HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_2021-06-15 DRB Minutes Draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JUNE 2021
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 June
2021, at 7:00 p.m. via Go to Meeting interactive technology.
MEMBERS PRESENT: D. Philibert, Chair; M. Behr, J. Langan, E. Eiring, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht
ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; J.
Rabidoux, Public Works Director; D. Marshall, M Grant, L. Lackey, T. Barnes, Cullen, W. Hillier, R.
Ober, M. Provost, Michael A., Manon, M. Stannard, K. Wagner, JA, J. Dagesse, J. Wilking, S.
Moncrieff, G. Leech, A. Dery G. Masefield, A. Klugo, B. Sirvis, L. Thayer, J. Page, C. Orben L.
Chiasson, B. Milizia, C. Jonas, Chris, D. Lavery, D. Sortor, M. Hamelin, C. Gendron, J. Weith, B.
Shearer, B. Zigmund, R. El Kotob, C. Carter, B. Ferland, Cameron
1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:
No changes were made to the agenda.
2. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
No issues were raised.
3. Announcements:
Ms. Keene reported that the City Council has reappointed Mr. Behr and Ms. Wyman and filled
the final position with returning DRB member, Frank Kochman who will join the Board for the 6
July meeting.
Ms. Philibert reminded the public to sign the virtual sign‐in which is a requirement should one
wish to appeal a Board decision.
Ms. Keene also noted there will be a formal site visit on 6 July, 5:30 p.m., at the barn on Old
Farm Road. This will be an information‐gathering meeting with no discussion to take place.
There will be a “hearing officer” present to confirm that State law has been adhered to.
Since the Governor has lifted the COVID requirements, the Board can now meet live. Since 575
Dorset Street is not well‐equipped for hybrid meetings, members agreed to hold the next 2
meetings virtually, then being “in person” meetings at the new City Hall location.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 2
4. Miscellaneous Application #MS‐21‐01 of City of South Burlington Department of Public
Works to construct a dog park on the northwest corner of Wheeler Nature Park. The
project involves impacts to Class III wetland and wetland buffers, 1100 Dorset Street:
Ms. Wyman noted that her company occasionally does work for the city. She didn’t feel it
would affect her judgment.
Ms. Keene noted this application is similar to a site plan with just one hearing.
Mr. Rabidoux noted that about 3 years ago the City Council established a Dog Park Committee
whose main chore was to identify a site for a dog park. The site being presented here is 2.5
acres at the southeast corner of Swift and Dorset Streets. The parking area can hold 40‐45 cars.
The park area will include a ½‐acre park for small and “timid” dogs and 2 acres for other dogs.
There will be a gated entry which can access either park. Just to the south side of the property
is a maintenance gate which will not be for public use. There are no proposed modifications to
the parking lot.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The applicant was asked to address whether encroachment into the wetland
and buffer will affect flood storage. Mr. Rabidoux cited findings of the State wetland expert
and the Army Corps of Engineers. The area has very little storage capacity now. Drainage flow
runs under the footbridge. This project will not alter that or anything that will impact drainage.
Mr. Behr concurred as there will be no regrading. Mr. Langan was still concerned and felt there
was no effort to avoid the wetland, and he was concerned with adding pet waste to the
wetland. Mr. Rabidoux stressed that they are trying to get as much room for dog recreation as
possible with as low an impact to the site as possible. Mr. Langan asked if the Natural
Resources Committee has seen this application. Mr. Rabidoux said not formally, but a member
of that Committee is also on the Dog Park Committee. Mr. Albrecht asked whether this would
be allowed under the proposed new standards. Ms. Keene said she believed “recreation” is
allowed. Mr. Albrecht asked why they can’t extend more to the west or south away from the
wetland buffer. Mr. Rabidoux said that only 15 feet to the south is the pizza oven and then the
walking trails. He stressed that they had had to fight and claw to find any space for this use. He
added that if the wetland report had been more sensitive to the values, he would have had
another opinion.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 3
#2. Staff asked that the applicant discuss mitigation. Mr. Rabidoux said the
answer is the same. The runoff will drain underground to Swift Street into the city system. The
project will not change the flow of stormwater. Mr. Langan said the parking lot is often full
now with people parking on the grass. He felt it may be hard for dog owners to park at certain
times. Mr. Rabidoux agreed but stressed that they wanted to take advantage of “existing
inventory.” He also noted that for any function at Memorial Park, there is also a parking issue.
