham, J. Illick, M. Willard, C. Huston, J. Illick, K. Hunt, A. Dery, L. Thayer, C. Frank, M. Aloisi, Chris, D.
Roy, F. Von Turkovich, J. Damon, Lll, M. Von Turkovich, R. Manning, S. McGinnis, S. Mowat
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. She also enumerated
the ways for the public to attend meetings and to make comments.
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:
Ms. Keene advised that the City Council is now requiring people entering city-owned buildings
to wear masks. The usual exceptions apply.
5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-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. O’Brien reviewed the history of the inadvertent removal of trees and shrubs during the
removal of invasive species. He indicated that this project is on common land of South Village.
The South Village boards, which manage open spaces, provided feedback on this plan. They did
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 2
not want a walking path as there are already 7 miles of paths. They also did not want shrubs or
perennials but did want more trees. Their concern was for the cost of maintenance.
Mr. O’Brien indicated the location of the remaining trees, a few of which are greater than 6-
inch caliper. He also noted there are still a lot of invasives which they would like to remove
before planting the replacement trees.
Mr. Kochman recalled that the Board has asked for the applicant to replace the trees that were
removed and to provide a management plan. He felt the applicant’s plan looked more like an
amendment. Ms. Keene said that had the applicant come with this plan originally, staff would
have said they were rectifying the improperly removed trees. Mr. Albrecht said he didn’t feel
there was a material change. Mr. Behr added that the applicant is staying within the area
where the trees were improperly removed.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff asked that certain notes be removed from the management plan and put on
the preliminary plat plan. The applicant agreed.
#2 and #3. Staff questioned the timing of the removal of invasives and the planting of
new trees and the adequacy of screening. Mr. O’Brien said he spoke with Mr. Hyman, who
manages the removal of invasives, and his feeling was that the invasives seed out every year
and make removal difficult. There is an opportunity now to remove their root system
mechanically instead of chemically as the tree stumps are being removed. Regarding screening,
Mr. O’Brien said they would agree to a condition to plant 10 or 12 additional evergreens. Mr.
Behr questioned whether the 10 or 12 would be enough to provide the needed screening. He
asked whether there is a monetary figure the applicant has to meet. Ms. Keene said the Board
can allow credit for the remaining trees. She noted that in the past, the Board has allowed
removal of a tree and calculated a dollar amount. In this instance, there was no way staff could
“back into” that number since they could not examine all the trees that were felled. Mr. Behr
suggested having T. J. Boyle put together a plan that achieves the screening goal. He agreed
with clearing out the invasives and then starting a new planting plan. He did not want to see “a
line of trees” and wanted to see a plan. Mr. Albrecht asked whether a property owner has the
right to remove invasives. Ms. Keene said this is allowed as long as it is not part of an approved
plan. In this instance, the applicant went too far, and if they were to continue removal, there
would be nothing left. Mr. O’Brien said it is important to have a third party look at this, along
with the City Arborist. He suggested tabling the application to all him to contact Mr. Hyman
and have him tag the invasives. Then he will come back and know where trees will be.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 3
#4 and #5. Regarding the management plan, staff asked the Board to require a
responsible party to be named. Mr. O’Brien said there will be a bonding requirement. If a tree
is not a street tree, the homeowners association will be responsible. Ms. Keene said that is
adequate.
#6 and #7 were previously addressed.
#8. Staff asked whether members believed the criteria in 13.06B and 14.07 are met by
the proposed plan. Members felt this had already been addressed.
#9. The applicant agreed to the bonding requirement.
#10. The applicant agreed to the terms indicated.
Public comment was then solicited.
Mr. Denham said he has been working with Mr. O’Brien on the design and felt the proposed
plan will blend in well and that evergreens will help with screening as all of what is there now is
deciduous. He hoped all the work can be done at once.
