Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 08/02/2022 1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 August 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Zoom interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; Betsy Brown, Planning Assistant; Elderton, K. Epstein, C. Mack, D. Leban, L. Thayer, Jayvin, K. Mejia, D. Read, A. Bond, S. Greer, B. Armstrong, J. Nick, J. Desautels, G. Bourne, G. Henderson-King, G. Rabideau, D. Keeltey, T. Morris, M. Abrams 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: 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 reviewed the process for public input and encouraged attendees to sign the sign- in sheets or register their presence on-line. Proof of attendance is required should a person wish to appeal a decision of the Board. Ms. Philibert also noted that this will be the only August meeting. The next DRB meeting will be on 7 September. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-22-020 of Neagley & Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 sq. ft. office building, create 2160 sq. ft. of outdoor storage, and associated site improvements, 35 Bowdoin Street: It was noted that the applicant has requested a continuance. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Albrecht moved to continue SP-22-020 until 7 October 2022. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-22-11 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit Development consisting of consolidating 3 existing lots into one lot, removing 3 existing buildings, and fully redeveloping the resulting 1.39 acre lot with a 3500 sq. ft. financial institution, a 2500 sq. ft. multi-tenant commercial building, and a 3- story, 27-unit multi-family building, 760 Shelburne Road: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. Ms. Keene noted there was a defect in public noticing. The Board can decide whether to continue the application or hear it and then continue it to a later date for public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to hear the sketch plan and then continue it to a future date for public comment. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. Ms. Desautels said the project is on the southeast corner of Shelburne Road and Swift Street. It involves three small parcels: the gas station, Bourne Service Center, and Pizza Hut building, all of which total 1.43 acres. The property is in the C-1 district, and Ms. Desautels read from the LDRs as to what is encouraged in that district. The intent of the project is to combine the three lots into one parcel with 3 new buildings, utilities, and amenities. There would be a bank at the corner with an ATM. South of the corner would be a multi-tenant retail/office building. The third building would be a 3-story, multi-residential building with 27 units (60x160 sq. ft.). Architecture is in its early stages. Density would include inclusionary units and offsets/bonuses in the residential building. The plan includes closing 2 of the 4 existing curb cuts and having one remaining curb cut on Shelburne Road and one on Swift Street. They will be requesting a front setback waiver from 20 to 10 feet which they feel is consistent with other buildings in the area. They are also requesting a waiver from the Master Plan requirement. 69 parking spaces will be provided, 24 of which will be under the residential building. They will also meet the bicycle requirements. The property currently has 135 existing peak hour trip ends. This will be reduced to 84 with the planned project. They will also improve the sidewalk. They are proposing 2,000 sq. ft. of amenities as well as on-site stormwater treatment (there is none now) and landscaping. There will be an overall reduction of impervious area. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 PAGE 2 Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the request to waive the Master Plan, Ms. Keene advised that the Board can waive the Master Plan if the construction period is no longer than 3 years. Mr. Kochman asked if Mr. Bourne will remain the property owner. Mr. Bourne said that is his intent. Mr. Albrecht asked whether TDRs would allow more units. Ms. Keene said they could. Ms. Desautels said they are nearly at the maximum now. #2. Staff asked the applicant to explain how the project will fit the planned character of the area. Ms. Desautels said what they are proposing is in line with the plan for the area: affordable housing, redeveloping property, improving the physical appearance of the property, walkability, public transportation. Mr. Albrecht noted this is a “profile parcel” and said it would be nice if the buildings could have “pizzaz.” Mr. Bourne said he shares that interest and noted they have doe historic renovations on sites in Cape Cod. Ms. Desautels said they have been discussing this with Chase Bank. Mr. Kochman said the applicant should let the bank know that the Board is expecting a beautiful building in that important location. #3. Staff asked the applicant to describe how they are achieving the PUD objectives. Ms. Keene noted the LDRs don’t allow 2 unrelated uses, so they would have to be a PUD. She read PUD design standards from the LDRs and asked how the applicant is meeting those standards. Ms. Desautels said the LDRs allow more cohesive projects and cited the elimination of 2 curb cuts, the treatment of stormwater runoff, and the provision of open space. Mr. Bourne added that the PUD enables him to