Public comment was then solicited:
Ms. Sirvis, former Chair of the Dog Park Committee, said the intent is to keep dogs from running
loose in Red Rocks Park and destroying the natural areas. She understood the concerns but
cited the need for a large space, especially for large dogs. She noted the proposed dog park will
have rounded corners to prevent dogs from being “cornered.” There will also be natural
amenities. Ms. Sirvis also recognized the parking challenges, but said they exist everywhere.
She also cited the increase in dog ownership during COVID. She felt the plan respects the needs
of the community and the natural area. She asked about timing. Ms. Keene said the Board will
have 45 days in which to make a decision once the application is closed.
Mr. Albrecht then moved to close MS‐21‐01. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
5. Continued Final Plat Application #SD‐21‐15 of JAM Golf, LLC, to amend a previously
approved plan for an 11‐lot residential subdivision. The amendment consists of
modifying the tree preservation area for the purpose of changing the stormwater
treatment system and updating the tree inventory to reflect existing conditions, Long
Drive:
Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a final plat.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. New plantings are required to be a minimum of 2.5 caliper. Mr. Marshall
said the applicant agrees to this.
#2. Staff indicated trees to be planted outside of the previously approved tree
preservation area. The applicant agrees to this.
Public comment was then solicited.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 4
Ms. Zigmund said it seems the list of trees to be planted doesn’t correspond to the 17 trees
being removed. The settlement requires a one‐to‐one replacement, and the 2.5 caliper trees
don’t meet this requirement.
Ms. Keene said that at the last meeting, the DRB agreed that the removal of the 17 trees is
required to meet stormwater standards. The Board can modify an approval if circumstances
have changes. In this instance, circumstances have changed because of the change in
stormwater regulations. The tree preservation plan will be part of the record of this meeting.
Mr. Behr agreed and said he felt this plan still meets the spirit and letter of the agreements.
Mr. Marshall said they are meeting the obligations. Where the trees are being taken out there
will be no visible change. They will maintain the shape of the canopy and will provide screening
and supplement screening in the northwest corner.
Mr. Behr then moved to close SD‐21‐15. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
Ms. Wyman rejoined the Board.
6. Site Plan Application #SP‐21‐019 of Holmes and Shelburne, LLC, to amend a previously
approved PUD consisting of 36,883 sq. ft. auto sales & service complex and fire
station. The amendment consists of expanding the paved vehicle display and storage
area by 8,385 sq. ft., 1301‐1325 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Weith explained that the applicant will expand the vehicle display and storage area. There
will be no change to buildings or access. Lot coverage will increase to 70.7%. They are allowed
to exceed coverage by up to 10% with a TDR, and the applicant has an option to purchase one
TDR from a seller in the Southeast Quadrant. That purchase will be closed after approval of this
application.
Ms. Keene explained the history of this arrangement which was approved as an amendment to
the Land Development Regulations to allow for increased density in this area. Mr. Weith noted
that one TDR allows for up to 10,000 sq. ft.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. Staff questioned whether the lot coverage includes the retaining wall. Mr.
Weith said it does.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 5
#2. Staff requests the cost for plantings and is asking that the applicant bond for
this amount. Mr. With said the planting estimate is $6,500.
#3. Staff asked the applicant to demonstrate that there are 8 bicycle parking
spaces. Mr. Weith said there is a rack with 2 spaces, and they will meet a stipulation to provide
the remainder of the requirement. Ms. Dery noted where these will be located on the
property. Members were OK with this.
Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Albrecht moved to close SP‐21‐019. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed 6‐0.
7. Site Plan Application #SP‐21‐021 and Conditional Use Application #CU‐21‐02 of Tyler
Barnes to construct a 6,000 sq. ft. pump track for the purpose of outdoor recreation to
the rear of an existing two building commercial complex, 1879 and 1881 Williston Rd.:
Mr. Barnes said his sone was in a bicycle accident which made him wonder how to safely bike.
He said he owns a facility and has a friend who engineers “pump tracks” who has volunteered
to construct one on this site to help keep the kids “engaged.” They are not planning to open
this for public use at this time and are not insured for that. Mr. Barnes showed photos of a
pump track that is similar to what they would have and explained how it is used. They will also
have a number of kinds of soil and plantings for erosion control and will leave the area within
100 feet of Potash Brook undisturbed. The area will not be paved.
Mr. Behr asked if there will be fencing to keep others from using the track. Mr. Barnes said the
top of the track will be gated and there will be posts on either side of the track joined by a chain
in off hours. There will also be “no trespassing” signs and an alarm system when someone is
there who shouldn’t be.
