Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/04/2022DEVELOPMENT 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 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 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 #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 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 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 #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 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 February 2, 2022