Development Review Board

MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JANUARY 2025 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 January 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium, City Hall, 180 Market Street, and via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; F. Kochman, Q. Mann, J. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; J. Wilking, T. Ata, N. Brown, J. Greene, Marchessault 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building. 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: Ms. Keene advised that apparently, someone has been downloading everything from the City’s website which has made document recovery difficult. She said PAGE 1 members should contact staff if they have a problem getting any documents they need, and staff will assist them. 5. Site Plan Application #SP-25-01 of John Wilking to develop an existing 1.88 acre parcel with a 5,400 sq. ft. one-story medical office building and an associated vehicle parking area, stormwater management system, and other site improvements, 40 Kimball Avenue: Mr. Wilking showed an aerial view of the area and identified the location of the project. He reviewed the history of development on Kimball Avenue and noted that he had purchased both 30 and 40 Kimball Avenue because there was never enough parking for the development at #30. He is now ready to develop at #40. The proposed project is a 5400 sq. ft., single-story dental office on 1.85 acres. 52% of the property is unusable because Potash Brook runs through it. There is also a wooded area between #40 and #60. Mr. Wilking said they have made progress since the sketch plan review. He then showed the plan and noted they are proposing 37 parking spaces. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to provide building heights and elevations. Mr. Wilking said the maximum building height is 24.4 feet. She showed a chart of elevations. #2. The applicant was asked to provide front setback coverage calculation, measured with the impact to the 15’ building setback prior to closing the hearing. Mr. Marchessault said there is just a little bit of sidewalk coverage in the front. #3. Regarding tree removal, Mr. Wilking said most trees in front will need to come out as will those in the stormwater area. There are 100 trees left to the rear and many in the ravine. They will not touch anything from the top of the bank back. Mr. Wilking said they are sorry to lose the red oak in front, but it would completely block the solar installation which would negate its purpose. Ms. Keene noted that tree is in the City right-of-way and will have to be reviewed by the City Arborist. Mr. Wilking said there is no point in putting in $100,000 of solar if it is more than ¾ blocked. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JANUARY 2025 PAGE 2  #4. With regard to the 100-foot buffer zone from Potash Brook, Mr. Wilking showed that 100-foot line and said they don’t encroach in the area except in one place about 10 feet wide which they want to shape to hold the bank. Mr. Gillies said he wasn’t sure if grading was allowed. Mr. Wilking said if that is the case, they won’t touch it and will put in a wall, though that is not the best choice. He added that in the 100-foot corridor, they are 20 feet above the stream. He also noted this is a Class 2 wetland. Mr. Kochman said the shaping seems to be less of an incursion than a wall. #5. The Board was asked to discuss whether to grant the request for the front setback and to discuss what conditions, if any, may be necessary and appropriate to mitigate any impact of the modified front yard setback. Mr. Gillies noted that at sketch plan review, the Board approved the modified setback. Members voiced not opposition. #6. The Board was asked to consider whether the building transition is too abrupt. Mr. Wilking noted that half the buildings on Kimball Ave. are one story. He directed attention to the picture of all the buildings on the street. He also noted that every kind of material has been used as well. They will be using a material that looks like wood. It is low maintenance and has the appearance of a grain. Mr. Kochman noted there is landscaping between the buildings to ease the transition. #7. The Board was asked to review the plans to see how the project interplays with existing pedestrian conditions. Mr. Kochman asked the width of the sidewalk next door. Mr. Wilking noted that building has parking in front because it was built before the regulations changed. He identified the sidewalk down the embankment to the front of the building with steps. The best way to access the building is via 30 Kimball Avenue, and they propose a sidewalk that comes right down. There will be a planting area with benches next to the sidewalk. He showed the location of this area. There is also a 600 foot space in the rear for people to use for lunches, etc. Ms. Keene noted there will be a rec path on this street coming from Old Cross Road. #8. The applicant was asked to update the architectural plans to identify the proposed construction materials and demonstrate how architectural features respond to the features of other buildings that define “neighborhood character.” Mr. Wilking said they are still trying to identify materials. This may depend on what is available. It will probably be something more durable than wood. He said the building will have the appearance of a big house. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JANUARY 2025 PAGE 3  #9. The Board was asked to discuss whether the requirement for pedestrian connectivity is met. If not, the Board should require sufficient connectivity to the proposed civic space. Mr. Wilking said what they are doing is better than what the ADA requires. The Board had no issues. #10. Staff felt the site amenities they reviewed were not approvable. Mr. Wilking said they will put in a bench and a landscaped area adjacent to the public sidewalk. The requirement is for 326 feet, and they are providing 350 feet. The Board voiced no issues with this. #11. The applicant was asked to revise the plan to show the river corridor. Mr. Wilking said this has already been done. #12. The applicant was advised to comply with DPW comments. Mr. Wilking said they will. He noted there is a pedestrian easement that crosses the river. This will never be used. Mr. Gillies said this is a “floating easement” which the city has not moved forward with. It should be flagged for the city to review. Mr. Wilking said it is in an area they will not touch. #13. The applicant was asked to comply with comments of the Water Dept. Mr. Wilking said they are OK with this except that sprinklers are not required in this building. There is a hydrant in front of #30. #14-#20. These comments relate to bicycle facilities. Mr. Wilking showed where bike parking will be. There is also a bike shed (he showed the location) for bike storage. It will match the building materials. Mr. Wilking also showed a locker area and identified a bike locker. #21. Staff noted that the Arborist will need to review the tree removal plan. Mr. Wilking was OK with this. #22. The hatch pattern needs to be identified on the plan. It is a “tree preservation and root protection zone” to protect significant trees. #23. Regarding snow storage, Mr. Wilking said there is plenty of room for snow storage. #24. The applicant was asked to comply with parking islands. Mr. Wilking showed where they have added islands more than what is required. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JANUARY 2025 PAGE 4  #25. The applicant was asked to provide a landscape budget breakdown. Mr. Wilking directed attention to the budget calculation. The building cost is $2,500,000 which requires $35,000 in landscaping. They are providing $36,500. He showed the itemized budget. #26. Ms. Keene noted the applicant is asking for landscape credit for the large tree which the building was designed to keep. Staff believes the request is appropriate. #27. The applicant was asked to address the stormwater section. Mr. Wilking said it is under the requirement for a stormwater system, but they have built a system since Act 250 will ask for it. Mr. Marchessault explained the system. He noted that they added an emergency spillway just in case. Members voiced no objections. #28. Regarding lighting, the applicant was directed to reduce the maximum illumination level at one location. Mr. Wilking said that has been done. He showed the lighting plans. #29. This item was eliminated. #30. The applicant was asked to screen the utility cabinets. Mr. Wilking said they are screened by the woods. #31. The applicant was asked to confirm whether they will meet the requirement under 3.19C(2). Mr. Wilking said they are close to net zero and are covering everything they can cover. Mr. Kochman referred back to comment #1 and asked for a stronger statement regarding necessity. Mr. Wilking said the building is very expensive because ti is for dentists, over $500.00 a square foot. For a medical office use, you need at least 7 parking spaces per 1000 sq. ft. This building will have 15 chairs which means 15 people working at them, 15 patients in the chairs, and 15 more coming for their appointments. Ms. Lesko questioned whether the Board is paying enough attention to the City Plan re: encouraging less car use. Mr. Wilking said he has owned 30 Kimball Ave. for many years. They have provided bike parking which has been used only a few DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JANUARY 2025 PAGE 5 times in all those years. It is unlikely that people would ride a bike to go to the dentist. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Johnston then moved to continue SP-25-01 to Wednesday 19 February 2025. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0 6. Minutes of 3 December 2024 and 17 December 2024: The correct spelling of Ms. Aloisi’s name was noted. Mr. Moscatelli moved to approve the Minutes of 3 and 17 December as written and as amended. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Other Business: Ms. Keene reminded members that the second meeting in February will be on Wednesday night. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:49 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 19, 2025. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 JANUARY 2025 PAGE 6