Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 02/15/2022DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 February 2022, 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; J. Langan, S. Wyman, D. Albrecht, F. Kochman, Q. Mann ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. O’Brien, D. Saladino, L. Pace, S. Mowat, M. Grant, L. Merrithew, N. Hyman, Will, C. Kramer- Golinkoff, W. Gruisbond, J. Goldman, J. Dagesse, A. Klugo, B. Newton, C. Sener, Cynthia, L. Lackey, J. Hodgson, C. Gendron, B. Newton 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instruction 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. Philibert reviewed the sign-in procedures. Ms. Keene noted that the amendments to the LDRs were approved by the City Council on 7 February and will be in effect 21 days thereafter. Board members can request hard copies. 5. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-21-039 of South Village Communities, LLC, to provide a replacement plan for trees and shrubs that were improperly removed. The plan consists of installing a heavily landscaped passive recreation area and walking path between Aiken Street and Spear Street, east of the existing paved recreation path, 1840 Spear Street: Mr. O’Brien noted there are concerns with invasive species that the Act 250 permit requires to be removed and whether there will be enough trees when those invasives are removed. He added that he met on site with the City Arborist to see if there were plantings to replace the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 2 invasives, and that is what is being proposed. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked whether the planting plan is acceptable to the Board. Mr. O’Brien showed the proposed plan which encompasses an area 260 feet in length and 110 feet wide at its widest point. He indicated the area of invasives to be removed. The prior plan showed 37 new trees; this plan increases that number to 55 new trees, 28 of which are evergreens, 16 deciduous (maples, birch and lilac) and some fruit-bearing trees. Mr. O’Brien also noted there are some native trees in the invasive area which will be kept. The original plan showed a trail and benches, but the South Village Board did not want that, and they were removed. Mr. Albrecht said the plan looked OK to him, and he was OK with removal of the path. Mr. O’Brien asked for a condition of approval to give the Arborist the ability to make a substitution for trees due to supply chain issues. Mr. Kochman said that request is reasonable. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Hyman said there are people who will tag invasives and that should be done. Mr. Mowat said the South Village Board is happy with this proposal and felt it was a big improvement. Mr. Albrecht then moved to close SP-21-039. Ms. Wyman seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued master plan application #MP-21-02 of Beta Air, LLC, for a planned unit development on five lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard and a 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 a 85,000 sq. ft. flight instruction and airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road; Ms. Wyman was recused during this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Newton, Chief Operating Officer of Beta, cited the level of support from all levels of government to build a world-class R&D center. He said he had never seen such a level of support before. He also cited the need to execute quickly so they can keep their promise to the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 3 community regarding job growth. He added that Vermont was an obvious choice for this venture because of the pragmatism of the state, the people concerned with the mission, and the ability to find a mutual solution, which he called “unmatched.” Mr. Newton also noted the “race” to get to market quickly, to create jobs, and to bend the curve on climate change. Mr. Kochman asked what is being manufactured and who are the customers. Mr. Newton said they are building electric motors, batteries and charging stations for electric aircraft. The motors are being built in Williston. South Burlington will be the site of the final assembly of electric aircraft with zero emissions. Their first customer is the United States Air Force in San Antonio (they are training people to fly these planes); others include United Therapeutics (organ deliverers), UPS, Blade (Regional Air Mobility for the passenger market). Mr. Kochman asked if the planes are pilotless. Mr. Newton said there will be a training facility for pilots though the Air Force will use the planes as unmanned. Mr. Newton added that they are privately funded. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Regarding the traffic impact study, Ms. Keene advised that the results of the technical review have been received. It indicated that the applicant may have overestimated the trips. The Board can decide whether to require the recommended adjustments or to keep the 553 trips. Regarding the estimate for the later (red) phase, what the Board has done in the past is to say “update it.” Ms. Keene said staff feels that would be appropriate here. VTrans is not ready to approve the traffic signal at this time, but may do so later. Ms. Keene recommended that Board say no traffic signal is needed in Phase 1. Mr. Klugo said that sounds reasonable. #2. Regarding parking and the recreational amenity in the “red phase,” Ms. Keene noted parking is to the rear and side. The question remains how to deal with it in the early stage. The applicant came in with a recreational amenity. The Board needs to decide if this meets the standard. Staff feels it is viable. Ms. Keene showed a plan of what would be there before the building is built and indicated where the parking would be. Mr. Albrecht asked if the Board has ever approved something like this before. Ms. Keene said they had at sketch with South Village and with parking at the addition to the hockey arena. Mr. Klugo said the proposed area is bigger than a pocket park (100’x200’). The intent is to provide a feature to make the sidewalk more usable. It would be a place for people to hang out and also a public art space. Landforms vary in height up to 6-8 feet. It would be replaced by the commercial building in the future. Mr. Albrecht said that without signage it’s not an amenity, and he was afraid it would just sit DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 4 there. Mr. Klugo said recreation is not necessarily active. It can be just sitting. It will connect to the rec path systems. He acknowledged it is not traditional, but the way the LDR is written, they feel it works for the short period of time it will be there. They can provide signage. Mr. Albrecht was OK with that. Mr. Kochman agreed with Mr. Klugo and said if it is like the space across from City Hall, it’s great. Mr. Klugo said that is the model for this. Plantings will be like elsewhere on the site. There will be benches, boulders, public