HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11B_2019-09-17 DRB Minutes draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 SEPTEMBER 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17
September 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Sullivan, Acting Chair; J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Cota, D. Philibert, J.
Langan
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; D.
Marshall, R. Gruenwald, D. Crawford,
1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:
Mr. Sullivan provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.
2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
It was noted that agenda items 8, 9 and 10 would be continued prior to discussion of Item #7.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements:
There were no announcements.
5. Continued final plat application #SD‐19‐21 of Rye Associates, LLC, to amend a
previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family
dwellings, four 4‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and three commercial buildings. The
amendment consists of an after‐the‐fact request to reduce the rear yard setback for
Lot #7, containing seven single‐family dwelling units on Fall Street, from 20 feet to 13
feet, 1075 Hinesburg Road:
It was noted that the applicant failed to comply with the Public Notice Requirements and
therefore the application could not be heard.
Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD‐19‐21 of Rye Associates, LLC, to 1 October 2019. Mr.
Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 SEPTEMBER 2019
PAGE 2
6. Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐27 or Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned
unit development on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned
unit development is to consist of 94 single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐
family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family
homes, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55
acres off‐site through the purchase of 68 transfer of development rights, 1505 Dorset
Street:
Staff advised that this application is to be continued without being heard.
Messrs. Sullivan and Wilking recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest.
Ms. Philibert moved to continue SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, to 15 October
2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 3‐0.
Messrs. Sullivan and Wilking rejoined the Board.
7. (previously item #8) Continued Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐22 of
SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one
easement into four lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), 6.7 acres (Lot 11) and
6.6 acres (Lot 12), and eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way,
for the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 sq. ft. warehousing and
distribution center, 635 Community Drive: and
8. (previously item #9) Continued Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐28 of SunCap Property
Group to construct a 133,000 sq. ft., 35 ft. high warehouse building, paved equipment
storage and parking areas, and associated site improvements on a proposed 43.8 acre
lot, and widen and signalize the east intersection of Community Drive and Kimball
Avenue, 635 Community Drive: and
9. (previously item #10) Conditional use application #CU‐19‐06 of SunCap Property
Group to allow a fence approximately sixteen feet in height for the purpose of
supporting a gate for a warehouse and distribution center, 635 Community Drive:
Mr. Wilking moved to continue SD‐19‐22, SP‐19‐28 and CU‐19‐06, all of SunCapProperty Group
to 1 October 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 SEPTEMBER 2019
PAGE 3
10. (previously item #7) Sketch plan application #SD‐19‐25 of Neagley & Chase
Construction to create a three‐lot planned unit development for the purpose of a two‐
building commercial/industrial campus, including the construction of a 21,570 sq. ft.
light manufacturing facility, 39 Bowdoin Street:
Mr. Sullivan noted an e‐mail from Mr. Behr indicating he had been the architect for the building
to the north. The applicant had no issue with Mr. Behr hearing this application.
Mr. Marshall noted the project is in Meadowland Business Park. He identified other existing
businesses and the location for this project on the eastern leg of the development. He also
noted there will be a future application for parking.
Mr. Marshall then showed the existing condition of the site and identified roadways, a large
stormwater pond, an approved location for fill and the location of a wetland. He then showed
the site indicating the location of the proposed building, a 50‐foot buffer around the wetland,
and stormwater management facility. Since they are now required to comply with existing
stormwater rules, the large pond will not meet those rules, and they have to manage
stormwater on the property.
The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows:
1. How waivers support the purpose of PUDs: Mr. Marshall indicated that the 50‐foot
setback encumbers the property. As the original intent of Meadowland Drive has
changed, curb cuts are now allowed. They are trying to provide for the growing
needs of Blodgett Supply, and their existing lot is built out. The footprint of the
proposed building meets their need. They are asking to reduce the setback to 35
feet. Ms. Philibert asked if the 2 buildings will be connected. Mr. Gruenwald said
that would be ideal; however, because there are more wetlands than anticipated,
there is not enough space to do that. This is the second best alternative. Mr.
Marshall indicated where the wetlands have encroached. Mr. Gruenwald added
that the building will serve basically as a warehouse. It has a mezzanine and is 35
feet in height. Mr. Sullivan noted that Mr. Behr had indicated he was OK with the
setback waiver.
2. Staff has questioned the “tier 3” stormwater facility: Mr. Marshall said there is not
enough room for a “tier 2” facility, so they are going with “tier 3.” Ms. Keene asked
what will happen if the state doesn’t approve this. Mr. Marshall said what they are
proposing is more expensive to install and to maintain and is used only when the
land is so expensive and there is not enough land for a surface system. It is not
ideal, but it is not uncommon anymore.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 SEPTEMBER 2019
PAGE 4
3. Staff is asking the applicant to limit the visual impact of the retaining wall: Mr.
Marshall said it will be a “segmental retaining wall,” only 1‐1/2 feet placement
below ground. They can’t disturb anything along the western boundary, so the wall
will have to be constructed without disturbing the buffer. Regarding visual impact,
Mr. Marshall said they will meet the DRB requirements and possibly use some kind
of vine on the wall. The wall is there to prevent fill from falling into the buffer or
onto the Homeland Security property. Mr. Sullivan noted that Mr. Behr agrees with
staff regarding the appearance of the wall. Mr. Marshall explained that as the wall
gets closer to the street, it gets lower and lower. He stressed that it is necessary to
make the site work. It will be most likely precast concrete, and there are different
color options.
4. & 5. Regarding hydrant spacing and turning movements for fire trucks: Mr. Marshall
said they will meet whatever the Fire Chief requests.
6. Added parking requirement: Mr. Marshall said that is a typo. They will meet the
green space requirement within the parking lot. He didn’t think a waiver would be
needed. Street parking is allowed on Meadowland. The applicant has tried to have
people park where they don’t impede sight lines. Mr. Kochman asked how people
to they expect to employ on site. Mr. Gruenwald said about 50 in the new facility, a
total of 150‐175 in the next year or 2 in both buildings. He noted that parking at the
existing facility is “overflowing.”
7. Regarding the dumpster enclosure: Mr. Marshall said what they propose is not ideal
and will require a driver to pull the bins out in order to empty them. Mr. Wilking
noted this is happening more and more because there are so many different uses
(e.g., recycling, composting, etc.).
8. Staff is questioning whether landscaping meets the minimum based on building cost.
Mr. Marshall said a more intensive landscaping plan is not an issue although the one
tree for every 5 parking spaces may be a challenge. A professional will create their
landscape plan to meet the regulations. Mr. Wilking asked if they can plant in the
wetland buffer. Mr. Marshall said they could in the past. He will check on that. Mr.
Gruenwald said they are committed to having the building look very nice.
Mr. Crawford commended the applicant for commitment to landscaping. He said the Natural
Resources Committee is available to chat with the applicant, if the applicant desires.
No other issues were raised.
11. Minutes of 4 September 2019:
The minutes were not available for approval.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 SEPTEMBER 2019
PAGE 5
12. Other Business:
Mr. Sullivan noted the DRB has determined they need to reopen application #SD‐19‐24.
Mr. Wilking moved to reopen application #SD‐19‐24. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed
5‐0.
Mr. Wilking thanked Messrs. Kochman and Sullivan for their efforts at the City Council the
previous night. Mr. Kochman said he didn’t feel the members’ position would carry. The
Council has deferred a decision and is waiting 2 weeks to see if there can be “better wording.”
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 8:45 p.m.
_____________________________________
Clerk
_____________________________________
Date