Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_2021-04-06 DRB Minutes DraftDEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 April 2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology. MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Acting Chair, M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; A. & C. Long; A. Luzzatto; A. Wynkoop; A. Caldwell; A. Chalnick; A. Cousins; A. Plant; A. Klugo; B. Denham; B. Avery; Bill & Mary; B. Britt; B. Bless; B. Currier; C. Pippenger; C. Orben; C. Gendron; C. Frank; C. Chamberlain; C. Bohlmann; C. Carpenter; C. Yandow; C. McIntosh; D. Bauman; D. Long; D. Howard; Denise Long; D. Rosensweig; D. Boehm; F. MacDonald; G. Silverstein; Holly W.; J. Dagesse; James and Dana; J. Bellavance; J. Gallant; J. Finnigan; J. Coombs; J. Travers; J. Bossange; J. Bloom; J. Happy; K. & M. Costello; K. LeFevre; K. Khosravi; L. Kupferman; L. Lackey; Laura; L. Black Sullivan; L. Poteau; M. Lisak; M. McInerney; M. Provost; S. Moncrieff; N. Smith; N. Staunton; P. O'Leary; P. Friberg; PIP; PJW; R. Gonda; R. Dahlstrom; R. Jeffers; S. Dooley; S. Dopp; S. Leduc; S. Finnigan; S. Gray; T. Soltis; TR; Wayne 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Members considered moving items 6 & 7 to follow items 8 & 9. 2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Newly appointed DRB member Dan Albrecht was welcomed to the Board. Ms. Keene explained a new sign-in method: sign in for items 4 &7 in the chat box and for items 5 & 6 when those items are heard. 4. Sketch plan application #SD-21-09 of Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing an approximately 34,660 (gross) sq. ft. 2-story addition to the south end of the existing airport terminal, 1200 Airport Drive: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Lackey then showed the location of the project and noted that they will eventually demolish the old concourse. He explained that the Airport was built for smaller aircraft, but planes are now much larger. The plan will provide more apron area. This plan will make it more efficient for passengers. In the past, people have missed flights because they couldn’t be processed quickly enough. Mr. Lackey then showed a plan of the proposed addition and the interior and scanning points. Mr. Yandow said the building is only for the convenience of passengers and has no front door. Passengers will use the existing parking and accesses. The FAA has approved everything except the roof corners and dimensions which have been submitted. They have also met with the Fire Chief regarding compliance with the fire code. Mr. Yandow said the building will “cue in” on the design of the existing building, mimicking horizontal and vertical lines. He showed a concept of the finished building. Glass on the lower level has been minimized to comply with TSA screening. Mr. Moncreiff said they will not be adding any new impervious area, and a currently paved area of 6500 sq. ft. will be landscaped. They will re-route some drainage around the building. There will be no new gas service. Ms. Orben then showed the landscaping concept. She indicated an area for grouping of birch trees along the entry drive. There will also be an additional birch at the front of the addition. There will be ground grasses at the base of the building and linear bands of gravel with ornamental grasses from the building to the curb. Existing fencing will be re-routed to the end of the addition. They will be enlarging the dumpster and will screen that and the transformers. Ms. Dagesse said they have submitted an Ac 250 permit and stormwater permits. Mr. Lackey noted that the draft Act 250 permit has been issued. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Staff was OK with the description of the role of the building previously given. 2. How will the building height compare to the height of the existing building and garage? Mr. Yandow said the FAA has approved 37 feet which he believes is the height of the existing building. He added that they don’t intend to build higher than the existing building. Mr. Behr asked how prominent this will be. Mr. Lackey said it DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 3 will be on the “inner circle” and will be landscaped in front. Ms. Orben said it will look quite integrated. Ms. Keene noted the historically the Board has been OK with the height waiver. 3. Regarding the relationship of the addition to the terminal and garage, Mr. Yandow said they spent a lot of time looking at the Master Plan and felt they wanted to carry through the vertical and horizontal elements, also the sunscreen elements. There will be no canopies because they don’t want the addition to seem like an entrance. 4. Staff asked for a frank discussion on whether the landscape plan is a solution to landscaping at the Airport. Mr. Lackey said they submitted the first phase plan and found out it had never been received. Staff now has that plan. Ms. Keene said staff looks forward to seeing the plan carried out. Mr. Behr said it seems to be a needed addition and is not intrusive and won’t affect traffic. He felt the landscaping was good and saw no issues at this level. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 5. Continued final Plat Application #SD-21-06 of Blackrock Construction for the 6.91 acre “Wheeler Parcel” phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre Golf Course and 354-unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, 22 dwelling units in 2-family homes, and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Albrecht indicated that he personally knows Mr. Avery through the Regional Planning Commission but did not feel tis would affect his ability to hear the application. Mr. Avery said this is a supplemental presentation, but Maine Drilling can go through the blasting plan. Ms. Philibert said that the staff report has not yet been dealt with completely. She suggested hearing the blasting plan first. Mr. Happy of Maine Drilling said they were hired to identify the rock surface and have indicated there are areas where rock is to be removed. He stressed that his company takes pride in safety. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 4 Ms. Keene noted the regulations pertain to mechanisms, materials, disposing of hazardous materials, noise, hours of operation, etc. Mr. Happy said the will use a T-30 drill with air compressors and drill in a pattern where blasting is needed. Explosives are in certified containers and will go into the holes. The amount of poundage will vary by day. No blasting materials will be left on the site overnight. Regarding noise, Mr. Happy said all their drills are emission certified and explosives don’t dissolve in water so there is good efficiency in wet areas. Materials will be brought to the site on a daily basis and will be removed a night. There are no environmental hazards. Ms. Keene asked if there will be any other method used other than blasting. Mr. Avery said their plan is to use blasting. Mr. Paquette identified the shallower and deeper rock concentrations, with the darker pink areas requiring 10-12 ft of removal while the lighter pink being 1-2 ft. He noted that utilities are going to be placed into additional blasted areas. Mr. Behr asked about the type of protection for adjacent properties. Mr. Pasquale said each blast is designed via software, and the blast is contained in the blast zone. They use blasting mats, double matted in most cases to deter rock from flying. Mr. Behr then asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Pasquale said their hours of operation will conform to South Burlington specs, 8 a.m.-5 p.m., with 2 smaller blasts each day in different parts of the project. The blast is a millisecond shock, very contained. Mr. Happy said a project of this nature would take 1-2 months with no work on weekends. Mr. Behr said it sounds like it could turn into what happened last summer. He asked for more information regarding decibels. Ms. Keene noted the Board’s authority to impose conditions and to order a technical review of the blasting plan which can also make recommendations. Mr. Avery said they can asked Maine Blasting to provide more written detailed information. He said they are open to technical review, but he didn’t think they would turn up anything. Mr. Behr moved to invoke technical review for the proposed blasting plan. Ms. Eiring seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 5 1. Regarding the pre-construction grade of units 17 and 18, Mr. Currier noted these will be single story units being constructed on a lower side of the road. If they went with the preconstruction grade, the buildings would be 12 feet high or look odd with negative grade driveways. As now proposed, unit 17 would be 25 feet and unit 18 would be 23 feet. The allowable height is 28 feet. Mr. Behr asked the height at the backs of the buildings. Mr. Currier said both units would have two stories from the rear. He added that from the street, you’ll see the single story unit, as required. Mr. Behr asked to see the elevations. Mr. Currier showed these and noted that from the roadway they will look the same as units on the other side of the road. He also noted a screening buffer to the east where the property abuts the rec path. The settlement agreement is very specific as to how this has to be for compatibility with the adjacent natural areas. Mr. Albrecht said he can see the argument both ways. Mr. Behr said there is a reason for the settlement agreement language, and he was leaning toward requiring the 20 feet from preconstruction grade, knowing this would result in down sloping driveways. 15. Ms. Keene suggested the Board require what others have done: meet certain design criteria (e.g., no 2 adjacent buildings being alike). Ms. Philibert agreed but noted there would still be some monotony as the single family buildings are not very interesting. Mr. Avery expressed concern that they could get “hung up” perpetually. He didn’t want to be back at the DRB on a house by house basis. Mr. Behr agreed. He suggested the applicant provide a “menu” of options (e.g. roof pitch) and present one or two acceptable elevations with some things that can be modified on a unit by unit basis. Mr. Behr added that the designs need a lot of work. Due to time constraints Ms. Keene suggested continuing the application to 4 May. Mr. Behr indicated he was willing to provide feedback to the Board on design elements that can be passed on to the developer. Ms. Keene said there will be opportunity for public comment at the continued hearing. Mr. Behr then moved to continue SD-21-06 to 4 May 2021. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-10 of Alan Long for a planned unit development on two existing 39.2 acre lots, each developed with a single family home. The planned unit development consists of 49 homes including five perpetually affordable units, 9.3 acres of open space proposed to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington, 1720 & 1730 Spear Street: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 6 Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board. Mr. Langan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Long showed a plan of the 2 plots that will be combined for this project. Ten acres will be developed, and 29 acres will be conserved. Mr. Long indicated developments to the north and south and noted there is a stub road from each that will connect through this development. Mr. Long also said they will respect the look and feel of the other 2 developments. They are proposing an easement for access to the easternmost portion of the property. Mr. Long noted that he has sat in on Planning Commission meetings regarding changes to the LDRs, and what they are proposing is in compliance with everything he has heard. He said there will be a mix of building types which is a requirement of a Traditional Neighborhood Development (TDN). Staff comments were then addressed as follows: 1. Staff asked the applicant how the affordable units will meet the distribution requirement. Mr. Long said the affordable units will be spread out across building types, one in a carriage house, 2 in multi-family units, and 2 in duplexes. Ms. Keene said this is on the right track. 