Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 04/05/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 5 April 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, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; L. Thayer, L. Bailey, S. O’Brien, C. Frank, J. Findley-Shirras, A. Dery, F. Von Turkovich, B. Armstrong, J. Hodgson, D. White, K. Easton, J. O’Hara, K. Vastine, S. Greer, T. Morris, G. Dixon, K. Desroches, L. Lamphere, B. Neff, R. Bouchard, D. Read; K. Vastine; G. Henderson-King 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members agreed to move the approval of minutes to follow agenda item #4. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Review Minutes of 18 January, 2 February, 15 February, 2 March and 15 March: Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 18 January, 2 and 15 February and 2 and 15 March as presented. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued 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use, expanding the parking area, and changing the mix of uses, 916 Shelburne Road: Staff advised that the applicant had withdrawn the application and requested that a provided letter be distributed to the Board. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 2 7. Continued 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: Mr. O’Hara said this will be an infant care facility similar in structure to the Homestead School. He showed a site plan and indicated existing buildings that will be removed. They will keep some of the vegetation. The roadway to the north will be one-way in. All cars will exit at #1475 Shelburne Road, which will be 2-way. They have submitted a permit application to VTrans and are assuming it will be approved. The new building will have 10 to 12 employees. Mr. Behr asked if there will be a connection between the two buildings. Mr. O’Hara said they have a sidewalk for the new portion and also a 3-foot space to walk around. There is a direct connection for staff. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked if the brick walkway is being used to count toward the landscape budget. The applicant said they feel it will act as it will be a gateway to the building. #2. The applicant said the requested hardscape values do not include the standard cost of concrete. #3. The applicant has increased the tree size to 3” and using more mature shrubs, which brings the total above what is required. #4. Staff indicated a need for an erosion plan and a plan to try to save the maple tree. Mr. O’Hara indicated the “tightness” around the tree so they cannot do an 18 ft protection area. They will add as much protection as possible. He indicated this on the plan. #5. The applicant was asked to demonstrate how they will meet the criteria for shared parking. The property line between the 2 lots was indicated, and they just barely meet the calculation for the southern property. Ms. Keene said the criteria should be met for the parking lot as a whole, not just a portion of it. Because the island is in a corner, it may or may not meet the criteria. They may have to remove a couple of parking spaces. The applicant indicated they will be happy to meet the criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 3 #6. Regarding snow storage, the applicant showed a probable path for plowing. They can store snow in the swales along the property lines. If there is a lot of snow, it may take up a parking space or two. #7. The applicant was OK with confirming the tree size. #8. Staff asked if the Board is satisfied that the aesthetics are comparable to the Homestead building. Members were OK with this. #9. This comment was already addressed. #10. The applicant agreed to add signage to indicate “one way.” #11. Regarding fence details, Mr. O’Hara said they will mimic the fence that is already there. He showed a picture of this. The fence between the two properties will be taken down. There will be both a “big kid” and a “little kid” playground. Public comment was then solicited: Ms. Easton said she lives in a neighborhood of 10 houses on the dead-end street. Residents are concerned with stormwater management and with traffic. They are on a downslope from Shelburne Road, and water comes down and into the stream which feeds into the Lake. Residents want to know where the stormwater from this building will go as there will be a lot more impervious surface. They were also concerned with snow going into the swale and where the melt will go. Ms. Easton said as long as the applicant makes a good faith effort to protect the wetland and the Lake, they have no issue. She was concerned that Holmes Rd. is not able to handle any more traffic. There are already 10 access points to that road from various businesses, and residents don’t want the daycare to become another access point. Mr. Albrecht then moved to close SP-22-006. Ms. Philibert seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 8. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-21-19 of 600 Spear 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: Mr. Von Turkovich said they have made changes to respond to Board comments, mostly related to stormwater. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 4 Ms. Thayer then showed the site plan and indicated the 8 4-plex units and the common space in the center. