HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_2022-10-18 DRB Minutes DRAFTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 OCTOBER 2022
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18
October 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; J. Stern, D. Albrecht, Q. Mann, S. Wyman
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning &
Zoning; D. Rigosu, B. Kosoc, M. Tyler, L. Ravin, D. Read, L. Hillman, D. Blakeley, L. Thayer, M.
Cohn, D. Heil, G. Henderson-King, A. Bond, C. Mack, J. Findley-Shiras, D. Kelty, D. Leban, K.
Worden, J. Langford, D. Schneider, B. Hoar
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:
There were no announcements.
5. Continued site plan application #SP-22-045 of SRTB Holdings, LLC, to amend a
previously approved plan for an auto sales and service facility. The amendment
consists of 3,980 sq. ft. building addition on two facades, and associated site
improvements, 1650 Shelburne Road:
Staff comments were addressed as follows:
#1 and #2. Regarding landscaping, staff asked that every effort be made to meet the
budget. It was noted that 3 more shade trees would significantly increase compliance. The
applicant said they were told the stone wall was a significant improvement and could count
toward the landscape budget. Staff felt the wall should not count as it functions as outdoor
display of merchandise. Ms. Keene suggested plantings around the wall. The applicant
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 2
said they had left the last hearing with the impression that stone walls were OK. The site is very
well landscaped as it is with possibly the opportunity for a couple of trees by Green Mountain
Drive. They could add plantings around the display area. They are trying to avoid trees which
do damage to the cars (paint). Ms. Keene said outdoor display is a conditional use, and she
wasn’t sure it could be approved as part of this application. Mr. Stern asked if any existing trees
will be removed as part of the plan. The applicant said they will not. Mr. Stern asked if they
can build the wall without display cars and then apply for a conditional use. Ms. Keene said
they can, but that could be a nightmare. The property had approval for 3 display areas but built
only one, and that approval has expired. She suggested they start construction and then apply
for the conditional use with plantings around it. The applicant was fine with that. It was
suggested they could add one tree on Green Mountain Drive and 2 near the steps.
Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Albrecht moved to close SP-22-045. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
6. Site Plan Application #SP-22-047 of the University of Vermont to amend the plan
for an existing agricultural complex. The amendment consists of adding outdoor
storage as a use, 650 Spear Street:
Ms. Ravin note that in 2019 UVM got a permit to build the Tarrant Center. Then the COVID
outbreak resulted in a stoppage of that project. However, they had already received large
pieces of steel. They got permission to store the steel near the project area. The delay to
construction will continue without a timeline due to the significant increase in cost. UVM is
applying to amend the approval to continue to store the steel at 650 Spear Street. The site is
accessible by an unpaved farm road. When the steel is finally removed, it will be a one-time
removal to the project site.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff questioned whether there is significant wetland buffer. Ms. Ravin said it is a
Class 3 wetland which is an appropriate distance from the steel storage. Mr. Read added that
there are steep slopes which preclude the wetland from moving enough to affect the storage.
It is well beyond the 100-foot buffer. Mr. Stern asked if there is any danger of leeching into the
wetland. Mr. Read said the steel is on fabric, and there is nothing toxic there. Members did
not feel a new wetland delineation was needed.
#2. There will be a condition that prohibits any expansion of the stored items. Ms. Ravin
said they are fine with that.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 3
Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Philibert moved to close SP-22-047. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
7. Continued site plan application #SP-22-028 of Rieley Cohen Partnership, LLC, to
amend a previously approved site plan for a 13,000 sq. ft. contractor or building
trade facility with outdoor storage. The amendment consists of constructing a
5,500 sq. ft. addition and additional outdoor storage, 4 Harbor View Road:
Mr. Heil showed the plan. A property management business will be the sole occupant of the
existing and expanded building. It will be accessed by a shared drive on Harbor View Road. The
expansion will occur at the northeast corner and will include 4 bays with overhead doors.
