Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/18/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 January 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; L. Lackey, A. Klugo, B. Carrier, A. J. LaRose, A. Sanchez, Blain, B. Ferland, C. Lange, C. Caputo, C. Carter, C. Silvey, D. Gouger, D. Saladino, M. Grant, Hal, Jacob KG, Jacquie, J. Page, L. Merrithew, N. Hyman, P. Irish, P. Boisvert, P. Simon, Robert, S. Brutzman, S. Mowat, T. Lindberg, D. Stewart, D. Carman 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provide instructions for emergency exit from the building. 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 reminded people to sign the writer or virtual sign-in sheets as this is a necessity should they wish to appeal a decision of the DRB. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-21-039 of South Village Communities, LLC, to provide a replacement plan for trees and shrubs that were improperly removed. The plan consists of installing a heavily landscaped passive recreation area and walking path between Aiken Street and Spear Street east of the existing paved recreation path, 1840 Spear Street: Staff noted that the plans were received too late to be reviewed for this meeting and recommended continuing until 15 February. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 2 Ms. Wyman moved to continue SP-21-039 until 15 February 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-21-02 of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit development on 5 lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard, and an RV sales, service and repair facility. The Master Plan includes combining the 5 lots, resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres, and consists of a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, a 37,000 sq. ft. office and retail building, a 15,600 sq. ft. commercial building and an 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Klugo provided a brief overview of the project, noting that they will be developing 40 acres on the south end of the Airport to accommodate an assembly facility. The project is intended to be a campus to tie all the facilities together. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff questioned whether the area of the master plan can be increased to accommodate the geothermal field without having to reward the entire project. Mr. Klugo said the area of the geothermal field is 2.38 acres which increases the total acreage to 40.4. This was inadvertently removed from the master plan but has been part of the original project since sketch plan review. Mr. Klugo noted the 2.38 acres is non-contiguous and questioned how it would have to be handled. It is all underground, and there can never be anything on top of it. It is also in an area restricted by the FAA and could never be built on. Mr. Kochman asked if that area wasn’t part of this project, what could it be used for. The applicant replied “nothing.” Ms. Keene said the easiest path forward would be not to reward the master plan but to have the geothermal well field as a separate project. She added that if it is excluded from the project as a whole, they meet with dimensional standards. Mr. Klugo was OK with that approach. Ms. Keene then noted that the Board cannot waive three things, one of which is exceeding the maximum lot coverage. As warned, they are at 50.3 which exceeds the allowable coverage; with the geothermal field and apron, they are at 49.1 which is within the allowable limit. Mr. Klugo said the cleanest way forward is to proceed with what was intended. He questioned what would be considered a “material change” in this instance. Mr. Kochman said the Environmental Court has been generous in allowing a pretty big change as “immaterial.” To DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 3 him, the question is what is the purpose of the warning. Mr. Klugo said the purpose is to let people know if they are being impacted by the project. In this case, there is no impact. Mr. Kochman asked whether it could leak harmful gas. Mr. Klugo said there is no gas; they are heating only water. He also noted that it was warned under preliminary and final application (which is the next agenda item). Mr. Kochman asked if that warning is in its current location. Mr. Klugo said it is. He added that it is also discussed in the narrative. Mr. Albrecht asked if there are state standards as to what has to be in a warning. Ms. Keene said there are not. Mr. Albrecht said it is then incumbent on the public to look at a plan. He asked if the geothermal field was on the plan. Ms. Philibert said it is on the plan. Mr. Albrecht said it is them adequately warned. Mr. Kochman asked if someone saw the warning, looked at the plans, would they have seen the geothermal field on the plan. Mr. Klugo said that level of technological detail is not on a master plan, though the area would have been there. Mr. Kochman asked whether the public could have found the area and its use on-line. Mr. Klugo said yes, the information was there in both filings. Ms. Keene showed the plans and indicated the geothermal field clearly shown. She also agreed that the master plan does not need to have that level of detail. Ms. Keene then read from State Statute 44.64. Mr. Kochman said the issue is whether the defect is “material,” which is where the discussion started. He added that it is his inclination that it is not material. Mr. Langan said he felt there is adequate notice and does not need to be rewarned. Mr. Kochman said he is inclined the same way. Ms. Philibert asked if any member felt there was not adequate warning. No member said they felt the warning inadequate. #2. Staff asked that the Board decline the height waiver as part of the master plan but allow it on a case-by-case basis when they submit a plan for a building. Mr. Klugo said they can work with staff’s recommendation. Members agreed with staff’s recommendation. #3. Staff questioned “unplanned square footage” in relation to floor area ratio (FAR). Mr. Klugo said the request at the last meeting was for a variable FAR depending on the zoning district. They are willing to accept staff’s thinking. Ms. Keene said the applicant is proposing a 509,000 sq. ft. building. That can be used for the FAR or the Board could give them a “cushion.” Ms. Keene reminded the Board, that if the FAR increases, other things (e.g., traffic) can also increase. Mr. Klugo noted they are way below the allowable trip ends. He added that if the intent is to have things aligned, they would be OK with a 5% cushion for now and come in for more, if needed. Mr. Albrecht said that as long as the lot coverage is the same, he was OK with the FAR. