HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 13B_2019-07-02 DRB Minutes draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 2 JULY 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 2 July
2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Acting Chair; J. Wilking, F. Kochman, J. Langan, D. Philibert
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A.
Bolduc, City Attorney; D. Crawford, P. Boisvert, T. McKenzie, B. Bouchard, J. Dinklage, L. Bresee,
E. Fitzgerald, T. Barritt, L. Freeman, B. L’equier, P. Ziperin, A. Rowe, A. Booska, D. Shenk, R.
Kielman, L. Nadeau, K. Braverman, T. Barnard
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Cota 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. Cota welcomed new members Dawn Philibert and Jim Langan.
5. Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐17 of Rivers Edge Building Dev. To subdivide a 4.42
acre parcel into 9 lots for the purpose of constructing seven single family homes and
four dwelling units in tw0‐family homes, 20 Foulsham Hollow Road:
It was noted that the applicant has requested a continuance to 20 August.
Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐19‐17 to 20 August 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion
passed 5‐0.
6. Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐18 of the City of South Burlington to
subdivide a 4.09 acre lot into three lots of 0.27 acres, 0.61 acres and 3.21 acres for the
purpose of a future development project under the Form Based Code on the 0.61 acre
lot and dedicating the 0.27 acre lot as a public right of way, 180 Market Street:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 2
Mr. Bolduc noted this subdivision is part of the City Hall/Library project. He indicated the 3
parcels on the plan. He also noted that the recommendation is that the road be a “support
street” secondary to Market Street.
Ms. Keene noted that subdivision standards apply, but the remainder of the project will be an
administrative review under Form Based Code regulations.
The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows:
#1. Mr. Bolduc identified the 3 easements and said they are planned for the future and
they do not have to be part of the subdivision application.
#2. Mr. Bolduc agreed that the street will be completed before occupancy of the
building.
#3. Re: the “support street”: Mr. Wilking said he still has the same concerns as at the
last meeting. Mr. Bolduc said that after discussions with the landowner and potential
developer, parking has been eliminated on the east on the southern end of the street. He then
explained the nature of Market Street (e.g., controlled access, bike/pedestrian accommodation,
etc.). The “support street” will be narrower, with on‐street parking, and vertical elements such
as trees and street lights. On‐street parking and street narrowing are identified as “traffic
calming.”
Mr. Wilking said his concern is for the safety of school children. He didn’t see this plan working
and would support other ways to calm traffic.
Mr. McKenzie noted that the zoning code doesn’t leave much room to choose street types.
Mr. Freeman spoke out against any additional curb cuts on Market Street and noted that
Williston Rd. has more curb cuts than any other road.
Ms. Fitzgerald, School Board Chair, stressed they are not advocating to delay the approval, but
are asking for fewer parking spaces and restriction on access to Lot B.
Mr. Dinklage felt that any children walking to school on Market St should be able to successfully
navigate a curb cut on the new street.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 3
Mr. Wilking said if the City Hall parcel were the “right size,” there wouldn’t be these problems.
He had no problem with the curb cut and clarified his concern was the narrowness of the
street.
Mr. Bresee noted that every place where streets have been narrowed, safety has improved. He
cited all the work done to make Market Street accessible to cars, pedestrians, wheelchairs, etc.
He felt the other streets should be treated as “side streets,” and by the side streets being as
narrow as possible it signifies to anyone using the street that Market Street is the main street.
Mr. Braverman asked whether this application addresses specific access to adjacent lots. Ms.
Keene said it does not. She added that any restrictions regarding access to lot B would be
premature. It has been determined that access is available, but the nature of that access is not
restricted by this application.
Mr. Braverman said the City and School Board have an agreement which does not include a
concerned third party. He stressed that he is 100% supportive of the City Hall building. He
then identified various parcels on the plan and noted that the design of Market St. precludes
any curb cuts, and the only access to buildings is this proposed street and one other that he
indicated. That access will be used for everything (e.g., trash removal). He was uncertain what
a “secondary access” means. He was concerned that they would not be able to get to the
buildings they want to build. He noted there will be a bike path on Garden St. and suggested
getting the children to that.
Mr. McKenzie said that for 20 years, South Burlington Realty has given the school access across
their property at no cost. He was OK with that, but it is now hard to hear that their own access
may be limited. He stressed that they need complete and full access. Regarding safety, Mr.
McKenzie noted the current drive is 20 feet wide with no sidewalk. That is not safe. He felt
that it should immediately be made more safe and suggested having the Garden St. bike path
meet up with the end of the driveway. Mr. McKenzie said he is comfortable with the street
design, but restated his need for unrestricted access.
Mr. Kochman asked about having service vehicles come in from Garden St. Mr. McKenzie said
until the engineering is done, he doesn’t know. There will also be snow removal vehicles. He
said they are envisioning an “alley” along the back of the buildings on Garden St.
Mr. Kochman said he felt it was “crazy” not to consider this issue and to leave it hanging. Ms.