There will be additional parking, outside storage and stormwater treatment. The privacy fence
will be expanded.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff asked what the added space will be used for. Mr. Heil said it will be used for
repair of vehicles, welding and a wood shop. There will also be bathrooms nearby. Ms. Keene
asked if it would be a burden to have a condition that if any space were to be leased to a
tenant, the plan would have to be reviewed by the DRB. Mr. Heil said that’s OK.
#2. Staff requested improving the appearance of the “industrial looking” building. Mr.
Read said they are trying to match existing buildings (height, materials, etc.). The fence will
provide some screening of the building. There will also be some dense vegetation to provide
screening from Harbor View Rd. Ms. Keene noted the area transitions to housing for seniors,
and staff is looking for buildings to work well in that setting. Mr. Read showed a picture of the
existing building. He stressed that it is consistent with other buildings in the area and will be
partly screened. Mr. Cohen added that they will have a variety of shrubs and plantings. The
trees that are coming down are unhealthy, and some have already fallen. Mr. Read noted there
will also be a 2-foot privacy wall. An overview of existing buildings was shown, and Mr.
Albrecht commented that they are not all lined up and are “more of a hodgepodge.” The
applicant showed the elevations of the existing and proposed building and noted there are no
windows on the existing building. Ms. Philibert asked if there is anything simple and decorative
that could be added. Ms. Keene said others have done something with color or transom
windows. Mr. Read said they are not opposed to some windows for the wood shop though he
didn’t know if they would be seen with all the landscaping. Ms. Thayer said the street trees will
be the same height as the building, and there is a lot of layering in the landscape plan. There
will also be a canopy that is lower than the street trees, so there will be screening on multiple
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 4
levels. Mr. Cohen noted there are skylights in the existing facility. Ms. Keene suggested the
applicant think about what might happen over the life span of the building.
#3. Staff noted that the parking plan blocks the use of one of the overhead doors. Mr.
Read said they propose to add 5 spaces on the northern most part of the building expansion
and remove the ones in front of the overhead door. He said cars would be there only
overnight, so they wouldn’t preclude use of the overhead door. He showed a plan for this and
noted this also provides for a snow storage area and for better vehicular circulation on the site.
Ms. Keene noted that in this scenario they meet the regulations for parking width.
#4. Staff noted the shape and size of the park is not OK for the snippet park. Ms. Thayer
said they were told they needed 317 sq. ft. The minimum snippet park if 600 sq. ft. There is no
type of amenity that fits for their needed 317 sq. ft. The park they are providing is near the
building where staff can use it as a respite. Ms. Thayer said there is nothing in the regulations
about the park having to be linear. They are providing a shade tree and pavers under the
bench. Ms. Keene said each open space type has square footage associated with it. If they
choose this type, it has to be 600 sq. ft. (she read from the regulations). She wondered if there
was a way to use some of the space between the building and the property line. Ms. Thayer
said she could not understand why they have to exceed the required square footage. Mr. Read
said if they limit the snow storage area they may be able to get to 600 sq. ft.
#5. Underground utilities have to be identified on the plan. Mr. Read said they will do
that.
#6. Staff noted that the dumpsters must be enclosed. Mr. Read said they will be.
#7. Regarding adequate parking, Mr. Read explained the overnight parking.
#8. Ms. Keene said she had hoped for a comment from the City Arborist, but hadn’t
gotten any. She felt the Board can hear from him before the hearing is closed. Ms. Thayer said
they will make changes if Mr. Lambert asks for any.
#9. Regarding snow storage, Mr. Read showed the location on the new plans in the
northwest corner of the parking lot behind the existing parking.
