Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_2023-04-04_DRB Minutes DRAFTDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 April 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: F. Kochman, Q. Mann, Acting Chair; S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; A Klugo, T. Doyle, G. & R. Bourne, J. Desautels, L. Thayer, K. Mejia, A. Gagnon, C. Silvey, J. Nick, C. Gendron, M. Dalpra, J. Kline, Samms#Todd, John’s Pad, Irene, G. Rabideau 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Mann provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Keene noted that item #5 on the agenda cannot be heard at this meeting as there is not a quorum of members who can hear the application. She suggested a date of 18 April. 3. Announcements: Members welcomed new DRB member John Moscatelli. 4. Comments & Questions from the Public not related to the agenda: No issues were raised. 5. 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: Mr. Klugo cited the need to get through this application due to commitment to vendors, etc. He asked if there is a possibility of a special meeting. Ms. Keene said she would look into that possibility. Members were open to a special meeting. 6. Continued 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 (Lot 1), 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 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 PAGE 2 mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2, and a 3-story, 27-unit multi- family building on Lot 3, 760 Shelburne Road: Ms. Mann noted that the Board heard this application on 7 March. Since then, some of the criteria have been met. Ms. Desautels said they have been working on responses to staff comments. They decided not to submit a site plan package. The hope is that after this meeting they will have enough information to proceed. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. No further discussion is required. #2. The reduced setback has been granted. #3. The regulations require an 8-foot sidewalk, and a 5-foot sidewalk is proposed. Mr. Bourne noted that the City and State say 5 feet is OK, and it would leave more room for landscaping. Ms. Desautels said they can provide 8 feet, if required. Ms. Keene said the applicant would have to demonstrate that 5 feet is better than 8 feet. Mr. Kochman noted that the applicant has said 5 feet would be more harmonious with other neighborhood sidewalks. Mr. Bourne said the sidewalk on Shelburne Rd. and the one on Swift Street are 5 feet. Ms. Keene noted there will be a rec path on Swift Street at 8 feet. Mr. Kochman asked how long the Shelburne Rd. stretch is. Ms. Desautels said about 25 feet. Members were OK with a waiver to 5 feet. #4. Regarding glazing and the requirement that 75 percent must be transparent. Mr. Rabideau said this is a sensitive issue. The proposed bank is providing its own architect, and it looks like they are compliant. They said “as long as they can afford to do it.” Mr. Rabideau said he wasn’t concerned with the Chase Bank running out of money. Ms. Keene said the Board will need to see the compliance before closing the application. #5, 6, and 7. These items were previously addressed. #8. Regarding rooftop elements not being visible: Mr. Bourne showed a rooftop plan with equipment moved to the center. He believed they were all set. Mr. Spencer said they DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 PAGE 3 have had conversations with the engineer, and they don’t have complete plans yet. He believed the parapet will hide the equipment. Ms. Keene said they will need to be fully screened before a zoning permit is issued. Mr. Spencer said the elevator is already hidden, and he didn’t feel there would be an issue with compliance. He said they would show what the screening would look like, if screening is required. Ms. Keene said she was comfortable with that. Mr. Spencer noted that the solar ready zone has no equipment. #9. Regarding landscaping, 50% of the landscaping is to be between the front of the building and the lot line. This applies to the building on lot #3. Ms. Mann questioned how they look at this within the criteria of a PUD. Ms. Keene noted the applicant is proposing to meet the criteria on the PUD as a whole. She felt there is room for flexibility because this is a PUD. Ms. Desautels said they don’t want the landscaping to feel disjointed. Mr. Bourne said the DRB told them to go the PUD route. He said if you go up Shelburne Road or Swift Street, what they are proposing is “in your face.” Mr. Kochman commented that a strict reading would produce a less than desirable plan. He also wasn’t sure there was a difference between a lot line on a plan and a PUD. Ms. Keene noted that removing the ATM would create