Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 12/21/2021DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 21 December 2021, 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; M. Behr, J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; B. Ferland, C. Weinberg, C. Carter, C. Sylvie, Dorset Park Resident, M. Grant, Jake G., J. Farkas, L. Marriott, M. Byrne, P. Raymond, R. Bryant, T. Lindberg, N. Hyman, N. Longo, A. Rowe, L. Lackey, Blain, D. Saladino, 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency and review of technology options: Ms. Philibert provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology and sign-in options. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: Ms. Keene suggested reviewing the minutes before Item #6. Members agreed. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Sketch plan application #SD-21-27 of 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, to subdivide an existing 113.8 acre parcel into 6 lots ranging in size from 8.1 acres to 57.5 acres, construct 4 public streets on the 8.1 acre lot, and 24 buildings for a mix of industrial and commercial uses ranging from 17,500 sq. ft. to 66,000 sq. ft. and totaling 770,250 sq. ft. with 1970 parking spaces on the remaining 8.5 to 57.5 acre lots, 835 Hinesburg Road: Ms. Philibert explained the nature of a sketch plan. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 2 Mr. Rowe said the project involves 113.8 acres in the Industrial-Open Space District. The project is based on the regulations in force on 30 August which the application was submitted. It involves multiple buildings on individual lots. The application was deemed complete on 19 October. There is a street connection proposed to Swift Street. Mr. Rowe showed this on the plan. Ms. Philibert said that as she understands it, State law requires any application heard after new regulations are warned will be heard under the new regulations, so the new regulations will guide this application. Mr. Rowe said the applicant has a different opinion, but that discussion is not for this meeting. Ms. Philibert said as the Board does not have staff comments, she suggested continuing the application. Ms. Keene said if the new regulations are not adopted, the application can be rewarned and the Board can hear it. Public comments was then solicited. There was no public comment. 6. Minutes of 16 November 2021: Ms. Quinn moved to approve the Minutes of 16 November 2021 as presented. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Master Plan Application #MP-21-02 of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit development on 5 lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor’s yard, and an RV sales, service and repair facility. The Master Plan includes combining the 5 lots, resulting in one lot of 747.92 acres, and consists of a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sq. ft. office and retail building, a 15,600 sq. ft. commercial building, and an 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and Airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting Airport lot, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Klugo said the Master Plan is for a site at the south end of the Airport to provide an assembly site for electric aircraft. There are also a childcare center, cultural center, support facility and hangar. The new roadway will be built to public standards. There will be a network of open space, walkways, and recreation path which will connect to the Airport’s master landscaping plan. There will be 400 parking spaces for employees. The intent is to begin construction early next year and be operational at the end of the year. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 3 Mr. Klugo noted that the current space is being used as a research and development center. The product from that center would then come to the assembly building. Following test flights, the product would be delivered to customers. Ms. Philibert asked if the daycare is for employees’ children only. Mr. Klugo said currently it is, until they know the numbers. Ms. Keene briefly reviewed the nature of a master plan. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted the need for dimensional, values, and coverage computation. Mr. Klugo said the building coverage is 24.3%; the portion in the I-C District is 5.5%. Both are below what is allowed. The maximum coverage had been a 54%. The allowable is 50%. With the addition of the geothermal field (which due to an oversight had been omitted), they are at 49%. Ms. Keene asked whether they are requesting a height waiver. Mr. Klugo said they are not requesting a direct height waiver in the IT zone, but there is a question as to whether 35 feet is workable. Ms. Keene noted that the Planning Commission is discussing whether that is the correct height for that district. #2. Staff questioned the floor area ratio (FAR). Mr. Klugo said they are asking for .75 and the opportunity for some adjustments, should the zoning allow it. This would allow for the addition of a mezzanine. Ms. Keene noted that is double what is was shown on the plan (.295). Mr. Klugo said they are happy to consider something else. .295 was very tight, but they will consider something in between. Mr. Behr said he would like to see what it would look like and needed more information before approving. He added that he was OK with .35; beyond that he would want see it. He felt that would still allow for flexibility. Mr. Klugo said they will go back and test that. #3. This item relates to lot coverage. Staff noted that the numbers should be for this area, not for the whole Airport. Ms. Keene said that with the numbers they have tonight, the Board can determine the threshold. #4. Regarding open spaces, Mr. Klugo showed a graphic of major open spaces: the rec path from Williston Road that meanders through the site and ends in a viewing area; the “great lawn,” a “hangout place, the employee terrace (hardscape), the sculpture lawn in front of the building, and the entry plaza (hardscape) including pubic art. Ms. Keene said the rec path is questionable as open space. Mr. Klugo identified the open spaces on the plan. Mr. Albrecht DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 4 also questioned the rec path as open space. Ms. Keene did note that the South Village Master Plan has a public soccer area and a linear connected path, and O’Brien Brothers has the football-shaped park. Mr. Albrecht asked about signage so the public knows they can use the path. Mr. Klugo said they have had conversations with tenants in the area. He said the sidewalk is a connector to provide access so it