Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 03/15/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 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. 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; S. Homsted, Carolyn, P. Brogna, J. Hodgson, MA.S, D. Heil, D. Shepherd, C. Frank, L. Maroney, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, L. Bailey, T. Smith, A. Klugo, R. Dickinson, H. Perreault, P. Sheppard, 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: As there was no one present in the auditorium, no emergency instructions 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: Ms. Philibert provided remote participation procedures. Ms. Philibert also advised that beginning with the next meeting, the Board will be meeting in person. 5. Preliminary plat application #SD-22-03 of Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC, for the 3.6 acre “Park Road Area” phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450- acre Golf Course and 354-unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of consolidating 3 existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in 2-family homes on 2 private roads, 1170 & 1180 Dorset Street: Mr. Heil said the 3 parcels are in the SEQ zone and are part of the Vermont National Golf Course and subject to a settlement agreement. The agreement allows a maximum of 15 units; however, they will be building only 14 (7 duplexes) due to site constraints. The development DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 2 will use municipal water and sewer. Mr. Heil explained how stormwater will be handled and identified an infiltration pond in the center of the site. There is a Class 2 wetland on the east side of the parcel. Mr. Heil said there will be no incursion into that wetland or its buffer. In light of feedback at sketch plan review, the plan was revised to maximize the distance between the 2 roads (identified as Road A and Road B). They also did a traffic assessment which reported no unsafe traffic conditions. Private Road B has been revised to be 26 feet side to allow for parking on the west side. There is also a 5-foot sidewalk and a crosswalk to the east of private Road A. The landscape plan includes berms on Dorset Street and street trees on both Roads A and B. There will be foundation plantings around all the units. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked the Board to require the applicant to attest that buildings will not exceed the height maximum. Mr. Heil said all units are below the 40-foot height requirement. They have sent a sheet depicting building heights in relation to the average preconstruction grade. Ms. Keene said it appears the calculations are correctly done. #2. Regarding the wetland, staff noted there is no incursion. Some building walls may be as close as 15 feet to the buffer. Mr. Heil said they will ensure that there are no impacts to the wetland or buffer during construction. They are proposing a split rail fence along the buffer. The project will be governed by a homeowners association which will be a able to spot any incursion into the wetland/buffer by residents. Ms. Keene expressed concern with the lack of backyard space from a quality of life point of view. Mr. Kochman questioned whether a split rail fence was adequate protection. Mr. Behr said that with a homeowner association, there is control. Mr. Philibert added that people will know what they are buying and may not want a backyard. Mr. Heil said the split rail fence will go in early, so people will see it when they buy. Mr. Behr suggested a sign on some of the rail posts. Mr. Albrecht asked whether people can walk in the wetland/buffer. Mr. Heil said they can, but they cannot mow there. Ms. Keene said there will be documents to that effect. Mr. Kochman asked if there will be patios. Mr. Heil said not at this time. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 3 #3. Regarding the water line, Mr. Heil said the line was approved under their other project. #4. Regarding the requirement for a ledge plan, Ms. Keene reviewed the history and asked if the Board is still of the same thinking as at sketch. Mr. Behr said he definitely wants a plan with the same conditions as the project across the road. He added that the layout, while not ideal, is better from the point of view of ledge removal. Mr. Heil said they will have a ledge plan at final plat. #5. Staff asked why the distance between the roads was changed. Mr. Heil said they shifted Road B 20 feet to the east. There are now 133 feet between entrances. The Board has asked them to maximize that distance. Mr. Albrecht asked why the crosswalk isn’t closer to the intersection. Mr. Heil said they could shift it a bit. Mr. Albrecht suggested having Public Works look at this. Ms. Wyman said she was “on the fence” about it. Mr. Behr asked if they can require a flashing light sign. Mr. Heil said they are not proposing one, but if the Board wants one they will look into it and work with Public Works. #6. Regarding sight distances, Mr. Heil said they have met the standards, and Mr. Dickinson and the 3rd party reviewer agreed they were adequate. #7. Regarding access for service vehicles, Mr. Heil showed where vehicles can back up to turn out. He said vehicles do this all the time. He noted a significant grade change which makes a U-shaped road not feasible. Mr. Behr said he can live with it as long as the Fire Chief is OK with it. #8. Staff noted that the Fire Chief has not had an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Heil said they will work with the Chief prior to final plat. Ms. Keene said the applicant should make an effort to get the Chief’s response which could save them time and possibly having to re-warn the plan. Mr. Heil noted they have provided 2 hydrants on each road and are willing to take the risk. Mr. Kochman asked about the possibility of a fire behind buildings #13 and 14. Mr. Heil said the Fire Department could bring a hose behind the buildings from the hydrant. #9. Staff asked that the path to the rec path