Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/02/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 2 February 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom 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; M. Biama,, D. Roy, J. Illick, K. Hunt, A. Rowe, John, G. Farrell, A. Gill, T. Getz, J. Giebink, Z. Davisson, E. Langfeldt 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. She also explained how to participate virtually. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Keene asked to add a request to reopen SD-22-01 at 5 Johnson Way. Mr. Behr moved to reopen SD-22-01. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Ms. Philibert reminded members to sign the attendance sheet in the auditorium of register their presence virtually in order to be able to appeal a decision of the Board. 5. 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 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. Langan and Ms. Wyman were both recused due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert advised that the Board has received a draft decision. Mr. Illick said they have seen the draft and have no issues with it. Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the requirement of an easement deed to an indetermined entity, “the owner of Lot B.” He noted that this has apparently been done before without a problem, but noted that you used to have to convey property to a named person. Ms. Keene said staff reviewed the deed the applicant sent, and it is from Greenfield (which does not yet own the lot) to the Community Drive LLC. Mr. Kochman said he would withdraw his concern. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-21-26. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. 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 and Ms. Wyman were recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Staff comments were reviewed as follows: #1. Ms. Keene noted that the Arborist has reviewed the plans and is OK with it. #2. Staff is asking that the transformer be screened on 3 sides with yews and with the open side facing toward the building. The applicant was OK with this. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-21-046. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Mr. Langan and Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 3 7. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-41 of The Snyder Group, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development on 25.93 acres consisting of 18 single family dwellings, ten 2-family dwellings, three 3-units multi-family dwellings, and an existing single family home. The amendment consists of eliminating an approved left turn lane on Spear Street, modifying approved landscaping along Spear Street, and minor modifications to water, sewer and drainage pipes, 1302, 1340 and 1350 Spear Street: Mr. Rowe provided a brief overview of the plan. He noted the original approval was in 2017, and construction is now underway. The new plan includes “housekeeping items” that have arisen with utilities and eliminating a left-turn lane. Mr. Rowe noted that they redid the analysis, and the left turn lane is now not warranted. Public Works agrees with this. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked whether the Board agrees with the conclusion to eliminate the turn lane. Mr. Behr said he is OK with it. Mr. Langan said he drives that segment of road daily, and traffic volumes, especially in the evening, will make it hard to turn into this development and may back traffic up into the intersection. Mr. Langan noted that 2013 numbers were used for traffic counts, and the report says the numbers are declining. He felt that was not true in South Burlington, Shelburne, and the campus of UVM and Medical Center at the top of Spear Street. The report says most of the crashes have happened at the intersection, and Mr. Langan said that is his point. He said most cars go faster than the 35 mph speed limit. Mr. Kochman said he has the same concern as a regular user of that segment. He felt traffic will continue to increase over the years. He opposed removing the left turn lane. Mr. Langan added that the 2004 scoping study indicated that the intersection at Nowland Farm Road was at level of service “F,” and it has gotten worse since then. Mr. Behr said he sees where Mr. Langan is coming from and didn’t see a reason to eliminate the left turn lane. Ms. Philibert asked Ms. Keene why Public Works was OK with eliminating that turn lane. Ms. Keene said they were “good with the analysis.” Her understanding is that the city is into the business of getting away from widening roads and having more pavement. She noted there is a short to medium term plan to restripe Spear Street to be two 10-foot lanes and 2 bike lanes. Ms. Philibert asked if that wouldn’t exacerbate traffic. Mr. Rowe said Roger Dickinson had done the analysis. The entrance to the project is 1200 feet from the Swift/Spear intersection, and there is ample room for queueing. The thinking is that the turn lane would encourage higher speeds. The data is based on a traffic counter on Swift Street in 2020. Mr. Langan noted that was during the pandemic lockdown when Spear Street was “pleasant” for a while. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Rowe said they are only now getting back to 2008 levels, and there are much more modest growth factors now than pre-2008. He added that Mr. Dickinson would be available to come in to discuss his analysis. Mr. Albrecht asked whether the turn lane had been required because of numbers. Mr. Rowe said it was Justin Rabidoux’s request. Mr. Behr said he hears both sides and is not prepared to make a decision tonight. Mr. Albrecht asked if the Board can get raw traffic count data. Members reviewed the numbers given. Mr. Rowe said the volumes were extended to 2027 including full buildout. Mr. Kochman said his experience with traffic studies to trust his “on the ground” feel more than a technical analysis. He felt that in the long term it will be better for Spear Street to have a turn lane. Ms. Wyman said she understands where Mr. Langan is coming from, but tends to go with the numbers. She noted there is a big push to multi-modal, and by expanding pavement they would be negating that thought. She also said it could be dangerous if someone tried to pass cars that are queueing for a turn. Mr. Langan said he understands not wanting to expand pavement, but there is a real concern with people cutting around the bike path, which is the reason for the turn lane there. He stressed that 2020 was a “ghost town” on Spear Street, and there are many more developments using that road now. Mr. Albrecht asked what changed Mr. Rabidoux’s mind. Ms. Keene said she thought it was the position of the city. The vision is not to design a road for use of other communities but for South Burlington use. Ms. Wyman asked if there will be a barrier in the new plan between the road and the rec path. Ms. Keene said there will not. Mr. Farrell felt there will be more interfacing with the rec path if there is a turn lane. He felt the problem is more at the intersection with Swift Street