Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_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 ________________ DEVELOPMENT 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 _______________.