be 8 feet wide and asphalt. Mr. Heil was OK with that. He added that they would prefer the sidewalk within the city right-of-way to be maintained by the city. Ms. Keene suggested the association be responsible for plowing and the city for maintenance. Mr. Heil was OK with that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 4 #10. Regarding additional parking on the western roadway, Mr. Heil said they are proposing 4 parking spaces per unit (2 in the driveway and 2 in the garage). With space on the roadway, there are a total of 58 spaces which is double the requirement. Mr. Behr said he thought it was fine the way it is. #11. Regarding utilities, Mr. Heil said they will coordinate with GMP and Vermont Gas after preliminary approval. All utilities will be underground down one side of the street. #12. Mr. Heil had no issue with complying with requirements for lighting fixtures. #13. Regarding the stormwater request for more detailed plans, staff said if the system is not feasible, preliminary plat should not be closed. Mr. Heil said he thought the stormwater comment related to the basin at the end of Road B. They will comply with that. They did not show roof drains at preliminary plat but will show downspouts at final plat. Mr. Kochman asked if the roof drains extend out from the building. Mr. Shepherd said they extend ‘just barely.” He added that the HOA can keep an eye on them so they don’t get mangled or disconnected. #14. Staff cited the need of a rendering of the project from the south (the appearance of the development as you approach from Dorset St.). Mr. Heil said it is pretty wooded. There will be berms with shrubs to provide screening from the development. He showed a rendering of this. Ms. Keene was concerned whether there would be a “blank wall” seen from the south approach. Mr. Heil said it would be pretty well screened. Ms. Keene noted the applicant is counting on shrubbery on an adjacent property which could possibly not exist in the future. Mr. Heil said they can propose more vegetation there. He felt the neighbor would have very little incentive to remove the hedge because they would then be looking at buildings. Ms. Keene noted that none of the rendering show the backs of buildings. Mr. Shepherd said they can show those as part of final plat. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Maroney said the property to the south is abandoned and is falling down. It has been in limbo since the owner died. Ms. Keene felt the Board should not rely on that property to make the subject property attractive. Ms. Maroney also asked about traffic on Park Road and how it was addressed. Ms. Keene said they looked to align the driveways, but this is as close to the best it can get. Ms. Maroney noted the project’s Dorset Street address and said she assumed it would be accessed from Dorset Street. Ms. Keene said city policy is to access development from smaller roads. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 5 Members felt they needed some things resolved before closing (e.g., ledge removal plan, approach from the south). Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-03 until 4 May 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-22-05 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, for the next phase of a previously approved master plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowable in the zoning district. The phase consists of two 5-story multi- family residential buildings on Lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,210 sq. ft. of commercial space, and associated site improvements: Mr. Langfeldt reviewed the history. He stressed that how people do business has changed from the original submission. The project is very consistent with what was proposed 2 years ago with some very positive changes including new amenities to make the buildings more attractive. Mr. Gill asked whether the 2 parking spaces in front of lot 15 are OK as they are behind a wall. Ms. Keene said the wall doesn’t count. The spaces should be moved. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked that the applicant address the conditions of preliminary plat. Mr. Gill said they can do that as they go along. #2. The applicant is asking to increase the size of the lot by moving the lot line. This will require a waiver. Ms. Keene said they could reduce the size of the building instead of moving the lot line. Mr. Gill said there are a lot of consequences to reducing the building. He showed a plan with a 2-/12 foot discrepancy in the setback (from what should be 10 feet to 7-1/2 feet). Ms. Keene said it can be waived, but the issue is the impact on the adjacent parcel. Mr. Langfeldt said there would be no building on the adjacent lot anywhere near that property line. Mr. Behr said he was comfortable as long as there is a way to show a minimum spacing between the buildings. Mr. Langfeldt said there is a sidewalk there which they are not going to move. Members voiced no objections. #3. Public Works is asking for technical review of the traffic study. Mr. Behr moved to invoke a technical review of the traffic study. Mr. Albrecht seconded. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Gill asked the scope of the review. He noted the driveway location, curb cut and pedestrian crossing are in the exact spot approved by the DRB. He also noted that their traffic study specifically says the traffic signal and crosswalk are warranted. Ms. Keene said staff is in a “funny position” with a new Director of Public Works. She said the issue identified is not the driveway location but how the lanes come out and how the widening happens. There is also a question of trip generation. Ms. Keene added the issue is when the widening to three lanes occurs after the curb cut, not specifically the curb cuts themselves. Mr. Dickinson said he didn’t see that as a problem. He indicated where stacking will occur. Mr. Gill said if it is something that can be changed with a slight roadway adjustment, he’s OK with the review. Mr. Kochman said he partially agrees