HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 03/02/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 MARCH 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 2
March 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to
Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Albrecht, Acting Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, F. Kochman, Q.
Mann
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; E.
Langfeldt, A. Gill, R. & T. Davis, C. Lange, P. Boisvert, P. Simon, L. Lamphere, X. Zhang, D. Ray, T.
Cote, C. Frank, G. Dixson, Johnson, B. Cairns, L. Thayer, F. Socinski, A. Szaryk., Guest, J. Olesky,
N. Weeks, S. Breston, E. Woodmansee, J. O’Hara, K. DesRoches, S. Butler, R. Dickinson, S.
Brutzman
1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency:
Instructions on emergency exit from the building were provided.
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:
There were no announcements.
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 7,000 sq. ft.
storage building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of
one 6.68 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in four-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 advised that the applicant asked for a continuation. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SD-
21-19 to 5 April 2022. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 2
Master Plan Application #MP-22-01 of O’Brien Home Farm, LLC, to amend a previously
approved planned unit development to develop 39.76 acres with a maximum of 458 dwelling
units and 45,000 sq. ft. of office space. The amendment consists of adding limited
neighborhood commercial use, 255 Kennedy Drive:
Mr. Langfeldt explained that this is the next phase of the Hillside project and is on lots 13 and
15. Mr. Gill said they are asking for a small neighborhood commercial use, and this must be
shown in the Master Plan.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff noted that the Board must agree to waive submission requirements. Members
voiced no opposition to this request.
#2. Staff noted there is no vesting to be established as it was not in effect when the plan
was approved. No objection was voiced to this.
#3. Staff noted there was no standard for duration; however, Phase 2 does set a
duration. The applicant was asked to confirm that no supplemental or change in duration be
established. The applicant was OK with this.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr then moved to close MP-22-01. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
6. Site Plan Application #SP-22-007 of DS Realty, LLC, to amend a previously approved
site plan for an artist production studio and restaurant. The amendment consists of
constructing an accessory structure for licensed non-residential daycare use,
expanding the parking area, and changing the mix of uses, 916 Shelburne Road:
The applicant explained that they will demo the existing carriage house and replace it 3 feet to
the west. They will also expand parking and add landscaping. The proposed program already
exists with 20 students which will increase to 26 students in the new building.
Staff comments were then addressed:
#1. Regarding the traffic overlay district, Ms. Keene noted that additional information
was received today. The earlier closing and pick-up time results in an adjustment. Mr. Simon
noted they closing time does not coincide with the peak hour. Ms. Keene said there is a trip
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 3
limit of 26 trips; if they go over that, they have do some adjustments. They may not go over
that number because of the earlier time is off-peak. If that is so, there should be a physical
reason the facility cannot be open after 3 p.m. Ms. Keene felt there needs to be more work on
this with the applicant and staff. Mr. Kochman asked about a possible stipulation that everyone
has to be out by 3:45. Ms. Keene said the issue is enforcement. Mr. Kochman asked why the
Board should be harder on them than on other developers where there is “dubious
enforcement.” Mr. Davis said they would be very comfortable with an approval condition so
they don’t have to do a full traffic study. Ms. Davis said they have some after-school classes
with pickup for those 16 students between 5:30 and 6 p.m. Mr. Kochman suggested a
condition that the after school use shall not exceed 16 students.
#2. Staff is asking that the applicant coordinate with VTrans to determine whether
mitigation is required. Ms. Keene noted that staff has heard from VTrans.
#3. Regarding circulation/access, staff is asking that the Board determine whether a
direct connection to the Shelburne Road sidewalk should be required for anyone arriving other
than by car. Ms. Davis said people on bikes arrive through a break in the hedge where it is
safer. That break is also used when they take children to the park. Ms. Keene said the urban
overlay district would require the sidewalk to Shelburne Road, but they are not in that district.
