Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 14A_2019-07-16 DRB Minutes draft DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 July 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Acting Chair; F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), D. Philibert, J. Langan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. Bolduc, City Attorney; I. Blanchard, Program Manager; T. McKenzie, D. Crawford, D. Shenk, C. Snyder, R. Rushford, D. Saladino, J. Illick, K. Darr, D. Heil, S. Forrest, B. Hoar, N. Saranieck, J. Greene, D. Woolridge, B. DeLaBruare, S. Schenker 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: Ms. Keene noted that due to a staff error, public notices for item 10 and 8 were not posted in a timely manner. She read from the regulations and said that because the warning in the Other Paper was timely, the Board could hear the items. Mr. Kochman disagreed. Ms. Keene felt the applicant shouldn’t be punished for a staff error. Mr. Langan said he agreed with Mr. Kochman. Mr. Kochman then moved to continue SP-19-21, CU-19-04 and CU-19-05 until 20 August and to renotice in accordance with the rules. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Cota reminded members and the public that the next DRB meeting will be on 20 August. 5. Reorganization: Mr. Cota suggested doing this on 20 August when there is a full board. Members agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 2 Ms. Keene asked members whether they would agree to hold the meeting on 3 September (Tuesday) on 4 September (Wednesday) so it does not conflict with the City Council meeting on the 3rd. Members agreed to meet on the 4th. 6. 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, Meadowland Drive: and 7. Continued site plan application #SP-19-07 of SBRC Properties, LLC to construct a 25,560 sq. ft. high warehouse building, paved parking area, and associated site improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot, 284 Meadowland Drive: Mr. Shenk said they have no objection to the staff decision. He then outlined the changes made since the last hearing: a. They have inversed the colors (grey is now the accent color) b. They have repositioned windows c. Windows are now “fancier” (he showed an elevation indicating this) d. They deleted the window at the front entrance and moved the store front across for more light. e. Panels are insulated; some now have more ribs closer together f. They added a “block” to the west elevation. Mr. Behr felt this was a great improvement. Other members agreed. Mr. Cota said the applicant’s participation in the Natural Resources Committee pilot program will be added to the stipulations. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-12 and SP-19-07. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. (previously #9) Continued 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: Ms. Blanchard reviewed the plan to develop a building on one lot. She noted that since the last meeting, an agreement has been reached with the School District. Mr. Cota read a letter from the School District Counsel, David Rugh. Mr. Bolduc noted the School District has agreed to unrestricted access. He added there is no objection to the staff decision. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. McKenzie said they want to be sure access to their lot is unrestricted. Ms. Keene noted there is not such designation as “primary” or “secondary access” in the LDRs. Mr. Bolduc said there is no objection to mentioning unrestricted access in the decision. He added that the standards of a support street would not restrict access. Mr. Langan was concerned with the 30mph speed limit. Ms. Blanchard cited several things which would help slow down traffic (e.g., narrow lanes, trees, the building, etc.). It was noted that the design speed is 15-20 mph while the target speed is what is posted. Members felt that made sense. Mr. Cota moved to close SD-19-18. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. (formerly #11): Sketch plan application #SD-19-20 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 and 12) and one easement into four lots of 6.9 acres (lot 9), 6.7 acres (lot 11), and 6.6 acres (lot 12), eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, and construct an approximately 144,000 sq. ft. warehousing and distribution center, 45 Community Drive: Mr. Illick said this is similar to the application the Board saw last year. He noted there are already office buildings on several lots. SunCap wants to building in the southeast corner, but their project doesn’t fit on one lot, so they are combining parts of three lots to accommodate them. The street that was dedicated to the city will be eliminated, and they will ask the City Council to “give it back.” A different radius will be needed on the curb where Kimball Avenue joins Community Drive, so they will be asking to flatten out that radius. Packages that come in will be sorted and go out in smaller trucks. This will be a 3-shift operation, 365 days a year. Their big season is the Holiday season. The building will be 31 feet to the top with a small office with a slightly lower roof line. The building and trucks will have to be in a secure area. This will be fenced and gated (chain link fence). They will be making the project as “visually non-impactful” as possible. They have created berms along the Interstate to diminish the impact. They have talked with the City regarding water and sewer and with Green Mountain Power regarding power. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 4 Staff comments were then reviewed: a. The cost of required mitigation cannot be applied toward traffic impact fees unless the mitigation is for a priority project. Mr. Illick said their preference is to have a signal rather than pay the fee. He said they will consume 15% of the traffic through the intersection so they’d like 85% of the cost of the signal to cover their impact fee. He suggested they install the traffic signal so they can have it on “day one” and consult with the City Council to have 85% of that cost count toward traffic impact fees. Mr. Illick stressed that they will exceed ITE standards in everything they do. b. The applicant was asked to submit wetland data to ensure compliance with wetland standards. c. Stormwater should be addressed as part of preliminary plat. d. Information regarding employee parking should be provided as well as the feasibility of off-site parking, frequency of peak demand, transit options, etc. Staff will use this information to evaluate whether to require a phased construction of parking spaces. Mr. Illick noted they are entitled to 70% lot coverage and are using only 30%. He stressed that they want all of their parking on their lot. Ms. Keene said staff is trying to be conscious about not over-paving. Mr. Darr said they don’t want to build more than they need; they will provide data. e. The applicant agreed to comply with open space requirements. f. Mr. Darr said they work to obtain a future connection to the adjacent property. g. Regarding shade trees in the parking area, Mr. Illick said there are evergreens on the berm, and landscaping is in excess of the requirement. It has been placed for safety, convenience, and aesthetics. He didn’t feel shade trees would make a difference. h. They prefer to stick with their number of bike parking spaces. i. Regarding light spillage, Mr. Illick showed the area where this occurs, which he said is not a building lot. He is the property owner of the adjacent lot and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 JULY 2019 PAGE 5 had no issue with 2 foot candles there. They need 5 foot candles only at the gate. Mr. Crawford commended the applicant for the extra trees. Mr. Kochman asked about heat island effect around the massive piece of asphalt compared to the 30% lot coverage. Ms. Keene suggested the Board include a condition or at least language in the decision saying which criteria are considered met since 30% coverage is provided and 70% is allowed. Mr. Darr said they will work to add landscaping around the perimeter. No other issues were raised. 10. Minutes of 18 June and 2 July 2019: Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 18 June as written. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 3-0 with Mr. Langan and Ms. Philibert abstaining. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 July as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 11. 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 8:24 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date