more space for landscaping. Ms. Desautels said they want to discuss the ATM issue. They believe they can meet the criteria. Members agreed to return to this discussion. #10. Regarding the inclusionary units: Staff has indicated that 10 of the 30 units need to be inclusionary. Mr. Rabideau said they disagree with that math. There are 20 original units of which 3 have to be inclusionary which brings them to 23 units. The inclusionary units come with an offset. The total by their calculation is 7 inclusionary units for a total of 30 units. Mr. Gillies noted that Ms. Keene hasn’t had a chance to review this. Members agreed to discuss it in deliberative session. #11. The applicant agreed to provide the cost of the inclusionary units as provided by the county agency. Ms. Keene said the applicant should show how they will meet that number. Mr. Rabideau said they will provide that. #12. Regarding long-term management of the inclusionary units, Mr. Bourne said that initially they will manage those units. Mr. Kochman noted they can create a “housing subsidy covenant” which, he felt, the Board should require. Ms. Keene noted there is an annual reporting requirement. #13. The applicant will provide all legal documents. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 PAGE 4 #14. Regarding phasing: The applicant said there is no proposed phasing. The market and inclusionary units will happen at once. Ms. Desautels asked whether they have to build all the buildings before they can occupy. Ms. Keene said if they phase, there would have to be a time limit for each phase, which she felt was a good idea. Ms. Desautels said they did not yet know which building will be built first. Mr. Bourne said the residential building will take longer because a lot of the needed equipment is not now readily available. The bank will be built by Chase and may be done first. Ms. Keene said that if all the site work is done, they can get a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Bourne noted they may have to hold off on landscaping and some paving until the weather is agreeable. Mr. Rabideau said a temporary CO will be important to them. Ms. Keene said if Lot 3 is the last, her feeling is there won’t be a problem. This has been done with other properties and has worked out well. #15. Regarding the ATM: Staff has determined that a drive-up ATM is prohibited. A walk-up ATM would be permitted. Ms. Desautels noted that a drive-up is allowed in the underlying district. She added that an ATM in this location means less needed space for parking. It also promotes more efficient use of spaces from a practicality point of view and provides greater accessibility for the handicapped, elderly, and those with young children. Mr. Bourne noted that at the 25 January 2022 meeting, there was no mention of this. He said they were directed by the DRB to go with a PUD. They had only 5 days notice before the last hearing that the drive-up ATM would not be allowed. They had been told that if they did everything required (e.g., close curb cuts, reduce traffic, make the building 2 stories, etc.), staff would work with them. Mr. Bourne stressed that the drive-up is permitted everywhere but on this property. Ms. Desautels said if they were just doing one building on the lot, they could still have a PUD. Mr. Kochman said they are getting 3 buildings. Mr. Bourne reminded the DRB that they originally had 3 buildings on the lot, so this is nothing new that they are getting. Mr. Kochman asked if it is important because they will lose a tenant. Mr. Bourne said “yes,” and it is also important for the public. Mr. Kochman asked if the only reason the drive-up ATM is not allowed is because this is a PUD. Ms. Keene answered “yes.” Mr. Kochman felt this should be discussed. Ms. Desautels said that by doing the PUD, they are doing a lot of good, but they are also “shooting ourselves in the foot.” Mr. Bourne said they can find no place where the Planning Commission put in this regulation. He asked why it was put in. Ms. Keene said she had no information on that, but she felt it was the Planning Commission’s attempt to sunset dirve-throughs the same way they were trying not to have any more gas stations on Shelburne Road. Mr. Bourne said that is “apples and oranges” as they are eliminating a gas station with the project. Ms. Desautels asked if they pull this application and come in with just 3 buildings and no PUD, could they have the drive-up ATM. Mr. Bourne added that the advantage to the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 PAGE 5 city is the project on the screen; it is a very good looking project with the added housing the city needs. Ms. Quinn suggested discussing this in deliberative session as there are DEB