Mr. Behr then moved to continue SP-21-039 until 18 January 2022. Mr. Kochman seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6. Conditional Use Application #CU-21-04 of Mike McGinnis to reconstruct and expand
an existing attached garage on a lot occupied by an existing single-family home. The
proposed expansion includes increasing the length and height of a portion of the
structure that is located less than 5 feet from the adjacent side property line, 13 White
Place:
Mr. McGinnis said they have an 850 sq. ft. single-family home and need more space in order to
stay in the neighborhood they love. They looked at an addition but decided it was easier to
take down the garage, build a crawl space underneath and go up 2 floors in order to get more
bedrooms and bathrooms. The only issue is the problem it causes with the property line.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff asked whether the Board felt there was an issue with the adequacy of parking.
Mr. McGinnis said he is open to working something out. They were told there is not a
requirement for a number of parking spaces. This plan reduces parking from 3 spaces to 1. He
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 4
said they can fit cars in the driveway without going beyond the front of the house. Ms. Keene
noted that in the part of the driveway the McGinnis’s own, they have room for only one car, but
using the right-of-way space, they can fit 2. Mr. Behr said they could widen the driveway to fit
2 cars. Mr. Albrecht said people in his neighborhood now park in the right-of-way. Ms. Keene
noted there is a conditional use requirement that they cannot affect the adequacy of parking.
Members were OK with the adequacy of parking.
#2. The applicant was asked to include the structure in the survey. Mr. McGinnis said
they provided this prior to the meeting.
Mr. Kochman asked what standards allow the Board to modify the side setback. Ms. Keene said
it can have no adverse affect on facilities (e.g., views of nearby properties, adequacy of sunlight
to nearby properties, on-site parking, safety, etc.). Mr. Behr noted the addition is much taller
than the garage and he was concerned that it block sunlight to the neighboring property. Mr.
McGinnis said the neighbor has written a letter of support. Ms. Keene noted the regulations
allow for the setback to be closer than 5 feet but no less than 3 feet. Mr. Behr noted the
requirement for a rated wall construction. Ms. LaFontaine said she has never heard that
interpretation. They will be doing an hour-rate wall and will have 10% opening for windows.
Mr. Behr said they are allowed up to 25% for windows.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr then moved to close CU-21-04. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-20-19 of 600 Spear Street FJT, LLC, for a
planned unit development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7000 sq. ft.
storage building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of
one 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:
Mr. Kochman and Mr. Behr advised that they have previously worked with the applicant but felt
they had no concerns with being objective at this time.
Ms. Thayer said there have been changes to the plan, but all the components and goals are the
same; they are just laid out differently. She then showed a revised plan and pointed out the
north/south street connection which has now been moved further to the ease. This has
allowed for the creation of a double-loaded street and parking. They have also now created an
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 5
internal green space with a courtyard feel. The buildings surrounding the green have a “front
door appearance” even though the main entrances are to the rear. Access to the courtyard is
from individual units, from between units, and from the road network. Public and private
spaces will be designated by hardscape and softscape elements. All units will have a visual
connection to the green space.
Regarding stormwater, subsurface and surface detention areas are located to the northeast of
building #5, another to the south of that, one to the farthest building to the south, and one
along the northern boundary.
There will also be a solar display in an area indicated on the plan. This will require State
approval. To the south of the solar display, there will be a community garden of raised boxes.
Mr. Kochman suggested there may be room for a more robust garden area. Mr. Von Turkovich
said they would be happy to devote more land for that purpose. The solar array will produce
500 kw, ground mounted, providing enough power to serve all 34 units and the steel building
including heat. Surplus power can be offered to an off-taker. There will also be an EV station
on the site. The solar panels will be bi-facial so they can reflect heat from the ground.
