Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 10/06/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Thursday, 6 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; M. Behr, J. Stern, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner 1, B. & T. Jackson, S. Levine, C. Orben, Y. Feng, M. Collins, D. Marshall, A. Gill, S. Homsted. 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and explained remote participation. 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-22-020 of Naegly & Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 sf office building, create 2,160 sf of outdoor storage, and associated site improvements: Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Marshall noted the project is half the size of what was originally proposed, so it would fit. He showed the plan. Staff comments were addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 2 #1. Regarding building height, staff is asking for the height to be measured from the pre- construction grade prior to close of the hearing. The applicant will comply. #2. Regarding the front yard setback, staff noted the applicant is requesting to go from 50 feet to 30 feet. Mr. Marshall said they are trying to balance building the building closer to the street and the requirement for open space. Mr. Albrecht noted that this plan maximizes the open space at the rear of the parcel. Mr. Behr said all the other buildings in the area have 50 foot setbacks, so this would be changing the character of the area, but since it is a commercial property, he is OK with it. Other members did not voice any objections. #3. Regarding the snippet park, Mr. Marshall said they will bring this back to the landscape architect and come back with a corrected version. #4. Regarding connecting the project to existing city sewer out of the Class 2 wetland. Ms. Philibert asked if this is possible. Mr. Marshall said it is possible. #5. Regarding trip generation and the traffic impact fee, Mr. Marshall said they will ask their consultant to update the traffic information and work this out with staff. He noted that the original traffic impact study was developed for the 21,000 sf building. The PM peak hour trip end generation was revised to reflect the elimination of the office space and downsizing of the contractor’s yard. #6. Re: aligning the driveway with the driveway on the other side of the street, Mr. Marshall said there aren’t a lot of aligned driveways in this area. All traffic will be focused to the west side of the lot. The other challenge involves the loading dock which contractors have to access. Mr. Marshall said he was comfortable that there won’t be high levels of traffic to necessitate alignment. Mr. Kochman said the LDR language says “feasible and functional to have them aligned,” and staff says it is. Ms. Mann said the loading dock could be a reason to honor the applicant’s request. Mr. Kochman said “feasible” is a hard standard to overcome. Mr. Albrecht asked if there is a maximum width allowed for a curb cut. Ms. Keene was not sure. Mr. Albrecht said this is a commercial area. If the applicant widened the curb cut more to the north, the driveways could be aligned. That would also make it easier to plow. Mr. Marshall said that could be very practical but it could affect the maximum lot coverage. He added that if they had long frontage there, it wouldn’t be an issue. Ms. Keene said widening the curb cut is not a feasible solution. Mr. Albrecht said he had a problem with letting a driveway determine the project. He argued in favor of the applicant’s design. Ms. Keene said as it is drawn, trucks are backing up on the street. What staff proposes has trucks backing up off the street (she showed this on the plan). Mr. Marshall said he would get back to staff on this. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 3 #7. Regarding dumpster screening, Mr. Marshall directed the Board’s attention to the sheet with the design that will comply. #8. Staff noted that the draft easement document will be needed prior to closing. Mr. Marshall said they will do this. #9. No issue was raised. #10. Staff noted that one more long-term bike storage/locker is needed. Mr. Marshall said they will provide this. #11. Staff noted the need for street trees. Mr. Marshall said they will do this. #12. Staff is asking for more diverse tree species. Mr. Marshall said they will comply. #13. Regarding snow storage, Mr. Marshall said he will make sure all plans are consistent with this. #14. Staff asked the applicant to provide project cost and values of each landscape element. Mr. Marshall said they will provide this. #15. Staff noted that one proposed light is not shielded/downcast. Mr. Marshall said he forgot to eliminate that light. #16. Staff questioned how the roof will comply with the standard. Mr. Marshall said this will be part of the resubmitted package. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Mann moved to continue SP-22-020 until 1 November 2022. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 6. Continued final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to crease a planned unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 4 duplex and three-family dwellings on eleven lots totaling 23.9 acres, eighteen commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces, 500 Old Farm Road: Ms. Philibert advised that she owns property in the Hillside development but felt she could hear the application impartially. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The Board was asked whether they would allow one-story buildings. Mr. Gill said all buildings are planned to be 2+ stories, but he indicated on the plan the buildings which they feel would be better as 1 or 1-1/2 stories as they are on higher ground. There could be a small grocery story or an area for neighborhood services (e.g., dry cleaner). Mr. Kochman asked why were 2 stories required. Mr. Gill said the Board was focusing more on the ones along the road. Ms. Philibert asked if there can be one-story buildings. Ms. Keene said there can. There is a limit to retail square footage as this is intended to be a mixed use area. Mr. Kochman said Mr. Gill’s rational is reasonable and he would allow it. Other members agreed. Ms. Philibert noted staff’s comments about relocation of the utility cabinet. Mr. Gill said that is done. #2. Regarding tree spacing, staff noted that the applicant is requesting to go to 40-foot spacing. Mr. Gill said they had originally showed 40 feet, and the whole Hillside neighborhood is 40 feet. The final plat said 30 feet, but all of the digital renderings are at 40 feet. Ms. Philibert said she was OK with the spacing at Hillside. Ms. Keene showed the plan and indicated what 40 feet and 30 feet would look like. Mr. Gill said it would cost $200,000 to go to 30 feet now. He added that they already exceed the landscape budget, and 40 feet looks good. Mr. Behr had no objection and noted his neighborhood is a 50 and 60 feet. Ms. Orben said they have 7 or 8 different types of street trees, a good variety. #3. Staff questioned whether additional landscaping is needed near the dog park. Ms. Keene said landscaping there might not be long-lived. She recommended waiving the requirement. Members voiced no objection. #4. Staff noted there is no curbing in the barn area and felt there needs to be a solution to protect landscaping and to protect pedestrians. Mr. Gill said they would appreciate waiving the curbing. There will be a cement sidewalk with a transition to the gravel parking lot. They wanted it to feel more relaxed than a curb with a sidewalk. They will look at something like boulders as a protection. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 5 #5. Staff questioned whether foundation plantings are necessary. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has proposed plantings all around the building, and they would have to be maintained forever. Staff is asking that homeowners be allowed to change the plantings around the foundation if they so choose. Staff is OK if the homes are sold without foundation plantings. Mr. Kochman noted that the regulations say that foundation plantings can be varied. He was OK with that. #6. Staff noted that the front setback requirement is 10 feet. Open porches and/or decks of less than 12 feet in depth are allowed to encroach into the front setback up to 5 feet. Staff recommends a waiver within the residential area of side and rear setbacks to 5 feet. Staff also recommends a condition that for street-facing garages there be enough room between the face of the garage and the sidewalk to park a full-sized car without overhanging the sidewalk. Mr. Gill questioned what happens with 2 front yards. Ms. Keen said the regulations allow waiving down to 5 feet, but that doesn’t mean it should be done. Mr. Gills said if a buyer chose a particular footprint, a porch could stick out more. Ms. Keene asked how close they will allow homes to be. Mr. Homested said they would be OK with 5 feet on just the questionable units. Mr. Gill didn’t feel that would look odd at the corners. Mr. Kochman said he liked 10 feet except for those where there could be an exception. Members were OK with this. Regarding porches, Mr. Gill said they were looking for the Board to say that a deck could be turned into a sunroom. Ms. Keene said that would not be allowed if the porch is within the 5 feet. Mr. Gill said they were good with that. #7. Regarding the turn lane, staff recommends the Board discuss and provide Public Works the opportunity consider and provide feedback. Mr. Gill said the turn lane is not making the road wider; it is just changing striping. The suggestion is not to put a turn lane in till a later time, but Mr. Gill said they want to get it in early for safety sake. He said they could talk to Public Works about it. Their traffic consultant (Roger Dickinson) says to do it immediately. Ms. Philibert said she has heard that turning lanes cause problems. Mr. Kochman said he needs to know what is wrong with that. Members wanted more information before making a decision. #8. Regarding the modification of the Old Farm Road/Hinesburg Road intersection, Mr. Gill said this was in the original traffic study prior to the revision due to reduced trip ends. They were told to pare it back. They will not modify the intersection. #9. Mr. Gill said the numerical information regarding the wetland buffer was sent to staff today. #10. Staff asked the meaning of the dotted line/shaded area. Ms. Orben said the dotted line is where you can mow, and the shaded area is the stone area of the path. Staff asked the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 6 applicant to confirm the dog park parking area is curbed. Mr. Gill said they will have curbing there. He also noted there are not 2 curb cuts on the east side of Old Farm Road between Kimball Avenue and Old Farm Road. #11. Staff noted the landscape plan shows additional lines on Old Farm Road toward the north end. Mr. Gill said those lines are gone. He noted a 60-foot right-of-way that was added. They hope it can stay private. Ms. Keene said the city doesn’t want that road. There will be a condition that it remain private. Regarding height, Mr. Gill said they would like the Board to say they approve of what is show on the plan. They will provide height on every elevation. Two-story houses should be able to be built on the lots they’re proposed to be built on. Mr. Kochman said they are discussing height