Developers propose three apartments in former Flanders building; DRB raises code, parking and life‑safety questions

Essex Junction Development Review Board members on Feb. 20 reviewed a conceptual site plan to add three dwelling units on the second floor of the former Flanders lumber building (above East Coast Printer) and directed staff and the applicant to refine plans addressing life‑safety, energy‑code and site‑management items.

The developers — Michael Alavanos of JRMA Design Studio and Chris McEwing and Tim Mac of Park Street Ventures — told the board the proposal is an interior conversion that reduced an earlier concept of five units to three to fit budget and existing rooflines. Alavanos said the work is largely interior and would add “two new windows in the exterior of the building,” with other changes focused on fire separations, insulation and life‑safety upgrades needed for residential occupancy.

Board members and staff emphasized why the details matter. Michael Giguere, city planning staff, told the board that several sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Vermont Energy Code could apply to the project but that some requirements — notably long‑term bicycle storage — only trigger at 5,000 gross square feet. “I made the mistake of thinking that long term bike lockers for tenants were required until we realized that it doesn't hit until 5,000 square feet,” he said, adding that many typical site items (lighting, landscaping, short‑term bike parking) still apply to retrofits even when full triggers do not.

Board members repeatedly framed the project as an opportunity to add housing in a walkable area. “I have absolutely no issue with what's really being proposed here. It's a wonderful chance again to add some housing into a neighborhood that's full of housing, surprisingly enough,” said John Alden, who opened and guided the discussion.

Key points discussed and staff clarifications

- Use and scope: The applicants emphasized they intend to retrofit a portion of the existing building (the applicant estimated roughly 2,000 square feet; staff estimated the altered area might be 3,000–3,500 square feet) rather than change the entire building shell. Staff and the board agreed that requirements often written for new construction should be interpreted pragmatically for interior retrofits and that a prorated approach to applicable LDC items is reasonable.

- Life‑safety and energy code: The building is fully sprinkled, which applicants said eased some concerns, but the DRB noted the conversion will require fire separations, new egress elements where needed, and compliance with the Vermont Energy Code for the portion of the building being altered.

- Parking and site management: The property is in the Village Center District and, as staff reminded the board, the district carries no minimum automobile parking requirement. Nevertheless, members urged the applicants to propose a tenant‑parking and site‑management plan showing how existing asphalt areas will be used, where accessible stalls will be located and how deliveries, trash and snow removal will be handled.

- Bike parking and landscaping: Staff pointed out long‑term bike storage only triggers at 5,000 square feet, but the LDC includes other bicycle and pedestrian amenity expectations. Several board members and public commenters encouraged the applicants to add short‑term bike parking and some greening of the Park Street frontage (planters or other pedestrian amenities) to improve the streetscape.

- Public comments and practical items: Diane Clements, a member of the public, asked about snow removal and how added residents would use existing parking: “Where's the snow going? …where do I put my car?” She also suggested the building owner update the site’s master plan to reflect current uses and to consider bringing bike‑parking and other site items into compliance as feasible.

Next steps and status

The DRB treated the submission as a conceptual review. The board and staff told the applicants to work with planning and engineering staff to provide updated wastewater calculations, an existing‑conditions site plan that locates the work on the larger building, proposed entry and lighting details for any new residential entrances, and a plan for trash, deliveries and snow removal. Staff and the applicants also discussed potential prorated approaches to LDC requirements (street trees, short‑term bike parking, lighting) for an interior conversion of this scale.

After public comment, the board voted to close the public meeting on the application unanimously. Staff will continue to work with the applicant on the materials required for a formal final review.