doesn’t feel like a gated community. There will be public events on the lawns on weekends. The path was conceived as a way for staff and the daycare to get over to the brook. Ms. Keene stressed that the Board can determine which areas are to be considered “permanent open space.” Mr. Klugo said they will provide more detail. #5. Staff asked how trip generation was calculated. Mr. Saladino directed attention to the table provided. The peak hour trip ends total 526, and numbers are provided for each building. They will update the numbers as part of a study for the whole master plan. Mr. Saladino said the numbers are very conservative. Ms. Keene questioned whether the numbers should be adjusted based on changed in the FAR and lot coverage. Mr. Saladino said the only internal capture is from employees dropping off children at the daycare; if the children are all Beta children, the number will go down. Ms. Keene questioned whether the Board should provide a cushion for peak hour numbers. Mr. Behr said Ms. Keene’s thinking was correct, and they should get as correct as possible. Since the FAR is up in the air, he suggested the applicant look at that so everything can be cross-referenced and coordinated. Mr. Klugo said that makes sense. #6. Regarding water, Mr. Klugo said they are working on that. #7. Mr. Klugo said they will update the traffic study and expect to have that done in early to mid-January. He noted that the high points with the State include: why the signal is located where it is, separating truck and car traffic, site distances in light of requirements, the Shunpike neighborhood and why Valley Drive is being closed (Mr. Klugo said they offered to have Valley Drive be one-way entry only). #8. Staff noted that the Williston Road sidewalk was omitted from the Master Plan document. Mr. Klugo showed the location and said it is indicated on the technical page. #9. Staff noted that the Board can grant a process waiver so that when the applicant comes in for the daycare center, etc., they will only have to do a site plan. #10. The applicant was asked what, if anything, could be done by administrative approval only. Mr. Klugo suggested the solar equipment, battery back-up, process related DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 5 backup, utility transformers, and electric a/c and car chargers. Ms. Keene suggested a possible size limit to some of those things. Mr. Klugo said that made sense. #11. Regarding phasing, staff suggests complete site plans for each of the phases within 5 years of the date of master plan approval. Mr. Klugo said that depending on market dynamics, things could change. He stressed that they are creating things that have never been created before. They do plan to meet the 5-year limit, but are requesting no time-line as they don’t want to be in default. Mr. Behr said he hears the concerns on both sides. He was leery of having it be open-ended and suggested 5 years with an option for a 5-year extension. Mr. Klugo suggested that for everything they complete, they get 5-7 years for the next phase. Ms. Philibert thought 21 years seemed long. Mr. Klugo said that would be true, but the next item on the agenda is the start of the first phase. He stressed that there is a lot of value for them to complete the project. Mr. Behr agreed that the first phase is a major push on the project. He was concern3ed with the building on Williston Road that will screen the parking lot. He wanted to see something there. Mr. Klugo suggested deferring that conversation to the next agenda item. #12. Staff noted that the applicant is proposing no time line for the commercial building. The Airport has leases on the buildings in that location, and staff believes the Board can waive that requirement. The applicant feels that the standard for not allowing parking in front of the building “creates a hardship” as the FAA will not allow parking in the rear because of Airport uses. Ms. Philibert asked what the applicant has in mind for the commercial building. Mr. Klugo said there is the potential for future vendors. Mr. Behr noted that the Board has allowed that condition at Technology Park because of a power easement. Mr. Longo explained why parking would not be allowed behind the building. Mr. Albrecht asked if the building could be moved more to the south. Mr. Klugo said they then couldn’t have direct access to the airfield. Members agreed to confer with the legal people to see if what the applicant is arguing makes sense. Ms. Keene asked what surety the Board should ask for to make sure the commercial building is constructed. Mr. Klugo said they can landscape in a way to screen the parking. They would build the commercial building when it can be used. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Marriott said he lives a block from the Airport and asked where the 750 acres are. Ms. Keene said that is the entirety of the Airport parcel. This application affects only 37 acres which Beta is leasing from the Airport. Mr. Albrecht then moved to continue MP-21-02 until 18 January 2022. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 6 8. Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC, to consolidate 5 existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into lot of 747.92 acres and to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a Master Plan, to include a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, improving approximately 2,400 feet of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman recused herself from this hearing. Mr. Klugo showed the plan of the first phase of the project. It includes all of the infrastructure, a majority of the parking, which will allow for the development of the child care center, etc., Williston Road improvements, the north half of the building, the connection to Eagle Drive, utilities, and stormwater. It is the backbone for all the other buildings. Mr. Klugo said they are asking for approval for the whole building in 2 phases. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1 Staff asked that the applicant provide dimensional standards and coverages for each zoning district. Mr. Klugo said that information has been provided. #2. Staff noted the need for approvals from Airport regulatory agencies. Mr. Klugo said they will provide that as it is expected before the end of the year. #3. Regarding parking in front of the building, Ms. Philibert said the Board will deliberate on that issue. #4. Regarding access to abutting properties, staff noted that if there is need for additional connections, this should appear in the Master Plan. Mr. Klugo said they are OK with that. #5. Staff noted an apparent conflict between existing overhead utilities and the proposed water line. Mr. Klugo said that has been corrected. #6. Staff requested information regarding proposed dumpsters. Mr. Klugo said the dumpster site is below ground. He showed a view of this with proposed screening and access for haulers. #7. Regarding landscaping and screening, staff questioned including ground covering as part of the landscaping requirement. The applicant said this is mainly a conservation mix which DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 7 will occasionally be mowed. He stressed that they cannot attract large birds. Ms. Keene questioned whether amenities such as benches should be allowed as landscaping credit if there is so much ground covering. #8. Regarding computation of interior parking lot landscaping, staff felt this requirement appears to be met but asked that the Board require a computation to support this. Mr. Klugo said that 36% of the parking area is green space. He showed this on the plan. #9. Mr. Klugo said they will comply with the comments of the City Arborist. #10. Staff asked that the applicant provide an exhibit indicating that they meet the requirement for shade trees. Mr. Klugo showed the plan indicating compliance. #11. Regarding snow removal/storage, Mr. Klugo said the area will be maintained by the Airport. He showed snow storage areas. Mr. Longo said snow will be removed from the site, if necessary. Mr. Albrecht noted that one storage spot is the site of a future building. Mr. Klugo said they will look at that. #12. Regarding screening of the electric cabinet, Mr. Klugo showed a diagram of the screening. #13. Staff asked that the Board consider requiring the applicant to replace some of the concrete pavers (or the landscaping value associated with them) with commissioned artwork. Ms. Keene noted that 46% of the budget is now devoted to the 0pavers. Mr. Klugo said the landscape budget is $1,700,000. If they take out the pavers, they are still in excess of what is required for landscaping. #14. Staff recommended that the Board require removal of site furniture from the landscaping budget as it is not a permanent feature, which is a requirement. The applicant said the furniture has been removed from the budget. Staff also asked the Board to require a more durable bike rack. The applicant was OK with this. #15.The City Arborist has questioned the cost of the evergreen trees and also recommends documentation of the costs of the deciduous trees. The applicant said they will provide that information. #16. The City Arborist recommended the use of soil cells. Staff suggested the Board decide whether to allow the value of those cells to contribute to the landscaping budget. Mr. Holson explained the nature of soil cells which are the latest trend to ensure trees grow to their DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 8 potential. Mr. Albrecht said that since they are part of the cost of planting, he would support having them as part of the landscape budget. He noted they are now an industry standard, and their long-term benefit is substantial. #17. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address comments of the Stormwater Department. Mr. Klugo said they have provided that information. He also clarified that the existing impervious on the site is 448,026 sq. ft., and the proposed is 648,943 sq, ft. #18. Staff recommended the Board ask the applicant to describe the rec path from Williston Road, including who will be allowed to use it, responsibility for maintenance, and property rights at the terminal of the paved portion of the path. The applicant said the path was provided for access for the daycare to the natural areas and to provide access for the public to the viewing field. It can also provide a link for a future path to the area adjacent to the Airport. Mr. Klugo said the applicant will maintain the path. #19. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to enumerate the area of proposed encroachment into the wetland buffer. Mr. Gendron said they have worked with the Tina Heath and have modified the sidewalk alignment and grading to reduce wetland impacts. #20. Mr. Klugo said they have provided the meeting minutes from their meeting with the Fire Department. #21.Mr. Klugo said they will remove the uplighting. #22. Staff noted the maximum height for wall-mounted fixtures is 30 feet, and the applicant is proposing 40 feet. Mr. Klugo said they can do the 30 feet at the loading dock, but at the hangar door they can’t because the door is 36 feet high. Ms. Keene asked if they are required. Mr. Longo said they are. PAGE 9 #23. Staff is OK with illumination levels to exceed 3 footcandles at the loading dock where it is fully screened but not where the area is exposed to view from the roadway. Mr. Klugo said they need 6 footcandles when workers are out there. They will be at 3 at other times. Members were OK with this. #24. This was addressed under #17. #25. Mr. Klugo showed the location on the plan for bicycle parking spaces (66 total) and the locations for lockers and showers in 2 locations. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 21 DECEMBER 2021 PAGE 9 #26. Regarding the bus shelter, Mr. Klugo said this will be a GMT shelter. He showed a picture of it. The hope is to work with GMT for something more like a Beta shelter. Staff also questioned whether there is room for buses to leave the travel lane to discharge/pick up passengers. Mr. Klugo said it is hard for buses to get back once they leave the travel lane. Ms. Keene said she will talk to GMT about this. Mr. Albrecht asked if there are plans for transportation management. Mr. Klugo said there is space for “pool” parking spaces and will be van opportunities and inter-company shuttles. He stressed that they are trying to be as creative as possible to keep people off the roads. #27. Ms. Keene noted the Board can approve a final plat in phases. They will need a plan of what ground conditions will look like when the applicant comes in for a CO. Mr. Klugo said they can provide that. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Raymond asked what is the requirement for FAA approval. Ms. Keene said it can be required before a zoning permit is issued or before closing the hearing. It is up to the Board. Mr. Klugo said they submitted information to the FAA in May and expect approval by the end of the year. Ms. Philibert then moved to continue SD-21-28 until 18 January 2022. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: Ms. Wyman rejoined the meeting. No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:55 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on February 2, 2022.