give up the curb cuts and the high-use restaurant and to put a commercial building in a good location. They need room to work to get the stormwater treatment, and they now have a large area for that. If they had to have 3 separate lots, they would have to keep all the curb cuts. Mr. Kochman said a single lot makes sense, and they shouldn’t “mess around” with that. Ms. Keene said the alternative would be a single building on the one lot. #4. Regarding inclusionary units and TDRs, staff noted that the inclusionary units allow more density. Ms. Desautels said she wasn’t sure they would need TDRs for what they propose. They can meet the regulations with 5 inclusionary units. #5. Staff noted that the applicant is proposing 2121 sq. ft. of civic space/site amenities, and more is required. Ms. Desautels noted they had come to an agreement that 2121 sq. ft. is correct. #6. Ms. Keene directed attention to 5 PUD standards. Ms. Desautels said they will meet those 5 points. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 PAGE 2 #7. Regarding connection to adjacent lots, Ms. Desautels said they are proposing pedestrian connection to Koto and to Swift Street (she showed this on the plan). There can be no connection between parking lots because of grading issues. Ms. Keene noted there must be vehicle connection to an adjacent commercial lot. The Koto connection exists today. Ms. Desautels said Koto has access on both Shelburne Road and Swift Street. Mr. Bourne noted that cut-through traffic has been an issue on these properties. Traffic on the property has now been reduced, so it doesn’t make sense to create a cut-through possibility. Mr. Kochman noted this plan has a significant residential element and asked if the Board has authority to waive that requirement. Ms. Keene noted the Board recently enforced that standard. Ms. Wyman felt this is something they couldn’t waive and that the project should be designed so it just encourages movement from lot to lot, not cut-through. Ms. Desautels said the Koto lot is 10 feet higher than this lot, and to design for that would encourage cut-through traffic. Mr. Bourne noted the Koto lot is already connected to Swift St. Ms. Keene said she would be willing to lay out some possible options. Ms. Keene asked the applicant to discuss the location of the ATM. Ms. Desautels showed an alternate sketch plan and indicated the location of the ATM which is safer than the originally proposed location. It has a “meandering “ path. They are still looking at more options. Mr. Bourne noted that this layout gives them more green space. Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the main entrance having to face the street and asked how that can be solved for the residential building. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Epstein said he was happy to see this kind of development which will bring needed housing. He questioned having another financial institution in the area which he didn’t feel was needed. He suggested child care, a restaurant, physical therapy, a bike shop, etc. instead. He asked that the project include electric car charging and more bike parking than the minimum with a roof over bike parking. He also suggested a ramp for wheelchairs at the southern area. Ms. Leban felt the second layout plan was preferable as it had more green space. She noted she drives up to ATMs on her bike. She also liked the idea of residential in that area. Ms. Keene said the application will be continued to 7 September for more public comment. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-22-032 of UVM Medical Center to construct a one-and-a half story, 84,006 sq. ft. medical office and outpatient facility with associated parking, equipment, and stormwater treatment on an existing undeveloped 13.5 acre lot, 119 Tilley Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 PAGE 2 Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff is asking for a mechanism to structure further growth for 10 years. Ms. Keene said this would require either a Master Plan or a mechanism by which they agree not to develop any more for 10 years. Ms. Henderson-King said they feel that with this plan the site is 100% maxed out. Mr. Kelsey said they are OK with restrictive language. #2. Staff is asking for a plan for paving, striping and signage. Ms. Henderson-King said they will have a plan that is ADA compliant. #3. Staff expressed concern with the proposed walkway to the main entrance. Ms. Henderson-King said they will move the sidewalk to the front of parking spaces so there is no conflict. #4. Regarding a street-facing presence, Ms. Henderson-King said given the physical limitations, the entrance needs to be on the west side of the building, but they can give the appearance of an entrance on the south side. She showed elevations indicating glass and a canopy and the courtyard area. Members were OK with the visual impact proposed. #5. Regarding completion of the pedestrian path, Ms. Keene showed a plan and indicated Tilley Drive, Hinesburg Road and Old Farm Road. She showed the location of a road on the Official City Map and the location of the rec path that is part of the Eastview development. The LDRs require that roads must be built to the property line. There should be an easement to make one connection, and the rec path should be extended to Tilley Drive. Ms. Henderson-King said they are working with the O’Briens regarding an easement to connect the barn road to the future road