Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_DRB Minutes draftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 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: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B. Ferland, C. Weinberg, C. Carter, C. Sylvie, Dorset Park Resident, M. Grant, Jake G., J. Farkas, L. Marriott, M. Byrne, P. Raymond, R. Bryant, T. Lindberg, N. Hyman, N. Longo, A. Rowe, L. Lackey, Blain, D. Saladino, 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency and review of technology options: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology and sign-in options. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Keene suggested reviewing the minutes before Item #6. Members agreed. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Sketch plan application #SD-21-27 of 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, to subdivide an existing 113.8 acre parcel into 6 lots ranging in size from 8.1 acres to 57.5 acres, construct 4 public streets on the 8.1 acre lot, and 24 buildings for a mix of industrial and commercial uses ranging from 17,500 sq. ft. to 66,000 sq. ft. and totaling 770,250 sq. ft. with 1970 parking spaces on the remaining 8.5 to 57.5 acre lots, 835 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Rowe said the project involves 113.8 acres in the Industrial-Open Space District. The project is based on the regulations in force on 30 August which the application was submitted. It involves multiple buildings on individual lots. The application was deemed complete on 19 October. There is a street connection proposed to Swift Street. Mr. Rowe showed this on the plan. Ms. Philibert said that as she understands it, State law requires any application heard after new regulations are warned will be heard under the new regulations, so the new regulations will guide this application. Mr. Rowe said the applicant has a different opinion, but that discussion is not for this meeting. Ms. Philibert said as the Board does not have staff comments, she suggested continuing the application. Ms. Keene said if the new regulations are not adopted, the application can be rewarned and the Board can hear it. Public comments was then solicited. There was no public comment. 6. Minutes of 16 November 2021: Ms. Quinn moved to approve the Minutes of 16 November 2021 as presented. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Master Plan Application #MP-21-02 of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit development on 5 lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor’s yard, and an RV sales, service and repair facility. The Master Plan includes combining the 5 lots, resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres, and consists of a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sq. ft. office and retail building, a 15,600 sq. ft. commercial building, and an 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and Airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting Airport lot, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Klugo said the Master Plan is for a site at the south end of the Airport to provide an assembly site for electric aircraft. There are also a childcare center, cultural center, support facility and hangar. The new roadway will be built to public standards. There will be a network of open space, walkways, and recreation path which will connect to the Airport’s master landscaping plan. There will be 400 parking spaces for employees. The intent is to begin construction early next year and be operational at the end of the year. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. Klugo noted that the current space is being used as a research and development center. The product from that center would then come to the assembly building. Following test flights, the product would be delivered to customers. Ms. Philibert asked if the daycare is for employees’ children only. Mr. Klugo said currently it is, until they know the numbers. Ms. Keene briefly reviewed the nature of a master plan. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted the need for dimensional, values, and coverage computation. Mr. Klugo said the building coverage is 24.3%; the portion in the I-C District is 5.5%. Both are below what is allowed. The maximum coverage had been a 54%. The allowable is 50%. With the addition of the geothermal field (which due to an oversight had been omitted), they are at 49%. Ms. Keene asked whether they are requesting a height waiver. Mr. Klugo said they are not requesting a direct height waiver in the IT zone, but there is a question as to whether 35 feet is workable. Ms. Keene noted that the Planning Commission is discussing whether that is the correct height for that district. #2. Staff questioned the floor area ratio (FAR). Mr. Klugo said they are asking for .75 and the opportunity for some adjustments, should the zoning allow it. This would allow for the addition of a mezzanine. Ms. Keene noted that is double what is was shown on the plan (.295). Mr. Klugo said they are happy to consider something else. .295 was very tight, but they will consider something in between. Mr. Behr said he would like to see what it would look like and needed more information before approving. He added that he was OK with .35; beyond that he would want see it. He felt that would still allow for flexibility. Mr. Klugo said they will go back and test that. #3. This item relates to lot coverage. Staff noted that the numbers should be for this area, not for the whole Airport. Ms. Keene said that with the numbers they have tonight, the Board can determine the threshold. #4. Regarding open spaces, Mr. Klugo showed a graphic of major open spaces: the rec path from Williston Road that meanders through the site and ends in a viewing area; the “great lawn,” a “hangout place, the employee terrace (hardscape), the sculpture lawn in front of the building, and the entry plaza (hardscape) including pubic art. Ms. Keene said the rec path is questionable as open space. Mr. Klugo identified the open spaces on the plan. Mr. Albrecht DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 4 also questioned the rec path as open space. Ms. Keene did note that the South Village Master Plan has a public soccer area and a linear connected path, and O’Brien Brothers has the football-shaped park. Mr. Albrecht asked about signage so the public knows they can use the path. Mr. Klugo said they have had conversations with tenants in the area. He said the sidewalk is a connector to provide access so it doesn’t feel like a gated community. There will be public events on the lawns on weekends. The path was conceived as a way for staff and the daycare to get over to the brook. Ms. Keene stressed that the Board can determine which areas are to be considered “permanent open space.” Mr. Klugo said they will provide more detail. #5. Staff asked how trip generation was calculated. Mr. Saladino directed attention to the table provided. The peak hour trip ends total 526, and numbers are provided for each building. They will update the numbers as part of a study for the whole master plan. Mr. Saladino said the numbers are very conservative. Ms. Keene questioned whether the numbers should be adjusted based on changed in the FAR and lot coverage. Mr. Saladino said the only internal capture is from employees dropping off children at the daycare; if the children are all Beta children, the number will go down. Ms. Keene questioned whether the Board should provide a cushion for peak hour numbers. Mr. Behr said Ms. Keene’s thinking was correct, and they should get as correct as possible. Since the FAR is up in the air, he suggested the applicant look at that so everything can be cross-referenced and coordinated. Mr. Klugo said that makes sense. #6. Regarding water, Mr. Klugo said they are working on that. #7. Mr. Klugo said they will update the traffic study and expect to have that done in early to mid-January. He noted that the high points with the State include: why the signal is located where it is, separating truck and car traffic, site distances in light of requirements, the Shunpike neighborhood and why Valley Drive is being closed (Mr. Klugo said they offered to have Valley Drive be one-way entry only). #8. Staff noted that the Williston Road sidewalk was omitted from the Master Plan document. Mr. Klugo showed the location and said it is indicated on the technical page. #9. Staff noted that the Board can grant a process waiver so that when the applicant comes in for the daycare center, etc., they will only have to do a site plan. #10. The applicant was asked what, if anything, could be done by administrative approval only. Mr. Klugo suggested the solar equipment, battery back-up, process related DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 5 backup, utility transformers, and electric a/c and car chargers. Ms. Keene suggested a possible size limit to some of those things. Mr. Klugo said that made sense. #11. Regarding phasing, staff suggests complete site plans for each of the phases within 5 years of the date of master plan approval. Mr. Klugo said that depending on market dynamics, things could change. He stressed that they are creating things that have never been created before. They do plan to meet the 5-year limit, but are requesting no time-line as they don’t want to be in default. Mr. Behr said he hears the concerns on both sides. He was leery of having it be open-ended and suggested 5 years with an option for a 5-year extension. Mr. Klugo suggested that for everything they complete, they get 5-7 years for the next phase. Ms. Philibert thought 21 years seemed long. Mr. Klugo said that would be true, but the next item on the agenda is the start of the first phase. He stressed that there is a lot of value for them to complete the project. Mr. Behr agreed that the first phase is a major push on the project. He was concern3ed with the building on Williston Road that will screen the parking lot. He wanted to see something there. Mr. Klugo suggested deferring that conversation to the next agenda item. #12. Staff noted that the applicant is proposing no time line for the commercial building. The Airport has leases on the buildings in that location, and staff believes the Board can waive that requirement. The applicant feels that the standard for not allowing parking in front of the building “creates a hardship” as the FAA will not allow parking in the rear because of Airport uses. Ms. Philibert asked what the applicant has in mind for the commercial building. Mr. Klugo said there is the potential for future vendors. Mr. Behr noted that the Board has allowed that condition at Technology Park because of a power easement. Mr. Longo explained why parking would not be allowed behind the building. Mr. Albrecht asked if the building could be moved more to the south. Mr. Klugo said they then couldn’t have direct access to the airfield. Members agreed to confer with the legal people to see if what the applicant is arguing makes sense. Ms. Keene asked what surety the Board should ask for to make sure the commercial building is constructed. Mr. Klugo said they can landscape in a way to screen the parking. They would build the commercial building when it can be used. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Marriott said he lives a block from the Airport and asked where the 750 acres are. Ms. Keene said that is the entirety of the Airport parcel. This application affects only 37 acres which Beta is leasing from the Airport. Mr. Albrecht then moved to continue MP-21-02 until 18 January 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 6 8. