Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/20/2022 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 September 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. Stern, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; C. Snyder, A. Rowe, R. Greco, B. Hoar, G. Henderson-King, J. Langford, B. Armstrong, A. Bond, K. Wooster, D. Read, M. Dussault, M. Tyler, A. Chalnick, B. Kosoc, D. Rigosu, D. Leban, C. Mack, S. Greer, Andrew, J. Findlay-Shirras, D. Keelty 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. Appeal #AO-22-03 of Bruce Leavitt appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative Officer to issue a zoning permit for construction of two 2-family homes, 29, 31, 39 and 41 Elm Street: Ms. Philibert noted the inclusion of Ms. Keene’s written testimony in the meeting notes. Ms. Keene noted that while there are specific definitions of height in the LDRs, there are no specific instructions regarding the type of roof. She said her decision was based on past practice. She showed the calculation with the average grade being subtracted from the average roof height. She also noted the applicant has a building with a flat foundation, but the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 grade around it is not flat, and they had to make an adjustment for that. Ms. Keene said her calculation takes that into account. The final height, including the adjustment, is 26.567 feet. Mr. Behr explained how building height is defined in the IRC and showed the elevations of the houses. He explained where height is measured from and how you have to pick the main building surfaces. Mr. Albrecht said the LDRs say the maximum height is 28 feet. Ms. Keene asked whether the IRC is to the highest or midpoint. Mr. Behr said “the highest roof surface midpoint.” Mr. Kochman said he assumed if there were fill, it would have to be discounted. Ms. Keene said that is an interesting question. The decision was made before her time, and did not say whether previous or approved grade was to be used. Staff took the approved grade. She noted that today they would have used the preconstruction grade. Mr. Conner said the Board’s job is to determine whether the Zoning Administrator’s calculation was correct. Mr. Kochman said that to get there, they need to know what average preconstruction grade means and whether there was fill in this case. Ms. Keene said there was fill. The Zoning Administrator said the Board approved the proposed grade as the average pre- construction grade. Ms. Keene said that is not the nature of the appeal. The appeal is with the calculation of the eaves. Ms. Greco, a neighbor of the project, said she was representing the appellant who is out of the country. She read a clarifying statement. She said the house looks much taller and is out of character with other houses in the area. The appellant believes the height limit of 28 feet has been exceeded based on using the uppermost eave, which they believe is how this should be calculated. The developer used the lower eaves for their calculation which resulted in the appellant’s belief that the height limit was exceeded. The appellant believes the Zoning Administrator erred in granting the approval. Ms. Greco asked that the appeal be continued until Mr. Leavitt returns. Mr. Conner noted that one house is partially constructed at this time. Mr. Kochman asked if the roof is completed. Mr. Behr said his calculation is the same as the appellant’s. Mr. Albrecht noted that the building code assumes that every roof is “neat little boxes.” Mr. Behr said that isn’t the case; the code says to the highest point. Mr. Albrecht said that is what the LDRs say, but that assumes everything was equal and not varying heights. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 Mr. Kochman said there is more of an argument here than he originally thought. Mr. Snyder, the developer, said they need to go back to the LDRs which clearly say there is an average level between the eaves. They met with city staff to clarify that language, and then they calculated the height. Mr. Rowe added that the height was calculated from the highest peak. There were 2 eaves used, and those are the only ones that would apply. Others are interrupted by gables, etc. He said they followed the plain language of the LDRs. Mr. Albrecht asked if there has ever been a similar situation before now. Ms. Keene said it “never previously mattered.” Mr. Conner said there has been a situation with one part of a house higher than another, and they used the higher part, but that is a different question. Ms. Greco noted a house on Pinnacle had to chop off a portion of the roof to meet the height level. The only way this can be considered is if someone brings it to the attention of the city, and only an abutter can do that. She felt there may be other houses in the city that exceed the height limit. Mr. Kochman said this is a very difficult problem as a policy matter. He noted the difference is about a foot. He asked what the practical impact of this would be. Mr. Rowe said they discussed this with city staff but haven’t considered what changes could or could not be done to the roof line on the existing and future structures. Mr. Snyder said their perspective is that they followed the LDRs and they shouldn’t have to do any modification. If staff and the Court disagree with this, they would have to consider changes. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Chalnick showed a picture of how the house looks from the road. You can’t see the back eaves just the front eaves. He felt it doesn’t make sense to calculate from eaves you can’t see. He added that the purpose of the regulations relates to how something looks. Mr. Rowe said Elm Street is a public street. The peak elevation of the roof is visible from Spear Street. He noted that the peak is not always front and center. Mr. Behr added that building orientation is not part of the building code. It does not allow for perception. Mr. Albrecht then moved to close the hearing. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Conner advised that the Board will have 45 days to deliberate. Decisions will go to the interested parties. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 6. Site Plan Application #SP-22-043 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for up to 490 dwelling units and non-residential space as allowed in the zoning district. The amendment consists of removing 400 linear feet of sidewalk and constructing approximately 550 feet of 10-ft. wide recreation path, 255 Kennedy Drive: Ms. Philibert noted she has a condo in the Hillside neighborhood but did not feel it would affect her ability to be impartial. Mr. Gill showed the plan. He noted that in the Eastview project, the Board asked that the path be continued through Hillside to Eldridge. This application is to do that construction. They would remove the sidewalk and turn it into a recreation path. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding phasing, staff noted that this application is being proposed in the context of the Eastview project. There is a request that the project doesn’t need to be completed until the Eastview project is completed. The applicant does not want this approval to expire while they are in Court regarding an appeal of Eastview. Ms. Keene noted that the Board can’t include a condition in the Eastview application as to what happens in Hillside because the city hasn’t yet taken over the road. Mr. Behr said he supports the 7-year window. Ms. Keene said that can be done because it is a PUD as long as it is in this approval and not in the Eastview approval. Mr. Gill suggested saying the first zoning permit for Eastwood, just to be sure they are through the appeals. Mr. Behr felt the Board could craft something. Mr. Albrecht moved to close SP-22-043. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. 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: Mr. Hoar said the plan is to expand the showroom and service drive. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted the need to revise the traffic calculation. Mr. Hoar said using the revised method, they are at 67 trip ends, which is well within the allowable limit. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert questioned whether there is handicapped access with the steps leading to the showroom. Mr. Hoar said there will also be access on both sides with no steps. #2. Regarding glazing, staff questioned whether the glazing is transparent. Mr. Tyler said it is except for one part that is not. He showed this on the elevations. #3. Staff expressed concern with achieving the appearance of being 2 stories. Mr. Hoar said they were told they needed a 2-story approach. They then raised the building to achieve this. He noted that the building is actually 2 stories. Mr. Behr said the proportions and massing make it look like one story. He suggested possibly raising the windows up to make it look more like 2 stories. Mr. Hoar said they are talking about opinions here. He noted that the buildings near them don’t look like 2 stories, and this building actually is 2 stories which you can see from Shelburne Road. Mr. Behr suggested going to 2 “strips” and raising the second floor windows 2 feet to provide more second floor glazing. The applicant said the LDRs are clear that the building must have the appearance of 2 stories. They actually have 2 stories. Mr. Behr said he thought raising the windows may actually be cheaper than what the applicant proposes. #4. Mr. Hoar confirmed that the parapet will hide the mechanical equipment on the roof. #5. Regarding cornices, Mr. Hoar said they are not providing them as the most important element is the glass. Mr. Behr said this is a ‘shall’ which means cornices are required. He suggested solving this with a 6-inch cap with a 2-inch relief. It won’t distract from the glass. The applicant was OK with that suggestion. #6. Regarding cross connection between commercial lots, staff recommends that the Board not require this. Mr. Gilles said staff felt that because of the grade change, it would be best to waive the requirement. Ms. Keene noted the Board has consistently allowed waiving