Ms. Keene noted the Board approves a use, in this case, “outdoor recreation,” which could be
interpreted broadly. She encouraged the Board not to have a stipulation that the track remain
private as the city likes businesses to be successful. Ms. Keene also noted the location is in the
traffic overlay district and there could be condition that if the track becomes pubic, they would
have to come back to determine trip ends. Mr. Behr agreed.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The track should not be in the right‐of‐way or drip zone of existing trees. If
trees are removed, the must be replaced with existing species. Mr. Barnes said they will modify
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 6
the plan to be out of the right‐of‐way and drip zone. Ms. Keene said the stipulation would be to
move the start box out of the right‐of‐way. Mr. Barnes said he would prefer option 2 so he
wouldn’t have to mow anymore, but he can live with either option. Ms. Keene said this is a
case where the Board can make the final call during deliberation. Mr. Barnes noted the right‐
of‐way has recently been repaved. He thinks the Fire Chief may have misunderstood. The
gravel beyond the paving is in rough shape, and the Chief may have interpreted the wrong
space for the pump track. Members agreed this was probably the case.
#2. The dumpster must remain accessible. Mr. Barnes agreed. He said they
don’t use it. They use small trash bins. He noted that option 2 wouldn’t affect the turn‐around,
if it is used. He showed where trash pick‐up now happens.
#3. The applicant must demonstrate that there are 3 bike parking spaces. Mr.
Barnes said there are 3 in front of the building. He said they will have as many as the city wants
and the style the city wants.
Public comment was then solicited:
Mr. Wilking indicated his building and said he was concerned with added noise and traffic. Mr.
Barnes asked if there is a noise issue now. Mr. Wilking said there is not. Mr. Barnes said
nothing will change. They play music now, and if that isn’t a problem, there won’t be one in the
future. He felt that even if they do open up for public use, there won’t be much traffic as it
would probably be for existing customers.
Ms. Philibert then moved to close SP‐21‐021 and CU‐21‐02. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion
passed 6‐0.
8. Site Plan Application k#SP‐21‐020 of Burlington International Airport to install
landscaping at the northeast corner of the intersection of Williston Road and Airport
Drive in accordance with the approved overall landscaping plan, 1200 Airport Drive:
Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a conflict of interest.
Mr. Lackey reviewed the history. He cited the challenge of meeting landscaping requirements
and noted the Airport now has an overall landscape plan. The application for the hotel uses
some of the landscaping area from that plan. To address that, they have come up with the first
phase of a plan to improve the Airport entrance area. Mr. Lackeys said they responded to staff
comments in writing.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 7
Ms. Orben then showed a visual of what the plan looks like. She said they are trying to create a
“gateway” to the Airport campus. She pointed out the BTV letters as a “modern sculpture” in
aluminum with metal rivets surrounded by native birch and low plantings and ornamental
grasses. Mr. Lackey added they will do some grading there to improve the look. Ms. Orben
said the existing small walls will be removed.
Ms. Philibert questioned whether the lettering is a sculpture or a sign. Ms. Keene said there is
no question it is a sign. An airplane would be a sculpture. As a sign, it is also too large. They
could reduce the size or go to the Planning Commission to modify the sign regulations. Mr.
Lackey said they can remove the letters and come back with either a smaller sign or a sculpture.
He stressed that timing is an issue. He felt if they bring the letters down 6 inches, they will
meet the regulations.
Mr. Albrecht said the people coming from out of town might not know what “BTV” means and
suggested a sign for “Burlington International Airport.”
Ms. Eiring said she knows it is Burlington International Airport, but this is South Burlington, and
she felt it was misleading.
Ms. Keene questioned whether what is proposed meets the deficit from the terminal and hotel
projects. Mr. Lackey said he believes it does. He added that they would like an approval
without the letters because this is tied to the TIP project and is consistent with the overall plan.
Members were OK with that. Mr. Albrecht said it will be an improvement to that corner.
Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment.
Mr. Behr moved to close SP‐21‐020. Ms. Eiring seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
9. Sketch plan application #SD‐21‐16 of Beta Air, Inc., to amend an approved plan for an
airport complex. The amendment consists of demolishing two existing buildings
totaling 9,029 sq. ft. and adjusting the boundary lines between five existing lots for
the purpose of constructing a 41‐foot high, approximately 265,000 gross square foot
office and manufacturing building and related site improvements, 3070 Williston
Road:
Ms. Wyman was recused due to a conflict of interest.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 8
Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan.
The applicant explained that they are building zero‐emission aircraft. They currently have 270
employees and will double that number with the manufacturing facility. They will be using the
aircraft to fly human organ donations and cargo missions, then eventually people. They can fly
250 aeronautical miles between charges. They will have staff on call for the delivery of organs.