because the roads are not aligned. He said left turn lanes cause more problems than they solve. Mr. Kochman said that without that turn lane, people will drive onto the bike path. Mr. Behr said he felt the Board can handle this decision in deliberation. Mr. Albrecht said he would like to see traffic counts on an annual basis for both ways on Spear Street. Ms. Keene said that information is available. #2. Staff asked that utilities in the right-of-way be modified. Mr. Rowe said both GMP and Telecom want to be outside the right-of-way. Easements will be given to them for that. GMP is typically a 10-foot wide easement adjacent to the right-of-way. #3. Regarding screening criteria, Ms. Keene showed the approved 2017 plan which shows a berm with trees on it. She noted the applicant proposes to remove the berm. The issue is that landscaping is required when two sites are “dissimilar.” She showed the LDR rule. Mr. Kochman said the rule does not require screening. Ms. Keene agreed. Mr. Kochman said DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 5 he was inclined to go with staff’s recommendation but has an issue with the language. Members agreed to go with staff’s recommendation. #4. Regarding the re-routing of the drainage, Mr. Rowe noted that what will be the back of the homes would be where water is discharged. The new proposal is to pipe drainage to the catch basin. Members were OK with this. Ms. Philibert then moved to close SD-21-41. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 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 residential buildings on lots 10 and 11 with a total of 94 dwelling units, of which 79 are proposed inclusionary units, and two city streets, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Philibert noted that she owns a townhouse in the Hillside development but said it would not affect her decision making. Ms. Philibert also noted that staff has provided a draft decision and also some areas for discussion. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the inclusionary units, staff wants to be sure there are enough in each building so they are integrated. There should be at least 10 inclusionary and 5 market rate units in each building. Mr. Gill was concerned with the difference between “inclusionary” and “affordable”. Ms. Keene said this is applicable to the entire area of the preliminary plat, and staff’s intention is the same as the applicant’s. Mr. Gill said they would prefer the use of “affordable.” The language becomes difficult because of things like bedrooms. He said the units that Mr. Getz builds will have the same number of bedrooms in the inclusionary units as in the market rate units in the next building that is built. Mr. Kochman asked how they get assurance of the number of bedrooms in the affordable units. Mr. Gill said the criteria will be evaluated with the 3rd or 4th building constructed. The Board could then require more affordable units to equal the number of bedrooms. As an alternative, the inclusionary units in each building could have a required number of bedrooms. Ms. Keene said the concern is with the applicant “painting themselves into a corner.” Mr. Gill said there will be 39 affordable units when only 7 inclusionary units are required. He suggested basing the ratio on those 7 units. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 6 Ms. Keene read from the regulations that the average number of bedrooms shall equal the ratio of the number of bedrooms in the market rate units. Mr. Gill said the problem is you don’t know how many bedrooms there will be in the market rate units because they aren’t built yet. Mr. Langfeldt said the challenge occurs because they are leading with the affordable units. Mr. Getz said if you stick with the same approach as in the Preliminary Plat, the applicant won’t get the 5th building if the affordable housing isn’t met. Mr. Langfeldt said the reason for that was the vagueness of the affordable housing financing process. He felt there is a minimal risk here because a shortage can be made up in the 5th building. Mr. Kochman asked what happens if that building never gets built. Mr. Gill said you will then have a huge excess of affordable units. He suggested that the solution is that every zoning permit qualify as meeting the test of the mean average. Ms. Mann said the suggestion is to qualify the 7 inclusionary units as they come on line, and once those units are qualified they would remain the qualified units. Mr. Gill said that makes perfect sense. #2. Mr. Gill said they have modified the landscaping to address sight distance issues. #3. Mr. Getz said they are fine with the improvements to the pocket park. #4. Mr. Gill said they submitted a lighting plan with all the details and will provide spec sheets, if needed. He added that all the poles will be 14 feet high. #5. Staff questioned whether the ramps should be removed. Ms. Keene noted they were never in the plans and were a recommendation of the traffic consultant. There were to be ramps from the rec path to the sidewalk. Staff was concerned they would cause more harm than good. All agreed to remove them. #6. Regarding maintenance of landscaping in the right-of-way, Ms. Keene noted the Board did not like the idea of the applicant contributing to the city for maintenance. They can maintain that landscaping on their own with the caveat that if they don’t maintain it, the city can remove it. The city will want a Memorandum of Understanding for that. Mr. Gill said they are fine with that. Mr. Albrecht asked if the planting in the right-of-way contributes to the landscape budget. Ms. Keene said it does not. Mr. Albrecht said he was OK with it then. #7. Mr. Gill said they sent a clearer, updated spreadsheet today. #8. Regarding credit for the silva cells, Ms. Philibert said she felt the Board should allow the credit because they contribute to healthier trees. Members were OK with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 7 Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Members were asked if they had enough information to close the application. Mr. Kochman asked about the mix of funding for the affordable units. Mr. Getz reviewed the various sources of funding including 9% and 4% tax credits, Block Grant Application, one-time ARPA funds, rebates, and Housing Investment Fund through VHA. He noted that the funding is different for each building. Mr. Kochman then moved to close SD-21-25. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 21 December 2021 and 4 January 2022: Ms. Wyman noted that in the minutes of 21 December, she was recused from item #8 as well. Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 21 December as amended. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 4 January 2022 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Ms. Philibert abstaining. 10. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted that the Board was without a Clerk. Mr. Behr volunteered to serve as Clerk. Members unanimously approved his appointment. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:37 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on April 5, 2022.