#10. Staff questioned whether there is adequate screening and buffering or whether
there should be a similar caliper value of trees. Ms. Keene noted the previous approval had an
above standard of trees and screening. The question is whether that has been maintained. She
showed an existing plantings plan and a plan of what is proposed. Mr. Albrecht said the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 5
plantings will look nice when fully grown out. Ms. Thayer said they are proposing a variety of
deciduous street trees. The focus is o native species and trees that provide fall color and some
canopy trees. There will also be large native shrubs, ornamental and pollinators. Along the
fence there will be evergreen arba vitae plantings. Ms. Thayer also noted they can’t put large
trees near the stormwater basin. Ms. Philibert asked if the proposed plantings equal the caliper
of what is being removed. Ms. Thayer said she believes so. Members believed the plantings
were adequate.
#11. Ms. Keene advised she had not heard from Public Works regarding the stormwater
update.
Ms. Keene asked members how they felt about the appearance of the building. Mr. Albrecht
felt the standard was met and that a “prevalent pattern” exists in the area. Other members
agreed. Mr. Albrecht felt the building was consistent with other buildings and there were no
prevailing architectural features. Mr. Cohen noted that in 5-10 years when the arba vitae has
grown, the windows won’t be seen. Ms. Philibert asked if the Board was willing to let go of the
windows. Members indicated that they were.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Albrecht oved to continue SP-22-028 to 15 November. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
8. Continued 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:
Ms. Henderson-King said that since the last hearing, Public Works has agreed with pervious
pavement for the rec path. There is also provision for a 3-foot gravel path from the pocket part
to the parking lot. They have adjusted the shade trees and reviewed the neighbors’ concerns
with utilities and landscaping. CWD has also confirmed that their issues have been addressed.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Regarding windows, Ms. Henderson-King said there will be no spandrel windows and
no opaque windows.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 6
#2. The rec path from Hinesburg Road will be of permeable pavement. Staff feels there
hasn’t been much success with this in Vermont. DPW is OK with it, but staff would like some
legal documents associated with it. Until the city accepts it, the applicant will be responsible
for maintenance. Ms. Henderson-King said they are OK with this.
#3. The 270 parking spaces require 54 shade trees. Staff noted that no trees are
provided on the western or northern side of the parking lot. Ms. Henderson-King showed a
plan indicating that the trees have been distributed more equally. Mr. Albrecht noted that the
standard says the trees should be equally distributed. He understood the fear of the neighbors
suing because of view issues and stopping the project. He felt it sets a bad precedent to give in
to this as other applicants are required to comply with the regulations. Ms. Keene read from
the regulations and noted trees are usually more spread out. Mr. Albrecht said people leaving
after their appointments will be going to baking hot cars because there are no trees in those
locations. Mr. Findlay-Shirras said they could move some patient parking to get closer to trees.
He noted they have the correct number of trees. Ms. Wyman agreed the trees could be more
spaced out with no clear gaps. She felt it does not meet the criteria now. Ms. Henderson-King
said they will try to adjust the trees, but she stressed that a lawsuit would stop this project. Ms.
Philibert said the Board is bound to adjudicate the laws equally. Mr. Findlay-Shirras showed
where trees can be moves to fill in the area so there is more even spacing. He indicated where
the neighbor’s house is. Ms. Keene showed a plan with a more typical shaded parking area.
Ms. Philibert said there clearly are some parking spaces with no shade. Ms. Henderson-King
said they will work with the neighbor and space the trees better. Ms. Philibert said the Board
should not feel they are being held hostage by one neighbor.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Philibert moved to continue SP-22-032 to 1 November 2022. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
9. Minutes of 7 September 2022:
Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the minutes of 7 September 2022 as written. Ms. Wyman
seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
10. Other Business:
Mr. Albrecht ask the status of the Wheeler and Farrell Street dog parks. Mr. Conner said the
Wheeler dog park was laid out smaller than what the DRB approved. There was discussion of
bringing back more of what was approved. They will come back with a plan to the City Council,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
18 OCTOBER 2022
PAGE 7
and there will be a decision as to whether it needs to come back to the DRB. Mr. Conner felt it
could probably be an administrative decision. Mr. Conner had no update on the Farrell dog
park.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:20 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on ________________________