as a policy matter. Mr. Gill said the site is a hillside with different grades. He questioned how that related to pre-construction grade. Ms. Keene said the problem is a surfeit of information. Mr. Gill suggested they provide a lot by lot analysis and suggest where there might be a modification needed. Ms. Keene felt that is doable. Members were OK with that. #12. And #13. Staff noted the applicant proposes to achieve a 4-bedroom unit by providing a finished basement. Mr. Gill said every home will have an egress window in the basement. The question is the income qualification of the person buying the unit. If they can only qualify for a 3-bedroom unit and there is a commitment to a 4-bedroom unit, they could be in a bind. The basement solves that problem. The unit can be sold as a 3 bedroom, even though the buyer qualifies for a 4- bedroom. Mr. Kochman said he was inclined to go along with what Mr. Gill is saying. Ms. Keene asked what the Board wants to know about inclusionary units. Ms. Wyman asked what happens if a unit is sold as 3-bedroom and down the road becomes 4-bedroom. Mr. Kochman said “so what?” Ms. Keene said you can put on an addition once it is sold to you. Mr. Gill said they want to offer and sell what is allowed. #14. Regarding noise from blasting, Mr. Gill said he talked with the engineer. He said the reason they don’t talk about the noise from blasting is that the impacts were below the ambient levels to homes on Old Farm Road. They didn’t look at blasting noise itself; it is the pressure vibration. They did look at those impacts, and they are below the industry standard. Ms. Philibert asked if the ledge that Old Farm Road homes back up to will be impacted by vibration. Mr. Gill said they engaged a person to look into this. They have taken as responsible a stance as they can and doubt there will be damage to land outside the blast zone. Mr. Stern asked how “continuous” is defined. Mr. Gill said their sound report gets into the weeds on that. They looked at the entire site for noise for Act 250. In the analysis, it was in the reals of 10 days that there would be sound above 55 db. They are willing to submit the full noise report. Ms. Keene noted Hillside has handled blasting very well. Staff got 3 or 4 phone calls, and then they DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 7 stopped. She felt the O’Briens handled it well though there have been problems on other projects. Ms. Philibert asked if they would be using the rock crusher. Mr. Gill said they will, but with road and traffic noise, you couldn’t hear it. #15. Regarding removal of dust outside the approval area, Mr. Gill said they can be open to that if there is a dust event. They never had an issue with Hillside. He added that they inspect for dust and report to the State. Members felt a condition in the approval was not necessary. #16. Regarding with compliance with the city’s policy on erosion control methods, the applicant will talk with staff on this. #17. Regarding the duration of blasting days, Mr. Gill said they will be completed over the winter. This could be in 2 phases over the entirety of the project. He added that it is better to blast in winter. #18. The applicant confirmed that there will be no work before 7 a.m. and no work on federal holidays. Ms. Keene said staff would prefer a 9 a.m.-4 p.m. schedule. Mr. Gill thought they can do that. #19. Regarding a plan for management of construction vehicles, Mr. Gill said there is a construction road up to the construction site. They also have stabilized paths (he indicated the road from Kimball Ave. to the project site). Ms. Keene asked if there is any information regarding timing. Mr. Gills said some of it will happen right away – along proposed roads – until the houses are built. The haul road would be there till they are almost complete. There are a couple of homes that can’t be built with that road there. The road will be in place till the infrastructure is built. Mr. Gill added that they will not cut down a wooded area where they are not approved for building. #20. Staff asked the applicant to describe how material will be removed. Mr. Gills aid no hole will be left. They propose a surety for restoration of the area. #21. Staff is asking for a condition that a staging area be restored no more than 18 months after the most recent zoning permit for approved homes. Mr. Gill said they may want to use a staging area for some of the commercial buildings. Ms. Keene said they can ask for that. The city just doesn’t want a staging area there for 15 years. Mr. Gill said it could be there for a number of years or disappear quickly if someone wants to use a large piece of land. They were OK if staff wants to review this after 150 homes are built. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 OCTOBER 2022 PAGE 8 #22. The applicant agreed to no blasting or stone crushing between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. #23. Staff noted that Public Works was OK with a $50,000 surety bond for restoration. #24. Regarding the percentage of roofs to be oriented for optimum solar gain, staff asked whether there should be a condition that no more than 20% of homes not be oriented for solar. Mr. Albrecht felt that was unnecessary because of the previous findings at Preliminary Plat. Mr. Behr agreed. Mr. Gill said they are committed to energy efficiency and will have electric vehicle hookup and will be enrolled in the Energy Star Program. All roofs are already oriented where they are oriented. Some lots run with the contour of the land. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-22-10 to 15 November. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. 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.