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC, to consolidate 5 existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into lot of 747.92 acres and to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a Master Plan, to include a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, improving approximately 2,400 feet of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070 Williston Road: Mr. Klugo showed the plan of the first phase of the project. It includes all of the infrastructure, a majority of the parking, which will allow for the development of the child care center, etc., Williston Road improvements, the north half of the building, the connection to Eagle Drive, utilities, and stormwater. It is the backbone for all the other buildings. Mr. Klugo said they are asking for approval for the whole building in 2 phases. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1 Staff asked that the applicant provide dimensional standards and coverages for each zoning district. Mr. Klugo said that information has been provided. #2. Staff noted the need for approvals from Airport regulatory agencies. Mr. Klugo said they will provide that as it is expected before the end of the year. #3. Regarding parking in front of the building, Ms. Philibert said the Board will deliberate on that issue. #4. Regarding access to abutting properties, staff noted that if there is need for additional connections, this should appear in the Master Plan. Mr. Klugo said they are OK with that. #5. Staff noted an apparent conflict between existing overhead utilities and the proposed water line. Mr. Klugo said that has been corrected. #6. Staff requested information regarding proposed dumpsters. Mr. Klugo said the dumpster site is below ground. He showed a view of this with proposed screening and access for haulers. #7. Regarding landscaping and screening, staff questioned including ground covering as part of the landscaping requirement. The applicant said this is mainly a conservation mix which will occasionally be mowed. He stressed that they cannot attract large birds. Ms. Keene DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 7 questioned whether amenities such as benches should be allowed as landscaping credit if there is so much ground covering. #8. Regarding computation of interior parking lot landscaping, staff felt this requirement appears to be met but asked that the Board require a computation to support this. Mr. Klugo said that 36% of the parking area is green space. He showed this on the plan. #9. Mr. Klugo said they will comply with the comments of the City Arborist. #10. Staff asked that the applicant provide an exhibit indicating that they meet the requirement for shade trees. Mr. Klugo showed the plan indicating compliance. #11. Regarding snow removal/storage, Mr. Klugo said the area will be maintained by the Airport. He showed snow storage areas. Mr. Longo said snow will be removed from the site, if necessary. Mr. Albrecht noted that one storage spot is the site of a future building. Mr. Klugo said they will look at that. #12. Regarding screening of the electric cabinet, Mr. Klugo showed a diagram of the screening. #13. Staff asked that the Board consider requiring the applicant to replace some of the concrete pavers (or the landscaping value associated with them) with commissioned artwork. Ms. Keene noted that 46% of the budget is now devoted to the 0pavers. Mr. Klugo said the landscape budget is $1,700,000. If they take out the pavers, they are still in excess of what is required for landscaping. #14. Staff recommended that the Board require removal of site furniture from the landscaping budget as it is not a permanent feature, which is a requirement. The applicant said the furniture has been removed from the budget. Staff also asked the Board to require a more durable bike rack. The applicant was OK with this. #15.The City Arborist has questioned the cost of the evergreen trees and also recommends documentation of the costs of the deciduous trees. The applicant said they will provide that information. #16. The City Arborist recommended the use of soil cells. Staff suggested the Board decide whether to allow the value of those cells to contribute to the landscaping budget. Mr. Holson explained the nature of soil cells which are the latest trend to ensure trees grow to their potential. Mr. Albrecht said that since they are part of the cost of planting, he would support DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 8 having them as part of the landscape budget. He noted they are now an industry standard, and their long-term benefit is substantial. #17. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address comments of the Stormwater Department. Mr. Klugo said they have provided that information. He also clarified that the existing impervious on the site is 448,026 sq. ft., and the proposed is 648,943 sq, ft. #18. Staff recommended the Board ask the applicant to describe the rec path from Williston Road, including who will be allowed to use it, responsibility for maintenance, and property rights at the terminal of the paved portion of the path. The applicant said the path was provided for access for the daycare to the natural areas and to provide access for the public to the viewing field. It can also provide a link for a future path to the area adjacent to the Airport. Mr. Klugo said the applicant will maintain the path. #19. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to enumerate the area of proposed encroachment into the wetland buffer. Mr. Gendron said they have worked with the Tina Heath and have modified the sidewalk alignment and grading to reduce wetland impacts. #20. Mr. Klugo said they have provided the meeting minutes from their meeting with the Fire Department. #21.Mr. Klugo said they will remove the uplighting. #22. Staff noted the maximum height for wall-mounted fixtures is 30 feet, and the applicant is proposing 40 feet. Mr. Klugo said they can do the 30 feet at the loading dock, but at the hangar door they can’t because the door is 36 feet high. Ms. Keene asked if they are required. Mr. Longo said they are. PAGE 9 #23. Staff is OK with illumination levels to exceed 3 footcandles at the loading dock where it is fully screened but not where the area is exposed to view from the roadway. Mr. Klugo said they need 6 footcandles when workers are out there. They will be at 3 at other times. Members were OK with this. #24. This was addressed under #17. #25. Mr. Klugo showed the location on the plan for bicycle parking spaces (66 total) and the locations for lockers and showers in 2 locations. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 9 #26. Regarding the bus shelter, Mr. Klugo said this will be a GMT shelter. He showed a picture of it. The hope is to work with GMT for something more like a Beta shelter. Staff also questioned whether there is room for buses to leave the travel lane to discharge/pick up passengers. Mr. Klugo said it is hard for buses to get back once they leave the travel lane. Ms. Keene said she will talk to GMT about this. Mr. Albrecht asked if there are plans for transportation management. Mr. Klugo said there is space for “pool” parking spaces and will be van opportunities and inter-company shuttles. He stressed that they are trying to be as creative as possible to keep people off the roads. #27. Ms. Keene noted the Board can approve a final plat in phases. They will need a plan of what ground conditions will look like when the applicant comes in for a CO. Mr. Klugo said they can provide that. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Raymond asked what is the requirement for FAA approval. Ms. Keene said it can be required before a zoning permit is issued or before closing the hearing. It is up to the Board. Mr. Klugo said they submitted information to the FAA in May and expect approval by the end of the year. Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SD-21-28 until 18 January 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. 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 9:55 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 January 2022, 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, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; B. Brown, Planning Assistant; J. Nick, B. Connolly, B. Currier, M. Willard, Z. Davisson, J. Giebink, A. Gill, S. Homsted, C. Orben, C. Frank, C. Huston, R. Groeneveld, D. Roy, J. & J. Illick, E. Langfeldt, T. Getz, K. Hunt, J. Zweber, T. Duff, M. Biama 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provides instructions on emergency exit from the building and also explained options to attend and participate in DEB meetings. 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: No Announcements were made. 5. Final Plat Application #SD-22-01 of Brendan Connolly to amend a previously approved planned unit development of 3 lots by subdividing an exiting 8.0 acre lot developed with a single family home into 3 lots of 0.5 acres (Lot 4), 0.5 acres (Lot 5), and 7.0 acres (Lot 1) for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of lots 4 and 5, 5 Johnson Way: Ms. Philibert noted the only remaining item to discuss relates to the boulders which are being used to demarcate the wetland. The applicant is being asked to provide some signage (e.g., No Mowing) or to move the boulders inside the property line by 2 feet to allow for mowing in between them. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Currier showed a plan of the site and indicated the western property line and the wetland delineation. He said they will move the boulders in 2 feet. He also noted they are using a split rain fence on the eastern and southern sides. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SD-22-01. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued 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 q. ft. building on a single 19.81 acre lot, 443 Community Drive. Mr. Langan was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert noted this application was reviewed several weeks ago. Since then, the applicant has met with staff to review some of the issues raised at that time. She also noted that since this is a final plat, all issues would have to be resolved prior to closing the hearing. Mr. Huston then provided a brief overview of the project. He also noted that they had met with Ms. Keene and have incorporated many of the discussion points from that meeting. They also provided a written response and drawings to address questions. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. This was addressed by the applicant. #2. Regarding the easement and agreement, the applicant said an easement has been provided on the plan. Staff recommends not to close the hearing until related comments from SP-21-046 are addressed. Ms. Hall said the easement arrived midday today and has not been reviewed. The applicant said it mirrors the language from the Fed-X parcel. It is a draft easement that will not go into effect until the sale of the property. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to continue SD-21-26 until 2 February 2022. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 3 7. Continued 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: Mr. Langan was recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Members addressed staff comments that were not considered at the previous hearing as follows: #19. The applicant was asked to address comments related to stormwater. Ms. Hall noted that the applicant has provided an item by item update. They will be required to provide materials prior to closing to address outstanding items. Ms. Hall also noted staff received an update this afternoon from the Stormwater Superintendent who said the materials have mostly been provided. One item not shown on the plan can be a condition of approval. The applicant was OK with this. #20. Regarding short and long-term bike requirements, the applicant has provided this information. They still need to provide details on the type of indoor rack. This can be condition of approval. They will be providing 12 inside long-term and 6 short-term spaces. Members then reviewed the original staff comments and updates as follows: #1. & #2. Resolved. #3. The applicant has provided an interspersed mix of trees and shrubs. #4. Resolved. #6. The easement document will be reviewed prior to closing. Mr. Kochman said deeds should be reviewed by lawyers as well as by staff. Ms. Hall said there is now an attorney in the Planning Department. It was suggested that this could be a condition of approval. #8. Regarding pavers and stone seat-walls, staff notes said the objectives had been met and the cost will be applied to the landscape budget. #9. Resolved. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 4 #10. Staff is waiting for a response from the Arborist. Ms. Hall said staff can’t find the soil specification. The applicant said that is a construction level documentation which is typically not required, but they can provide it. #11. Addressed. #12. Staff has not yet received revised plans to demonstrate compliance regarding the western parking area. The applicant said the plan has now been provided and complies. #13. Regarding curbing of all parking areas, the applicant said they have submitted a revised plan showing the location of curbs. They have also removed snow storage from areas indicated by Ms. Keene. #16. Regarding screening of utility cabinets, Ms. Keene has said this can be a condition of approval if the applicant agrees to all of the comments. #17. The applicant has agreed with staff’s recommendation to reduce the east drive width to 22 feet and a 20 foot radius. They still require the 30 foot radius on the westerly drive. The applicant noted that the Fed-X radius is 50 feet. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Mann moved to continue SP-21-046 until 2 February 2022. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Philibert said Ms. Keene will be providing a draft motion at the meeting on 2 February. 8. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-21-25 of Green Mountain Development Group, Inc., for the next phase of a previously approved Master 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 residence buildings on lots 10 and 11, with a total of 94 dwelling units of which 79 are proposed to be inclusionary units, and 2 city streets, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Langan rejoined the Board. Ms. Philibert noted she lives in the Hillside development but felt she has no issue with impartiality. Mr. Gill provided a brief overview of the project and noted they will be presenting a redesign of architectural elements. He them reviewed the history of the project and showed the master sketch plans from April and August 2016 and 2017. He then showed the sketch plan for the multi-family lots and the preliminary plat from March 2020 and the first hearing of the final plat DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 5 from November 2021 with newly proposed architecture. He then showed a rendering of the 4- way intersection with the 2 new buildings, landscaping, and pavers. Mr. Getz showed a new rendering of the 2 buildings and reviewed the changes from the November hearing to address Board comments and concerns. They have adjusted the height/depth of the buildings, redesigned the entry towers, provided variation in depth, and provided more architectural details. The color themes have been adjust to be more like preliminary plat. Mr. Getz showed the previous rendering and new rendering side by side. He pointed out the added glazing with differing types of windows (still keeping within Efficiency Vermont’s glazing standards) and the addition of 4-foot “bumpouts” at the ends of the buildings. They have added 12-foot balconies to the end units. Mr. Getz noted that corner towers are all living spaces, and those apartments have very large windows. Members were asked if the revised buildings meet the parameters from preliminary plat. Mr. Kochman said they don’t look a lot like preliminary play, but they are better than last time. He asked if they will insist on having them look like preliminary plat. Mr. Behr felt there was certainly an improvement and possibly “OK enough.” They have added design elements, which are “the flavor of the day,” though they still blend a lot to him. Mr. Langfeldt reminded members that when they submitted the preliminary plat, they didn’t know about the glazing restrictions because of the change in affordable tax credit regulations. Mr. Kochman asked why there is no solar. Mr. Getz said there is a flat roof with condenser units for mini-splits, and there is no room left, but there is a possibility of some off-site solar. Mr. Gill reviewed the parameters from preliminary plat and said they have met 3 of the 4, and the 4th is being done within the parameters of the energy efficiency code. He felt they had created a “sense of place.” Mr. Getz said he is very proud of the buildings and noted the revisions added $800,000 more in construction costs that they now will be applying for. He added that they will be heard by the Vermont Conservation Board in 2 weeks. Mr. Albrecht said he could “live with” this design and felt it is a definite improvement, more interesting and varied, especially the towers. Mr. Langan said he is satisfied. Ms. Mann agreed. Mr. Kochman said he can live with it. He also felt the intersection looks nice. Mr. Behr agreed. He felt it would provide a rich feel to the intersection and draws attention to the corner of the building. Mr. Gill noted that every tree in the rendering is on the landscape plan as are the stairs and other amenities. The staff report remind the applicant to remove the signage from the submission materials. Mr. Langfeldt said they will. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 6 Members then continued to review staff comments as follows: #30. Regarding the “pocket park,” staff noted that revised plantings have been added as well as a smoking area. They feel the criteria are met. The applicant showed a plan of the additional plantings and a walkway to access the park. Members were OK with the revisions. #31. Staff asked the Board whether to allow a landscaping credit of $107,503 for hardscape features. Mr. Gill enumerated some of the features including a brick paver crosswalk on Kennedy Drive at the 4-way intersection and trees being planted with new technology to insure their survival. He said these are atypical expenses beyond what is normal (he showed a list of these expenses). Mr. Gill added that they are requesting to use the overage in landscape money on a subsequent lot, if needed. Mr. Kochman said they can discuss that when they get to it and when they see what the LDRs allow. He liked that the applicant is using better than “humdrum” materials. He felt they Board should allow the delta, not the whole cost. Mr. Gill said they would be happy to provide that information in an updated budget. Mr. Behr agreed with Mr. Kochman and felt they should find a way to allow the excess for future credit. He said the project is sufficiently and nicely landscaped. Ms. Hall said the Board does have the ability to make decisions about using excess money for credit to a later phase of the project. #32. Staff had also noted the plan was not up to day regarding snow storage. Ms. Hall said that in materials submitted today, the applicant has responded to this, but their response has not been fully reviewed by staff. The applicant showed the plan indicating snow storage area revisions that address sight line concerns. #33. Staff noted that modifications to the parking lot landscaping had been received but not updated computations. Mr. Langfeldt said these have now been submitted. #34. Regarding planting of perennials in the right-of-way, Public Works is suggesting the applicant pay a pro-rated share of the city’s landscape contract. Mr. Gill showed a slide of the location of the perennials’ location and said they are happy to maintain them at their expense. Mr. Kochman said he would much rather see the applicant be required to maintain the plantings in the right-of-way, except for the trees. Members agreed. #35 and #36 were resolved. #37. Regarding sureties, staff noted that this has been updated. The Board will have to approve the reduction in the bond. Mr. Gill explained that the request is to reduce the requirement to the current standard. He showed the proposed project letters of credit. They would roll all of bonds to the one landscape bond. The surety would be equal to the current LDRs. Members were OK with this as long as the applicant and staff are satisfied. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 7 #38. Staff recommends that the Board require a phasing plan which should be overlaid on the site plan and landscape plan. Mr. Gill showed the phasing plan they have submitted and said it can be overlaid on the landscape plan. #39. Regarding affordable housing, staff is asking that there be a mix of market and inclusionary units in each building. Mr. Getz did not feel it was appropriate to request a certain number of affordable units in each building. Mr. Kochman disagreed. Mr. Getz said they are providing way more inclusionary units than the minimum. Mr. Gill said the requirement is for 51 inclusionary units across 6 lots. They are proposing about 70. They are willing to warrant that there will be at least 51 in the two buildings. Mr. Kochman said the Board can’t impose more than the requirement. Mr. Langfeldt noted the condition of approval for preliminary plat said they could build 3 market rate buildings before the inclusionary units. They have chosen to frontload the inclusionary units. Mr. Kochman asked if they could live with a condition that there will be 51 inclusionary units between the two buildings. Mr. Langfeldt said that requirement is already there. Ms. Philibert said if Mr. Getz can’t building them, O’Brien Brothers would have to build them in future buildings, so she was OK with it. Mr. Kochman said he is not OK with it. #40. The applicant agreed to remove signage from the plan. #41. The applicant is proposing fewer trip ends, so there is no issue. #42. The applicant has agreed. #43. The applicant said they have adjusted sight distances to insure there are no impacts. #44. Regarding the transition between duplex/single family/multi-family, the applicant showed a plan of plantings with a sidewalk as a transition point. Mr. Gill noted a cedar hedge and parking/green space with picnic tables, benches, etc., to protect the transition. Members were OK with this. #45. Regarding curb breaks, the applicant said they have addressed this. Ms. Hall then showed what was submitted today to add to the record. The applicant also noted a lighting plan was submitted today. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 8 Ms. Hall noted receipt of comments from Public Works today. These will be forwarded to the applicant. She suggested a continuance until 2 February. Ms. Philibert noted that Ms. Keene has said she would try to have a draft motion at that time. Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD-21-25 until 2 February 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Review Minutes of 7 December 2021: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 7 December 2021 as written. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 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 10:05 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on