Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/04/2020DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 February 2020, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Cota, Chair; J. Wilking, M. Behr, D. Philibert, J. Langan, E. Portman ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. Washburn, J. Messina, J. Owens, J. Anderson, C. Frank, C. Mack, A. Niezo, A. J. LaRosa, J. Payhon, S. Vallee, S. Hoechner, C. Galipeau, L. Limoge, G. Cucherol, S. Jones 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 reminded members and the public that due to the President’s Day Holiday and the Town Meeting Election, the next two DRB meetings will be on Wednesday, 19 February, and Wednesday, 4 March. 5. Remanded conditional use application #CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend previously approved conditional use permit #CU-18-02 for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five feet, increasing the height to fifteen feet, and increasing the size to 248 sq. ft., 30 Myers Court: Mr. LaRosa noted the accessory unit is too tall, and this needs to be fixed. To do this, they have come up with a new gambrel roof design which will cut off the corners so the midpoint of the roof would be 15 feet above the pre-construction grade. Right now, the roof is 17-18 feet above the pre-construction grade. This will all be confirmed with an engineer’s report. Mr. LaRosa then showed a drawing of what is being proposed. There will be no dormers, and the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 2 windows will now be cut in. The interior won’t change, and the upstairs space will still be usable. Ms. Keene noted the pre-construction grade still has not been verified. Mr. Behr said this is a “loophole,” a way to measure differently. The building height doesn’t actually change. Mr. LaRosa said he understands that argument, but it is how the city measures height. He added that there will also be a screening plan to protect the neighbors. The trees for screening will be planted at an 8 foot height. Mr. Messina, representing the neighbors who were part of the Environmental Court appeal, said they still feel the application should be denied as it is not built according to the plan, and the building is not any lower. They don’t oppose the tree screening but they want to be sure they are maintained and replaced if they die. Mr. Cucherol, the abutting neighbor, felt it sets a dangerous precedent to allow this to go through. Mr. Cota said the issue is whether this is an attempt to comply and to correct a mistake. It is costly, and if they miss the mark, it is their risk. Mr. Wilking said he would vote against this plan as he would not have approved it if it had been the original design. The gambrel roof covers part of the first floor windows, which he felt is a terrible design. Mr. Behr said he pretty much agrees with Mr. Wilking. He said the only reason the applicant got the loft space is that he built to 17 feet. The proposed plan doesn’t change that. It is just a different way of measuring. He felt the two options are to cut the roof down or cut down the foundation. Mr. LaRosa said the applicant is doing his best to fix his screw-up. He also noted there was no design request from the DRB when the plan was originally presented. He also said this solution has occurred elsewhere in the neighborhood and looks good. They have no issues with the Cucheral’s request. There was no additional testimony. Mr. Cota moved to close CU-18-12. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6-0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 3 6. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-19-31 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to consolidate two lots of 0.36 acres and 0.59 acres into one lot for the purpose of constructing an expanded service station and retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: Mr. Cota recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. It was also noted that Mr. Sullivan is also recused. Mr. Hoechner explained his ties to South Burlington and to this property of which he is currently the owner. He felt the proposed plan will create something pleasing to the community. Ms. Keene noted that all subdivisions require a public hearing under state law. The question arose as to whether this is a subdivision or a minor lot line adjustment; however, since it involves a non-conformity, there needs to be a DRB review. Ms. Keene also noted that yesterday Staff received the completed sketch plan application, and it is on the agenda for 4 March. She recommended continuing the subdivision application to follow the 4 March hearing. Ms. Philibert moved to continue the subdivision hearing to 17 March in order for the sketch plan to be heard on 4 March. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-19-39 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to demolish the existing structures at 907 Shelburne Road and a portion of an existing service station at 793 Shelburne Road and construct an expanded service station with two additional fueling positions for a total of 10 and an associated 4,265 sq. ft. retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: Mr. Hoechner said the gas station was built in the late 1950’s, and nothing much has changed since then. It has a 2-bay automotive shop, small convenience store, and fuel sales outside. One question that has arisen concerns the number of pumps. Until 2017-18, there were 5 pumps until the underground storage system was modified. Now there are 4. Mr. Hoechner then said that 907 Shelburne Rd. is the motel property. It was never sold to him as a residential property. There are 2 people staying there now. That building will be closed down. Mr. Behr asked whether people were living in the motel long-term or nightly. Mr. Hoechner said it has always been weekly occupancy with about 60% occupancy through the year. He stressed that he has paid the rooms and meals tax for that use. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 4 Mr. Hoechner said their intent is to clean up the properties and have a nice site, especially with Hannaford upgrading their site. He acknowledged there have been a number of challenges from the beginning, and he asked the Board for clear direction. Mr. Hoechner noted that Mr. Vallee has gotten access from Hannaford to their adjoining property. This would get drivers off Shelburne Road. Mr. Galipeau has come up with a new design which is similar to others but with a few “twitches.” Champlain Water District (CWD) has an easement through the center of the property. There is a plan to move that pipe to the edge of the property and then to Shelburne road and to increase the pipe from 24” to 30.” Mr. Hoechner also noted they met with the Bike-Ped Committee, and were advised there is a bike path adjacent to the 793 property. They would like a bike path right across Shelburne Road. It would be a very aggressive project, and they now have a Letter of Intent from the Agency of Transportation (AOT) to do what the Bike-Ped Committee wants. Mr. Hoechner stressed that they are trying very hard to make everyone happy, but they are also trying to run a business. Ms. Keene noted that the applicant received a full set of staff comments, and staff got their responses last Friday. One of their responses was that they didn’t feel a sketch plan was necessary, and it took until yesterday to settle that issue. Ms. Keene said staff comments from December 3rd still stand, and staff has not yet looked at the applicant’s responses. The applicant noted that the delay resulted from being “blindsided” by CWD. Mr. Anderson said they were willing to respond to staff comments received in December. Mr. Behr explained that the Board relies heavily on staff. Without their guidance, he would not be comfortable with hearing those responses. The applicant said that on December 3rd they would have presented what they have tonight, and they would like to discuss those items. Mr. Behr noted that they can present but there might be follow up required. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. The applicant considers the canopy a “building.” Staff does not because it does not have walls. Ms. Keene said this relates to the coverage issue. Mr. Vallee said if staff wants building coverage that doesn’t include the land under the canopy, they can provide that. Building coverage would actually go down from 15% to 10%. It was noted that structure that was built along with the pharmacy on Williston Road/Dorset Street is considered a “building” and it does not have walls. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 5 2. The need for a valid subdivision application has been settled. 3. If the applicant disagrees with “expansion of a non-conforming use,” the Board should require the applicant either to resubmit or provide an updated memorandum. Mr. Vallee said if the Board feels they are not entitled to 5 pumps, they should say so. At the same time, they would like approval for 4 pumps. They would probably appeal the 5-pump decision. Mr. Behr noted the DRB has been adamant that adding the 5th pump is an expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. Wilking added that were this coming to the DRB for the first time today, the use wouldn’t be allowed at all. Mr. Behr noted that the Board doesn’t have a plan for 4 pumps to review. Mr. Vallee said they will provide this. Ms. Keene said staff can discuss the process for dealing with what Mr. Vallee proposes. She noted that many of the other staff comments might change with a 4-pump proposal. 4. Reduce front setback coverage to demonstrate sufficient frontage as required for multiple uses. Staff said the Board shouldn’t feel limited by the existing setback coverage in reviewing other criteria. The applicant said this hasn’t been an issue in previous meetings. He felt they had made tremendous strides, and there is a limit for how much green space they can have out front. Mr. Galipeau showed the curb cuts that will exist. They have narrowed them as much as possible and have worked with the State on this. The State approved both curb cuts with a “no left turn” on the northernmost cut. A fuel truck would enter from the north and exit to the south. Members were OK with the front yard coverage. 5. Breakdown of retail vs. restaurant in connection with modification of parking requirements. Without the breakdown, 52 parking space. With the breakdown, 42 parking space. Mr. Wilking said the City Council said this is the way to go. He completely disagrees with them. Ms. Keene noted the new LDRs require screening for any parking. The applicant said they couldn’t meet either the 52 or 42 space requirement, so they would have to go with the new LDRs. Ms. Keene noted that applicants have to meet both the old and new standards for a certain time period. 6. Aisle width between pumps and parking spaces to the north. Mr. Behr noted this issue goes away with a 4-pump plan. 7. Address Public Works comments. The project has been reviewed and approved by the State. They will get information to Public Works. Mr. Wilking asked if the City can do a technical review of traffic on a State road. Ms. Keene said it can. Mr. Anderson said there are 2 traffic issues. He noted they comply with what the State has jurisdiction over, and the State did not see the need for a full study. The other traffic issues relate to traffic overlay. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 6 Mr. Anderson said they paid for the city to hire a traffic engineer who said they had answered all the technical issues. The DRB has to determine whether the improvements justify the traffic overlay district concerns. The applicant noted that in addition to the bike crossing, they are removing gas pumps from the other side of Shelburne Road. Ms. Keene said the Traffic Overlay District has a trip budget based on parcel size; for anything more than that, the applicant has to provide mitigation. This application is 200 trips beyond the budget allowed and must provide mitigation to get back to the 15.2 allowable trips. The applicant then outlined the mitigation they are providing as follows: access to Hannaford Plaza, grouping of the commercial development so there will be some capture there, closing one existing curb cut, reducing the width and relocating a curb cut, non-U.S. 7 trips on the adjacent roadway. This mitigation would still leave them 76 trips over the limit, and the applicant said they would address that with the provided bike crossing reduced pedestrian crossing distance, enhanced streetscape plantings, and consolidation of existing Datillio’s curb cut. Mr. Behr asked if there is an agreement with Tire Warehouse. The applicant said it is being worked on. Members agreed the additional mitigation was worth the 76 trip deficit elimination. 