Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/06/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 December 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Albrecht, Acting Chair; M. Behr, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Stern ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner 1; J. Hodgson, B. Currier, D. Hauke, R. Philip, P. Boisvert, T. Jarvis, A. Klugo, J. Ginorio, J. Pehle, M. Trifilio, A. Gagnon, M. Lawrence. 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: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant for agenda item #8 has asked for a continuance. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-22-057 of South Burlington School District to amend a previously approved site plan for an educational facility. The amendment consists of constructing a 6,300 sq. ft. expansion, including four modular classrooms and an adjoining concrete walkway, 2 Baldwin Avenue: Ms. Philip said the application results from increased enrollment issues at Orchard School. They are asking to add temporary modular units for 4 classrooms. The units will be connected to the building. These are temporary structures to alleviate issues until a more permanent solution is arrived at. There will be a bond vote in March for funds to pay for the units. Installation is planned for the summer. Staff comments were addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 #1. Staff asked how they will create a harmonious appearance. Ms. Philip said these are zero energy modules, highly efficient. Colors haven’t yet been selected. She showed elevations of the units and a site plan indicating where they will go. There will be 25 students per classroom, a total of about 100. Mr. Stern asked how long the modules will remain. Ms. Philip said part of phase 2 is potentially moving 5th graders to the Middle School. She estimated about 5 years for modules. Mr. Albrecht noted that although staff has concern about the architectural features of the modules, there is vegetation, and the units are 10 feet beyond the required setback. #2. Regarding the requirement for a site amenity, Mr. Albrecht said he felt the playground meets that requirement. Mr. Behr said he was OK with that since this is a temporary installation. #3. Regarding the need for the required number of bike parking and storage space, Ms. Philip said they have provided an updated plan with 12 additional bike spaces. They will add the permanent structure. The school is OK with this. #4. Staff asked whether the Board felt the applicant should have to address the non- conformity regarding trees. Mr. Hodson said they would have to remove trees to add trees, and there is also the issue of a power line. They will put 2 trees to the east and 2 to the south of the parking lot. He showed pictures of existing trees. Members felt the trees have been put where they could be. Mr. Behr said it is “functionally sparse.” #5. Regarding snow storage, Mr. Hodson showed where snow is currently stored on the playing fields and noted that the students love it there. #6. Staff asked whether the Board will allow the ornamental grasses to count toward the landscape budget. Mr. Hodson said they are 3-4 feet tall and are near the modular area. Ms. Keene showed a plan of where they will be. Mr. Hodson said they still have a presence in winter. #7. The applicant agreed to maintain the stormwater treatment. #8. Staff asked whether there will be any building-mounted lighting. Ms. Philip said they will use existing lighting. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SP-22-057. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 3 6. Site plan application #SP-22-039 of David Hauke to amend a previously approved site plan for a 21,420 sq. ft. mixed use building. The amendment consist of constructing a 3,550 sq. ft. third story addition, which will be combined with a 4,600 sq. ft. building and used as six residential units, with 16.605 sq. ft. commercial space to remain, 370 Shelburne Road: Mr. Currier noted that the building was originally a super market, then a retail business in front was added on. There is a loading dock in the rear. The building has been vacant and has been used for storage. The footprint will remain the same. One of the residential units will be a handicapped unit with handicap parking on the east side. Mr. Currier showed a site plan and indicated the addition on the east edge of the property. Mr. Albrecht asked why there aren’t more stories of residential. Mr. Hauke said it would be too disruptive to the tenant. Mr. Currier noted that the north end of the property is within the City of Burlington. There is an existing non-conforming structure in the rear. He showed elevations and indicated a porch on one the units that will face west with a view of the Lake. He also indicated what the neighbor would see on the east elevation. Mr. Kochman asked if the neighbor’s view of the sunset would be blocked. Mr. Currier said they can’t see it now. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff questioned the calculation of the building height. Mr. Currier referred to the architect’s correspondence and noted how the peak was calculated. He said it is their belief that 34 feet is the correct height. Ms. Keene was OK with this explanation. She also noted that the 3 stories is allowable because the neighboring buildings are 2 stories. #2. Regarding trip generation, Mr. Currier said they are in Traffic Overlay District Zone 3. Using the 11th ITE edition, there is a change in the method of calculating trips. They are removing 4600 sq. ft. of commercial space which is becoming residential which reduces the PM peak trips by 22 for a total of 86. Mr. Hauke noted all the pedestrian safety features and the bus stop in front of the building. Mr. Keene noted that if this were a new development, they would be required to have a sidewalk on one side. She felt the existing street trees were a better use. #3. Regarding a site amenity with appropriate buffer, Mr. Keene noted that some of the proposed amenity is within the setback. She also noted that the Board can reduce the required DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 4 setback. The side setback is set at 10 and they applicant is a 4 feet. She showed the location of the amenity (tables/chairs) on the plan. Mr. Hauke noted the ramp is a handicapped ramp. Ms. Keene noted there is also an indoor common space with a large window. Regarding the screening of the amenity, Mr. Lawrence noted there are 2 existing trees that form a nice boundary between this property and the neighboring property. The neighbor has an 8-foot fence that runs the length of the building. Mr. Behr said he likes the project and considered it great infill. He felt the buffer was also being improved. He had no issue with what he had seen so far. Others agreed. The applicant then showed a Google Earth photo of the property and noted that anything they would do would be an improvement. Mr. Behr noted that the pitched roof over #370 Shelburne Road is blocking any view, and you have to get up one story to see the Lake. Mr. Kochman said he feels for the neighbor who will lose some slight, but he agreed it is an improvement over what is there now, and he wasn’t sure the neighbor had any view rights. Mr. Behr said it is not in a view protection zone. Ms. Keene asked how a resident would move between the parking area and the front doors with the parking on the north side. Mr. Currier said there will be a door on the north side. He indicated this on the plan. Ms. Keene said the standard is safe access. Mr. Currier said there is access on the north and south sides. #4. The applicant indicated they would work with the Water Department on allocation. #5. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Currier said he sent additional information today. He noted that most of what staff says is missing is on the Burlington end of the property and includes some shrubs on a curbed islands and 2 box elders where there should be 5. Mr. Lawrence said they have not been able to trace what should be there, so he made educated guesses to assign values. In one section, rainwater from the roof may have washed landscaping away, and it was replaced with gravel. He said he put in a narrow column of trees which will grow in the existing conditions. Mr. Keene said if the Board thinks the plan is OK, she will check it out and they will be able to close. #6. Staff said the perennials should be switched for shrubs, etc. She noted area “A” looks OK and appears to be for snow storage. Mr. Lawrence noted 3 crabapples in the northwest corner and one in “B” area. There are 5 trees along the side of the building. He showed the new landscape plan and noted there isn’t much room for more trees. He also noted that the ornamental grasses can take snow on them and still provide screening for the parking lot. Ms. Keene noted the grasses can count when other standards are met. #7. Staff noted that a snow storage area is not shown. Mr. Currier said they will add them to the plan. One is near the curb on Shelburne Road and the other near the dumpster. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 5 #8. Staff is asking for an erosion control plan. Mr. Currier said they will provide this. He noted that there will be construction fencing along the neighbor’s property. #9. Staff asked for a lighting cut sheet and asked where there will be light fixtures. Mr. Currier said he sent the cut sheet today. He showed the elevations and indicated the light fixtures. They are downcast LED. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman expressed concern that there is an existing non-conformity, and the plan increases the volume of the building which increases the non-conformity. He felt this should be looked at for case law. Ms. Keene said they are not increasing the non-conformity. What they are not meeting is the buffer which the Board can modify. Mr. Albrecht said it would be great to know the height of the existing and proposed roofline relative to the abutting structure. Ms. Keene reminded the Board that the building can be one story higher than the neighboring buildings. Mr. Albrecht was also concerned with the asphalt swale on the south side of the building and wanted to see something that improves the ability of someone to walk out of the building to go mail a letter. Mr. Currier said the previous owner probably put the swale in. That area is tight and there are gas meters there. Ms. Keene said they could put trees closer to the street in the green strip. Mr. Currier said they may be able to start a sidewalk where the grass starts, but it would not be 5 feet wide. They might also relocate the gas meters around the corner. Mr. Albrecht encouraged the applicant to do some measurements and see what can be done to provide adequate circulation for residents. Mr. Kochman said the project is an improvement but some details need to be worked on. Mr. Albrecht then moved to continue SP-22-039 to 18 January 2023. Mr. Kochman seconded. The motion passed 6-0. 