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked how the large steel building will be screened. Mr. Von Turkovich said it is an asset to the project and is similar to the agricultural buildings on the UVM site, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone. From Spear Street, it is very well shielded. There will be landscaping on the west side of the building. On the east side, buildings were repositioned to screen steel building. All debris from the previous contractor’s yard has been removed. One potential use for the steel building is storage space for tenants and a small area for a workshop. It will also be used for on-site maintenance. Because of COVID and people working from home, they could build some business space in there as well, if it is economically feasible. Ms. Keene noted the Board is asking for some architectural upgrade to that building. Mr. Von Turkovich said they are not trying to turn it into an old fashioned barn. It won’t be red. He felt the building has integrity the way it is. Mr. Behr said there needs to be some element to relate it to the rest of the development. Mr. Von Turkovich said the buildings have “an agricultural look” and he didn’t think there was much they could add to the steel building. He showed the elevations of the residential buildings. Mr. Behr said the steel building is “too industrial” to go with the rest of the buildings. He noted the 6 doors in the steel building and said the building should have more of a residential look. Mr. Von Turkovich said it was a close call to keep the building. He still feels it should be repurposed, but he didn’t feel it made sense to spend a lot of money to turn it into something beautiful. Ms. Philibert said she would like to see some attempt to blend the colors with the residential buildings so it doesn’t stick out like “a sore thumb.” Mr. Albrecht suggested possibly adding some windows. Mr. VonTurkovich said he felt the landscaping will make a big difference. Mr. Behr said that building is now the “backyard” of the residential buildings and it should blend in more. He indicated it should be an accessory building for this project rather than an after-thought that is designed around. Mr. VonTurkovich said they could eliminate one or more of the overhead doors and possibly paint it and add windows. #2. Regarding the public right-of-way, Mr. VonTurkovich said they have no problem moving the transformers. They are talking with UVM about moving the right-of-way ten feet to the south which would remove some features from the right-of-way. He felt this is likely to happen as UVM would also benefit from that. UVM is also amendable to having trees planted on their land. #3. Staff asked how trash collectors will access the trash totes. Mr. VonTurkovich said each building will have pickup by the hauler who will roll out the totes. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 5 #4. The applicant was asked to confirm that building costs are in the “ballpark.” Mr. VonTurkovich said if there is a shift, they will come back to staff and would change the landscape requirement accordingly. #5. Mr. VonTurkovich agreed to have curbing any place in front of parked vehicles. #6. Streets will be extended to the property line. #7. Staff noted DPW requires green space between the street and sidewalk. Mr. VonTurkovich said there is parking planned on one side of the street. If more is needed, it would be on the other side of the street. Ms. Keene said the issue is the city sidewalk plow dumping snow on private land. Mr. VonTurkovich said they will make an appropriate change. Ms. Wyman noted there is a hydrant that needs to have better access. She indicated this on the plan. Mr. VonTurkovich said that can be done. Ms. Dery said they still have some things to work out with Public Works. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr then moved to close SD-21-19. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-22-04 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one and a half story, 84,000 sq. ft. medial office with associated parking, equipment and stormwater treatment on an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive: Mr. Langan was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Keelty said they had not anticipated building this facility so soon; however there are surgical needs that need to be met. Types of surgery are becoming more complex and sophisticated and require more equipment and space. The Tilley Drive site is the right size, though the topography is challenging. They are finishing up their Certificate of Need application. They want to introduce the plan to the DRB to be sure they are on the right track and to get some clarity on the direction they are going. Ms. Henderson noted they have been working with city planning staff for several months. There are important issues to get clarity on. She then showed a plan of the existing conditions DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 6 and indicated Tilley Drive on the south side of the lot and the O’Brien development to the north. There is a Green Mountain Power (GMP) right-of-way with overhead lines. Within it, there is a CWD easement for a water main. So there is very little that can be done in that area. The property slopes to the east, creating more than a 20-foot slope. There are also two Class 3 wetlands on the site. They are not connected to each other and serve a minimal function. The building needs to face the front of the lot. There is a shared access to the lot with the Red Barn Deli. Ms. Henderson cited the need to have good