The applicant then showed pictures of the concept of buildings from the public street.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff asked about the overall pattern of the development, and particularly the
relationship to the development potential to the north. Mr. Behr felt this plan was a great
improvement over the previous rendering. He was concerned how development to the north
would ever happen. He particularly liked the garden plots, solar array and central green. He
asked what will happen to the steel building. Mr. Von Turkovich said they want to keep it. It
will be screened from the rest of the project, and there will be a fence between it and the
backyards. They will also plant trees to the west of it. The intent is to use that building for
tenant uses. Mr. Albrecht asked whether the parking spaces to the south of the steel building
are necessary. Mr. Von Turkovich said they serve the house and potential uses of the steel
building.
#2. This comment was already addressed.
#3. The applicant was asked to confirm that the height of vegetation won’t impede the
view corridor. Ms. Dery said that will be taken into account.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 6
#4. Staff asked that the parking area be reworked to meet the needs of the project. Ms.
Thayer said they will bring it into compliance. She also cited the need to maintain access to the
overhead doors.
#5. Staff asked the applicant to confirm that they will construct the north/south
roadway to the property line. This was confirmed.
#6. This comment was previously addressed.
#7. The applicant agreed to include on-street parking with appropriate “bumpouts.”
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-20-19 to 2 March 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
8. Site plan application #SP-21-046 of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to construct a two to three
story, 130,790 sq. ft. light manufacturing, warehouse and office project, 418 parking
spaces, and associated site improvements on a proposed 19.81 acre lot, 443
Community Drive:
Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Illick provided an overview of the project, noting that 3 lots will be combined into one lot of
just under 20 acres. On Logic is purchasing the property for their headquarters and three uses:
office space, assembly (heavy duty computers) and warehouse (storage and distribution). The
office use will be 3 stories, the warehouse one story, and the assembly use one story plus a
mezzanine. There will be 2 curb cuts, the easternmost for employees and the westernmost for
loading/unloading.
Mr. Illick then showed a plan of the area. He noted that around the perimeter they will slightly
relocate the rec path. It will continue to be used by the public. Mr. Illick indicated the Fed-X
ground facility to the east of the proposed lot.
Ms. Keene said she had met with the owners. Because of the nature of the project, once this
hearing is closed, this will be the only review of the application. This means that everything has
to be perfectly “buttoned up” before closing.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 7
#1. Staff noted that the project will require approval from the appropriate Airport
regulatory authority. Mr. Illick said they have to do this with every project. The application was
submitted on 8 October and they expect a final approval within 30 days.
#2. Staff asked the Board to consider the integration of architecture and aesthetics. Mr.
Illick showed samples of the architectural elements. He noted that the base will be lighter than
the upper area. They will be using a smooth, sophisticated paneling. Windows will be
aluminum framed. Mr. Behr felt it would be an attractive building and would fit in with the rest
of the business park. Mr. Illick noted that most of the buildings in the park are developer
owned, but this building will be owned by the business.
#4 and #5. Mr. Albrecht said there is no architectural standard here as the
neighborhood is evolving. If there is infill 20 years from now, they will have to conform. Mr.
Kochman added that these are unique buildings serving specific uses, and getting visual
compatibility should be de-emphasized. Mr. Illick stressed that compatibility does not mean
“sameness.”
#3. Regarding screening from the Interstate, Mr. Illick said the major parking lot is
adjacent to the Fed X parking lot. The southeast corner has a berm. As you move west, there is
a depression which does not provide screening. So they have added trees to the southern edge
of the parking lot and a line of trees on the eastern edge. A new landscape plan was shown.
Regarding screening of the loading docks, Mr. Illick said they will be vastly less visible than the
Fed X loading docks. Ms. Keene asked about what appears to be retaining walls. The applicant
explained that they are needed at the loading docks because of the grade transition. A plan of
these walls was shown. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t think the Board has to consider concealing
loading docks in a commercial area.
#6. Mr. Illick said they are fine with the access easement; it is the reverse of the one
they granted to Fed X.
#7. Staff asked about enclosing the waste deposit area. Mr. Illick explained that they
have self-contained units, not traditional dumpsters. They are completely enclosed within the
loading dock and look like a box trailer, 20-30 feet long. A truck comes and unloads them. Mr.
