Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/15/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 November 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, Q. Mann, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner I; L. Bailey, D. Marshall, D. Heil, M. Cohen, E. Langfeldt, B. Armstrong, S. Homested, J. Findlay-Shirras, G. Henderson-King, A. Bond, D. Schneider, D. Read, A. Gill 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-22-020 of Neagley & Chase Construction to construct a single story, 21,790 sq. ft., office building, create 2, 160 sq. ft. of outdoor storage, and associated site improvements: Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Regarding plan for an amenity, Mr. Marshall showed a landscaped area for an amenity. The amenity area will have outdoor furniture, seating etc., on the south side of the building between the building and the street. It is larger than the requirement. Mr. Behr noted that landscaping was not an inherent part of the amenity, and it was also located up against the shared use path. He wasn’t convinced that was a bad idea but suggested some landscaping DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 between them. Mr. Marshall said the intent is that the area be accessible for people walking on their breaks. Mr. Albrecht said he liked that and wasn’t concerned that it was next to the shared use path. Mr. Stern questioned the liability if the general public uses the area. Mr. Marshall said that is a good question. Ms. Philibert said every business that comes before the Board will have to address that question. #2. Regarding the curb cut alignment, Mr. Marshall said the applicant prefers the original proposal with the curb cuts offset. He showed what would happen with the curb cuts aligned. More impervious would be need that with the unaligned plan, and on exiting, trucks would have to back into the CVA driveway to head south. The original plan had no extra turning movements. Ms. Mann said she was comfortable with the applicant’s proposal. Mr. Behr noted that the other curb cuts on the street are not aligned. #3. Regarding project cost estimate to determine landscaping, Mr. Marshall said the landscaping budget is $1,706,000. Mr. Gillies noted that is not adequate for this size project. Ms. Mann suggested more landscaping near the parklet. Mr. Marshall said he will come back with a plan. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-22-020 until 20 December 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 6. 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 said that revised plans were submitted with revised parking and snow storage. The snippet park was increased to 600 sq. ft. to meet the minimum requirement. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted that the Board had agreed to discuss design criteria in deliberation. Ms. Philibert said the issues involved windows and “spiffing up” the building. Mr. Heil noted that DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 3 the arba vitae will block any windows. If windows go in, some of those plantings should be removed which they would prefer not to do. Members agreed that the screening was sufficient. #2. Staff questioned whether another bench should be required. Ms. Keene noted the applicant had put in a lot of landscaping and little seating. Mr. Heil said there are only 4 to 6 employees during the day, and one bench was sufficient. Mr. Behr said he liked the landscaping and was OK with one bench. #3. Regarding details of dumpster screening, Mr. Heil said there will be a 6-foot chain link fence with privacy slats. It will be added to the plan. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to close SP-22-028. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6—0. 7. 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. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Regarding tree placement, Ms. Bond noted that the westernmost trees are more evenly spaced and one tree has been moved. There were positive discussions with neighbors, and the plan is mutually agreeable. Mr. Behr asked whether the plan meets the regulations. Ms. Keen said one shade tree per 5 parking spaces is the requirement. She showed areas in question where there is more than one tree per 5 spaces. Mr. Albrecht said he was more concerned with precedent. There is nothing in the standard that protects neighbors’ views; the standard is about providing shade and reducing glare. He asked if the 30-feet apart standard is being met. Mr. Behr said it looks like it. Ms. Philibert asked if the opening is where the neighbor’s concern was. Ms. Bond said that is the “view shed.” Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Armstrong said he appreciates the need to enforce standards, but there is also a “spirit of cooperation.” He felt the vast majority of the regulations has been entirely met, and that it should be possible to please all parties. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 4 Mr. Behr then moved to close SP-22-032. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. Continued final plat application #SD-22-10 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to create 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 consists of 155 homes plus additional inclusionary offset units in single family, 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 noted she has a home on the adjacent property but felt she could be impartial. Members agreed to discuss the roof height issue first. Mr. Langfeldt said this is a large site which will have different housing types. There are also a lot of land features and a lot of undulating grade which affect the ability to determine a pre- existing grade. Because the land goes up and down, certain heights are allowed on one part of the property but not on another. They do not want to be open to appeals or misunderstandings. Mr. Langfeldt then showed a photographic overview of the property and identified roads and phases of the project. He identified the houses in question regarding building height. What is proposed is not now compliant. He also identified homes on Nadeau Drive where the pre-construction grade is an issue. Mr. Gill said they had assumed that if it was on the plan, it had been approved. It is unclear what the pre-construction grade is. The regulations say you set it. They believe it can be set at the grade of the land at the front door with the exception of the 3-story town homes. Mr. Langfeldt added that some home styles could be at different heights, depending on the location. Mr. Gill showed rendering of some homes located within a few feet of each other. The structures were about the same; the difference was where they were on the land. Mr. Albrecht asked what flexibility the Board has. Ms. Keene said the Board can approve the proposed grade. She showed the standards for alteration of existing grade and the standards and conditions for approval. She agreed that the problem here is that it is not a flat site. Mr. Langfeldt said the Mabel Way homes are the transition to the commercial area, and a 3- story elevation is not impacting a commercial building. Mr. Gill noted that on Mabel Way, it is hard to make even 2-story homes work. Mr. Langfeldt said he thought there are 2 logical ways to define pre-construction grade: one is to take the 2 streetside corners and average the grade between them. Measure from the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 5 elevation to the average level between the eaves and the highest point of the roof; the other is to take the mid-point of the home and measure up. Mr. Homested said there are units that are 60-feet wide on a street with a 5-foot to 8-foot slope. Mr. Gill said the street grade can change from one side of the house to the other. Mr. Langfeldt said the Mabel Way setback is 30 feet from the curb. The stoop could be about a foot above the curb. Mr. Keene said height waivers are prohibited and asked if the Board considered the project as designed meets the height standard. If so, does the Board consider this a “back door” way to get a height waiver. Mr. Behr said when a project is this large, if the Board can’t waive height, they will have to look at what the applicant is looking at for height. If there is a method for the Board to implement that, he was OK with setting a pre-construction grade to meet the 28 feet. Mr. Albrecht said he liked the idea of the mid-point. He didn’t want to see one building that looks out of character. Ms. Keene said she would go through the plan to see if there are any anomalies as to how sites are proposed to be graded. If they aren’t graded so there would be a tall house and a short house, she understood what Mr. Behr and Mr. Albrecht were saying. Mr. Albrecht said that to be consistent with the standard, say the height limit is 28 feet. He liked the idea of tying it to the street. He asked if there is a history of this issue. Ms. Keene said there is, just south of Park Road on Dorset Street. Mr. Gill said tying it to the street is challenging because the street goes up and down. Mr. Albrecht said he liked the mid-point. Mr. Langfeldt stressed that they are trying to create a dynamic streetscape. Mr. Gill added that this issue is pervasive throughout the development. Mr. Albrecht suggested adjusting the zoning line. He said if the City could do it for Tesla, they could do it for this developer. Mr. Gill said they could do that over the next few years. Ms. Keene said if they “slice off” the ones over 28 feet, the scenario to measure from the ground becomes less of an adjustment. Ms. Philibert asked what the developer would lose. Mr. Gill said they would lose one home model, but they are willing to go to the Planning Commission to change the zoning. Mr. Albrecht said he liked the proposal to take the average of the 2 corners. Other members agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 6 Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the sidewalk next to the barn which is scheduled at the 125th home in this phase, Mr. Albrecht asked about the potential to almost build out and not have a sidewalk. Mr. Langfeldt said the pedestrian path would already be constructed on the other side of the street. Mr. Gill said at the 75th permit, they would complete the playground, etc. This allows the project to fund itself as the project moves forward. He showed the location of parks