access for patients from Tilley Drive and the need to orient the building to the light. It has to be ADA accessible. She indicated the proposed front door location and the drop-off area. The lower level of the building would have a loading dock and staff entrance. There would be no “mingling” with patient or staff vehicles. There would not be a lot of truck traffic, just providing and replacing linens. Due to the need to separate clean and dirty linens, there have to be twice as many loading docks. The applicant then explained the route patients would take from the front door through registration to pre-op, operation, post-op, and exit. Parking areas were indicated as well as a future connection to the bike path. Stormwater would be collected on the east side. There would be an area for equipment (e.g., transformer), and pictures of these types of structures were shown. There is an existing windmill on site which would be relocated on the site. There is permanent open space to the north of the site. The applicant said they will work with the city regarding a connection to the future city road. This will have to go around a Class 2 wetland. That road is not part of this project. The applicant then show cross-sections indicating the building, drop-off areas, gravel wetland and property line of the east side. They also indicated the grading drop. Another cross-section indicated access to the loading area, the trading change and Tilley Drive. The applicant noted there is also a lot of ledge on the site. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. If the applicant wants to conserve the open space, a Master Plan may not be required. The applicant said they do want this and will be glad to do whatever is required. #2. Staff asked to discuss locating the site access to the east in order to eliminate natural resource impacts. The applicant said access is one of the most important elements of the project for visual way-finding to the front of the building and access to parking, etc. The DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 7 building square footage didn’t allow for sliding to the east. It was stressed that these are Class 3 wetlands, and impacting them is necessary to access the building. The driveway goes through those wetlands. Mr. White cited the challenge of the topography. If you enter from the east, you are entering at the lower level. He cited the need to make it convenient for patients to get to the front door. He stressed that this has been very carefully vetted to deal with all the relationships. If it isn’t acceptable, they can’t go forward. Ms. Philibert said they are “threading a needle.” The applicant stressed that most of their discussion has been how to get patients conveniently into the site and create the program so it works. This is the most minimal impact they can have. Mr. Behr noted the regulation is the minimum necessary impact, and suggested getting some of the paving away from the street so there is less impact on the wetland. Members agreed. The applicant stressed that what really hurts them on the site is the GMP/CWD situation. They have to fit everything in a small area. Mr. Behr suggested an alternate entryway. Mr. White said they can look at that. He stressed that the Class 3 wetlands is not associated with any stream. Mr. Albrecht asked if they could move the site east by providing a retaining wall for the gravel wetland. #3. This was already addressed. #4. Staff noted that the city’s official map has a roadway planned, and this development should ensure that this north/south roadway can be accommodated. Mr. Bouchard, representing the adjacent property owner, said they have dedicated a 100-foot right-of-way to the city. It is recorded. Ms. Keene noted the land records do not have an record of such a right-of-way, simply a future roadway. Mr. Bouchart did not feel they should be required to make an “accommodation,” as it is not their responsibility. Ms. Keene stressed the need to be sure the project does not preclude development of that roadway. Staff is asking the applicant to provide a wetland delineation on lot 2 in the location of the future roadway. The applicant said their issue is to be able to develop the lot. The 100-foot right-of-way is on a separate lot. They will do what they need to do to accommodate the city. They do not intend to purchase that lot. The applicant added that they understood that the proposed roadway is related to an off-ramp to a future Exit 12B. #5. The applicant was directed to provide a 60-foot right-of-way from the O’Brien roadway to the planned roadway. The applicant was happy to do that. #6. The applicant was directed to provide a driveway connection from the site to the north to the future roadway. Ms. Keene showed this on the plan. She noted that if the site were to be accessed from the east, this objective would be addressed. The applicant was willing to work on that. They do not want their parking lot to become some sort of “short cut.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 5 APRIL 2022 PAGE 8 #7. Staff asked if the Board wanted to invoke a technical review of the applicant’s traffic study. Mr. Behr moved to invoke technical review of the applicant’s traffic study. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. The Board continued the sketch plan to May 4. 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 10:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on May 4, 2022.