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 4 #4. Regarding open space, staff questioned whether to exclude the sculpture lawn and entry plaza from “permanent open space” and to require that open space be maintained as public open space. Members were OK with this. #5. Regarding peak hour vehicle trips, Ms. Keene noted that staff received the traffic study today. It projects 526 peak hour trips. Staff will review the study. She noted that the city has not general issue with the proposal, but other entities (CCRPC and VTrans) have an issue with the location of the traffic signal. The applicant said VTrans is OK with the signal at the new main drive. There is a slight disagreement from CCRPC, but they defer to VTrans. Ms. Keene said since the city currently has no head of Public Works to review the traffic study, staff recommends a technical review. Mr. Klugo noted the 526 is less than the number in the original technical review. He didn’t think this issue should warrant continuation. Mr. Kochman did not agree. Mr. Klugo said they weren’t against it being done; it was the issue of timing. Ms. Keene said if the report is as good as the applicant says, she will write a decision for the next meeting, not a staff report. Mr. Klugo said he could support that, and members voiced no concerns. #6. Ms. Keene noted staff has received both the wastewater and water information. #7. Regarding limiting various uses in the paved area, Mr. Klugo said the only exception they have will be for additional car chargers in front of the building. Ms. Keene said there is language to allow that. #8. Regarding the timeline for completion of each phase, Ms. Philibert noted the applicant’s request is for 5 years from completion of each phase to completion of the next phase. Mr. Albrecht said he understood the applicant can request and additional year and a half. Mr. Klugo said they would be happy to say 3-1/2 years and then go to the 5 years. Ms. Keene noted there is a long-term lease on one of the existing buildings. Mr. Klugo said they will have to work that through with the landlord. Ms. Keene noted the LDR under which this application is submitted has no time limit; the new LDRs have a 6-year limit. Mr. Kochman said if the applicant is happy with 3-1/2 years, why should the Board care. Ms. Quinn questioned whether “substantiall completion of a building” is adequate. Mr. Kochman said that is when a building is ready for occupancy. Mr. Klugo noted they could get a temporary CO if there is landscaping that cannot be done till the following planting season He added that forcing a date to build a building is contrary to everything that they have been discussing. From the community’s perspective, the question is when would the public elements get built. He reminded the Board that they are adding 500+ sustainable, good jobs to the community. Ms. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 5 Keene suggested giving them 5 years but with a cap of 10 years for the last submittal of a site plan. Mr. Klugo said they are fine with that. There were no objections from the Board. #9. Ms. Philibert noted that the Board did discuss parking in their deliberative session and had issues with the fact that the parking in front of the building is not taken care of until the last phase of the development. Ms. Keene noted that Section 14.07 of the LDRs allows the Board to permit parking in front of a building when there are unusual hardships that prevent if from being behind the building, but that does not apply when the development is a PUD. Mr. Kochman said it does not appeal the Board can waive this though he agreed there is a hardship in this case. Mr. Klugo asked how they can put parking on a piece of land that does not allow for any use. Ms. Keene said it is up to the applicant to provide a workable proposal. Staff did have one idea that could be viable. It would involve a “surety” with the city for a public park, and the surety is the land itself and the “punishment” would be the land becomes public recreation. Mr. Kochman said it sounds ingenious, but he didn’t think the Board can impose it, though they could accept it as a proposal from the developer. Mr. Klugo said the applicant in this case is a tenant, not the owner. He asked if they could align the building with the 10-year window they just agreed to. He stressed that the timeframe is not the issue, performance is the issue. He noted that they could build a structure like the one at CVS along Dorset Street, but they don’t want to go that route. Mr. Kochman asked if there is any change in the new LDRs that could address this issue. Ms. Keene said that section of the LDRs has not been modified. Mr. Klugo said he would talk with the property owners and see what can be proposed. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert moved to continue MP-21-020 to 15 February 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Due to time concerns, members agreed to hear the final item on the agenda before the next scheduled item. 7. Sketch plan application #SD-22-02 of DS Realty, LLC, to amend a previous approval for a lot currently developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio and standard restaurant in one building and three homes in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing all three homes by demolishing the buildings and constructing a second principal building for educational use, adding educational facility as an allowed use, and constructing associated site improvements 916 Shelburne Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 6 Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. Mr. Simon then noted the applicant has modified the previous plan and will now replace the carriage house building. It is an existing non-conforming building. With a new building, they can address many of the challenges and meet the requirements. Ms. Davis said they plan to offer art education to all age groups. They “inherited” the 3 residential units, one of which was demolished by a pine tree. Instead of having new tenants, they want the new buildings to be part of the art studio. Mr. Simon said they can now bring the parking lot into conformance and straighten it out. They will also do a design for the new building similar to the former carriage house and have a robust landscape plan. They are under a time crunch and will want to combine preliminary and final plats in the hope of occupying the building by June. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Ms. Keene noted the applicant will have to comply with the new residence replacements regulations. Mr. Simon said this may be addressed when the new LDRs are adopted. Ms. Keene noted the draft LDRs exempt educational facilities from housing replacement. #2. Mr. Simon said they have provided trip generation date as requested. There is a reduction in trip ends from the previous restaurant use. Ms. Keene said staff has some questions but will work out the issues with the applicant. #3. Regarding parking and access, Ms. Philibert noted there is a suggestion that if people exited onto Lindenwood, it would limit direct access to Shelburne Road for left turners. Mr. Simon said the queueing issue is at the next intersection up the road, and it is actually harder to exit from Lindenwood than directly onto Shelburne Road. They would also have to redesign the project to have access to Lindenwood. Mr. Davis said there is no traffic light at Lindenwood, and people would almost never be able to turn left. Ms. Davis said the Lindenwood neighbors would also have an issue with exiting onto Lindenwood. Mr. Kochman said that he thought using Lindenwood would be a disaster. Mr. Langan added that Lindenwood is also a well-used bike route, and he felt it would not be good to add more traffic there. Other members agreed. Ms. Keene noted that under the draft LDRs, a master plan would be required for multi- structures on a lot. Staff feels this would be a pretty heavy requirement in this case and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 7 suggested that the proposed new structure being only half the size of the original building, could be considered an “accessory structure” and thus not subject to a master plan. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Keene noted receipt of an email from Sarah Brutzman who expressed concern with “artificial light,” loss of some elder trees, and traffic. No other issues were raised. 8. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC, to consolidate 5 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 544,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, improving approximately 2400 sq. ft. of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman was recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Klugo provided a brief overview of the project. Phase 1 includes the building, driveway and a majority of parking as well as Williston Road improvements. Members then addressed staff comments as follows: #1. Mr. Klugo noted they had submitted a copy of the FAA determination that the building height is acceptable. #2. This was previously addressed. #3. The applicant was asked to describe the connection in terms of location and impact to traffic patterns. Mr. Klugo said this is a single lot. He asked what the concern is. Ms. Keene said one of the things that CCRPC mentioned is concern with a proposed interim connection to Valley Road. Mr. Klugo showed the route of Valley Road and indicated where it forks in several directions. They intent to improve one of those paths. He stressed that they are not proposing anything different from what exists now. Mr. Klugo added that VTrans was originally concerned that employees would bypass the stoplight and put increased traffic in front of Mirabel’s. To address this, Mr. Klugo said they could make it a one way entrance only. Ms. Keene said that can be a condition of approval. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 8 #4. Regarding utilities, Mr. Klugo referred to a diagram. He noted Velco is not a provider, and there is no conflict between systems. #5. Regarding landscaping, screening and tree preservation, Mr. Klugo said that the majority of trees that need to be removed are either for grading purposes or are merely tree stumps. There are 2 spruce trees to be removed. The 5 along the rec path are stumps. Two maple trees are compromised and are not worth keeping. They will plant replacements in another location. They may be able to adjust the path to save one tree. #6. Staff asked about the “build-in” site furniture. Mr. Klugo noted this was part of the original proposal but wasn’t highlighted. It involves landscape walls, steps, etc. What is described as an “amphitheater” is a multi-purpose gathering place. They are not planning any concerts or events there. Mr. Hodgson said it is basically landscaped terraces. He indicated the area on the plan. Mr. Klugo noted a request of the arborist to justify prices of larger items. He said they are 30% above the landscape requirements, not because they have to but because it is the right thing to do. #7. Staff requested supplemental photometric drawings. Mr. Klugo said those were sent over today. There are no hot spots. #8. Regarding long-term bicycle parking and staff’s concern with the design of the bike rack, Mr. Klugo showed a drawing regarding bike parking strategies for short term and long term (indoor) bike parking. He then showed floor plans of two locations in the building for lockers and showers. He also noted the bike rack they propose is the same as the one just approved by the Board at the north hangar. They are steel and embedded in concrete. #9. Staff asked about the design of the bus shelter to make it more harmonious with the project and surrounding area. Mr. Klugo said they are planning to install the GMT standard bus shelter. The Board expressed not issue with this. #10. Staff questioned the timeline for the second phase of the building, noting that most of the building aesthetics are in the second phase. Mr. Klugo said the first aircraft they will build will be hand-built. They will then go to automation. They need time to design that process. He felt phase one doesn’t “play” as half a building, and a lot of care has been taken with it. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JANUARY 2022 PAGE 9 Due to the late hour, Ms. Philibert suggested continuing this discussion at the next hearing. The applicant expressed concern with delaying construction. Ms. Keene said she would do her best to have a decision written for the 15 February meeting. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD-21-28 until 15 February 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:13 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on April 5, 2022.