members not present at this meeting. Members agreed. Ms. Keene asked if she could share the results of that session with the applicant. Members were OK with that. Mr. Kochman suggested to the applicant that they provide a succinctly written statement of the benefits to the PUD of the drive-up. #16. Regarding solar-ready: The applicant was asked to provide information as to how the standards will be met. #17. Regarding a mixture of dwelling types: The applicant is provided 29 2-bedroom and 1 one-bedroom unit. Mr. Bourne said the city has approved buildings without a mix. Ms. Keene said it is a new standard. Mr. Bourne said they different sizes of 2 bedroom units. Some are 2 bedroom with 2 baths, some 2 bedroom with 1 bath. He added that it is very difficult to manage 3 bedrooms without site management. Ms. Keene noted that there are no specific standards for “a mix.” Mr. Kochman said the regulations don’t address “unit types.” They refer to a “neighborhood mix” (i.e., duplex, town houses, etc.). Members felt the applicant tended toward meeting the requirement. #18. Regarding pedestrian orientation: Staff felt this could be improved to the multi- family building by providing a more direct route form Shelburne Road. Ms. Desautels said they can provide a sidewalk alongside the mixed use building. Mr. Bourne added that they can also stripe a crosswalk through the parking lot. Members voiced no objection to this. #19. Regarding privacy, the applicant noted they have added some variation to the east side of the building that faces a lot where there can be future development. Ms. Keene felt this has made that façade more interesting. #20. Regarding site amenities: The plan was shown with the proposed amenities highlighted. Ms. Desautels identified the three areas which can be used. The largest one is in front of the residential building. Ms. Keene said she will look to determine whether the pergola is considered a building. #21 and #22. Completed. #23. The applicant agreed to address the comments of the Public Works Department. #24. Regarding trip generation: Ms. Desautels noted submission of an updated memo. Ms. Keene said they are “on the edge” with trip generation. Ms. Desautels said Roger Dickinson DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 PAGE 6 had reviewed it and was comfortable with the numbers. Without the drive-through the numbers would be adjusted down. #25. Regarding a parking space within 18 feet of Shelburne Road: Mr. Bourne said that is a good spot for employee parking. Ms. Wyman said the concern is with exiting that space conflicting with someone entering from Shelburne Road. She felt the risk is still there. Members agreed to discuss this in deliberation. #26. The applicant agreed to provide the rec path on Swift Street and update the plan to show it. #27. The applicant agreed to address comments of the Water Department. #28. Already addressed. #29. The applicant confirmed that there will be no reserved residential parking spaces. #30. Regarding reserved parking for the bank: Ms. Keene noted the bank is asking for 11 reserved spaces. Mr. Bourne noted this was only for hours when the bank is open. There are 45 surface spaces and 27 in the garage. Ms. Desautels noted there are no “residents only” spaces identified. Ms. Wyman said there could be an issue on Saturday morning if the bank is open and residents are not out at work. She questioned the ability to enforce reserved spaces. Mr. Bourne said they can deal with it. He also noted designated spaces also help with snow removal. Members generally felt 11 spaces were too many and agreed to discuss this in deliberative session. #31. Regarding long-term bike parking: Mr. Bourne said he believed they have worked this out with the bank. #32. Already addressed. #33. The applicant agreed to address the comments of the arborist. #34. The applicant confirmed that shade trees will be 2-1/2 inch caliper. #35. The applicant agreed to address the comments of the Stormwater Department. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 APRIL 2023 PAGE 7 #36. Staff is asking for a reduction in the illumination levels on Lot 1. Ms. Desautels said that for safety they want the levels as high as possible, particularly at the ATM. Ms. Keene noted that the Board looks differently at illumination levels under a canopy. #37. Already addressed. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Mann moved to continue SD-23-05 to 16 May 2023. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Minutes of 22 February and 7 March 2023: Members agreed to postpone approval of the minutes until more members are present. 8. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:31 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk