HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 13A_2019-05-21 DRB Minutes Draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 MAY 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 May
2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Cota, B. Sullivan
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A.
Bolduc, City Attorney; I. Blanchard, S. Ploesser, L. Lackey, N. Longo, A. Portz, P. Kelley, G.
Rabideau, C. Gendron, E. Langfeldt, D. Crawford, T. Duff
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
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:
Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to
apply at that time. He stressed that renters may apply.
5. Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐08 of Blue Dragonfly, LLC, to amend a previously
approved plan for a 12,345 sq. ft. building consisting of 6,549 sq. ft. of office use, 4,164
sw. ft. distribution and related storage, and 1,632 sq. ft. of vacant. The amendment
consists of updating previously approved dimensional standards to reflect the recently
approved subdivision (#SD‐19‐09), 1519 Shelburne Road: and
6. Site plan application #SP‐19‐09 of Blue Dragonfly, LLC, to amend a previously
approved plan for a 6,470 sq. ft. mixed use building consisting of auto repair and retail
use. The amendment consists of updating previously approved dimensional standards
to reflect the recently approved subdivision (#SD‐19‐09), 1525 Shelburne Road:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
21 MAY 2019
PAGE 2
Mr. Ploesser explained that they had been in a few months ago to do the subdivision and now
needed to update the site plan to match. The plans are virtually unchanged.
No issues were raised.
Mr. Cota moved to close SP‐19‐08 and SP‐19‐09. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
7. Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐14 of O’Brien Farm Road, LLC, to amend a previously
approved planned unit development on 19.16 acres consisting of: 1) 64 single family
dwellings, 2) 27 two‐family dwellings, and 3) 14 lots. The amendment consists of
replacing five two‐family dwellings with five single family dwellings, 255 Kennedy
Drive:
Mr. Langfeldt gave member printed information.
Ms. Keene noted that the plan is actually to replace the 5 duplexes with seven single‐family
units not five single‐family units . The question is whether this needs to be rewarned. Staff is
OK with not rewarning since replacing with seven units is a smaller change in units than what
were approved. Members expressed no issue with proceeding.
Mr. Langfeldt said the coverage doesn’t change except for a slight change in the rear setback.
He showed the plan and indicated units 65‐71. He said they are changing to single family units
in order to meet market demands. They intend increase the number of multi‐family units to
make up for the loss of units in a separate sketch plan. They will stipulate that on lots 65 and
71 they will have different types of units so that none of the rear yard setbacks are less than 10
feet. Mr. Langfeldt noted that it is only the second level decks that would have actually
encroached but they will restrict the types so no encroachment beyond 10 feet occurs.
Ms. Keen said the Board can grant the waiver up to 10 feet. The front yard setback has already
been waived.
Mr. Langfeldt added they also are suggesting supplementing plantings to add additional
screening in the green space area ($20,000 in new plantings). This will better define the
walking path.
Renderings of the new buildings were shown. The height difference between the townhomes
and the single family homes is 5 inches and the townhomes were taller, so no adjustment of the
height waiver is needed. They are continuing to offer different style options.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
21 MAY 2019
PAGE 3
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1 – Setback waiver: Ms. Hall read the standards for waivers from the LDRs. Mr.
Langfeldt noted they are encroaching on a green space. Mr. Sullivan noted the incongruity
between the high density and large setback requirement. Mr. Kochman noted that the
regulations say that in a PUD complex if what is proposed makes sense, you can reduce the
setback to 5 feet. He didn’t feel a justification was needed.
#2 – Height – no additional height waiver is being requested.
#3 – Visual compatibility – The applicant was OK with the request.
#4 – Questioned whether a Master Plan amendment is needed in the future because of
the reduction in units – Mr. Wilking noted that the applicant said they will keep the same
overall density by adding to the multi‐family units in another application. Mr. Kochman was
concerned that the filed Master Plan would be incorrect. Ms. Keene then outlined situations
that trigger a master plan amendment as follows:
a. Increase in the number of units
b. Increase in site coverage
c. change in roadways
d. development in previous open space
e. change in trip ends
Members felt there was no master plan amendment needed.
#5 – Landscaping between homes and the park – Mr. Langfeldt said they are happy to
stipulate that the landscaping be included but not to specific locations.
#6 – Design variation – Mr. Langfeldt said they are already regulating that and have had no
problems to date. They are also starting to regulate color because so many people are
opting for grays.
Mr. Crawford asked about a planting plan for trees. Mr. Langfeldt noted that has already been
submitted.
No other issues were raised.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
21 MAY 2019
PAGE 4
Mr. Cota moved to close #SD‐19‐14. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
8. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐11 of City of
Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for
an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 102 room, 5 story,
hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive:
Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Rabideau said there were two substantive issues remaining: the addition of a cooling tower
and the landscape budget and placement of trees.
Staff notes were then reviewed as follows:
#1 – FAA approval for the site: Mr. Rabideau said they are anticipating getting
this in a month to a month and a half.