Keene suggested the Board consulting with their legal counsel on the DRB’s authority in this
matter. Mr. McKenzie said he would support that.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 4
Mr. Kochman suggested that before deliberating, the DRB invite the developer of the adjoining
lot to explain the exact concern and then deliberate.
Mr. Braverman said they wrestle with the same dilemma. There are no PUDs or PRDs in the
Form Based Code district. The only way to regulate Form Based Code is on a lot‐by‐lot basis as
there is no master plan approval. He could see the benefit of rolling out a plan, but there is no
way to approve it.
Mr. Wilking asked if access is truly unrestricted, is the street safe/acceptable. Ms. Hall said that
by any standards, the design with 10‐foot lanes is functioning.
Mr. Bolduc said they are trying to “thread the needle” here. The city wants this to be as safe
for children as possible. At the same time, they are building a City Center. The question is what
kind of regulatory measures will ensure safety. He stressed that the scope of this application is
narrow. Other issues should be raised when the other properties come in for approvals.
Mr. Braverman said he disagrees with the idea that “we don’t know what can go there.” He
said what can go there is proscribed: a high‐density, mixed use center. That is what is required.
Plus lots of parking. Dealing with it later makes him nervous.
The question for legal counsel is what can and can’t be done regarding street design. Mr.
Wilking said he is concerned with the amount of traffic that will come off this street. He
agreed there is more to the process than what the DRB will deal with, but he felt the need to
know how the full process will work.
Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD‐19‐18 to 16 July. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5‐
0.
7. Sketch Plan application #SD‐19‐19 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC, to construct a single
story 2,400 sq. ft. short order restaurant and retail sales building on one acre, 47 Tilley
Drive:
Mr. Bouchard said the site is on the north side of Tilley Drive. The building would be single story
and would mainly serve their development as they have grown to a size where they need this
use. Half of the space would be for the deli. They could not re‐use the old barn but they plan
to reproduce it. The old barn will be demolished.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 5
Mr. Cota noted there is a setback waiver request. Mr. Bouchard said they are asking for a 25
foot waiver to 25 feet. Ms. Keene said staff supports this request. Members voiced no
concerns.
Ms. Keene then noted that the I‐O district allows accessory short order restaurant as an
accessory use, so staff feels the use is allowed.
Mr. Kochman said he takes issue with staff’s interpretation that the short order restaurant is
allowed under the definition of retail as long as the restaurant is less than 50% of the area. He
noted that there is a specific limitation of 10% of the gross area for a short order restaurant in
the I‐O district. Mr. Bouchard said that he considered whether the Board would allow the
“principle structure” to be all the buildings in the PUD. Mr. Kochman said the regulations say
“structure” singular. Mr. Bouchard said they feel the PUD is the “structure.”
Ms. Keene noted that the traffic overlay district allows 45 vehicle trips per hour maximum. She
added that staff feels this use is not subject to the traffic overlay district because it is not
accessible from Hinesburg Road. The Board was ok with this interpretation.
Mr. Bouchard was OK with narrowing the drive to 24 feet.
Mr. Cota said the applicant needs to figure out how to make the use work. Mr. Wilking said he
feels that the use fits within the retail definition.
Mr. Crawford said he looks forward to seeing the landscape plan.
8. Continued Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐13 of City of South Burlington to amend a
previously approved plan for a recreational complex. The amendment consists of
constructing an 8,900 sq. ft. building addition to an indoor recreation facility between
the two wings of the existing building, and associated stormwater and site
improvements, 600 Swift Street:
Ms. Keene noted that the open issues from the last meeting include landscaping, erosion
control and bicycle parking.
Mr. Barnard said they met with the city arborist and redesigned the landscape plan. He showed
the new plan. The trees along the drive have been changed to species that do better in winter.
The landscape cost has been updated to include the trees and to remove the perennials. Ms.
Keene said staff is OK with the revisions.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 6
Mr. Barnard said there are 2 new plans to address erosion control.
Mr. Barnard said there will be bicycle parking immediately in front of the addition near the
hydrant. There will be a concrete pad with 4 new bike racks (to hold 8 bikes).
No other issues were raised.
Mr. Wilking moved to close SP‐19‐13. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
9. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐12 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to subdivide a 27.8
acre parcel into two lots of 6.2 acres and 21.2 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive: and
10. Continued Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐07 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to construct a
25,560 sq. ft., 31 foot high warehouse building, paved parking area, and associated
site improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot, 284 Meadowland Drive:
Mr. Shenk said the building will be across from Blodgett Supply. They plan to enhance the berm
at the rear of the parcel. There will be some soil disturbance on the adjacent parcel.
At this point, members agreed to open agenda item 11, as follows:
11. Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐20 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to construct site
improvements on a 21.2 acre parcel for the purpose of constructing a building on the
adjacent parcel, 362 Meadowland Drive:
Mr. Shenk said they are amenable to staff’s comments on #SP‐19‐20 regarding lighting and
stormwater.