8. Ms. Frank said the Bike/Ped Committee can review the plans at it meeting next week. 9. Question of whether the “step back” detracts from the standard while other architecture surrounding the door supports the standard. The applicant showed renderings and noted they had shifted the building entrance to the north. Ms. Keene noted the regulations require the door to face Shelburne Road and be a focal point of the building. Mr. Wilking said if the entrance were on the front face of the building, there would be a traffic issue. Mr. Galipeau said they will update the rendering. Mr. Behr said it seems the building is oriented for the pumps and not for Shelburne Road, which is required. Ms. Portman added that the entrance doesn’t stand out. The applicant felt they can make an effort to address that. 10. Question of whether the 2 parking spaces on the tank area are allowed. Mr. Gallipeau said they can screen those spaces. Mr. Wilking felt there is enough circulation to allow those spaces. Members agreed. 11. Issue of whether the canopy is a building. Mr. Anderson read from the regulations and said he felt they meet them. Ms. Portman noted the regulations do not require walls. 12. If the canopy is a building, there will be 2 buildings on the lot, and the rules require the total width of all parking areas located to the side of the buildings DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 7 at the building line to not exceed half of the width of all the buildings located at the building line. Mr. Anderson felt that if you add the building and the canopy, it is more than enough. It was agreed to table this issue to get staff comment. 13. The applicant said the reciprocal access easement is being done. 14. Question of whether fueling positions should count toward required screening/landscaping. The applicant questioned where this is in the regulations. 15. They have added curbing. 16. Mr. Owens explained the reason for their choice of landscaping. Ms. Keene said the City Arborist had no issues, but he didn’t comment on compliance. Mr. Owens noted the gravel base for the retaining wall will extend beyond the wall, and that is a liability to try to put in a tree without going to the neighboring property. The hole would have to be hand dug. They have downsized the trees to achieve this (2” caliper tree). Mr. Owens said the trees will get bigger and will outperform 2-1/2” caliper trees. He also indicated the 2 ivory silk lilac trees which are in a very small space. Members were OK with the smaller trees. Ms. Keene will check to see if this is waivable. 17. Mr. Owens indicated the layout of planting islands. He said they will comply with all curbing. 18. Regarding snow storage, the new plans show an amended location which will work for smaller storms. They would remove snow from the site for larger storms. 19. They will intersperse shrubs in planters for better screening. 20. Regarding screening of the residential property and other commercial property. Mr. Owens said the Tire Warehouse is a solid wall, so there is nothing to screen. He showed where trees will be added or remain. Mr. Galipeau said CWD doesn’t want trees over their lines. 21. They will revise EPSC regarding exposed soil. 22. Regarding stormwater, Mr. Torrizo said they tried to improve the existing conditions. There are 2 stormwater features: 7 filtration chambers and a bioretention area at the southwest corner (this will have small plantings and act as a filter for water that can’t get into the filtration chambers). They will address all stormwater comments. 23. Mr. Galipeau said the Fire Chief is likely to use the south entrance. They will go over turning movements with him. Mr. Behr said they should also review the grade change with the Chief. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 8 24. Regarding the fee for the loss of housing, Mr. Wilking felt this is not housing but a hotel for which the rooms/meals tax was paid. Ms. Keene said the standard is for any dwelling unit that is removed. She added that Mr. Hoechner said 8 or the 13 units meet the definition. Mr. Wilking said the sign says “motel.” Mr. Anderson said it was never permitted as a “residential” use, only as a “commercial” use. This issue will be further considered. 25. It was noted that if the canopy is a building, there can be as much lighting as the applicant wants; if not, it is limited to 3 foot candles. There is a question as to whether they can meet the 3 foot candle limit. Mr. Owens said that there are 12 lights under the canopy today which actually provides the site lighting. They are proposing LEDs which are more efficient. He showed this on the plan. Mr. Behr noted that light spills onto Shelburne Rd. Mr. Galipeau said they feel this will make the sidewalk safer. Mr. Behr said he wasn’t sure there is an option for this. Mr. Owens cited confusion in the regulations regarding direct and indirect glare. They will work with staff on this. 26. They will meet bicycle parking standards. 27. Regarding noise impact at the property line, Mr. Wilking noted the existing building to be removed blocks noise toward the apartments. Mr. Hoechner said all the noise on the street is road noise. Mr. Behr noted this use will now be operating 24/7. Ms. Keene said the standard is 45 dbl, and the fuel truck might not meet that. The applicant agreed to look into it. 28. The applicant said they will remove signage from the plans. 29. Mr. Galipeau said that CWD wants the sleeve placed on Rt. 7. They are working to solve this with an alternate. They can’t get a water permit without CWD signing off. The question arose as to whether a site plan is needed to eliminate the 2 pumps across the road. Ms. Keene said it would require a demolition permit. At worst it would be an administrative site plan. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to continue SP-19-39 to 4 March 2020. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 8. Minutes of 22 January 2020: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the minutes of 22 January 2020 was written. Mr. Langan seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 FEBRUARY 2020 PAGE 9 9. 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 10:41 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 19, 2020.