2. The applicant was asked to describe the vision for open space, including trails and any amenities in area “C.” Mr. Long identified areas “A,” “B,” and “C.” “A” is a meadow with a few trees which would be left in its natural state with a possible trail through it. Mr. Long said it is a beautiful area that needs to be shared. “B” is a good opportunity to have a rec path and preserve shrubbery and trees between this property and South Point. Animals can share that path. “C” is a small area which could have some benches and be grassed for a play area. 3. Staff asked if the applicant had considered a community garden. Mr. Long said that could make sense in the “B” area which there is enough room. He felt it would make a nice touch especially where people don’t have a lot of yard space. Mr. Albrecht noted that the 4-plex homes are the ones who are going to want that space, so it should be located conveniently for them. 4. The applicant agreed to have a traffic study done for Preliminary Plat. 5. The applicant was asked to discuss the trail layout in the NRP area. Mr. Long said there is a stream and wetland, and they don’t want to build any structures across that. He indicated that he would be happy to work with city committees on trails. He felt it would be easier to get access through the Underwood property where it is drier. Ms. Keene indicated property owned by the city. She felt it makes sense to DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 7 coordinate with city committees to get their feedback. Mr. Long said it is a city- owned right-of-way in that area. 6. Regarding a trail to the south, staff questioned whether it makes sense to connect the proposed trail to area “B.” Mr. Long said they need to distinguish between public and private paths. The South Village trail is private, and he felt they probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to use that. He suggested an alternative that would parallel the road connection. He said he would be happy to work with the city on that. Ms. Wyman asked whether the trails on this property would be public or private. Mr. Long said they want to do what makes most people happy. He noted it could be disruptive to have floods of people in backyards. There could be public access on the west side of the property. In order to give time to the next item, members agreed to continue this application. Mr. Behr moved to continue SD-21-10 until 4 May. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 5-0. Ms. Keene noted there will be an opportunity for public comment at the May meeting. 7. Sketch plan application #SD-21-11 of Hickory Hillside, LLC, to subdivide an approximately 67.6 acre parcel into three lots of 66.4 acres (Lot 1), 0.6 acres (Lot 2) and 0.6 acres (Lot 3) for the purpose of constructing a single family home on each of Lots 1, 2, and 3, and conserving the unbuilt portion of Lot 1, 47 Cheesefactory Road: Mr. Langan was recused due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Smith noted a portion of the property is in the NRP, and a portion is in the floodplain district. He noted this application has been heard before, but they did not get a wetland delineation. They expect this will be done within the next month. Staff asked the applicant to describe why they are pursuing a waiver. Ms. Philibert confirmed the waiver is to put the homes in a linear arrangement instead of a triangular arrangement. Mr. Smith said the linear arrangement was previously approved. He noted the challenging topography especially at the back end of the site. Locating a cul de sac would be challenging as would putting in a wastewater system. The area to the north of the access road is heavy ledge, and putting a house on the other side of the road would require blasting ledge and moving it farther south would impact the agricultural use of the property. Mr. Behr noted the linear arrangement tucks in behind landscaping; other options would impact a cluster of trees. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 8 Mr. Smith asked to combine preliminary and final plats. Ms. Keene said this was at the applicant’s risk. 8. Minutes of 3 March and 16 March 2021: The Minutes of 3 March and 16 March were approved 4-0 with Mr. Albrecht abstaining. 9. Other Business: South Village Communities, LLC, has requested reconsideration of decisions MS- 21-01, SD-21-02 and SD-21-03: Ms. Keene explained that a reconsideration is an opportunity for additional testimony, but the Board has to rewarn the hearing before additional testimony can be taken. Mr. Behr asked the applicant believes was misunderstood about the wetland area to be protected. Ms. Keene showed the plans and indicated the areas in question. Mr. Behr noted the Board had said the “orange box” was to vegetate naturally. Ms. Keene said there is another stipulation that the fence be extended. She indicated this area. Ms. Jeffers said all of the area inside the red circle will not be wetland; it will be mowed and vegetated. Ms. Keene indicated a fence that was required in another condition of the approval. Ms. Jeffers said they didn’t understand that a fence was being required. They have already put in a sidewalk and water line. She indicated the path and said all the infrastructure for the water line is under it. Mr. Langan asked why the change from “inclusionary” to “affordable.” Ms. Jeffers said there are 2 sets of rules, and they belong under the “affordable” rules. Mr. Langan said he leans toward getting the language right. Ms. Keene noted the conditions in question are #6 and #26 of SD-21-02 and condition #22 of SD-21-03 Mr. Behr then moved to reopen SD-21-02 for the purpose of reconsidering conditions #6 and #26, and to reopen SD-21-03 for the purpose of reconsidering condition #22. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 6-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:20 p.m. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 APRIL 2021 PAGE 9 These minutes were approved by the Board on ___.