7. Site Plan Application #SP-22-056 of Beta Technologies, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 344,000 sf manufacturing and office building. The amendment consists of adding 261 parking spaces, 154 daVinci Drive: Ms. Wyman was recused from this application due to a potential conflict of interest. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 6 Mr. Klugo said they had received notice that this application would be continued due to a requested Master Plan change. He asked the Board to evaluate whether a continuation is appropriate as they did not receive the notice until fairly late in the process. Mr. Klugo said they appreciate the process, but they are looking at a potential 150 day delay. They are not looking for any change in the project. They were told they had to submit an application for a parking plan, and they did, and they were told it was OK. He questioned why there is no earlier date than 22 February for a continuation. Mr. Klugo noted the parking plan is to do the surface. The bulk of the work is already done including stormwater, trees, etc. This was approved under the previous application and the zoning permit that was issued. Ms. Keene said the parking plan can’t be built until one of 2 conditions is met. The LDRs have changed so the applicant has to amend the Master Plan. Staff worked with the City Attorney and the applicant’s legal team. The recommendation is to continue to 22 February which would allow the applicant time to prepare the Master Plan amendment up to current standards. This will allow them to put parking between the building, which is part of the Airport’s security fence, and the street, but also would require them to meet other new requirements of the Master Plan. The hope was the Master Plan amendments could be heard the second meeting in January and then hear the parking amendment the second meeting in February. There are very minimal staff comments on the parking amendment. Mr. Klugo noted the Court has already remanded the case, and the status conference has been canceled. The remand is dated 2 December, 11 a.m. Ms. Keene said staff has not received this yet. Mr. Klugo said they have not changed the design, yet they are being burdened with going back. The Board has approved it; the project is being built and looks great. He was unclear what the benefit would be. The work is there, though not in the format being requested. There are some gaps, but it fundamentally doesn’t change what they have done. To delay the project again seems to be a heavy burden which could delay the project 150 days. Mr. Kochman took exception to the 150 days, noting that the Board would probably not take 45 days to render its decision, and the applicant could begin the work during the appeal period. Ms. Keene stressed that the applicant cannot get site plan approval until the Master Plan is amended. Mr. Klugo said that is the basis of their request, to find a way to utilize the intense work that has been done by a lot of people, including staff, and not have to start at square one and submit a new Master Plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 7 Mr. Albrecht asked if the applicant had an alternative. Mr. Klugo said given the timing, they have not been able to come to this hearing with any suggestions. He supposed an alternative would be to work with staff outside the hearing. He asked if they could combine the Master Plan and Site Plan hearings. Ms. Keene said if the applicant can get the Master Plan amendment in within a week, the Board could hear that in January and potentially hear the Site Plan the first meeting in February. Because the remand happened so fast, they could potentially push the hearing up those 2 weeks. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t think the hearing should be moved up any more than that. Mr. Stern asked whether the whole Master Plan gets reviewed. Ms. Keene said her understanding is that there are things that have changed in the regulations. She said the 7 February date is doable, but she would also hold a spot on 22 February. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue SP-22-056 to 7 February 2023. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Mr. Stern abstaining. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-22-055 of Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing an expansion of the existing taxiway G and construction of a new apron, 1200 Airport Drive: Ms. Wyman was recused from this application. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has requested a continuation due to stormwater issues. Mr. Stern moved to continue SP-22-055 until 20 December 2022. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Minutes of 15 November 2022: Mr. Albrecht moved to approve the Minutes of 15 November 2022 as written. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0 with Mr. Kochman abstaining. 10. Other Business: No other business was presented. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 8 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:10 p.m. The Board approved these minutes on ____________.