She stressed the need for safe access to abutting properties. Members said what the applicant
is proposing is safer, and they were OK with it.
#4. Staff is recommending that they DRB require water/sewer permits and grease
interception. Mr. Boisvert said they have water and sewer permits. There is a reduction in
demand. Mr. DiPietro is OK with the greasetrap. Ms. Keene acknowledged receipt of the water
permit.
#5. Staff asked for more information regarding the dumpster. She showed the
applicant’s response and photo. Members were OK with that.
#6. Regarding off-street loading and parking, staff is asking for a driveway connection to
adjacent lots and feel this provision is not met for the property to the south. That requirement
would necessitate relocation of some parking spaces. Mr. Simon showed a plan with the
easement connection that staff requires. Mr. Boisvert said it is an L-shaped connection in the
southwest corner. He also said it is unlikely that anyone would want to use it. Ms. Keene said
they are not recommending that it be built. Board members had no issue with what the
applicant proposes.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 4
#7. Regarding parking angles, staff is asking the applicant to reduce the width of the
aisle to reduce the impervious surface. The applicant felt this makes sense since they are
redoing the access. They are providing more green space than what is now there. The revised
plan shows 24 feet. Members were OK with this.
#8. Staff indicated the applicant has not met the requirements for bike parking and
storage. Mr. Simon showed a 10-foot bike rack. Ms. Keene said the rack does not meet the
regulations. Ms. Hall said they can get credit for that but only for 4 bikes. It must be anchored
to the ground. Ms. Keene said they need 2 long-term spaces as well. The applicant agreed to
provide space on the ground floor with changing lockers. Ms. Keene said this can be an
approval condition.
#9. Staff indicated a need for 10% of parking to have landscaped islands. This should be
located to preserve mature trees. Mr. Simon said they don’t feel this criteria applies as they
don’t have a double circulation lane. They also have an enhanced buffer area. Staff asked the
Board to think carefully about this as this situation is not often seen. Ms. Keene drew on the
plan were/how an island could be done. Mr. Davis said there are 21 contiguous spaces along
the southern area. Mr. Behr said the DRB has always reviewed the number of parking spaces in
an area, and there are 28 proposed spaces in a field of parking. They need to be broken with an
island. Mr. Langan said the regulations say when they say. What the applicant has is not 28
contiguous spaces. He didn’t feel that regulations was open to interpretation. Mr. Albrecht
disagreed and said the aim is not have a sea of asphalt, and 28 spaces is the threshold. Mr.
Kochman said he supports staff’s interpretation. Mr. Boisvert asked if they took away a parking
space and put landscaping there, would it be OK. Mr. Davis said he just read the regulations,
and there is ambiguity there. Ms. Davis said there are already islands in the parking. They
could leave one. Mr. Davis noted that 10% would be 7 parking spaces. Mr. Behr explained
what is counted, and said they can probably meet it with one space.
#10. The City Arborist felt the landscape value seemed high. Ms. Keene said staff had
asked for the dogwoods and cornflowers to be further off, and they are now shown that way.
#11 and #12: Regarding additional deciduous trees to be planted, Ms. Keene showed
the plan the applicant has provided. Mr. Simon indicated the additional trees/shrubs. He asked
for some credit for 9 existing perimeter trees. They have added 3 more. Mr. Albrecht asked
about some mature trees to be removed. Mr. Simon noted some pines which have to be
removed for grading for handicapped accessibility. He indicated those on the plan. He added
that they are more than double what is required. He also showed a photo of what landscaping
that will remain. The existing fence and play area will also remain as will everything on the east
side. Two pines at the end of the parking area will be removed. Staff asked for protection for
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 5
the existing tree on the eastern edge. Mr. Simon said they will reduce the space for the turn-
around to provide room for that tree.
#13. The applicant was asked to identify the snow storage area so it doesn’t affect
stormwater. Mr. Simon showed this on the plan. Mr. Albrecht was worried the snow pile
would keep increasing. Ms. Keene said snow storage is hard to enforce. They could say the top
left and lower right are OK for snow storage. She outlined these areas on the plan.
