HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/06/2023DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 JUNE 2023
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 June
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, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli
ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review
Planner I; G. Bourne, J. Nick, G. Rabideau, A. Spencer, R. Bourne, K. Mejia, L. Thayer, F. Von
Tukevich, A. Dery, M. Hall, A. Spencer, Irene.
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:
Ms. Keene asked to add a brief discussion of new zoning amendments to Other Business.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
There were no announcements.
5. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-23-05 of Gary Bourne to
create a General Planned Unit Development by re-subdividing three 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. mixed
commercial and residential building on Lot 2, and a 3-story, 27-unit multi-family
building on Lot 3, 760 Shelburne Road:
Ms. Thayer said they have made changes related to comments received from the Board. They
also would like to speak to the Inclusionary Zoning piece.
Ms. Philibert asked to see the new elevations related to the financial institution. Ms. Mejia said
the applicant agreed to a portion of the building being raised to comply with the 2-story
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 JUNE 2023
PAGE 2
requirement. They will actually be raising the height of the whole building, and there will be
windows in the raised portion. She showed the new elevations.
Mr. Behr asked if the window-glass is clear or opaque. Ms. Mejia said it is opaque. Mr. Behr
said the windows look like “transom windows.” He felt they should be clear and taller. Mr.
Bourne said there are structural materials behind those windows. He noted there is a street
light in front of those windows, so they will always be lit. He added that this is similar to a
building down the street (T-Mobile).
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The applicant was asked to clarify the front coverage. Ms. Thayer said Lot 2
(Shelburne Road) is 4% and Lot 3 (Shelburne Road frontage) is 44% and (Swift Street frontage)
is 37%. Ms. Keene noted that coverage is limited to 30%.
#2. Regarding the appearance of 2 stories: Mr. Moscatelli said it didn’t appear to him
look like a 2-story building. Ms. Philibert asked what it would take to make it look like 2 stories.
Ms. Thayer said they have gone through a lot to be approved. This is not the standard building
type, and they need to know what is specifically needed to make it appear to be 2 stories. Ms.
Mejia added that it is hard to get changes through the Chase people if the changes are not in
their prototype. She added that there has been a lot of “pushback.” Ms. Philibert noted the
Chase building in Williston. Ms. Mejia said that was a re-used existing building.
Mr. Behr reminded the applicant that the Board is not approving a Chase Bank. They are
approving a building on the corner of Swift/Spear, and they are already stretching the
regulations to allow the “appearance” of 2 stories. He added that a lot comes down to the
materials. He felt the applicant could make that section a full 2-story element and bring light to
the center of that space. Mr. Bourne said they passed on the Board’s comments to Chase and
pushed them to comply. They actually got more than they had asked for. Mr. Behr said he
would not have favored raising the whole building up but would keep the “brown section”
lower. It now looks like a tall one-story building. Mr. Bourne felt they can have Chase salvage
this, possibly with a different kind of glazing.
#3. Staff questioned whether transparent glazing would increase the overall compliance.
Ms. Keene noted that transparency applies only to primary and secondary facades.
#4. Regarding improving the layout in front of the residential building, Ms. Thayer noted
that Board had said the pergola was too suburban, so they removed it. They widened the
entrance to the north façade and added benches. They also added a sculptural element (from
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 JUNE 2023
PAGE 3
a New England artist) which connects the whole site. She showed a photo of the curved
benches they will use. It will all be well landscaped. She showed a portion of the plan with the
landscaping indicated. Mr. Behr liked the layout and the flow. Mr. Moscatelli said it now looks
more like the front of a building.
#5. Regarding compliance with site amenities, Ms. Thayer said Phase 1 will include 396
sq. ft. of open space. $51,500 in landscaping is required and they are providing $51,700. The
final coating of the pavement will take place in Phase 3.
Regarding Inclusionary Zoning, Mr. Hall noted there is a legal memorandum in the file. It is
their contention that there is a conflict in the Ordinance. The regulations allow one added
market rate unit for one affordable unit, but they are receiving no bonus. They are also being
told they need more inclusionary units. He stressed that they cannot build 7 inclusionary units.