art, a very peaceful place. They will do some renderings and share them with the Board. Ms. Keene asked if it will go in with the first final plat. Mr. Klugo said it will. Ms. Philibert asked how long it will be there and whether there could be a “backlash” when it is removed. Ms. Keene said the Master Plan is valid for 10 years. If they build the first phase and nothing else, this is there; if they go forward, the building goes there. Mr. Kochman questioned the use of the word “lot” and noted the lot is 37 acres. Mr. Klugo suggested substituting “parcel.” He noted this is in the lease with the Airport for this particular use. Mr. Klugo said they are building more parking than they need. Nothing would prohibit them from saying the spaces right against the amenity are not exclusive. Ms. Keene said there would then be a problem with the rest of the parking being not to the side or rear. Mr. Klugo asked if the other parking lot has the same obligation for parking to the rear, etc. Ms. Keene said it still applies. Mr. Kochman suggested asking the City legal department about “principal use of lot.” Ms. Keene said Beta should make their best offer and let the Board go with it. Mr. Klugo said they have the best offer. Mr. Albrecht asked why they don’t just build the building. Mr. Klugo said it’s a $5,000,000 building, and they have no tenants for it. That money should go to R&D. Ms. Keene asked how comfortable the applicant would be if the DRB agreed that “carving out” a lot is OK. Mr. Klugo said he saw no reason they couldn’t work that out. Mr. Lackey said he was sure that Airport can work this out. Public comment was then solicited. Mr. Hyman said the building should be on Williston Road. He felt the Board was not fulfilling its responsibility to the city and was asking about gas and oil storage. Mr. Klugo said there will be no gas or oil on the site. Ms. Mann then moved to close MP-21-02. Mr. Albrecht seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC, to consolidate five existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into one lot of 747.92 acres and to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a master DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 5 plan, to include a 344,000 sq. ft. manufacturing and office building, improving approximately 2,400 sq. ft. of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070 Williston Road: Ms. Wyman was recused due to a potential conflict of interest. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff requested specific information on square footage for manufacturing and office space. Mr. Klugo said that of the total 163,000 sq. ft., 12,000 will be office space, 132,000 will be assembly and 20,000 will be for storage. Ms. Keene noted that the applicant has asked to build the building in 2 phases, phase 1 being mostly manufacturing at the rear. She questioned whether phase 1 can meet the standards regarding materials, roads, etc. Staff also feels there is a question of being consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Klugo said master plans create a “roadmap” for how the land will be developed. The intent is not to have a sterile development, but a variety of architecture for each very different use. Ms. Keene said staff feels the criteria are met when both phases are constructed. The question is whether the first subphase meets the criteria. Mr. Kochman asked if there will be an “ugly wall” for a period of time. Mr. Klugo said “far from ugly.” It is a beautiful building, half or full. He then showed renderings. Mr. Kochman said it didn’t look bad. Mr. Klugo added that there will also be plantings that will be moved when the rest of the building is constructed. He then read from the LDRs the sections on scale and materials and said they are meeting these sections. Members had no disagreement. #2. The applicant was asked to document the value of excess landscape costs. Mr. Klugo said they haven’t bid that out yet but will be happy to supply the sub-contractor’s bid when they have it. Ms. Keene said the approval can say they can count the excess landscape as long as landscaping in other phases is met. Mr. Klugo said they were happy to do that. #3. Staff is asking that the 32” and 34” maples be retained and that grading be revised to make this possible. Staff also asked about preserving the 3 locust trees on Williston Road. Mr. Klugo said they have revised the grading to accommodate staff’s request. The locusts are challenging. Putting the sidewalk where the city says it should be impacts those trees. Mr. Klugo suggested 2 options: not putting the sidewalk on one side of the entry road or, if the sidewalk has to be there, damaging the roots of the trees. They prefer option 1. Ms. Keene cited a geogrid which can be put where it will not damage the trees. Mr. Hodgson said he is not DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 6 familiar with that. Ms. Keene said it is used in California. Mr. Hodgson said they don’t have frost. Ms. Philibert said he didn’t feel the same about the locusts as the maples. Other members agreed. #4. Regarding stormwater grading, the applicant was fine with the recommendation and have put in revised documents. #5-#7. These issues were resolved. #8. Staff requested information regarding long-term bike storage. Mr. Klugo showed a chart indicating the location just outside the south entrance. Mr. Klugo noted stipulation #8 in the proposed approval motion and asked if it can be 3-1/2 years. The Master Plan is a 10-year plan. Mr. Klugo said they will occupy phase 1 in April 2023, then will take about 1-1/2 years to determine what the next phase will look like, then another year to design it. Mr. Newton said as they begin to build, they will know what they need in order to deliver the product to customers. They need time to have that understanding. They are asking for 3-1/2 years post-substantial completion. Ms. Keene said that is pretty unprecedented. She noted that the east side rec path, great lawn area are things that would not be done in the first phase. Ms. Mann suggested 5 years from approval of the first phase. Members expressed no objection to that. Mr. Klugo said in stipulation #9, they are asking for 4880 gpd water/wastewater allocation. Ms. Keene was OK with that as was the Board. Mr. Klugo said he was unsure of the intent of stipulation #14. Ms. Keene said this can be prior to the issuance of a CO rather than the zoning permit. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Albrecht moved to close SD-21-28. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed 6-0. Mr. Klugo respectfully asked for a speedy a decision as possible due to supply chain issues. 7. Minutes of 18 January and 2 February 2022: Members agreed to postpone approval of the minutes. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 FEBRUARY 2022 PAGE 7 8. Other Business: Ms. Keene reminded members that the next meeting will be on Wednesday 2 March. It has a full agenda. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on April 5, 2022.