Staff comments were then addressed as follows:
#1. The applicant was asked to describe the use of the historic quarry area. Mr.
Gendron said it is on the east side of the site and is a runway protection area. There will be no
building or parking allowed there as it is for a potential aircraft “overshoot” of the runway.
There could be stormwater treatment in that area. Mr. Gendron also noted that there are
approach cones that limit the height of a building. They have queried the FAA to confirm what
is allowed. 59‐60 feet is what is needed for Beta’s operations. Mr. Klugo said the building on
the runway side will be close to 60 feet; on the other side, it will be 41 feet.
#2. The applicant was asked to discuss the design and “gateway” vision regarding
parking. Mr. Klugo showed slides of the existing conditions and the concept for the “gateway”
look. He said there will be a more “campus look” with landscape features (walls and plantings
and connection to the rec path). The building will set back significantly from Williston Road,
and there will be a well‐landscaped amenity in front of the building. Materials include rock,
native birch, landscaped walls, and walking path. All are consistent with the Airport Master
Plan.
#3. Already addressed.
#4. Mr. Klugo said they will definitely install a sidewalk between the 2 proposed
entrances.
#5. Staff is asking for a traffic study for the next phase and asked if the Board
wanted to invoke technical review of that study. Ms. Keene noted 200 additional p.m. trip ends
are estimated. Mr. Klugo said he agrees with technical review. They already have a second
draft of the traffic study.
Mr. Behr moved to invoke technical review of the applicant’s traffic study. Mr. Langan
seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 9
#6. The applicant was asked to submit field delineations and wetland reports
from the State wetland department. Mr. Gendron said they have delineated the wetland and
are schedules to meet with the wetland ecologist this month.
#7 and #8. The Board was asked to discuss with the applicant whether they can
meet the requirement for no parking in front of the building. Ms. Keene said the Board can
waive the “no parking” regulation. One thing that would allow this is if the applicant creates a
“campus‐style quad” in the center, then parking, then the building, then the street. This may
be available to the applicant, but the restrictions are very strict. The applicant showed an
overview of the site and noted what encompasses the Beta site. A rock cropping that plays into
the design of the project was shown as were areas where they cannot develop. They need to
maximize the area, and also need to be 60 feet from the Continental hangar which brings them
closer to the rock outcropping. It was noted that there will be solar panels on the roof as well
as skylights and geothermal heating. A series of walkways was indicated through the site with a
boardwalk along the wet area. There will also be seating there. Views of the mountains and
the overall airport were also noted. Mr. Klugo noted that the back of the building is actually the
front of the building. They are working through options regarding parking, one of which is
having the building “front” on a public park. That would go along with a proposed “cultural
center.” Mr. Behr said that he would love to see a public park as a gateway. He felt a building
on Williston Rd. with a public park behind it sounded workable.
Ms. Philibert asked about the cultural center. Mr. Klugo said it would be a center for
“awareness of aviation.” It would be open to the public and also provide pilot training and
some simulation. He noted that by 2030, they will need to train hundreds of pilots, which could
happen here. There could also be a café/restaurant, education center, a place to bring children
for some hands‐on experience.
#9. Staff asked for details of the aesthetics of the building. Mr. Masefield
showed an image of what you would see as you approach the site and having the building
gradually revealed. He also indicated the shipping/receiving side of the building. He also
indicated a 2‐story window‐wall into the building and a walkway to the second floor area. He
then showed 2 bird’s eye views and noted a terrace with amphitheater space that goes “down
into the valley” and becomes a naturescape. He indicated the administrative wing and drew
attention to the array on the roof with openings for skylights. Mr. Masefield stressed that their
mission is to produce aircraft with zero carbon emissions at a cost much less than standard
aircraft. He added that the building will do a lot of what the aircraft will do. They are studying
geothermal heating pumps and hope to make the building net zero. Mechanicals will all be
electric, non‐carbon consumptive. They are working to develop a prototype like the north
hangar utilizing various types of steel as accents and “scales” that could be various colors.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
15 JUNE 2021
PAGE 10
Mr. Behr said this looks like a great tie‐in to other buildings the DRB has approved, and it was
great to see responsible growth. Other members agreed.
Public comment was then solicited.
Mr. Wilking said that as Chair of the Economic Development Committee, he encouraged the
Board to keep this moving along.
10. Minutes of 26 May and 1 June 2021:
Mr. Behr moved to approve the minutes of 26 May and 1 June 2021 as written. Ms. Philibert
seconded. Motion passed 5‐0.
11. 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 10:01 p.m.
These minutes were approved by the Development Review Board on__________