this criteria. #7. Staff recommends compliance with the recommendations of the City Arborist. Mr. Hoar said he believes they do comply. #8. Regarding snow storage areas, Mr. Hoar said they will store snow in the southeast corner of the parking lot. This would displace a couple of sale vehicle spaces. #9. Regarding landscaping minimum, staff questioned whether the applicant meets the requirement. Ms. Philibert asked why mulch, loam, etc., don’t count toward the minimum. Ms. Keene said the Board has historically felt only trees and shrubs count. However, they are DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 finding that many sites in the city are well landscaped, and the Board has allowed patios and decorative grasses to count but not loam or lawns. The landscape plan was then shown. Mr. Behr said the site is well landscaped. The only reason the dollar requirement is so high is that they are rebuilding the building. He didn’t see where they could add plantings to meet the budget. Mr. Hoar said they could add some ornamental grass near the stormwater feature. Ms. Keene said hardscape areas are also an option. Mr. Hoar noted an existing display area and suggested they might do another one. Ms. Keene noted there are some perennials and ground cover which are not included in the list. She showed this area on the plan. Mr. Gillies noted the property has 2 front yards and at least 50% of the landscaping should be in the larger of the 2 yards. There is already an existing nonconformity, and the Board should see how to address this to have less of a nonconformity. Mr. Hoar suggested relocating 2 trees to the north side. #10. Mr. Hoar said they will comply with the stormwater requirements. They have a geotechnological expert on site, and they will provide a letter from him. #11. Mr. Hoar confirmed that there are no building-mounted lights or illuminated panels. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-045 until 18 October 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Continued site plan application #SP-22-022 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: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Regarding restricting the remaining land from future development, Ms. Keene asked if the board feels further restriction is necessary in light of all the easements. Ms. Henderson- King said there is no physical room for further development. Ms. Keene showed a plan and indicated the unencumbered land. She said this could be handled with a condition in the motion. Members voiced no objection to that. #2. Regarding the possibility of a short “spur” from the rec path to the building, Ms. Keene showed the location of the rec path on the plan. She also noted that the path also connects to Hinesburg Road and Williston. Staff feels the path shouldn’t end at the parking lot. Ms. Keene suggested possible places for a connection. Ms. Henderson-King noted a plan DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 submitted today indicating the Green Mountain Power easement. She said the area Ms. Keene indicated has a very steep grade. There is a connection from the path to Tilley Drive and also a sidewalk. Ms. Henderson-King said they feel this is sufficient. Mr. Kochman noted a little brick path between the diocese building and Rice High School that is quite charming. It is just a foot path, about 3 feet wide. Mr. Kelty noted that any path would terminate in a parking lot. Mr. Albrecht said he felt the applicant should have discretion over this. He didn’t want electric bikes zooming through the parking lot. Ms. Leban said she felt having a different pavement connection to the parking lot would be acceptable. Even a gravel path would be better than mud. Mr. Kelty was OK with that. #3. Regarding adding screening to the parking in front of the building on the Old Farm Road frontage, Ms. Keene showed the plan and indicated the area. She noted that because of the wetland and easements, the Board allowed parking in this area. Ms. Henderson-King said they did add landscaping. Ms. Keene said staff will confirm this before the decision is written. #4. Board members were OK with the pocket park serving as an amenity. #5. Regarding removal of trees from the wetland buffer, Ms. Henderson-King noted the buffer is in front of the building. In order to address neighbors’ concerns and meet buffer requirements, the have put additional landscaping in the buffer area. She added that it is a Class 3 wetland with very little functional value. Mr. Kelty said plantings will be compatible with wetland. If those species don’t work, they will replace them. Mr. Findlay-Shirra said all species are native and will increase the ecological value of the wetland. Ms. Keene read from the regulations. Ms. Henderson-King noted there is a stipulation to allow for modification. Ms. Keene noted that since a modification has been made to allow the wetland buffer, the planting would be allowed. An un-numbered staff comment related to BFJ’s recommendations for traffic analysis. Mr. Mack said he has a few disagreements with the BFJ report. He felt there