Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_2023-02-22 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 1 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 22 February 2023, 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, F. Kochman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; D. Marshall, A. Klugo, C. Douglass, S. McClellan, J. Hodgson, T. Doyle, Cynthia, D. Sherman, M. Lawrence, A. Gagnon, M. Dalpra, G. Dixson, C. Gendron, Ella, A. Golodetz, Ipace 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. Election of Vice Chair: Ms. Keene reminded members that with Mr. Albrecht leaving the Board, they have to elect a Vice Chair. Ms. Philibert opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Stern nominated Ms. Mann. There were no further nomination. In the vote that followed, Ms. Mann was elected by a vote of 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 2 6. Continued 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 consists of constructing a 3,550 sq. ft. third story addition, which will be combined with 4,600 sq. ft. of existing building and used as six residential units, with 16,605 sq. ft. of commercial space to remain, 370 Shelburne Road: Ms. Philibert noted that staff has prepared a draft decision. Ms. Keene reminded members that they had a question regarding landscaping to the west of the building. She directed attention to a new view of the landscaping in that location and in other locations. Mr. Behr said this is what the Board asked for; they just needed to see it. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SP-22-039. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-02 of Casey Douglass to subdivide an existing 1.29 acre lot developed with a single family home and barn, located within an existing 5.52 acre planned unit development, into two lots of 0.69 acres (Lot 6A) and 0.60 acres (Lot 6B) for the purpose of demolishing the existing single family home and barn and constructing a new single family dwelling on each lot, 1200 Dorset Street: Mr. Marshall noted this is the largest of the lots in a 2001 subdivision. He showed a plan of the area and indicated the parcel being considered and the existing house. He also pointed out a stand of evergreens planted to the south and a number of trees on the west side of Dorset Street. Mr. Marshall noted the property to the north of this parcel is also before the DRB. He then showed a plan of where the proposed homes would be located. Both homes would be served by one curb cut from Foulsham Hollow Road. Ms. Keene said this is a subdivision of an existing PUD, and the Board is reviewing only the subdivision. She noted there are man-made steep slopes on the site, and there is currently an amendment before the City Council that would deregulate man-made steep slopes. Ms. Keene also noted the development will require one TDR, and the applicant will have to demonstrate the source of that TDR. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff questioned whether there is a better placement for the 2 homes. Mr. Marshall said for the home on the south side, they are providing for the house to have communication DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 3 with Dorset Street and Foulsham Hollow Road. Some of the trees on the south side will be removed. Mr. Kochman asked where the front door would be. Mr. Marshall said that is yet to be determined. For the home on the north side, there is some communication with the cul de sac, and it seems to fit the lay of the land better. Mr. Behr said the lot to the north fits in with the development. He was not convinced with the house to the south being on top of the line of trees. He was also concerned with regrading near the trunks of trees which could cause them to die. The house seems like it’s on a hill, and it seems to “want” orientation more to Foulsham Hollow Road. He suggested moving it more to the north onto more of a flat area with the possibility of a walk-out basement. Ms. Philibert asked why it wasn’t planned that way. Mr. Marshall said they wanted to respect the yard area and topography. They can try to work better with the grading. Mr. Behr said he felt they can move the house and have only 2 parking spaces in addition to those in the garage instead of 4. Mr. Marshall said they would look at that. Ms. Keene reminded members that in the past the Board has insisted on having homes in this area not look like the back of the house facing Dorset St. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t think there was now a pleasant exposure to Dorset St. Mr. Behr said he would like the exposure to Dorset St. to have some sort of pleasing architectural feature. #2. This item was already covered. Ms. Keene said the Board has to determine whether doing this as a simple subdivision is OK. Mr. Kochman asked how big a deal it is to amend the PUD. Ms. Keene said there are a lot of hoops, and they would have to meet all the criteria of the LDRs and the PUD. Mr. Kochman said they would be changing the lot lines of an approved PUD, and he did not feel that was a subdivision. Mr. Behr said he advocates for doing something in a simple, straightforward way. He felt the intention of this was that this lot was always going to be built on. He was OK with the subdivision, if staff says it’s OK. Mr. Stern agreed. Ms. Mann said she tended toward Mr. Kochman’s point of view. Mr. Behr asked if the plan meets the standards for both paths. Ms. Keene suggested this could be a minor amendment to the PUD. Members were OK with that, and Ms. Keene said she would investigate to see if there are any major issues with that. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue SD-23-02 until 7 March 2023. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 4 8. Master Plan Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-04 of John Larkin, Inc., to establish a master plan for an approximately 39 acre existing PUD consisting of 270 residential units in 8 multi-family buildings, a 20,000 sq. ft. movie theater, a 22,500 sq. ft. restaurant/medical office building, and a 3,500 sq. ft. restaurant with drive- through. The master plan includes 6 phases, and consists of adding 28,660 sq. ft. commercial space, a 93-room hotel, and 183 homes in 3 mixed use buildings, 111 homes in 2 multi-family buildings, 6 homes in two-family buildings, and open space for passive recreation, 1185 and 1195 Shelburne Road: Mr. Hodgson noted that the property began to be developed pre-COVID. The first building (1185 Shelburne Road) is complete. COVID paused the project, and they realized they wanted to do some minor tweaks. The western part of the project will be an apartment complex and movie theater. The remainder will be infill and reorganization. Mr. McClellan said there are natural resource issues including a stream which has a river corridor restraint and a wetland delineation just recently done. The proposed projects stay out of those areas. Mr. Hodgson added that the project has been scaled back a lot because of this. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted that the applicant is asking for a setback waiver to be equal to that of the existing building. Mr. Kochman said he saw no adverse consequence and was OK in this case. Mr. Behr also had no issue with the waiver. Mr. Hodgson said there will still be a sidewalk in front of the building. #2. Regarding a landscaping waiver request, Mr. Hodgson said they can’t fit all the required landscaping material in if they can’t put some of it in other places. Mr. Kochman said the location(s) would have to be specific. Mr. Gillies said if the board requires the pedestrian footbridge, there would no longer be landscaping. Mr. McClellan said they are no longer proposing the footbridge. #3. Regarding bike/ped needs and north-south connectivity, Mr. Hodgson said there is a rec path on the west side of Reel Road. This can be extended down Fayette Road, either as a striped lane or expansion of the sidewalk into a rec path. They are totally open to that. Mr. Stern cited the dangerous situation near McDonalds where you cannot see oncoming traffic. Mr. McClellan said they have discussed a pedestrian crossing there. Ms. Keene said that would DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 5 possibly be better when you can see further in both directions. Mr. McClellan said they will discuss with their traffic people what is safer. #4. Staff asked how the adjacent uses will be incorporated into the function of the proposed PUD. Mr. Gillies questioned whether people would be walking down toward the railroad tracks. #5. Staff questioned the impact of Inn Road through the proposed open space/park. Mr. Hodgson said they were under the impression that this was a second egress from that lot. They will do more research. He noted that the owner wants the road maintained for his access. Mr. McClellan said it is more of a driveway than a road, and for most of the park it won’t be an issue. He added that Inn Road will eventually intersect with Reel Road. Mr. Hodgson said a lot depends on what happens with the property toward the lakefront. Mr. Keene noted that the people who own the Farrell Estate are 3-6 months behind this project with what they are planning for their land. She showed the area on the map and noted that the land is quite encumbered with resources and development will be minimal. #6. Regarding integration of phases 4 and 5 and interconnectivity, Mr. Hodgson said the rec path addresses that. #7. Regarding inclusionary units, Mr. Hodgson said they will fully comply. #8. Regarding civic space, Mr. Hodgson identified a packet park in the center with ADA access from Larkin terrace to Reel Road. There will be a playground and community garden and possibly a dog park and/or pickleball court. They haven’t done the final calculations. Ms. Keene said if the intent is to dedicate this area to the city, the applicant should speak with the Recreation Department people. She added that dedication is not required. #9. Staff asked about phasing of the plan as it pertains to amenities and infrastructure. Mr. Hodgson said phasing relates to infrastructure. They may be reconfiguring the phases. #10. And #11. These were already covered. #12. Regarding screening between uses and incorporation into the neighborhood, Mr. Hodgson said there will possibly be screening between the townhouses and Lowes. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 6 #13. Staff asked for the functional objectives of each street and a finalized design standard for a typical street cross section. Mr. Gillies said Public works has said that the public street has to go all the way. Mr. McClellan said it is now built to city standards. They will get the street type to Mr. Gillies with the new street classification. Ms. Keene asked if there will be parking on both sides. Mr. Hodgson said they were trying for parallel parking on all streets. He noted there is a lot of underground building throughout, so there may be some angled parking. Mr. Gillies reminded members that there are no parking minimums for commercial buildings and a 1.75 space requirement per unit for residential developments. Mr. Kochman asked the applicant to make an effort to have the buildings look nice. Mr. Hodgson said they are planning to use a different architect for each building so they don’t all look alike. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comments. 9. Remanded Master Plan Application #MP-21-02A of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit development on 5 lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard, and a RV sales, service and repair facility. The master plan includes combining the 5 lots, resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres, and consists of a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sq. ft. office and retail building, a 15,600 sq. ft. commercial building and an 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and airport use building on 40.43 acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Keene explained why the application has been remanded. The Board approved the application in March, 2022 with a condition relating to the timing of the construction of the park. The Board could have approved the park under the new rules. When this went to Court, the Court withheld a decision because of that. In addition, the new rules have also changed the criteria for a master plan. Mr. Klugo said there is one more complexity. They are under construction with the assembly building and the general aviation hangar which should be operational by June. Mr. Klugo also noted they have provided written responses to staff’s comments and additional information. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the need to modify submissions, Ms. Keene noted that the applicant must provide all submission requirements. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 7 #2. Refers to #14 regarding building design. #3. Mr. Klugo noted the requested information regarding traffic impacts has been provided. #4 and #5. Will be covered when #14 is addressed. Mr. Klugo said he believed if they make no changes they can proceed from one project to another; if they make changes, they would have to back to the beginning. #6. It was agreed to revisit building heights section after reviewing the rest of the staff report. Mr. Klugo said they are looking to cap the building heights at 40 feet instead of 35 feet. They would not be providing exact heights. Members voiced no objection to this. #7. Staff questioned whether the connection to Palmer Court should be allowed as provided. Ms. Keene showed the plan and said the question is whether there should be more connectivity. Mr. Klugo identified the “great lawn” area and noted the area that is 20 feet below that grade. He also identified the area where there will be amenities. He said that anything in the lower area would have to be done in conjunction with the Airport as it is not part of Beta’s leased property. There are also specific requirements as to limiting wildlife, etc. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t see the need for the loop and suggested the possibility of trees, something nice. Mr. Klugo said they have to be careful not to attract birds. Ms. Philibert did not see the need for more connectivity. Ms. Mann suggested the possibility of way-finding sings. Mr. Klugo said there is an opportunity to have things to speak to the environmental concerns which will be rolled out in future phases. Mr. Stern asked how the area will be secured. Mr. Klugo said there will be security cameras. Ms. Keene said she would add the Board’s suggestions/feedback to the decision. Mr. Klugo noted staff had a note regarding the PUD. The only allowable PUD would be a General PUD, but they don’t see the need for a PUD. Ms. Keene said the previous approval had a PUD approval for the first phase of the Master Plan. She added that there is no substantial difference between that and a series of site plans. The Board can say that everything should be site plans. Mr. Klugo said the Board has to say when they can come in with an extension of the Master Plan. He said they want to do this in 2 years, and staff has said they can’t do it for 4 years. The project is designed to exceed the current Climate Action Plan standards. They are looking to create predictability. They also plan to bring in something related to childcare in a few months. They are asking to move up to 2 years which would allow them to do planning and to know in 2 years if something is denied. Ms. Keene read the language from the regulations. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 8 Kochman said there is no minimum waiting period in that language. The only burden is to show cause. He asked what staff’s reasoning was. Ms. Keene said “no good reason.” Mr. Kochman said he saw no reason to impose that. The applicant should just come in and if the Board see there is cause, they can extend it; if they don’t, they won’t. Mr. Klugo said they were fine with the LDR language. #8. Regarding phasing for the geothermal well field, Mr. Klugo showed the plan and indicated the area in question. They do not have it phased as you can’t be sure what you will get from the ground until you drill. They originally thought they could go to 650 feet; one the drilling started, they found they couldn’t go to 450 feet and only to 250 feet in some areas. They couldn’t get an engineer to commit to that. He added that if they need to expand the area for phase 2, they will have to come back. Mr. Klugo then explained how geothermal works. He also noted it was approved under the previous application. #9. Regarding replacing the sidewalk with a rec path, Mr. Klugo provided 2 graphics of the current state of construction involving DeVinci Drive. He indicated what is already there and being used by Valley tenants for access. He said that modification would impact the entire length of DaVinci Drive. Mr. Gendron then explained what now exists regarding paths and sidewalks. #10. Regarding opportunities to access natural resources (e.g., Muddy Brook), Ms. Keene said this should not be prohibited. Mr. Klugo said Beta has project limits. Anything beyond that should be addressed by the Airport. Mr. Gendron said access to Muddy Brook is treacherous. #11. This will be revisited. #12. Regarding the size and location of the electrical substation, Mr. Klugo it is undetermined whether there will be a substation there. They won’t know this until phase 1 is completed. The location would have to come from GMP. Ms. Keene said “substation” could mean many things such as an 80’ table. It has to be proposed; otherwise it would have to be an amendment. #13. This was previously addressed. #14. The applicant was asked to present the framework for building design as it informs the Board’s findings to whether the components of the Master Plan are vested. Mr. Klugo stressed that this development is not like an O’Brien development. The intent is to knit together all the elements. The buildings have different uses, and they want to expand the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 9 pallet. They want to keep architectural considerations open. He stressed that they have been sensitive to the neighborhood. They are doing unique things, things that make them a good member of the neighborhood and of the community. Ms. Keene questioned the narrative and noted such elements as having buildings up to the street, a more transitional feel, and more “organic shapes.” Mr. Klugo said those are all important. He also said that with all good planning you shouldn’t start with civil engineering. #15. Regarding consolidating the “green” and “red” phases, Mr. Klugo said the Master Plan is setup with different layers. One part is the economic plan. They have deliberately not mixed those 2 phases because there could be a third party to come in and support what Beta is doing. They are asking that the parcels stand on their own. Ms. Keene said the purpose of phasing is timing of infrastructure. The issue here is the closing of Valley Road. If the front building doesn’t get built, should the DRB look at whether Valley Road should be closed “now.” If the phases are separate, that can’t happen. Mr. Klugo said that 3060 building has leases through 2031. There is no reason to close Valley Road while the Mirabel’s building is still there. Ms. Keene said she would like a chance later to discuss the city’s position. #16. Regarding staff’s question about formal management structure, Mr. Klugo asked why there is concern with the proposed management structure. Ms. Keene said staff needs to know who to turn to if the Master Plan isn’t followed. Mr. Klugo said the Findings of Fact and Master Plan go to the person doing that project. This would be the same as if Beta was doing the building. Mr. Keene asked what happens if the last building doesn’t get built. Mr. Klugo said almost all the public infrastructure is in place in phases 1 and 2 to support what Beta needs to do. The “red” and “green” projects are supported by the infrastructure that is there now. Mr. Kochman asked whether staff wants specific names. He added that there could be a chart with names, but with the understanding that could change. Mr. Klugo said the owner is the Airport. The developer is Beta. There are no community assets (these run with the landowner). Ms. Keene noted this is a new requirement. Mr. Klugo said the entity that hold it is the land, and all decisions run with the land. There is no way to “back stop.” If someone wants to develop differently, they would have to come to the DRB. Mr. Kochman said if the Board is concerned with a piece of infrastructure being built, they would have to require it up front. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Due to the late hour, members agreed to provide an hour at the next meeting to finish up this hearing. Ms. Philibert moved to continue MP-21-02A and SP-22-056 until 7 March 2023. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 22 FEBRUARY 2023 PAGE 10 Members agreed to postpone the rest of the agenda to 7 March as well. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:06 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ________________