and to Tilley Drive. Mr. Kelsey said they are looking to see how to do this and who will pay for what. He added that engineering may be a challenge. Mr. Kochman asked who would build the path. Mr. Kelsey said they don’t have an agreement yet, but they are committed to making it happen. Ms. Keene said who is paying for it is not the Board’s problem. It will be on the plan for this development. #6. Regarding the roof meeting solar standards, Ms. Henderson-King said they have to meet the State allocation allowance. Mr. Kelsey said they can’t add any more solar. #7. Regarding parking, Ms. Henderson-King said they have 2 front yards. Ms. Keene said they can’t have parking in front. Members were OK with parking in front due to site conditions. Ms. Henderson-King said they are providing additional landscaping to screen parking. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 PAGE 2 #8. The applicant was asked to define site amenity areas. Ms. Henderson-King identified 2 areas: the courtyard at the front entry which will be partly paved and have chairs and tables and a low seating wall. The lawn will be surrounded by landscaping. It is 6,800 sq. ft., which meets the requirement. The second area is a snippet park space on the north side of the building near the employee entrance to the building. It is for staff use and will have tables and chairs. It is 1200 sq. ft. Mr. Kelsey noted that this will be a non-smoking facility. Ms. Keene said they could have a “pocket plaza” with a little tweaking. #9. Regarding wetland impacts, staff is asking how impacts are minimized. Ms. Henderson-King said the building is built into the hillside and conforms to the site. There is 30- foot drop on the site and would not be viable any other way. Ms. Mann said she was OK with it. Ms. Henderson-King said that originally the driveway was all the way over to the setback line and there was more wetland impact. Now they have minimized the impact with a retaining wall (concrete with vine plantings) and a guard rail (brown metal). She showed a concept of that railing. Ms. Wyman said she felt they had done the best they can. #10. Regarding technical review of traffic impact: Ms. Philibert moved to invoke technical review of the traffic impact study. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. #11. Regarding connection to the north/south roadway on the Official City Map, Ms. Keene said the connection does not have to be built now, but staff is asking for surety as to how the road would be built in the future. Mr. Albrecht said it will be at least 10 years before the road is built and suggested the applicant reserve space for a connection. Mr. Kelsey said they would prefer to see the connection to the north. Members agreed this made sense. #12. Staff did not receive DPW comments and will check again. #13. Ms. Henderson-King said they have already updated the plan to address the comments of the Water Department. #14. Regarding screening and enclosing of compactors, Ms. Henderson-King said the generator will have a chain link fence around it. The compactors are between 2 retaining walls and are enclosed. They are proposing to screen the chillers with evergreens. The area is much lower than the residential properties and is not visible to them. Regarding landscaping, Ms. Henderson-King said they have added landscaping to address staff comments and believe they now meet the requirements. They will address the comment that there are too many maples. Mr. Kelsey said they don’t want to encumber views from DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 AUGUST 2022 PAGE 2 neighboring residences. He showed the landscaping plan and said they are trying to keep the agrarian look of the site. Mr. Kochman said he would like to see more trees so it doesn’t look so desolate in winter. Mr. Kelsey said the neighbors want to maintain the agrarian look. He noted there are mature trees on Tilley Drive. Ms. Henderson-King said it is critical to get as much light into the building as possible. Mr. Albrecht, Ms. Mann and Ms. Philibert said they were OK with what is presented. Ms. Keene asked whether the generators and other mechanicals make noise. Mr. Kelsey said the chillers do. The emergency generator would run one hour a week for testing and be used only for emergencies. The rest of the equipment is not unusually noisy. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Leban said this site has come to the Bike/Ped Committee regarding the link to Tilley Drive from the O’Brien property. Since people may be biking to work, she suggesting connecting from the end of the O’Brien property to the northeast corner of the parking lot. It is less steep and shouldn’t be hard to do. Mr. Kelsey said they will look at that. Mr. Armstrong was pleased with how the applicant has worked with the neighbors. He supported having the rec path at the most easterly side where it serves more of the uses on Tilley Drive. He felt this was a “make sense project.” Mr. Albrecht then moved to continue SP-22-032 to 20 September. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 8. Minutes of 6 July 2022: Mr. Kochman proposed some clarifying language which the Board agreed to include. Ms. Wyman then moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2022 as amended. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 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 9:55 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on September 7, 2022.