will be people from this project walking to the Red Barn Deli for lunch, etc., and that internal capturing will occur here and should result in a modest credit (either 7% or 3% depending which peak hour is used). BFJ also recommending eliminating the 3% TDM supply management credit. Mr. Mack felt this did not make sense as he felt the credit is applicable to this medical use. Mr. Mack suggested a total for trip ends of 119. Members expressed no objection to this. #6. The Board was asked to discuss whether to require the applicant to provide a connection to a future planned roadway. Ms. Keene showed the location of the potential road and also the proposed driveway. She also showed where the applicant proposes a connection and asked whether that connection should be more direct instead of via Barn Road. Ms. Henderson-King cited the difficulty of the grade as the reason for their choice. Ms. Philibert DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 noted that staff’s idea for a connection would dump traffic into the parking lot, which is what they are trying to avoid. Ms. Mann felt the applicant’s plan works. Members voiced no objections. #7. The applicant was asked to provide clarity in several areas. Ms. Henderson-King noted the “blue light” is a security light which can be activated by someone in trouble. They may not use them on this site because no security is proposed. These lights are used all over campus. Mr. Kochman said lighting is not the function of these lights. Members voiced no objection. Ms. Henderson-King said the other 2 issues have been addressed: the shading has been removed and the incorrect property owner’s name has been removed. #8. Regarding the size of the landscaped islands, Ms. Henderson-King said they have presented a plan that shows they are at 11% which meets the standard. #9. Regarding shade trees, Ms. Keene noted the number of trees has been met, but the spaces has not. Ms. Henderson-King said they are trying to be responsive to neighbors’ concerns. Ms. Keene said there are no trees to the west of the parking area, just shrubbery. Mr. Kelty said the neighbors want to preserve their views of the mountains. Ms. Keene said the standard is about shading for the parking lot, not about views. Mr. Albrecht said it is nice to be accommodating, but the standard is the standard. Mr. Findlay-Shirra said he felt they could find a space for 3 trees that don’t encumber the neighbors’ views. #10. Regarding landscape cost, Ms. Henderson-King said they have provided an updated cost sheet for all plantings. The number still doesn’t meet the requirement. She suggested 2 options: adjust the overall cost of the construction so it is equalized with other buildings costs or include some specialty landscaping items such as granite benches in the pocket park, pavers in the staff area and the stone seating wall. Either approach would meet the amount required. Members agreed to consider this in their deliberations. #11. Regarding the front yard meadow, Ms. Henderson-King showed elevations with a view from the front with the meadow in front. Mr. Findlay-Shirra said they would brushhog the area once a year. Members voiced no objections to this. #12. Previously addressed. #13. Ms. Keene noted that the Public Works Director and Stormwater Director disagree on whether to approve the permeable pavers. Mr. Read said they applied for a stormwater discharge permit. There is no space to provide for overflow which is why they went with the permeable pavers. They will capture stormwater. Ms. Keene said Mr. DiPietro cited instances DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 SEPTEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 where these pavers have failed because the product being produced in Vermont is not adequate. Ms. Keene suggested having Mr. Read get together with staff to work this out. #14 and #15 were confirmed. #16. Staff questioned whether there is adequate screening for the large pieces of equipment. Ms. Henderson-King said there are evergreens on the east property line which will provide screening. Other equipment is below the level of the neighbors and would not be seen. Members voiced no objection to the screening. Public comment was then solicited. A neighbor noted that the southeast corner of his lot is very wet. Regarding trees closest to Old Farm Road, he said he thought there is infrastructure under that area (a drain), and he wanted to be sure there were no trees planted over it. Ms. Henderson-King asked for the site plan to be approved for a year instead of 6 months. Ms. Keene noted that there is an automatic year extension to the 6 months and asked if 18 months is sufficient. Mr. Keelty said it seems OK. Ms. Philibert moved to continue SP-22-022 until 18 October. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 6 July 2022: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 6 July 2022 as presented. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. 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 10:00 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on November 15, 2022.