Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/07/2022 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday 7 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, D. Albrecht, Acting Chair; F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D. Marshall, A. Rowe, B. Bless, T. McKenzie, D. Mahaffy, A. Toll, K. Sipples, J. Olesky, D. Ray, A. LeBlanc, E. Woodmansee, C. Frank, G. Holcomb, T. Urie, K. Braverman, N. Weeks 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: Item #12 was moved to precede item #5. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Albrecht explained that the DRB can approve only what is permitted under the Land Development Regulations. They are also bound to approve a development if it meets the criteria in the Land Development Regulations. He also explained technology procedures and the procedure for public comment during the meeting. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-22-020 of Neagley & Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 sq. ft. officer building, create 2,160 sq. ft. of outdoor storage, and associated site improvements, 39 Bowdoin Street: Mr. Marshall asked to continue the application. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22—020 until 21 June. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Wyman abstaining as she will be recused from this application. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 2 6. 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 center complex. The amendment consists of adding seasonal mobile food unit as a use and designating an area for seasonal mobile food unit operations, 155 Dorset Street: Ms. Keene advised that this application was continued due to a defect in public noticing. 7. 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: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 21 June. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-05 to 21 June. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Continued Sit 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 of the adjoining multi-family residential lots, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant had asked for a continuance to 21 June. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-008 and CU-22-01 to 21 June. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Final Plat Application #SD-22-07 of Hickory Hillside, LLC, to subdivide an approximately 67.6 acre parcel into 4 lots of 65.31 acres (Lot 1), 0.69 acres (Lot 2), 0.69 acres (Lot 3), and 0.91 acres (Lot 4) for the purpose of conserving Lot 1 and constructing a single family home on each of lots 2, 3, and 4, 47 Cheesefactory Road: Mr. Rowe said this is a 4-lot subdivision on the south side of Cheesefactory Road. Single family homes are proposed on 3 lots. The 4th lot of 65.3 acres is a conservation lot. A shared private road will access all lots. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 3 Mr. Rowe then reviewed the changes since Preliminary Plat as follows: a. The westerly single family lot is now on its own separate parcel as are the other 2. b. Wastewater designs are complete c. There is a city-defined small Class 2 wetland near the project entrance. There is some impact to the buffer. A swale will also be constructed under the private road. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff advised that the LDRs allow the Board to permit the addition of the conservation lot as a “lot.” Mr. Albrecht asked when they have to file the conservation plan. Ms. Keene said when the subdivision plan is filed. Mr. Kochman questioned whether they have the authority to increase the lots from 3 to 4, no matter how good the plan is. Ms. Keene said this application is being heard under the 28 December 2020 regulations. It is also a PUD because all subdivisions in the SEQ must be PUDs. Mr. Behr said what is presented is fine, and the Board will have to craft a motion accordingly. #2. Staff noted that the amount of encroachment into the wetland buffer has not been provided. Mr. Rowe said it is 5160 square feet. They will add this to the plan. #3. Regarding demarcation of the buffer, the applicant is suggesting boulders 25 feet on center. Staff noted that a split rail fence could also be provided. Mr. Behr was concerned that the boulder could get lost in the tall grass. Mr. Bless suggested a section of split rail fence along the drive. He questioned whether boulders could discourage grazing animals. Members were OK with fencing along the drive and boulders in the field. #4 Staff questioned the larger building envelope for Lot 2 and asked whether it should be reduced. Mr. Rowe said it is to allow staggering of homes and provide flexibility as to where garages are. The slope will also prevent the home from being all the way to the back. Mr. Kochman asked if there are rules as to where garages can be. Ms. Keene said not in the SEQ/NRP, which this is. Mr. Behr noted the building envelopes are driven by setbacks. Ms. Keene said the DRB is not obligated to approve a building envelope. Mr. Bless stressed that these will be farm community homes. All land is under the same conservation easement, and the owner would own only the home, not the land under it. The only reason for the subdivision is that it is required. They will be piloting a new farm labor housing model for the State. Mr. Albrecht asked why there are 3 separate septic fields. Mr. Bless said they tried other models, but this was the most cost effective. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 4 #5. Staff noted that building coverage can be no more than 15%, and the applicant is asking for less. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr then moved to close SD-22-07. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 10. Site Plan Application #SP-22-019 and Conditional Use Application #CU-22-03 of Vermont Commons School to amend a previously approve plan for a general office building. The amendment consists of converting to an educational facility as a use and minor site modifications, 55 Green Mountain Drive: Mr. Marshall explained that Vermont Commons School now occupies 75 Green Mountain Drive. They are looking to expand their offerings in the building at 55 Green Mountain Drive. The new building would have a gym, 4 additional classrooms, and offices. A plan was shown of this conversion and of a path between the 2 buildings that would get students safely from one building to the other. The applicant asked whether bike parking would be required on each property as students go first to #75 when they arrive at school. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1 and #2: Regarding access, Ms. Keene noted that staff received a packet regarding a traffic analysis. Mr. Marshall said one challenge is that they need to assign a certain amount of traffic to #55. It is their belief that even if #55 were its own separate school, they would not exceed the traffic numbers of the previous office use. The trip analysis prepared by BFJ indicated that 170 students could be accommodated at #55 without exceeding that previous number. Currently, 100 students are enrolled. Ms. Keene said staff does not have a way to track the number of students. They have to track #55 as its own use. The office use has 27 peak hour trip ends. When the former school numbers were applied, BFJ concluded that there would be only 13 peak hour trips as the school does not generate peak hour traffic. BFJ concluded there would be no problem. Ms. Hall explained that when a property has a trip budget, if they go above it, they are assessed for the additional trips. Since the proposed used of #55 generates less traffic than the previous use, there would be no assessment. #3. Regarding bicycle parking and the question of whether this would be required at #55, Mr. Mahaffey said all students arrive at #75 where their lockers are located. Nevertheless, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 5 they are willing to provide some bike parking at #55. They will also upgrade the existing bike racks to conform with the standard. Mr. Mahaffey also showed an area near the western portion of #55 which he felt would be ideal for bike parking. #4. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Marshall noted that the landscaping that exists today doesn’t look anything like what was approved for #55. Staff made a recommendation that the Board approve the landscaping as it exists as a new baseline, and the applicant is comfortable with that and with the recommended species. Ms. Keene noted that what is there is thriving and there is no new required cost. Members were OK with the existing landscaping. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-09 and CU-22-03. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-22-003 of RHTL Partners, LLC, to modify a previously approved plan for a 10,000 sq. ft. automotive sales, service, and repair building. The amendment consists of constructing a 3,155 sq. ft. building expansion, 1795 Shelburne Road: Mr. Olesky reviewed changes made since the last hearing to address Board comments: a. They redesigned the front door entry, shifting it slightly and adding a small projecting canopy over the door to emphasize it. b. They made changes to the front sidewalk and patio, using different pavers to accentuate the areas. There are also changes to the landscape plan to emphasize the front entrance. c. They have added cornices. d. Dumpster enclosures have been provided. e. The easement has been added and language provided to the City Attorney. f. Landscaping was added to screen mechanicals, and the landscape budget was adjusted to comply with the requirements. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Ms. Keene indicated the current path to the front door which was designed to accommodate 3 trees. She noted direct entry is not possible. Mr. Kochman said this is a car dealership on Shelburne Rd., and no one would walk to a Shelburne Road car dealership. Ms. Wyman said that if she were getting service she would walk on Shelburne Road to and from the service. Mr. Kochman felt the path meanders enough and is sufficient. Mr. Albrecht said the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 6 patio makes the sidewalk less of an “afterthought.” Members were OK with what was provided. #2. Regarding edits to the easement provided by the Deputy City Attorney, the applicant noted the difference between the property line and the pavement line and said they need to maintain access to the service area. They agree that if the carwash lot needs permits, they will cooperate. Ms. Keene said the Deputy City Attorney is reviewing this, and will be providing final language. #3. Regarding the landscape budget, staff noted that the DRB may allow credit for existing landscaping. The proposed budget was shown as was the landscape plan. Mr. Olesky showed where they added new trees and a hedge row to screen mechanicals. He noted that everything to the north is existing woods. Members were OK with the perimeter plantings and pavers. Mr. Behr said the applicant provided what the Board asked for at the front door area. The applicant indicated they will provide building numbers on the face of the canopy. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-003. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 12. Sketch Plan Application #SD-22-06 of South Burlington City Center, LLC, to subdivide a 586 acre parcel into 3 lots ranging in size from 0.36 to 3.62 acres for the purpose of subdividing the lands of a storm pond, a future city street and a development lot, 0 Market Street: Mr. McKenzie stressed that they are not looking for a subdivision to create a project or building lots. They want to isolate the stormwater pond and wetland so they can eventually be placed under common ownership and managed by an association along with other stormwater facilities in City Center. They also do not want to create the street. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked that the plan be revised to include a curb cut opposite the existing curb cut. Mr. McKenzie said the city approved the proposed curb cut and street in a previous approval along with a subdivision for where the street is. He felt this isn’t the time to force a relocation of that curb cut. Mr. Kochman asked about a possible condition based on a future situation. Ms. Keene showed the existing curb cuts and said that the subdivision regulations intend to create lots that can be successfully developed. Mr. Rowe said they are not creating a DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 7 public street; they are creating a private road. Mr. McKenzie said the curb cut request should be made when there is a project proposed; this application is only to isolate the stormwater pond. #2. Staff questioned how the applicant can meet the “civic space” requirement. Mr. McKenzie noted that for the T-5 portion of the property, the civic space can be off site. With the T-4 portion and credit for the stormwater pond, they calculate 2400-2500 square feet of required civic space with the block. He said there is ample room for that and showed a plan of potential locations. Ms. Keene said there can be an amalgamation of several pieces to meet the civic space requirement. Mr. Kochman did not feel that “squeezing out” space between the end of a parking lot and the stormwater pond was not the intent of the civic space requirement. Mr. Albrecht said that would be for discussion down the road. Mr. McKenzie said there probably won’t be any building for several years. #3. Staff noted that the stormwater pond can be exempt from the frontage requirement, but increased frontage is required on the remaining lot. Mr. Rowe said that sounds like a PUD requirement. Ms. Keene said the regulations don’t allow anything to be exempt from the frontage requirement. She added that the Board is “stretching it” at this point. Mr. Rowe asked if the applicant will be asked to compensate for the City’s stormwater park which takes up much frontage on Market Street. He noted there was no discussion of this when other buildings were built on Lot C. Ms. Keene said those lots are already subdivided. Mr. McKenzie said they are now, but they weren’t at the time. Mr. Albrecht said there are regulations and there are precedents. He did not think the stormwater lot is a “building lot.” R. Kochman said the applicant could achieve the same thing with easements and didn’t have to subdivide. He noted that if the stormwater lot is not rectangular, it will affect Lot N. Mr. McKenzie said eventually an association will own the common land and will pay taxes, etc. He didn’t see how they could isolate the tax burden with easements. In addition, the pond also will serve a building that is already built and sold. Ms. Keene asked if the Board feels they can exempt the pond from the frontage requirement, can they expand the lot to meet the rectangular requirement. Mr. McKenzie showed a concept for a series of rectangular building lots on Lot N along with a parking scheme that would meet the rectangular requirement. #4. Staff asked that corners be squared off so they can be rectangular lots in the future. Mr. McKenzie said that was reasonable. Moving the lot line a little more perpendicular to Garden Street is doable. #5. Regarding the frontage requirement, Mr. Rowe asked if the LDRs provide guidance for building that spans both the T4 and T5 zones. He suggested an average between the two. Ms. Keene said nothing in the LDRs addresses building in two zones. T5 requires 80% building frontage. T4 requires 70%. With the proposed plan, they are at 100% in T5 but do not meet DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 8 the 70% in T4. Mr. Albrecht said moving the lot line to the east would solve that. Ms. Keene said if the Board exempts the stormwater pond frontage calculation, it can be met. Mr. Albrecht stressed that they are not exempting that lot; it is not a building lot and therefore doesn’t have to meet the frontage requirement. Mr. McKenzie asked if there is an alternative to having the future street lot as a separate lot. He questioned when the city would accept ownership of that lot and what would happen if the city didn’t want it. Ms. Keene said that street will be required to connect to Dorset Street when the Blue Mall is redeveloped. Mr. McKenzie asked who will own that street lot when they sell all of their lots. Mr. Albrecht said that is a City Council issue. Mr. Kochman said he sympathized with Mr. McKenzie on this issue and felt it should be put to the City Attorney. He asked whether the city is obligated to take over the street when it is built. #6. Staff is asking for 2 pedestrian easements and language to provide for this at final plat. Mr. McKenzie asked to waive this until a project is proposed. He was concerned with the liability of having pedestrians walking along the stormwater pond. Ms. Keene agreed with that for the second easement. Mr. Rowe questioned why there would have to be 2 easements. Ms. Keene identified the location of the 2 easements on the plan and said there would be no other time to create the first easement. Regulations require any block of 600 feet or more requires a pedestrian easement. With the 2 proposed easements, the total distance between any 2 points is less than 600 feet. Mr. McKenzie questioned why they would create a bypass from Market Street when the object is to have pedestrian traffic on Market Street. Mr. Albrecht noted this is a “may” issue. He saw no need for an easement on the stormwater lot. Ms. Keene said people are already walking along the stormwater pond edge. Mr. McKenzie said he is just concerned with the liability issue. Mr. Rowe asked if that now counts as a site amenity. Ms. Keene said it does within certain limits. She would check the regulations on that. #7. Mr. McKenzie was OK with discussing an easement for construction of the water line. 13. Minutes of 17 May 2022: Ms. Wyman noted she was present at that meeting. Ms. Wyman moved to approve the minutes of 17 May 2022 with the addition of her presence at that meeting. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 14. Other Business: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 JUNE 2022 PAGE 9 Members said they like the addition of proposed times on the agenda. They also liked having the easier items at the beginning of the agenda. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:37 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on July 6, 2022.