#2 – Cooling tower – Mr. Rabideau showed the location of the cooling tower on
the plan. It will be fenced and have plantings around it. Ms. Keene noted that staff had
reviewed this and found that other potential locations were worse.
#3 – Landscape requirement: Mr. Rabideau said the issue is replacement of 33
trees for which the airport has already gotten credit in a previous approval. Their value would
be more than the total landscape budget. Additional landscaping would have to go off site.
Ms. Keene said this is an interesting case as the trees were required as part of the garage
approval. Mr. Wilking felt it was the value of the trees at planting that was in question. Mr.
Miller said the goal is to have a good looking hotel with nice trees and to satisfy the LDRs. It
was noted that the applicant is meeting the landscape requirement with the exception of the
trees being removed. Mr. Wilking said he was OK with not replanting the trees with an equal
number of 2‐inch caliper trees, but that is the standard others have been held to. Mr. Wilking
questioned where more landscaping would go. Mr. Rabideau felt the formula determining
value is the issue. Ms. Keene noted there is an “absence of guidance” for trees over 5‐inch
caliper. Mr. Kochman said the question is what can be done under the LDRs. The applicant felt
there are 2 trees they could possibly find a home for, but the question is where.
#4 – Using part of the landscape budget for other amenities – No issues were
raised.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
21 MAY 2019
PAGE 5
#5 – Stormwater: Mr. Gendron said they are working with Public Works to
accommodate a 25‐year storm event. They have revised the stormwater basins to meet these
standards. They have not yet heard back from Public Works regarding these changes. Ms.
Keene said she spoke with Public Works. They will have comments to staff by the end of the
week. If anything needs changing, the hearing would have to be re‐opened.
#6 – Trip generation: Mr. Rabideau said at a similar size facility (Rochester), 33‐
38 trip ends were generated. Ms. Keene said staff feels this is in the right range.
#7 – Fire Chief’s comments: Ms. Keene said the Assistant Fire Chief was OK with
the location of hydrants, etc.
#8 – Sign is not part of the approval: the applicant was OK with removing the
annotation of the existing sign from the plan.
Mr. Crawford said he appreciated the dialog regarding the trees. He noted that the Natural
Resources Committee would like a copy of the tree maintenance plan to use as a model.
No other issues were raised.
Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐19‐11 to 18 June 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6‐
0.
Mr. Sullivan resumed his seat on the Board.
9. Miscellaneous permit #MS‐19‐01 of the City of South Burlington to modify the build‐
to‐zone, frontage buildout, frequency of entrances, and glazing requirements of the
Building Envelope Standards for the T5 transect zone as allowed under Land
Development Regulation Section 8.06A for a 49,930 sq. ft., three‐story municipal
facility, 180 Market Street:
Ms. Blanchard noted that the municipal building will house City Hall, Library, Senior Center, and
Auditorium. She also outlined the public process/public outreach on the design of the building.
Three items are in question: the build‐to zone, glazing, and frequency of entrances.
Ms. Blanchard showed the floor plan of the first floor and indicated the main entrance and
various uses. She also identified uses on the second and third floor plans.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
21 MAY 2019
PAGE 6
It is the feeling that the building enhances the character of Market Street and that everyone
coming in by the same door brings people together. Security is also a key issue. Each pubic
space has one entrance. Even on the second and third floors, staff is always aware of who is
coming in. Mr. Wilking noted that there are fundamental issues with the form based code.
These concerns have arisen with other applicants and the Board has said they have to follow
the rules, even with security concerns. Mr. Cota agreed the regulations need to be fixed. Mr.
Kochman said he felt the “build to” criteria has been addressed.
Regarding glazing, Ms. Blanchard showed the building elevation and indicated the area where it
may be possible to get closer to the 80% standard. Mr. Sullivan felt the inflexible standards
should be changed. Mr. Wilking said it is a beautiful building as designed.
Ms. Blanchard said the reason for the design is for both transparency and weight. The latter is
why there are granite panels to “ground” the building. Mr. Duff, the architect, said this needs
to be distinguished as a municipal building. Ms. Keene enumerated the glazing standard. Mr.
Cota said he would grant a waiver for a better building and deal with “fairness” at another time.
Ms. Keene noted these are not waivers but “modifications to the standards.” Mr. Miller noted
the LDRs allow municipal buildings to deviate from standards. Mr. Kochman said the
regulations don’t say they have to meet all the standards. This design is the result of an
excruciating public process, and the public has approved it. Members agreed.
Mr. Cota moved to close MS‐19‐01. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
10. Minutes of 7 May 2019:
Mr. Miller clarified that at the top of page 4, he had asked Ms. Keene to do the research.
Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 7 May as written and with the above note. Ms.
Smith seconded. Motion passed 5‐0 with Mr. Cota abstaining.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:00 p.m.
_____________________________________
Clerk
_____________________________________
Date