#14. Staff noted parking is not screened from Shelburne Road, and opportunities exist
for that. Mr. Simon said they added a row of high bus blueberries there.
#15. Regarding screening of the parking lot and play area, Mr. Simon documented trees
that are already there and noted the cedar hedge is significant. Ms. Keene said the DRB has
chosen not to rely on screening on adjacent properties. Mr. Simon said they are providing
additional landscaping on the east and southeast boundaries. He noted there are trees on both
sides of the property line.
#16. Staff requested a revised landscape budget. Mr. Simon showed the revised budget,
and Ms. Keene was OK with it.
#17. Regarding external lighting, Ms. Keene noted a building-mounted light that is not
shielded or downcasting. Though it is a nice fixture, it will have to be changed.
#18. The plan does not meet the standard for buffering on the south and southeast.
The applicant indicated the buffer strip is over 30 feet deep, exceeding the 15 foot
requirement. Ms. Keene said the standard requires 65 feet for the principal building. It does
not apply to the carriage house. Lighting/landscaping and screening should equal what would
have been provided by a 65 foot setback and 15 foot buffer. Mr. Kochman asked what is
“equivalent.” Ms. Keene said it is subjecting. Mr. Kochman noted a big hedge on the south
side. Mr. Simon said they enhanced the shrubs on the east side.
#19. Regarding roof standards, Ms. Lange said the building roof is solar ready and
complies with all energy standards.
Public comment was then solicited.
Ms. Brutzman didn’t think the photos gave a perspective of the impact because of the trees
coming down. She felt that would open up visibility of the whole Davis property. She also said
the cedars don’t come close to the residential property. She said that at sketch, they were told
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 6
the trees would be protected; now they find they are coming down. It didn’t seem to her there
was protection of residential property from commercial use. Ms. Keene said the Board needs
to discuss this in deliberative session.
Mr. Behr said he was most concerned about the separation of uses and would like to see as
much screening as possible. Mr. Kochman shared that concern. He also felt “subjective” was a
weak response and specific criteria are needed. Other members agreed. Mr. Albrecht said if
this were a brand new construction, there would be a more robust discussion, but it is tricky
because of the existing use.
Mr. Behr then moved to continue SP-22-007 to 5 April. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-
0.
7. Site Plan Application #SP-22-004 of Champlain Oil Company, LLC, to amend a
previously approved plan for a mixed commercial use building on an existing 0.68 acre
lot. The amendment consists of increasing the square footage from 13.818 sq. ft. to
19.168 sq. ft. by adding one and a half stories, adding 9 residential units, and
expanding the array of allowed commercial uses, 510 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Cairns said they had an approval in 2020 for a commercial building, 2-1/2 floors of
commercial and commercial retail. They were delayed due to COVID and are coming back with
an idea to add 9 residential units. Mr. Albrecht asked how the building compares with the
building to the north. Mr. Cairns said it is larger.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Regarding the purchase of TDRs, Ms. Thayer asked if this is an amendment to an
approved site plan whether the standard applies. Mr. Cote noted they were approved without
a TDR, and they have less coverage now than they had then. Ms. Keene noted the DRB granted
a waiver on overall lot coverage which was in error. Ms. Thayer said they worked with staff and
there are 2 options: TDRs or open space. They will be pursuing the open space option. Ms.
Keene said that is OK. She showed the plan and indicated the park area. The applicant said if
they get a tenant that wants outside storage, they may go back to the TDR option. Ms. Keene
said both options are allowed. She showed the regulations for a “snippet park.”