Illick showed a picture of them. Mr. Albrecht said if the purpose of “enclosure” is to keep trash
from escaping, that purpose is met. He felt this is a very efficient way to move trash and is
more attractive than the usual “green box.” Mr. Illick pointed out a row of evergreens that
effectively screens these units from Community Drive and also on the south side. He didn’t
know what else they could do. Mr. Behr asked about fencing from the rec path for security.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 8
Mr. Illick said possibly a split rail fence for 80 feet or so, but he also noted a line of landscaping
that accomplishes the same purpose. Mr. Kochman said the LDRs don’t contemplate this
technology. It is self-contained and safe and not particularly ugly. Mr. Illick said the Fed X box
trailers are far more visible.
#8. Staff asked the Board to consider the applicant’s request to consider pavers and
stone wall seating as part of the landscape budget. Ms. Keene noted that out of the total
$470,000 landscape budget, $230,000 is proposed to be hardscape and only $170,000 to be
trees and shrubs. Mr. Illick showed the plan and indicated a patio that will have stone wall
seating. Mr. Albrecht asked if smoking will be allowed there. The applicant said “definitely no.”
It will be a place for employees to have lunch as it is right beside the cafeteria. Mr. Behr was a
little concerned that more than half the landscape budget is for this one small space that will be
used only part of the year.
#9-#15. Ms. Keene noted that these items involve “tweaks” to the landscape plan that
the applicant has addressed. Mr. Kochman asked about a portion of the plan colored in green.
The applicant said that area is being reserved for potential future expansion. The question of
landscape islands in the parking area was raised. Mr. Illick said the only thing they could do
would be to add “fingers” of landscaping, but these would inhibit efficient snow plowing. Mr.
Illick also indicated areas for potential snow storage.
#16. Mr. Illick said the new plan shows screening of utility cabinets.
#17. Staff questions the need for the driveway/entrance radius to be 24 feet wide. Mr.
Illick said this is important for safety. Ms. Keene said staff feels 20 feet is adequate. Mr. Illick
said they need to get trucks in and out. Ms. Keene said that trucks use only one entrance.
She did not see the need for all that pavement for regular vehicles. Mr. Kochman said he would
leave the commercial driveway at 24 feet. Mr. Illick said the entrances at Fed X are both 24 feet
for trucks and employee vehicles. Ms. Keene said 12-foot driving lanes are what you see on the
Interstate, and she didn’t feel that was needed for passenger cars on a driveway. She also
noted that the LDRs do not speak to driveways, only to private roadway widths. Mr. Kochman
asked whether the subdivision regulations address driveways, noting that the next application
will deal with the related subdivision. Ms. Keene said the word “driveways” is not used. Mr.
Kochman asked how runoff will be handled. Mr. Illick said they will have a plan that meets all
the requirements. He also noted that the allowable lot coverage is 70% and they are at 30%
and will not come near the 70% even with a future addition.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
7 DECEMBER 2021
PAGE 9
Due to the late hour, Ms. Philibert suggested continuing this application and asking the
applicant to work with staff on this issue. Mr. Illick asked to submit all of their responses in
writing addressing the remaining staff comments.
Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SP-21-046 to 4 January 2022. Mr. Behr seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
9. Final Plat Application #SD-21-26 of Greenfield Capital, LLC, to consolidate 3 lots of 6.77
acres (Lot 11), 6.62 acres (Lot 12) and 6.42 acres (Lot 13) into one lot for the purpose
of constructing a 130,790 sq. ft. building on a single, 19.81 acre lot. The application for
development is being reviewed under separate site plan application, 443 Community
Drive:
Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-21-26 until 4 January 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
10. Minutes of 2 November 2021:
Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 2 November 2021 as written. Ms. Philibert
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
11. 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 10:02 p.m.
The Development Review Board approved these minutes on _________________