with the applicant as some things were already approved. Mr. Langfeldt said they have a permit that was just approved; he had no issue. In the vote that followed, the motion passed unanimously. #4. Regarding roof space, Ms. Keene showed the difference between the preliminary drawing and the current full plans. Mr. Hodgson said the roof deck was adjusted not to block the sun. They also put a second story ceiling into the gym, and that intrudes into the roof space. They wanted to create “outside rooms” so groups of tenants can use them at the same time. There are 2 grilling stations with tables/chairs, an outdoor living room with TV, etc. Ms. Philibert felt it creates more “cozy” spaces. The Board voiced no objections. #5. Regarding changes in the outdoor amenities, Mr. Gill said there were potentially 5 areas on the site for amenities: the intersection, roof deck, and 3 areas on Lot 15 with a “boardwalk” feature. They now have included a café which wasn’t in the original plan. Regarding the deck in front of lot 15, Mr. Gill said they had thought there wasn’t going to be a door there. With the door, the deck would have had to be 10 feet into the air which was much less appealing and created an ADA issue. They changed it to a park area which makes more sense. Mr. Hodgson added that this change also responds to changes in architecture and a larger stormwater system. They have provided a sidewalk in front of the building and still have a picnic area. He showed the building elevations and identified the challenges with a ramp. Ms. Philibert asked whether the rooftops would be available to people not living in the buildings. Mr. Gill said they are sized from the particular building. He noted they are also looking to enhance the ground floor entry. He showed another rendering and noted space for an added amenity. Mr. Kochman asked if the changes were due to anything other than cost. Mr. Gill said the extended stormwater area, the fact of the ramp going past people’s bedroom windows, the aesthetics of “lots of ramp.” He said there was not a huge cost factor. Ms. Keene said staff’s concern is more units with less outdoor space. She asked if they can bring the amenities up to what had been proposed. Mr. Gill said they can. He also noted there has been an increase in interior amenities. He showed a slide of a “food truck area” which can be made a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 7 bit wider. Mr. Hodgson noted they also added more trees for shade. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that they did not increase the size of the building; they just redid the allocation of units. Members voiced no objections. #6. Regarding the deficiency in the lighting plan, Mr. Gill said they looked at the parking lot. There was a 1.2, not a 1.3. They can expand it. #7. Regarding modifying the plan to provide features shown at preliminary plat, Mr. Langfeldt said the changes come down to being true to the concept at preliminary plat. He felt they have done that. There is a 2% reduction in glazing, very minor. The sliding doors are still in the plan. He showed the 2 plans side by side. He noted the opening to the garage got closed off to protect the pipes in winter. They have put decorative grating on top of the bricks. They have also preserved the 2 towers at the corners. Ms. Keene cited the absence of sills on the windows and some unbroken blank space. She also noted the preliminary plan had more massive cornices. Mr. Langfeldt said this is a more modern design. Mr. Gill said there is still trim around the windows. The blank wall is a mechanical space. He suggested they could plant some trees in front of it and possibly add a small window and/or some signage. Mr. Behr questioned the noise from the CO2 detectors with the opening and closing of the garage doors. Mr. Smith said they shouldn’t go off too often. He noted this is a HUD project, and they require radon detection. Mr. Behr said the preliminary elevations had a different feel to them that is a little lacking now. The windows now feel “punched into the wall.” Mr. Kochman said headers on windows look more sculptural. Mr. Gill said they can look into that. #8. Along 2 Brothers Drive on lot 13, staff noted a “weird place with a blank wall.” Mr. Gill said they spent a lot of time on that façade. He showed a rendering. They added the raised café patio, and there is landscaping to address the issue. They also added a storefront canopy and mosaic tile in the pet center. There is raised cement seating for the café and trees around it. Mr. Langfeldt said the café will be open to the public. He felt it really animates that corner. Mr. Gill said they will provide landscaping for “the gap.” Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-05 to 4 May 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Site plan application #SD-22-008 and Conditional Use Application #CU-22-01 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to construct a 52-space commercial parking lot on an existing 4.3 acre undeveloped lot for the use of tenants on the adjoining multifamily residential lots, 255 Kennedy Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 MARCH 2022 PAGE 8 Mr. Gill said the next step is to put part of the parking on the adjacent lot. They need conditional use approval for this. He showed the plan and indicated a 40 sq. ft. area that does not allow parking and asked if they can move the Lot 13 lot line. Ms. Keene said that is a good solution. She noted there are only 3 parking spaces that wouldn’t be allowed, and these could be added somewhere else. Ms. Keene noted there is a question as to whether a travel lane to serve the commercial parking would be allowed. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-008 to 4 May 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 18 January, 2 and 15 February, and 2 March 2022: Due to the late hour, approval of the minutes was postponed to the next meeting. 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 10:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on