Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/21/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 June 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Behr, J. Stern, D. Albrecht, Acting Chair; S. Wyman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, A. Gill, S. Homested, G. Leech, J. Zirko, A. Boadway, E. Langfeldt, A. Klugo, L. Lackey C. Gendron, J. Page, C. Orben, J. Hodgson, M. Dalpra 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Mr. Albrecht provided instructions on 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: Mr. Albrecht explained the role of the DRB and the opportunities for public input. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-22-021 and Conditional Use Application #CU-22-04 of El Gato Cantina to amend a previously approved planned unit development for a 705,335 sq. ft. shopping complex. The amendment consists of adding seasonal mobile food unit use as a use and designating an area for seasonal mobile food unit operations, 155 Dorset Street: Ms. Wyman recused herself from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Boadway said the hope is to bring an El Gato food truck to University Mall on Saturday nights, from 5-9 p.m. along with possibly 6-8 other food trucks. They would serve food and alcohol to the public. There would be low-level background music but no live music. She showed the location on the plan. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 2 #1. Staff questioned whether there would be illumination. Mr. Zirko said there is lighting from 2 poles in the area and also a stream of little lights around the food trucks. Ms. Keene said that is OK as long as it is just illuminating the immediate area with no glare emanating from the property. She read the regulation from the LDRs and said it would be part of an approval motion. Mr. Behr asked if there would be a time limit. Ms. Hall said they would be allowed from April through October. Every year they can re-up the event with a zoning permit. The Zoning Administrator would check to see if there were any complaints. Ms. Keene noted there is a maximum of 16 seats allowed. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-021 and CU-22-04. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 6. 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 two 5- story, multi-family residential buildings on Lots 13 and 15 with a total of 251 dwelling units, 1,219 sq. ft. of commercial space and associated site improvements, 255 Kennedy Drive: Mr. Gill said he felt they had wrapped up everything with just a few things to talk about. The project is the same as at the last hearing, just better defined. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding access and circulation under PUD standards, staff supports the consultant’s recommendation that the signal be generated at 85% occupancy (the 294th unit). Mr. Gill said they plan to put it in before the 4th building is occupied. Ms. Keene asked about the timing. Mr. Langfeldt estimated 2-3 years, which will be part of their phasing request. #2. Regarding elevations, the applicant was asked to confirm that the facades not shown will be the same with headers, etc. Mr. Gill said they will, and that can be a condition of approval. #3. Regarding landscaping screening requirements, staff noted there can be credit for streetscape elements as long as other elements are met. The applicant affirmed that the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 3 conclusions of the 4 May hearing are met in the current plan. Ms. Keene confirmed that this includes the cost for pavers that is above the cost of concrete. Mr. Gill said the costs are those at current market rate for trees. They have also increased the size of some trees. He added that even if they remove the bollards and bike racks from the list, the overage is still enough. Mr. Behr said he supports the proposal. Mr. Albrecht asked about the fire pits from a safety point of view. Ms. Hall said according to the Fire Chief, they must be at least 10 feet from the building. #4. Regarding long –term bike storage, staff asked about the lockers. Mr. Gill said there are a number of lockers in that area which can be used for biking gear. Ms. Keene said they can add to the motion that the lockers “shall be made available to the tenants of the commercial use.” Mr. Gill noted there was a previous phasing plan that allowed buildings to be built several years apart. They would have until 2025 to file the final plan with 18 months to get the permit. They are asking to leave that condition in for these two buildings. It is a critical item for them. Ms. Keene felt it was reasonable and members had not issues. Public input was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-22-05. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-33-008 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: It was noted that the parking is associated with the development on lots 13 and 15. Mr. Gill noted there had been a zoning line in the wrong place, and they have brought it to the GIS zoning line. Spaces are clearly in the right place, and they moved the 4 spaces indicated by the Board to a new location. No issues were raised by the Board. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-008 and CU-22-01. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 4 8. Site Plan Application #SP-22-024 of Beta Air, LLC, for a portion of the next phase of a previously approved 40.43 acre master plan for a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 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. The project consists of a 24,000 sq. ft. hangar, which represents a portion of the 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and airport use building, 430 daVinci Drive: Ms. Wyman was recused from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Klugo explained that this is the second project in the Master Plan and is part of the training facility. It sits around the Valley West apron. Mr. Klugo also said that the project was noted as a 4-phase project; it will actually be a 3-phase project. One element will be under a separate application. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked that the connection between Valley Road and the project be removed no later than the “red plan.” The applicant was OK with this requirement. #2. Staff said that there is a requirement that there be a consistent orientation to the street. Of the 5 doors on the plan, the main door is oriented to the side of the building. Staff feels the main door should be oriented to the street. Mr. Klugo said that this project is only half of the eventual building, and the main door will be oriented to the street when the second half (the cultural center) is built. He also that the requirement is for there to be a clear pathway from the street to the entrance, and they have provided this. He also noted that this standard is descriptive, not proscriptive. The plan was shown with the “5th door” highlighted. Mr. Klugo indicated the sidewalk and path that will guide people to the temporary entrance. Mr. Behr asked if the building is open to the public. Mr. Klugo said 90% of the use will be for Beta personnel and only 10% public use. The cultural center will be open to the public when it is built under a future application. Mr. Behr asked if the other entrances will be overridden when the cultural center is built. Mr. Klugo said they will be 99% for Beta use only. Mr. Klugo then read from the LDRs regarding making the main entrance “creative, innovative,” etc. He said that is what they have done. Ms. Keene said the city’s objective is that main doors face the street, though they have stopped short of requiring this. Mr. Klugo showed a plan with the entry plaza from the parking lot to the proposed main door. Mr. Stern noted it is a shorter walk for the public to enter from the parking lot to this door. Mr. Klugo noted that ultimately there will be a parking garage for people entering the cultural center. Mr. Albrecht said the current plan is “car centered,” and the city is trying to re-orient things to the whole community. Ms. Mann said she is torn as to how the standard is written. The cultural center will be more DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 5 accommodating to pedestrians, etc., but that is not what the Board is looking at. Mr. Klugo said that is the DRB’s challenge. He said they believe what they have created accomplishes what the regulations spell out. #3. Regarding site amenities, it was noted that Section 14.06(C) applies to all site plan over 5,000 sq. ft. Mr. Klugo said the 23,000 sq. ft. of floor area requires 1400 sq. ft. of site amenities. He also noted the Board can apply a 50% waiver. They are providing 780 sq. ft. of amenities in a private space for Beta employees and users of the building. Mr. Hodgson explained that in the process of building the manufacturing building, they unearthed some great boulders which will be used here to enclose that area. There will also be some brick pavers used. Ms. Keene read from the regulations. The 50% waiver requires that there be a public park or other existing public civic space within 500 feet. Mr. Klugo said they meet the requirement with the exception of the public park within that 500 feet. Ms. Keene said there is no exemption to waive this requirement. Mr. Klugo said there will be additional site amenities when the second part of the building is built, and they will meet required 1400 sq. ft. Ms. Keene then referred to the list of amenity types and asked the applicant which of these they would meet. Mr. Klugo said they have 2 rain gardens which result in twice the requirement. Mr. Behr said it sounds like they meet the requirement with the 2 amenities. Ms. Keene said she was comfortable with that. She asked to keep the item open for staff to review for the next hearing. #4. The applicant was asked to describe what will be located at the southwest corner of the building. The applicant said it will be a combination of the entry area, an open office area, and a meeting area. Mr. Albrecht said that really isn’t a “public entry.” He asked if it is possible to put a door facing southward to create more of a plaza at the southwest corner. The applicant said there are grade challenges. Mr. Klugo stressed that these are all secured doors. The general public can’t just walk in. Functionally, they have to be where they are. The applicant said moving the door would lose a lot of functional space. Mr. Behr said the building is not meant to be a “public building.” If the second half of the building is built, it will have its own amenities and front door. He said that if the regulations allow for discretion, he favored allowing the building to be built as designed because it is not a “public building.” #5. Staff noted there is no fencing indicated around the dumpster area. Mr. Klugo said they have submitted the plan for that. It will be the same as the north hangar project. #6. Ms. Keene indicated the new location of the loading dock. She asked if any ADA parking spaces will be compromised. The applicant said they will lose 1 ADA space, but they are still over the requirement. Members were OK with this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 6 #7. The applicant was asked to demonstrate long-term bicycle parking and the location of lockers for bikers’ clothes. Mr. Klugo showed both on the plan. #8. Staff is asking that the size of trees be increased to more than 2-1/2” caliper. Mr. Klugo said they spoke with the arborist who approved the 2 to 2-1/2” caliper trees. Ms. Orben said the trees are ornamental, not street trees. The will grow to be about 25 feet. Ms. Keene said the standard is a “shall,” not a “should.” She also noted the Board can waive the dimensional standard, though they have not done this before. Mr. Behr said it’s one thing if it’s a street tree and another if it’s an ornamental tree. Ms. Keene showed photos of the proposed trees. Mr. Behr said those are decorative trees. Ms. Keene said this can be decided in deliberation. Ms. Keene said the next hearing will involve further discussion of the entrance and the proposal for site amenities. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SP-22-024 until 6 July 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-22-020 of Neagley & Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 sq. ft. office building, create 2,160 sq. ft. of outdoor storage, and associated site improvements,39 Bowdoin Street: Ms. Wyman was recused from this application due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Behr noted he was the architect for the building to the north. He felt he had not issues hearing this application. Mr. Marshall noted that Mr. Neagley has been ill for several weeks, so he did not have all the information they had hoped to have for this hearing. Mr. Marshall said the project is located in Meadowland Business Park on Hinesburg Road near Dynapower. This application is associated with Lot 7 of that area with access from an unsignalized intersection. He then reviewed the history of the Business Park and noted there had been a concept to extend the road to the Town of Williston, but that will not happen. That fact determines the orientation of the proposed building. Mr. Marshall noted this will be a contractor’s building with some manufacturing of Neagley’s products and storage. There will also be a tenant yet to be determined. Mr. Marshall then DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 7 showed a floor plan of the Neagley & Chase part of the building and indicated that Mr. Neagley will explain the architecture of the building. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding building orientation, Mr. Marshall showed a plan of the entire site. He noted the wetland in the middle of the parcel and said that everything drains toward that wetland. They tried to lower the building but could not. They created as much grade change, so runoff is not so rapid. The building is still above the existing grade. Mr. Marshall highlighted the retaining wall on the plan and said they will try to break up the massiveness of the wall with landscaping. They are proposing 2 entry points, consistent with the OnLogic building. #2. Regarding the façade, Mr. Marshall said the entrance is on the southwest side of the building and will include a site amenity in that area. He showed elevations of the building and indicated "punch out” windows and a common entrance which will be “dressed up” when additional details are provided. Employees will enter on the northeast side of the building. Ms. Keene said there is not a main door on the east side. Mr. Albrecht said there is no door on any side facing a street. Ms. Keene said this is more like the pattern of other buildings in the business park. Mr. Behr noted that one adjacent building does not have any pedestrian entrance. #3. Staff is asking that the driveway be aligned with the CVA building on the east side of Bowdoin Street. Mr. Marshall said they couldn’t figure out how to do that, especially to allow for truck entrance. He said they were asked to consolidate two driveways into one, which they did, and this will accommodate truck entrance. Ms. Keene said Standard 15A(14)(e) requires the entrances to be aligned to the extent physically and functionally possible. Mr. Albrecht said there is a functional element with the loading dock. Mr. Marshall said they have designed the driveway to accommodate 53-foot trailers which are being used a lot these days. He added that they would provide turning motion concepts to show the Board what it will take to get a vehicle in and out. He will also provide information from the Fire Chief on that same subject. Ms. Keene asked if members are interested in seeing the elevations that are incorporated into the retaining wall. Mr. Behr said it is what you see in an industrial lot. He suggested incorporating it into the western elevation so the Board can see it for height purposes. #4. Ms. Keene noted there has to be a site amenity. This could be a courtyard, rain garden or enhanced stormwater treatment area. The applicant has suggested an awning over the door, but they will need more. Mr. Marshall agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 8 #5 and #6. Regarding traffic, Mr. Marshall agreed to provide more information. Mr. Albrecht asked if they have provided information regarding the second tenant. Ms. Keene said they have provided a “range of possibilities.” Mr. Marshall said their goal is to look to permit both sides of the building. They will be conservative regarding traffic. They are hearing that prospective tenants want more manufacturing space and less office space, which would result in less traffic generation. Mr. Behr said he would like to see more building detail in the elevations and that the building should fit in with the rest of the developments in the business park. Mr. Albrecht was concerned with not having an entrance on either street side. Mr. Marshall said they could possibly reorient the parking and get an entrance on a street side. Mr. Behr suggested the possibility of a plaza like OnLogic has, and they don’t have an entrance on either street side. Mr. Marshall said that was his idea. Mr. Albrecht also questioned whether to widen the sidewalk. Mr. Marshall said it is essentially a rec path equivalent. To the north is a 5-foot wide sidewalk, but there is nothing to complete the loop. He showed a photo of the path and sidewalk. #l9-#15 The applicant agreed to all the requests in these items. #16. Mr. Marshall confirmed the estimate in the landscape budget. #17. Mr. Marshall asked for a condition that they will have acquired a state permit as the state makes these rules. #18. Regarding wall-mounted fixtures, Staff is asking to reduce the number of these. Mr. Marshall said they will look at this. #19. Regarding striping in an area designated for storage, Mr. Marshall said this is in the far northeast corner and will have a chain link fence around it. They will remove the striping, but the want to be sure it can be striped if it is needed for parking at some time in the future. #20. Mr. Marshall said the will provide information as to how the roof complies with the standard. It can be a condition of approval. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-020 to 2 August 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 4-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JUNE 2022 PAGE 9 10. Minutes of 7 June 2022: The minutes were not presented for approval. 11. Other Business: Ms. Keene reminded members that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, 6 July. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:29 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on July 19, 2022.