Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07B_2023-03-07_DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 7 March 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, S. Wyman ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Marshall, C. Douglas, M. Provost, J. & A. Allen, J. Bellevance, M. Blood, James, T. Doyle, Jay T. AS, Cynthia, M. Sammut, K. Majia, J. Desautels, Irene, Samms#Todd 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: Ms. Philibert announced that DRB member Stephanie Wyman has been named Young Engineer of the Year. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-02 of Casey Douglas 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 2 lots of 0.69 acres (Lot6A) and 0.60 acres (L0t 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: Ms. Philibert noted that there was one issue remaining from the previous hearing: whether this application should be heard as a subdivision or as an amendment to the PUD. She advised that in their deliberative session Board members determined it should be heard as a PUD amendment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 2 Ms. Philibert then asked whether the Board has enough information to close the hearing. Ms. Keene said they do. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 6. Final Plat Application #SD-23-03 of Civil Engineering Associates to amend a previously approved plan for a 10-unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of reducing the front setback for Oot8 (80 Long Drive) from 30 feet to 20 feet, 0 Long Drive: Ms. Keene noted that Long Drive is a 10-lot subdivision on the golf course. Development was largely determined by the Court which ruled on one component: the tree stand needs to remain a part of the South Burlington skyline. Ms. Keene noted that the applicant has been a very good steward of this tree line. She stressed that this application does not amend the tree preservation area; it just reduces the setback so the applicant can have more room for the house. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to describe any impact on the tree preservation area. A plan indicating the potential footprint of the house with a 20-foot front yard setback was shown. Mr. Marshall said the aim is to move the house forward so there is room for a patio and furniture between the house and the tree preservation area. There will be no impact to the tree preservation lot. Ms. Keene indicated where development would not be allowed. Mr. Behr noted that a number of trees have been lost this year and asked if there is a catalog of the trees to be preserved. The applicant indicated that they inventoried the trees a few years ago, but they don’t have an inventory of what has been lost. Mr. Behr then asked whether reducing the setback would affect the character of the area where other homes are built to the full 30- foot setback. The applicant did not think this would be the case because of grade change. #2. Staff noted that the regulations require the garage to be set back 8 feet from the front of the house, and the plan does not show this. The applicant felt this would be a good place to waive that standard because of what is planned for the back of the house: a raised garden, play area, etc. It was also noted that this standard was adopted after the PUD was approved, do the current placement of the garage should be allowed as it was in place when the PUD was approved. Ms. Keene noted the 8-foot setback is in the current LDRs, but because the applicant is asking to waive the current LDRs regarding the setback, they are usually asked to have all elements of the plan comply with the new regulations. It is up to the Board to DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 3 decide how to address this. Ms. Philibert asked whether they could ask for a 4 or 5 foot setback for the garage. The applicant indicated that 4 feet would be acceptable to them. He also noted there is a safety concern, and they don’t want to crash into the garage in winter. Mr. Behr noted that the other houses in the PUD are not required to have the 8-foot setback. Ms. Keene said that is true unless they have had another amendment. Mr. Behr suggested discussing this in deliberative session. He felt the Board could be reasonable. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Provost said he is an adjacent property owner. He felt if this is approved, other property owners in the PUD may want the same thing. He noted that when he asked for an amendment, he was denied. He didn’t know how this could be approved without going to the Court. He didn’t want this to become a precedent. Mr. Conner said he didn’t think the Court had picked out “pieces” of the plat. They just approved the Preliminary Plat. He felt the Board can look at some modifications as long as they are within the intent of the Court’s approval. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t believe the Court had put any limit on the Board’s ability to make amendments to the PUD. Mr. Conner said the Environmental Court approved the tree preservation plan. Mr. Kochman said the case was about an invalid standard and shouldn’t affect the Board’s ability to make amendments. Mr. Provost asked how could be denied 4 feet in the rear and then have the Board approve this. He noted that a corner of the house is shown in the preservation area. Ms. Keene said that incursion is not part of this application and it will probably be denied in another application. Mr. Behr then moved to close SD-23-03. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. 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, 39 Bowdoin Street: Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert noted that staff has provided a draft decision. Ms. Keene noted the application had been continued since June but has now provided significant progress. The Stormwater Department says changes now address their issues. Ms. Keene showed the plan. Mr. Marshall said they did some grading changes on the parking lot. On the south side, because of grading, they will be doing “mass balancing” to treat stormwater that is otherwise not being treated. There are 2 small conditions from the Stormwater Department which, Mr. Marshall said, the applicant agrees to. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 4 Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to close SP-22-020. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Continued remanded master plan application #MP-21-02A of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit development on five 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 a 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and airport use building on 40.43 acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman was recused from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert noted that the Board had discussed the application in deliberative session and came to some decisions as follows: #1. Regarding the management plan, the Board is requiring a management plan indicating a responsible party. Ms. Philibert read from the LDRs to this effect. Mr. Kochman noted the Board did struggle with this decision. He added that the LDRs require a single responsible party who would continue though the property was conveyed to a new owner. Mr. Klugo said he understands the Board’s position, but he noted that currently Beta is responsible for design, permitting, construction, etc. The challenge is that the master plan can be amended and is somewhat discretionary. What is less clear is what happens if there is a change in vision. Mr. Kochman said the master plan can be changed if and when the property is sold. Mr. Klugo said there are 3 types of developers: transactionary, visionary (the property is to be sold) and a combination of both. In this case, Beta is the combined developer at this time. That doesn’t mean that in the future they will become the transactionary developer, and that option should be allowed to exist. Mr. Kochnman said he believed the spirit of the regulation is that whenever the parceling out happens, there would still be a coherent responsible party for executing the plan. The City needs to know whom it can contact to coordinate the plan at the time the property is sold off. Contractual relationships need to have been worked out so the responsible party can compel DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 5 the buyer to do what is required in the plan. Mr. Klugo said typically that falls to the buyer. Mr. Kochman agreed but said that is not what the regulations requires. Mr. Klugo explained what Beta is doing including the infrastructure, which is currently in construction. He said Beta would be happy to say that any condition of transfer of ownership of the master plan would include responsibility for carrying out the conditions of approval. Mr. Kochman said “in conjunction with Beta.” Mr. Klugo said “absolutely not.” Ms. Keene showed the LDR language. Mr. Kochman said the permitted regulations run with the land, but they don’t leave the person who enacted the master plan without responsibility. Beta retains an “umbilical cord” to the grantee. The city can go to Beta when there is an issue. As long as Beta is there, Beta is responsible. Mr. Klugo directed attention to bullet point #1 in the regulation and read it. He again enumerated Beta’s responsibilities. Once those responsibilities are completed, Beta is responsible for the capital assets. He felt they have met the criterion which does not asked for Beta to take over responsibility of a third part down the road. Mr. Stern said he is not in agreement with holding Beta responsible for a property they have sold. He cited the word “proposed” as his reason for this position. Mr. Klugo said Beta will convey a copy of the master plan conditions to a third party in the future. Mr. Conner said if Beta sells some lots, there could still be some common lots. The city needs someone to speak for those common lots. Mr. Klugo stressed that Beta is building the infrastructure on behalf of the owner. Beta does not own the infrastructure. The Airport does. Mr. Conner asked who is responsible for maintaining a pothole. Mr. Klugo said it is still a private road, and the responsibility falls to the owner. He said they would be happy to submit a maintenance and use agreement with support of the Airport. Mr. Kochman said he had forgotten this is a ground lease. Beta can sell of properties. Mr. Klugo said that is true. Ms. Keene suggested saying that Beta is responsible for capital assets and the Airport for community assets. Mr. Klugo agreed to that. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 6 #2. The Board then addressed why this project needs to be a PUD. Ms. Philibert said the Board determined that the project needs to be a PUD because it was originally approved as a PUD (SD-21-28). Mr. Klugo said that still does not change what they are doing. #3. The third issue addressed by the Board was whether the red and green phases should be combined into one phase, and they felt very strongly that they should. Mr. Klugo said that seems like “combining parcels 7 and 9” into one phase. Ms. Keene said there is a difference between combining parcels and combining the phases into one zoning permit. Mr. Klugo said by combining them, the Board would be encumbering Beta’s ability to move on with the project. Ms. Keene said what it encumbers are the elements of the project within those 2 phases at such time as a building is proposed on either of those two phases. She cited the closing of Valley Road as an example and noted that if it is not planned within a phase, it can’t be discussed. Mr. Klugo said that creates a real challenge because Beta doesn’t own the building that is in the red phase. It is an owner-occupied building and there are existing tenant leases that run through 2030. The way that the infrastructure is set up is that the infrastructure is in place for either of those parcels to happen independently and, if needed, depending on the design and orientation of those parcels, the infrastructure also exists on Williston Road. Mr. Klugo added he had thought the Board would look at whether there are elements in the red or green phase that they considered important and might be a condition in one of those phases. He stressed that the 2 parcels are independent of each other and Beta can’t dictate what happens on the parcel with the long-term leases. Mr. Behr asked if the red phase never happens, are there any triggers for infrastructure that don’t get done. He said the city can live without the building, but the infrastructure is another story. Mr. Klugo said there is nothing detrimental to the project in the red phase. It is meant to be independent. Ms. Keene said the red phase includes the closing of Valley Road. Mr. Klugo said the infrastructure is there, but it is triggered by the additional parking that would get built. If the red phase doesn’t get built, the project isn’t negatively impacted by not having a building in the red phase. Mr. Behr asked whether Valley Road is accessible to the main parking lot for Beta employees. Mr. Klugo said it is not. There was a request from the Board to make it a one- way in only, so you can’t go out. That was a condition of the site plan that Beta is under construction with now. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 7 Ms. Mann asked if there is a way the Board could look at the infrastructure in the green phase and have that as a condition. Mr. Klugo said they would be happy to do that. There is no additional infrastructure in the green phase. All the infrastructure to support the green phase is being built right now in the blue phase. Ms. Keene said there is infrastructure in the red phase. Mr. Klugo said that infrastructure needs to be put in place only if the red phase is constructed. It does not negatively impact any of the work that is going on now. Ms. Keene said she sees in the plan that there is a road closure that would occur with the construction of the red phase, Valley Road. Mr. Klugo said that is correct. If the commercial building is built and the existing building is demolished, Valley Drive would be closed, and access to the site, including parking for the potential commercial building, would be as shown on the plan via DaVinci Drive. From DaVinci Drive, you would make a left turn into the parking lot which services that future commercial building. Ms. Keene then showed the plan before the red phase with Valley Road continuing to exist. Mr. Klugo said that is correct. All the traffic studies, all the due diligence required to get to that approved plan, aligns with what he has been talking about. Beta does not need the traffic light and other requirements at that point. Mr. Behr said if no red phase happens, there is a one-way in. To go to Mirabel’s you would have to go on DaVinci Drive. Mr. Klugo said to go to any of the businesses at 3060 Williston Road, what was approved was 2-way up to Mirabel’s and pass-through to other buildings there. Beda and the Board did not want all the cars to be able to exit to Williston Road or further up at Eagle Drive. That’s why it’s one-way in. Mr. Behr said Beta employees could still go in and go to the parking lot. Mr. Klugo said that could happen, but practically there is no reason for it to happen. Mr. Kochman asked why it would be objectionable if it did happen. Mr. Behr said he was thinking about additional traffic using a road not designed for that much traffic. Mr. Klugo said Beta will continue to do what it has always done: a philosophy in the organization that if there are Beta employees doing something that negatively affects the business, they will address it. Beta does not want to create problems in the community. They are investing a lot of money to make this building and site plan a fantastic place to come. Any complaints that arise will be addressed. Mr. Stern said the problem would be if there is a sale to an entity that does not share that philosophy. Then there would be a traffic issue. Ms. Keene stressed that this is not asking for Valley Road to be closed at the green phase. It is asking for the authority, at such time as the green phase is proposed, to evaluate whether that DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 8 needs to be moved up. Mr. Klugo said what they are saying is that if they come in with an application tomorrow for the childcare facility and it gets on the docket in 2 months, and the Board says they really want do close Valley Drive, Beta can’t do that because there are leases there and commercial obligations that Beta can’t sidestep. Ms. Keene said if Beta comes in to put a childcare facility there in 10 or 15 years, and nothing has been done on the red phase, the Board is asking for authority to review the road closure at that time. The traffic situation could have changed by that time. Mr. Kochman asked whether the traffic concern arises from anything other than Beta employees. Ms. Keene said it does not. Mr. Kochman asked whether whoever controls traffic in the city can put up a “no outlet” sign. Mr. Klugo said part of the approval is that they will put up a sign. Mr. Kochman asked if that is adequate. Ms. Keene said people don’t always obey signs. Ms. Keene said there is also the issue of the signal. The city should have the right to review if that is warranted. Mr. Klugo said there is already a condition in the permit requiring that if they have a change in parking, and parking is at capacity, there would be no additional traffic from Beta employees beyond what you see. The green phase does not add any more parking. Ms. Keene asked what happens if Beta goes to 3 shifts. Mr. Klugo said shifts are not at peak periods and there would be no additional parking and traffic beyond what happens in peak periods. The applicant added that if they building the red or green phase, they have to redo the traffic study anyway, and the city could chime in at both of those phases. The signal is not tied to any phase. It happens when VTrans says to put it in. Ms. Keene suggested the Board continue to discuss this in deliberation as people appear to be saying the same thing. Other staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding modifying the master plan as indicated. Mr. Klugo concurred. #2. Regarding building design, Ms. Keene said the hand-out materials from Beta would be integrated into the decision. Mr. Klugo was OK with that condition. #5. Already addressed. #6 and #7. Already addressed. #11. Mr. Klugo said this follows the supplemental materials. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 9 #15 and #16. Already addressed. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close MP-21-02A. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-22-056 of Beta Technologies, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building. The amendment consists of adding 261 parking spaces, 154 DaVinci Drive: Ms. Philibert moved to continue SP-22-056 to 21 March 2023. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. 10. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-23-05 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit Development by re-subdividing 3 existing lots into 3 new lots of 0.18 acres (Lot1),, 0.14 acres (Lot 2), and 1.06 acres (Lot 3), and constructing a 3,350 sq. ft. financial institution on Lot 1, a 6,480 sq. ft. 2-story mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2, and a 3-story, 27-unit multifamily building on Lot 3, 760 Shelburne Road: Mr. Bourne said he has owned the property more than 40 years. It has always been a gas station and car repair use. He is now looking to provide a quality project. #1. Staff noted that the building closest to the road is required to be 2 fully stories but does not meet that criteria. The applicant said this appears to be something of a grey area and they are asking for it to be waived in this case. They feel it is beneficial as it is as it creates a “step line” which gives a nice look. A photo was shown which indicated the “step look” as it would be seen from the east. Mr. Bourne said it is not a small building, and they have met the glazing requirement. The building on the right is a full 2 stories (the multi-use building). Mr. Behr said the issue he has with the design of the Chase building is that it looks like it doesn’t belong. He stressed that this is a cornerstone corner in the city which would lend itself to a full 2-story building. Mr. Behr said what he sees now looks like a one-story building. Ms. Philibert agreed. Mr. Kochman asked if the buildings are joined. The applicant said they are not; there is a space between them. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 10 Ms. Mejia said the architecture is “the Chase standard.” She felt it does relate to other buildings. They also wanted to consider the view from the residential building, so people would be looking at something nicer than another building. Ms. Mejia noted the very strong entrance at the corner. She did not know whether Chase would accept doing a “faux” second story. Mr. Bourne noted that in the staff notes staff acknowledges that Shelburne Road will never be a city center. He also noted that large, quality tenants tend to stay with their image. He felt fortunate to have attracted Chase. In addition, Mr. Bourne said they intentionally used this design to meet what the city wants in terms of energy use. He added that the project fits with other quality projects down the road. Mr. Behr reminded the applicant that the Board does not approve Chase; they approve the building. Members met briefly in deliberative session following which Mr. Kochman summarized their decision: a piece of the bank building should be raised to 2 stories or the appearance of 2 stories. #2. Regarding the front setback, the applicant was asked to explain how the project is of superior quality than if the required setback was implemented. The applicant said the reduced setback provides more efficient use of the space by providing better connection among the PUD lots and enhancing the ability to access the underground garage. The additional setback space would be unusable and would reduce the quality of the site amenities. The reduced setback allows for more efficient transition between grades. It is also not different from other buildings in the corridor. Members were OK with the reduced setback. Because of time constraints, the applicant was asked whether any of the other staff comments aroused their concern. The applicant asked to deal with #14 relating to the prohibiting of the ATM. They felt it is not a “drive-through.” Ms. Keene said new drive-through facilities are prohibited in a PUD. She displayed the relevant language and said the key words are “remaining in their vehicles.” The applicant said there is no service window, no live person staffing the ATM. They noted that staff said it’s OK for a person to park and walk up to an ATM, but this would be a problem for someone in a wheelchair. They also noted the ATM has been in the plan since the beginning of the process. Mr. Kochman did not agree that this is not a drive-through. Mr. Behr also believed it is a drive- through facility as it allows customers to receive services while remaining in their vehicles. Mr. Stern agreed it is not like other drive-throughs on Shelburne Road. The applicant noted it is allowed in the district, just not in a PUD. Ms. Philibert said she didn’t understand why that is a rule, but she agreed it meets the drive-through description. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 MARCH 2023 PAGE 11 Mr. Bourne was concerned that having given the city everything it wanted, 6 days ago they were hit with this issue. The applicant asked whether the regulation can be modified and by what criteria. Ms. Keene said by the same criteria as the setback was modified. Mr. Behr said the applicant should consider answering whether the drive-through enhances the project. Mr. Kochman asked if the applicant felt they were misled. Mr. Bourne said they were “blind- sided” by a call on Wednesday. Ms. Keene said the LDRs are complex with many “grey areas.” Ms. Keene noted there are significant concerns of the Stormwater Department. The applicant said they feel they can address those concerns. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SD-23-05 until 21 March 2023. Mr. Stern seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 11. Minutes of 7 February 2023: Ms. Wyman noted she was recused from the first item so the vote should be recorded as 3-0. Mr. Behr moved to approve the Minutes of 7 February 2023 as amended. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 12. Other Business: Ms. Keene noted that the City Council will be interviewing for the vacant seat on the DRB at its 20 March meeting. Mr. Conner noted how hard staff has been working on administrative reviews of projects in the City Center. Mr. Kochman asked why they have flat roofs. The answer was cost. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:08 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on _______________.