and the barn amenity and noted the barn amenity is oversized for the area. He added that it will be done before the buildout of the neighborhood. Ms. Keene noted the 125 number was to be an incentive to build the rest of the homes. The Board had felt 100 was a better number for amenities to come on line. Mr. Gill noted the PUD has 400 units, and that’s 25% of the units and 6% of the traffic. Mr. Langfeldt said phasing is tied to the barn amenity which has a lot of work associated with it. It was agreed that the Board would deliberate on this. #2. Mr. Gill was OK with this. He said if the build the road compliant with city standards, and the city won’t take it over, they don’t want to have to build more of the project. #3. Regarding combining phases 8 and 10, Mr. Gill said this would involve altering all budgets and subcontractor contracts. Ms. Philibert asked how important this is. Ms. Keene said the question arises if one is accepted and other one isn’t. She suggested they be part of the same zoning permit. Mr. Gill said they were OK with this. #4. Regarding fitness elements, Ms. Keene said the applicant was asking that the trail go in but not the equipment until the complete loop is built. Members felt this makes sense. #5. Staff is asking the applicant reverse the triggers for phases 11 and 12. Mr. Gill said the solution is to connect the “red area” to the “brown area.” The loop would be complete. It was an oversight, and they are open to suggestions. #6. Staff felt this phase should be complete by the 100th development unit. Mr. Albrecht said he can’t live with the 125th. Mr. Gill asked what the point of a sidewalk is if there is no place to walk to. Mr. Langfeldt said there will be other sidewalks. Mr. Behr agreed with Mr. Albrecht and felt it was a safety issue as there will be additional traffic on that road. 100 was a bare minimum for him. Mr. Albrecht also felt that if the city wants it built, the city can build it. He didn’t feel the burden should be completely on the developer. He did not want the developer made to look like a “bad guy.” DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 7 Mr. Gill stressed how difficult it is to do this project and to fund it. There are competing priorities. 125 was not an arbitrary number; it was how to make this work. The Old Farm Road relocation is an enormous project. Members agreed to discuss this in deliberation. Mr. Langfeldt asked that the Board understand it could stop this project. Mr. Behr asked what will be left after the 125 units. Mr. Langfeldt said Leo Lane will be built very quickly. Mr. Gill said the affordable units will be built right up front. They need to build Mabel Way all the way because of some utilities that affect Old Farm Road. #7. Staff asked that the applicant be required to revise the mixed use area to have a maximum of 4 stories. Mr. Gill said anytime they said “4 stories” it would not include parking. They asked to clarify if it is 4 stories over parking. Ms. Keene said the garage is not part of the stories if it doesn’t appear to be a story. Mr. Gill said they are looking for what they have at Hillside, 4 stories over the parking. #8. Staff asked how the dog park will function with the wooded area at the entrance. Mr. Gill said they will work around it. They were OK with whatever the Board comes up with. Ms. Keene showed the plan and noted the wooded area. Mr. Gill said they can put a fence around it and prune the wooded area. It will be a nice entry. #9. Staff cited the need to correct lot number in conjunction with tree clearing. #10. Staff asked what was worked out with the Fire Marshal. Mr. Gill said he was OK with roadways with some different radii and the relocation of some trees at intersections. He also wanted more “No Parking” signs. Mr. Gill said they will work with the Fire Marshall. #11. Previously covered. #12. Regarding the staging area being re-used, Ms. Philibert asked the options are to close it and re-apply or to keep it going. Mr. Gill noted it has to be removed in 18 months. The applicant then addressed some “clean-up” items as follows: Mr. Gill noted blasting may not occur in the winter of 2023 but would occur later on. They may do blasting in 2 phases which could be a year or more apart. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 NOVEMBER 2022 PAGE 8 Mr. Gill asked members to keep in mind things that can happen at the same time. Ms. Keene said “non-plan” things can go late, but they need to be pretty tight on “plan things.” Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Armstrong thanked the Board for considering the sidewalk as presented. He said there is ample safety, and the Deli closes at 6 p.m. Mr. Behr moved to close SD-22-10. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Minutes of 20 September, 6 October and 1 November 2022: Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 20 September, 6 October and 1 November 2022 as written. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 10. Other Business: Mr. Keene noted that the 2023 meeting calendar is available on the website. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:50 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on December 6, 2022.