Mr. Hall stressed that this is a very serious issue and felt the Board was “cutting off its nose to
spite its face.”
Ms. Keene said the Board decided on the interpretation. She agreed it was “not great.” The
Inclusionary units have to be included in the base density, then you get the bonus on top of
that. Mr. Hall said this is a mistake in the ordinance that leads to a pernicious result. It will
come up again and again. In this project, the city will lose 7 units of housing including
Inclusionary units.
Ms. Keene said it is up to the Board to make the decision.
#7. Regarding the drive-through ATM, Ms. Thayer said they have no further comments
and hope the Board will agree it is waivable.
#8. Regarding the open space requirement, the applicant was asked which amenity
category they are providing. Ms. Thayer said they are providing the “snippet park” which fits
well here. It will have a sculptural element.
#9. Regarding Public Works comments, Ms. Thayer said they will work with DPW. Ms.
Keene said staff heard from DPW that their comments have been addressed by the applicant.
#10. Ms. Thayer said they will comply with Water Department comments.
#11. Ms. Thayer said information for long-term bike storage has been provided.
#12. Ms. Thayer said they are OK with the bike rack.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 JUNE 2023
PAGE 4
#13. With regard to Stormwater Section comments, Ms. Thayer said they will add a
drain (she showed where) to catch water from the swale.
#14. Regarding exterior lighting, Ms. Thayer indicated the parking lot lights which will
replace the existing ones. Mr. Bourne said this will provide light for neighbors as well.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SD-23-05 to 18 July 2023. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion
passed 5-0.
6. Final Plat Application #SD-23-07 of 600 Spear FJT, LLC, for a planned unit
development on an existing 8.66 acre lot developed with 7,000 sq. ft. storage
building and single family home. The planned unit development consists of one
6.10 acre lot containing 32 dwelling units in 4-family buildings, a 1.80 acre lot
containing the storage building and existing single family home proposed to be
converted to a duplex, and a third lot containing proposed city streets, 600 Spear
Street:
Ms. Thayer showed the existing storage building which will now be painted red to look more
like a barn. Mr. Von Turkevich said they are trying to address the city’s concerns and want that
building to stand alone. He then showed a proposed overview with the layout of the site and
the red storage building. The building will have a new roof, and they will eliminate a door on
the east side of the building. That will be converted to a window. The south side of the
building will have work space for tenants, and the west side will be retained for the real estate
business (lawn equipment, etc.).
Mr. Behr said this is what he’s been looking for. He felt the building was now a great amenity
for the rest of the project and respects the history of the site. Ms. Philibert agreed.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Mr. Von Turkevich confirmed that the use of the building has been continuous.
#2. Regarding easement confirmation, Mr. Von Turkevich said they do have UVM’s
cooperation and support. UVM will be providing needed easements.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
6 JUNE 2023
PAGE 5
#3. The applicant agreed to remove one snow storage area.
#4. Regarding “spot grades,” Ms. Thayer said this relates to crossings over driveways.
They will need to use both “at grade” and “tip down” techniques for this project.
#5. Regarding the timeline for the crossing of Spear Street, Mr. Von Turkevich said they
would like to do that after Phase 1 when they have had some revenue. It would be completed
prior to phase 2.
Ms. Thayer confirmed that the street lights are to DPW standards.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SD-23-07. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 5-0.
Mr. Von Turkevich commented that staff and the DRB are great to work with.
7. Minutes of 2 May 2023:
Ms. Mann moved to approve the Minutes of 2 May 2023 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded.
Motion passed 5-0.
8. Other Business:
Ms. Keene advised that there are new LDR amendment which are not related to applications
yet heard by the board. They were adopted on 15 May and will affect 2 applications not yet
heard. The first removes human-made slopes from the regulations and exempts work to
stabilize an area. It also reduces the 100-foot wetland buffer to 50 feet on lots less than half an
acre. The second amendment requires that solar ready systems be constructed on 40% of a
roof for commercial buildings and residential buildings of 4 stories or more. Mr. Behr asked
whether solar is exempt from height limits. Ms. Keene said if they are connected to the grid,
they are exempt; if not, she didn’t know but will seek that analysis.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:30 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Board on June 20, 2023