Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10_draft minutes SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 MARCH 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a special meeting on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; D. Albrecht, J. Langan, F. Kochman, Q. Mann Others Present: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; B. Brown, Planning & Zoning Assistant; T. Barnes, A. Klugo, W. Guisbond, J. Goldman, S. Bewlay, D. Brouer, Matt, Nick, B. Newton, Sean, L. Bailey, M. Hamelin, J. Lance, Joel, K. Reagan, P. Bradley, WCAX, Local 22/44. Ms. Philibert called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. 1. Emergency Evacuation Procedures Ms. Philibert did not provide emergency evacuation procedures as she stated only staff was present in person. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items None. 3. Announcements None. 4. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda None. 5. Consideration of reopening preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC to consolidate five existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into one lot of 747.92 acres and to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a master plan, to include a 344,000 sf manufacturing and office building, improving approximately 2,400 ft of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070 Williston Road. Ms. Philibert noted that the Board previously closed the public hearings on Master Plan application (#MP-21-02) and Preliminary and Final Plat SD-21-28. In the Board’s deliberations on these two applications, the board identified a need for additional information may be needed to issue a decision on SD-21-28. The only order of business is to vote on and schedule a reopening of the hearing on SD-21-28. Ms. Philibert gave a procedural overview of how this item will be heard. Ms. Philibert made a motion that the Development Review Board reopen Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Application #SD-21-18 for a date to be determined by the Board today. Mr. Kochman noted that the application number stated in the motion was incorrect. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 29 MARCH 2022 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert then revised her motion that the Development Review Board reopen Preliminary Plat and Final Plat application #SD-21-28 for a date to be determined by the Board today. Mr. Kochman seconded. Mr. Albrecht asked if Mr. Conner could provide any more information. Mr. Conner stated that the DRB issued an approval for MP-21-02 on 3/22/22. As part of the deliberations for that and the SD-21-28 application, the Board felt that there may be additional testimony that is needed to reach a conclusion on the project due to the determination based by the master plan on the arrangement of the site. Mr. Klugo, representing the applicant, thanked the DRB and Staff for the opportunity to reopen the application and work through the additional information the Board feels they need to make a decision on SD-21-28. Mr. Barnes spoke in favor of reopening the hearing and urged the Board to work with the applicant to find a path forward. Ms. Philibert made a motion to enter a Deliberative Session to discuss the application SD- 21-28. Mr. Kochman seconded. The motion was approved 5-0. The Board and Mr. Conner removed themselves from the public meeting. Following a brief pause, the Board re-entered and resumed the public meeting. Ms. Philibert restated the original motion, that the Development Review Board reopen Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Application #SD-21-28 for a date to be determined by the Board today. A vote was then taken. All voted in favor, motion passed 5-0-0. The Board then set a date and time for the reopened hearing of Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:00pm. The meeting was adjourned at 12:47 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 4 May 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; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Burke, R. Dickinson, Carolyn, T. Smith, B. Armstrong, E. Langfeldt, A. Gill, C. Frank, K. Vastine, J. Findlay, D. Keelty, T. Morris, S. Greer, S. Homsted, D. Read 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: The approval of minutes was moved to precede Item #8. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Ms. Keene announced that this would be Mr. Langan’s last meeting. Ms. Philibert, speaking for the Board, said he would be much missed. 5. Continued 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 2 five- story multi-family residential buildings on Lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1219 sq. ft. of commercial space, and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Gill presented a video of the concept for the architecture, site and building amenities for lots 13 and 15. He also showed an aerial overview and a digital rendering from the point of view of the rec path and a rendering of the corner, indicating the care. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Langfeldt said they have added headers to the windows as requested by the Board. He also showed an overhead of the connection to the existing park on the Master Plan. He indicated the walking trail and the already built playground and all walking paths. He then showed a rendering of the rooftop open space and also the food truck area and open space on Kennedy Drive and indicated a play area on lot 19. Mr. Langfeldt also noted there are 8062 sq. ft. of programmed interior amenities including a parcel room, storage for tenants, gym/cardio room (with full equipment), hearth room/game room, chef’s kitchen/entertaining space, and pet space. He showed the common space finishes for the café. Ms. Keene noted that nothing that was shown is a change from what the Board has already seen. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to prepare an addendum to the TIS to determine whether lots 10, 11, 13 and 15 result in warranting a traffic signal. Ms. Keene noted the City does not have a mechanism to require an applicant to construct a signal outside the DRB review. Mr. Dickinson said there will be a signal at Two Brothers Road/Kennedy Drive. He believed that signal will be warranted when the buildings are occupied. BFJ agrees with this, and they recommend the signal be operational when trips exceed 100 in the AM peak hour. That will require monitoring, and the applicant will install the traffic light. The light can operate on a flash mode until warranted when it will be fully operational. Mr. Dickinson noted that the pedestrian signal can be operational even in the flashing mode. Ms. Keene was not sure the city can require on-going monitoring. Mr. Dickinson said there have been monitoring stipulations in many projects, and he felt it can be a condition of approval. Mr. Kochman asked if the signal can be fully operational upon installation. Mr. Langfeldt said that is their intent. Mr. Dickinson said that is left up to municipalities. The question is whether the signal will benefit traffic flow. If it will, it can be turned on. He felt that would be the case. Ms. Keene said it sounds like a low risk to turn it on and she suggested checking to see if there are issues. Members were OK with this. #2. Staff asked for an explanation on reduced outdoor space. Ms. Philibert noted there was a lot of indoor space as an amenity. Mr. Gill said there are 2000 sq. ft. more indoor amenity space. In the food truck area, they moved the bollards so there are 200 more square feet than in the preliminary plat. They also decreased the number of bedrooms and added more one bedroom and studio units so there are 30 more units in the same amount of indoor DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 3 space. Mr. Behr said the issue is whether what is provided is adequate. He felt the food truck area was fine. Mr. Albrecht said the standard speaks to open space, and he liked what he saw and felt it meets the standard. Ms. Philibert noted that people spend a lot of time indoors in Vermont, and she liked what had been done. #3a. Staff questioned an exterior door into a small 12’x12’ room with no other entries. Mr. Langfeldt said that is a mechanical room. #3b. The applicant was asked to correct the grading without changing the sidewalk. Mr. Langfeldt said that will be done. 4. Regarding lighting plan corrections, Mr. Gill said every fixture has been identified, and they are at 4.8 max foot candles. Ms. Keene felt that looked OK. The applicant was also asked to locate the building-mounted lights so they don’t become flood lights. The applicant agreed to do this. #5. Already addressed. #6. The applicant was directed to increase glazing. Mr. Gill said headers will be added to the windows and glazing will be added on lot 15 by dropping some of the glazing down. He showed an elevation and indicated the headers. Mr. Smith said the headers are composed of hardy board siding and trim work. Ms. Keene noted the applicant is not subject to the “solar ready” requirement. #7. The applicant was asked to describe whether the Board’s requirements were met. Mr. Gill showed a digital rendering of lot 13 and indicated the store front doors which will be lit at night. Members were OK with this. #8. The applicant was asked to address a landscaping deficiency. Ms. Keene said the applicant has asked for credit toward the landscaping budget for pavers, the seating area, site furnishings, grasses, and trees/shrubs. The Board has often allowed concrete pavers, but staff is recommended some art work on the garage panels. Mr. Behr noted that those panels were more interesting at preliminary plat. He would support different patterns/materials. Ms. Keene said the pavers should be a last resort when there is no more room for landscaping. Mr. Gill noted the pavers were requested. Mr. Kochman said the question is whether they are meeting the requirement with required elements. Ms. Keene said the Board can allow them to apply the excess in landscaping from lot 11. Mr. Behr felt the site looked well landscaped. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 4 Gill noted the increased cost from the previous estimate ($40,000 more). If they count the plaza, they meet the required number. Mr. Hodgson said they only used the pavers in pedestrian areas where it made a sense for there to be a difference between pavers and concrete. Mr. Gill felt they can get to the required number. Mr. Albrecht said he was OK with it, and noted the differential cost with pavers has been allowed on other projects. He wanted the space to be usable in all seasons, and he liked the urban feel. #9. This item was previously covered. #10. Regarding parking, Mr. Gill said they comply under a “parking lot by parking lot basis.” Mr. Behr agreed as the Board is considering the lots as a whole. Mr. Philibert agreed. #11. Regarding interior parking lot landscaping, Mr. Gill said he felt they comply with the language. Ms. Keene said the point is to have adequate space to keep a tree alive. Mr. Langfeldt said it is their bond and their risk. Mr. Hodgson said their smallest island is way over 60 sq. ft. and 5 feet wide, which is the same width as the city’s green belt. Members were satisfied with this explanation. #12. This item was previously addressed. #13. The applicant was asked to increase the minimum tree size and agreed to do so. #14. Regarding bicycle parking, the applicant noted that building 13 residents can access the bike parking area in building 15. Members were OK with this. #15. Regarding the lockers in the bike room, the applicant noted the lockers in question are for skis. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert said the will continue the applicant for a very brief “clean-up” meeting and perhaps a draft decision. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-05 to 7 June 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 5 6. Continued site plan application #SP-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 multi-family residential lots, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Gill noted the parking associated with the development was reviewed in the previous application and is part of the Eastview project. Conditional use for parking is allowed in the district. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant should be required to remove 4 parking spaces which are more than 50 feet outside the zoning district line. Ms. Keene showed the plan and indicated the 4 spaces which have to be removed. She explained that the GIS line is the standard. Mr. Gill asked if they could adjust the lot 13 line to save the 4 spaces. Ms. Keene said that would involve a change to the master plan which is a huge undertaking. Mr. Gill said they don’t want a mess over 4 spaces and indicated a place where they could be relocated. Members were OK with that. #2. This item was previously addressed. #3. Staff said there can be no additional curb cut on lot 17. There will be a condition to exclude a curb cut on Old Farm Road. Mr. Gill asked why prohibit it if they would have to apply for it. Ms. Keene said that because the applicant is asking for something the Board doesn’t usually do, staff is asking for a condition that there not be a curb cut within 200 feet. Mr. Gill said there is no issue with the 200 feet now but felt they could come back later “and bite you.” Ms. Philibert said if it isn’t broken, they won’t fix it. #4 and #5. These items were previously resolved. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to continue SP=22-008 and CU-22-01 to 7 June 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued 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 REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 6 development. The planned unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing 14 dwelling units in 2-family homes on two private roads, 1170 & 1180 Dorset Street: Mr. Burke showed the location of the property on the right side as you turn into Park Road. The master plan included 15 units, but they are proposing 14. Most of the previous discussion focused around the roadway. Mr. Burke noted they received approval from the previous Public Works Director who said “no concerns.” The 3 remaining items are: ledge, stormwater, and a rendering of the backs of units 3 and 4. Staff comment related to the renderings (#3) was considered first. Mr. Burke reminded members that the issue was what would happen if the tall hedge (not on the applicant’s property) were taken down. He then showed a rendering of what the backs of buildings 3 and 4 would look like in that case. Members had no issues. Regarding stormwater, Mr. Burke said there was a question as to how the roof drains would connect to the stormwater system. He then showed a plan indicating the slope that will connect to the pond. They will agree to a condition that the roof drains for units 9-14 will connect to the stormwater area. Ms. Keene said the concern is that there should be very little difference between preliminary and final plats. She also noted they are grading to the edge of the wetland and said there should be a condition that if there is a wetland impact, the applicant will have to go back to preliminary plat. Staff raised the issue of the line of sight from the roadway and the relocation of proposed street trees. Mr. Burke said they will make that change for final plat. Mr. Albrecht questioned whether the crosswalk should be closer to the intersection. Ms. Keene said that will be condition of approve. Mr. Burke said they had no issue with that. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-22-03. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Minutes of 5 April, 19 April 2022: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 5 and 19 April as written. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 7 9. Continued sketch plan application #SD-22-04 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one-on-a-half story, 84,000 sq. ft., medical 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. With regard to the need for a master plan, staff noted that the applicant proposes to permanently conserve a portion of the site, therefore sunsetting its development potential and obviating the need for a master plan. The applicant then noted they have provided information on the Class 3 wetland delineation. They do not impact the wetland itself but do impact the buffer. They have provided information that this wetland is of very minimal value. The applicant then showed a plan of the existing layout entry and indicated where it impacts the wetland buffer. They looked at shifting the road and putting in a retaining wall which would reduce the impact. A plan of this was shown. Mr. Behr noted this was what he was pushing for and asked if the Board can establish a minimum impact. Ms. Keene said they can. Members were OK with this now. The other issue related to the front entry facing the street. Mr. Morris said wayfinding is very critical in medical buildings. The canopy has to be on the west side of the building due to the sloping grade. Getting cars to queue up is greater on the west side of the building; on the south side you wouldn’t know where the door is. The applicant would like to keep the entry on the west side. Mr. Morris then showed a sketch of what the entrance would look like, including handicapped parking space. He noted there is a requirement that for a medical building the drop off has to be under a canopy. Mr. Behr said the rendering was very nice and did present to the street. He was fine with it. The applicant noted the proposed future roadway has nothing to do with this project. They are more than willing to work with the city and with Pizzigalli Properties if the road need to be adjusted to make lot #6 work. Ms. Keene explained the LDRs in relation to the road. The question is whether the roadway can actually go where it is shown on the official map or whether it has to be moved because of the Class 2 wetland. She said it is a very thorny issue. Mr. Kochman noted that the Board created the problem by allowing the incursion into the Class 2 wetland. Ms. Keene said if the Board is satisfied with the applicant’s testimony, they can move forward. No issues were expressed. Regarding the rec path, the applicant provided information. They tried to have the rec path on this property but there are drainage and stormwater issues and issues with neighbors. They are DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 MAY 2022 PAGE 8 proposing something at the top of the site with an overlook. They will work with the city on this. Regarding accessory structures, the applicant indicated they will screen the structures with evergreens along the property line where the equipment is located. A plan was shown of that area indicating the location of chillers, the oxygen farm and fuel cell equipment. These have to be located near the building.. There is also a transformer adjacent to Tilley Drive (3’x3’x3’). Mr. Behr asked if there is a way to consolidate equipment so there aren’t as many areas that need screening. The applicant noted that some separation is required from power lines, etc. Mr. Behr asked the applicant to do what they can to soften the image. The applicant noted they equipment is on the lower part of the site and will have less impact there. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 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 _____