Members were then given handouts of the building elevations. The applicant noted they
received positive comments from the city arborist on the front landscaping.
After the last meeting, they considered adding a canopy; however, the front entrance is
recessed, so adding a canopy wouldn’t accomplish anything. The only anticipate 3 “walk‐ins” a
week. They also discussed a 2‐tone building and have agreed to a different color for the office
and entrance areas. All offices will have a window.
Mr. Wilking felt the aesthetics were dramatically better than last time. Ms. Keene questioned
whether “better” is “adequate.” Mr. Booska said they took the Board’s comments seriously.
They would prefer a solid color building but have agreed to two colors. They also feel the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 7
landscaping makes a “prettier picture.” They want the building to match their trucks, and don’t
know where else to go with it.
Mr. Cota suggested multiple building breaks and revised window layout. Mr. Shenk said the
windows are where they need to be. They also have height considerations. Regarding
structural changes, they have some brick on the building, but not much. Mr. Booska added that
additional windows would reduce storage space. Mr. Shenk suggested the possibility of some
windows on the mezzanine level (north elevation). They could possibly add a 6‐foot overhand
over the front doors.
Regarding interior landscaping, the have removed 2 areas from the calculations, and 3 parking
spots to the back of the building will be deleted in favor of green space. Ms. Keene said that
will now meet the regulations.
Regarding curbing, Ms. Keene said trees should be 10 feet from the edge of pavement or have
added boulders to protect them from vehicle bumpers. The applicant has made this change.
Mr. Shenk noted they have added a bit to the berm to address the sliver of noise spill. RSG is
OK with it.
Mr. Wilking asked Mr. McKenzie if he is OK with the plan. Mr. McKenzie said he didn’t think the
construction is much different from the rest of the industrial park and noted they are located
further down the hill and not very visible.
Mr. Crawford noted the applicant has volunteered to be part of a Natural Resources Committee
pilot project.
Ms. Keene suggested members drive through the area and look at other building.
Mr. Cota moved to continue SD‐19‐12 and SP‐19‐07 to 16 July. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion
passed 5‐0.
Mr. Cota moved to close SP‐19‐20. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
12. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐16 of Snyder Braverman Development
Properties, LLC, to subdivide an existing 21.74 acre lot into five lots of 0.42 acres (Lot
M2), 1.89 acres (Lot M1), 1.35 acres (Garden Street), 5.86 acres (Lot N) and 12.22 acres
(Lot L), for the purpose of constructing a project south of Garden Street on Lots M1
and M2 which will be reviewed under separate site plan application, 0 Market Street:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 8
Mr. Braverman said the subdivision is to accommodate the next phase of City Center buildout.
The property is directly behind Healthy Living and is a residential project with 145 parking
spaces.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Curb cut standards: Mr. Braverman said the curb cuts will accommodate this lot and
future lots on the south side of Garden Street. He noted that the Form Based Code allows a
curb cut every 400 feet. This standard is on the Planning Commission’s list of items to discuss.
#2. Street type: Mr. Braverman noted the Planning Commission is looking at issues
regarding the official city map. Some proposed streets conflict with wetland standards, and
there is a question as to whether the city will acquire the rights‐of‐way. They are objecting to
the proposed condition.
#3. Anticipated use of lots: Mr. Braverman said they are proposing 106 units of
residential housing, 145 parking spaces. The project will be phased. There will be 2 wings with
a connector building. This will be a market rate project.
#4. On‐street parking configuration: Mr. Braverman said there is a slight change of
alignment of Garden Street. When you look down the street you won’t see only parked cars
but a building. This adds to traffic calming. He also explained the transition from the road to
the adjacent city property/box culvert. A short section of “no parking” facilitates that.
Mr. Braverman asked what staff is requesting in the second comment. Ms. Keene said if the
subdivision of lot N happens before the City Council makes a decision, streets would be
required to be part of the next subdivision o Lot N. If the Council changes the official map, that
condition would no longer apply. Mr. Braverman did not see that relating to this subdivision.
Ms. Hall said if the streets are removed from the official map, that condition will be satisfied.
Mr. Braverman noted the streets may not be removed; the city may just not exercise its right to
purchase.
Mr. Braverman then questioned frontage buildout and asked if it is on a lot by lot basis or for an
entire district or street. That issue is critical for them. If it is not on a lot by lot basis, the curb
cut and the new street would create lots. Mr. Wilking said they have been looking at it on a lot
by lot basis and should continue to do so.
No other issues were raised.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
2 JULY 2019
PAGE 9
13. Minutes of 21 May and 4 June 2019:
Mr. Wilking moved to approve the Minutes of 21 May and 4 June 2019 as written. Mr.
Kochman seconded. Motion passed 3‐0 with 2 abstentions.
14. Other Business:
Ms. Keene advised that the City Council has approved Jennifer Smith as an alternate DRB
members for instances where there are more than 2 recusals. This would eliminate the need
for a unanimous vote.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:37 p.m.
_____________________________________
Clerk
_____________________________________
Date