#2. Staff noted that some requested uses are not compatible. Ms. Keene said “cannabis
dispensary” will be stricken from the regulations and will be replaced. The applicant can apply
for this in the future if the regulations change. The term “cannabis dispensary” is no longer
acceptable. The applicant was OK with the other exclusions.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 7
#3-#6. Regarding glazing, Mr. Cote said it was hard to know about transparency until
they get tenants. They will meet the standards when they get a tenant. He showed the
elevations and noted that all glazing is over 7 feet high.
#7. Regarding screening of rooftop elements, Mr. Cote said they don’t have full
mechanical design, but they will meet the standard. Mr. Cairns said they will meet the
screening with some metal façade siding. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a height waiver. Ms.
Keene said there is no height limit. Mr. Albrecht asked if rooftop decks are allowed. Mr. Cairns
said they are, but he didn’t think they would go that route as they would rather not have
residents waking on the roof.
#8. The parking area width is not met. Ms. Thayer said she believed there was an error
in the staff calculation. They have 152 feet of building width. Ms. Keene said that is correct.
#9. The applicant was asked to describe the easement requirements. Ms. Thayer said it
is a 50-foot access easement which benefits Champlain Oil. It is mean to provide access to
Farrell St. They haven’t changed the easement and are consistent with the requirements. They
also moved the access to a safer location. Mr. Albrecht asked if there will be screening
between this property and Walgreens. Ms. Thayer said there will. There is a curbed island and
vegetation.
#10. Regarding bike storage, Mr. Cote said they meet the requirements. The room will
be accessible to commercial tenants.
#11. Ms. Thayer said they have approval of the City of Burlington for the crabapples.
#12. The applicant was asked to demonstrate the landscape islands meet the criteria.
Ms. Thayer show the plan and indicated the islands. Mr. Behr said it was fine if it meets the
10%.
#13. Staff has concerns regarding preservation of perennial plantings. Ms. Keene said
staff is having to go out each year and confirm those plantings. She suggested a “value per
square feet of perennials.” Mr. Kochman said that is throwing out a hard monetary standard.
Ms. Hall said over time the value of plants increases. Mr. Behr said he wasn’t opposed to it, but
it could be subjective. Members agreed to “let it stew.”
Mr. Albrecht asked about stormwater management. Mr. Johnson said there are 4 treatment
areas eventually connected with a manhole on Shelburne Road. He showed the location.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 8
#14. Staff asked about compliance with roof energy standards. Mr. Cote said it is their
standard practice to design with an additional 8 pounds of load.
Mr. Kochman asked about the deed issue. Mr. Cairns reviewed the history.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-004. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
8. Site Plan Application #SP-22-003 of RHTL Partners, LLC, to modify a previously
approved plan for a 10,000 sq. ft. automotive sales, service and repair building on an
existing 2.61 acre lot. The amendment consists of constructing a 3,155 sq. ft. building
expansion, 1795 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Olesky said this is the existing Mazda dealership, retail and service, with parking to the
north. They will be rebranding and doing 3,000 sq. ft. of building expansion. They will
redevelop a portion of the parking lot. The additional space will be used for showroom, a
canopy to cover cars in the service area, outdoor seating area and landscaping improvements.
There will be no increase in employees.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The entryway must face the primary road, and this is not met. Ms. Butler said the
existing design has the entry to the side. She noted a steep bank to the sidewalk which would
make an entrance there unfeasible. She added that there is a lot of glazing that will indicate
the access. Ms. Keene said that doesn’t work, but it could be a corner door. Mr. Olesky cited
the hardship and said they are tied to the site topography. There is a 7-8 foot elevation change
from Shelburne Road. Mr. Albrecht said the rules are very strict. Ms. Keene said there are
some waiver options, but she didn't feel this situation meets those requirements. Mr. Olesky
said it doesn’t make sense to do that in an ADA compliant way. You would exit facing a 7-8 foot
bank. Ms. Keene suggested stairs. Mr. Behr said they didn’t have to have an ADA ramp, just
something to accommodate someone walking down the street.
#2. Regarding glazing, Ms. Butler said there will be clear vision into the building.
#3. Regarding screening of rooftop equipment, Ms. Butler said they are raising the
parapet 18 inches which will screen rooftop equipment.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 9
#4. Regarding a cornice, Ms. Butler said they do not have a cornice, but there are reveal
lines which is part of “contemporary design.” Mr. Kochman noted the regulations say “such as
a cornice.” Mr. Behr said that is the current trend and was done across the street. Something
that projects out 4-6 inches would work. Ms. Butler said a “pop out” can be accomplished.
#5. The applicant was asked to describe the materials and their relationship to
structures on the area. Mr. Cote said the building next door is concrete and metal with a
pitched room, and this building will be comparable.
#6. Regarding the dumpster, Ms. Butler said they will build a new dumpster enclosure.
#7. Staff feels access management is not met for the property to the south and asked
for an easement to comply. Mr. Olesky said their main concern is the western portion of the
building is the primary access to the service area, dumpster, etc. He didn’t know if there would
be enough benefit from it. Ms. Keene said it doesn’t have to be used; it is just for future use if
there is a change. Mr. Olesky said they can look at easement lines for future use. He noted
they are getting to the point where 25% of property is encumbered by easements. Ms. Keene
said it is just an easement to access the paved area, 30’x20’ square on the corner. Mr. Olesky
said it is not a problem as long as it doesn’t impede the use.
#8. Ms. Keene said this item has been met.
#9. Staff notes the landscape budget is not met and suggested landscaping at the
perimeter of the lot. Mr. Olesky said they got some additional information today and will revise
the budget to meet the standard. He questioned hardscape features that could count and cited
the new patio/seating area and whether that would count. Mr. Behr said it has to be an
enhancement above a “utilitarian construction.”
#10. Regarding curbing around the pump station, Mr. Olesky suggested a couple of
bollards and landscaping around them if the intent is to protect vegetation from snow removal.
#11, #12, and #13 have been met.
#14. Regarding stormwater comments, Mr. Olesky said they have been in contact with
Public Works and will comply with what they require. He noted the property to the west are
required to do some things; if they don’t this property will have to do a retrofit.
#15. Regarding exterior lighting, Ms. Butler said there will be no building-mounted
lighting.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 10
Ms. Hall said that with regard to temporary structures and a temporary tent during
construction, the applicant should prepare a “temporary page,” so it can be part of the
approval.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-003 to 19 April. Ms. Mann seconded. The motion passed 6-
0.
9. Site Plan Application #SP-22-006 of Reperio Properties to demolish an existing light
manufacturing and retail complex and construct a 4,480 sq. ft. extension to an existing
licensed care facility on the adjacent lot. The subject parcel is an existing 0.71 acre lot,
1459 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Keene said the plan is to tear down the monument business and replace it with more
daycare.
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1. Ms. Keene said the transparent glazing can be worked out.
#2. Regarding compatibility with surrounding structures, Mr. Behr said he felt this plan is
more harmonious with existing buildings, and he was OK with it.
#3. Staff noted there is no sidewalk connection to the bike rack or main entrance. Mr.
Albrecht felt as long as there is a bike rack, it is OK. Ms. DesRoches said the entrance is
pedestrian accessible. Mr. Albrecht said it meets the standard.
Regarding landscaping, staff noted that $23,550 is required, and only $7,300 is being provided.
The applicant agreed to work with staff on this. Mr. Behr noted that the patio could be applied
to the landscape budget. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has gone above and beyond to retain
a tree and questioned how much credit to apply for that. She will work on a proposal.
Remaining issues were either addressed or, due to the late hour, will be worked out with staff.
Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-006 to 5 April. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 MARCH 2022
PAGE 11
10. Minutes of 18 January, 2 February & 15 February 2022:
Due to the late hour, members agreed to delay approval of minutes until the next meeting.
11. Other Business:
No other business was bought forth.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:48 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on April 5, 2022