Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_2024-06-04_DRB Minutes DRAFT PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 4 June 2024, 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, F. Kochman, Q. Mann, S. Wyman, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; I Smith, D. Read, L. Lackey, D. Messier, J. Reed, M. Korpos, A. Forseco, J. Dagesse 1. Instructions on exiting the building in case of an emergency: Ms. Philibert provided instructions 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. Keene acknowledged Ms. Wyman term of service to the DRB and said she will be missed. The city is recruiting volunteers to apply for a seat on the DRB. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2024 PAGE 2 5. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-24-01 of AAM Catamount Woods LLC, to establish a master plan for an existing 87.6 acre lot developed with a parking lot, supporting driveways, and a helipad. The Master Plan consists of an estimated 275 units of housing in two 5-story buildings over 2 phases, and associated site improvements on 5.7 acres, 870 Williston Road: Staff advised that this item was withdrawn. 6. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-24-06 of AAM Catamount Woods, LLC, for the first phase of a concurrent master plan for an estimated 275 units of housing in two 4-story buildings. The first phase consists of a 184-unit, 5-story multifamily building and associated civic spaces and site improvements, 870 Williston Road: Staff advised that this item was withdrawn. 7. Miscellaneous application #MS-24-01 of AAM Burlington Hotel for alternative entrance compliance as allowed under the Land Development Regulations, Section 8.06H for a 4-story wing for an existing hotel and conference center, 870 Williston Road: Mr. Messier said the wing will be for guest rooms only, no public spaces. The design was submitted under Form Based Code which will have an administrative approval. They are at the DRB for modification of the public entrances regulations. They are seeking approval under “alternate compliance” section of the LDRs. Mr. Messier then explained the access to hotel and said they want the entrances to the new wing to be “operative entrances,” not public entrances. He added that they have provided information as to how they meet the regulations. He also noted that one of the earliest buildings on the site will be removed (60+ rooms) when this project is complete. This new building will be connected to the existing hotel by a skybridge. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The narrative submitted by the applicant was provided to members. #2. The Board was asked to determine whether the building pattern is attractive. A rendering was shown indicating the existing hotel entrance and the location of the proposed addition. The applicant said hotel guests in the new DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2024 PAGE 3 wing can use the entrances with a key card. Mr. Kochman said he felt this item deserves minimal attention as this is a hotel site. Mr. Behr agreed and said he would view it differently if it were a stand-alone building. He noted this building shouldn’t be “too welcoming” so the public would be trying to enter. #3. The Board was asked to determine whether criteria “D” was met. Ms. Keene noted the element being proposed is the promenade and asked whether that meets the criteria. Mr. Messier said they are providing entrances in the frequency that meets requirements (he showed a full view of the rendering). He indicated the location of a bench and low stone wall. The existing stone wall will be gone. Mr. Read added there will be more landscaping there as well. Public comment was then solicited. Ms. Korpos said she thought the plan makes sense and provides security. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to close MS-24-01. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 8. Site Plan Application #SP24-20 of Burlington School District to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of renovating an existing hangar for the use of Burlington School District’s Aviation Technical Center, including reconfiguration of the parking and site circulation, 200 Davinci Drive: The applicant noted the Burlington School District has received a grant to build an Aviation Facility at the Patrick Leahy Airport adjacent to the new Beta facility. There will be 3 programs in the building: adult ed, Burlington High School level program, and advanced manufacturing. The hangar is being renovated to accommodate the education facility. Ms. Dagesse noted the hangar is in the southwest quadrant of the Airport and is a one-story building which will remain at that height. The parking lot will be expanded to include a bus loading/unloading area. There will be 8 covered bike parking spaces and 2 interior lockers. They are currently working on the State stormwater permits, water, and Act 250 applications. Ms. Dagesse noted they had updated 2 sheets in response to staff comments. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2024 PAGE 4 #1. Staff had suggested improving personal mobility access. The applicant’s written response was shown. It indicated an added walkway with signage. #2. The applicant was asked to demonstrate that parking is adequate. The applicant provided that information. #3. The applicant was asked to demonstrate that the proposed pavement is minimal. Ms. Dagesse said the pavement is needed for bus turning. She said there could be multiple buses loading at one time. Some of the pavement is existing and will be resurfaced. Ms. Dagesse also noted that Gate 13 still needs access for security reasons. #4. The applicant was asked when the overhead utilities will be located underground. Ms. Dagesse said the existing service to the building is underground. She indicated on the plan where the service comes into the building. #5. The applicant was asked to respond to Public Works’ comments. Ms. Dagesse said they met with the Water and Sewer Departments and responded via letter. The pump station will remain privately owned. The water/oil separator will be upgraded. There will be no food preparation so there is no need for a grease trap. #6. Regarding the pathway to the building, the applicant was asked to consider raising and curbing the pathway. Mr. Reed explained the sheet flow of water across the site which precludes raising and curbing. #7. Staff noted the building is 34,000 sq. ft. and one short-term bike space is required for each 20 students of capacity or 5 spaces. The applicant said students will be bused from their home schools and back to school again. They spend only half the school day at the facility. They feel that what they are proposing meets the regulations. #8.and #9 Staff noted that no parking lot landscaping is proposed. They are asking for screening and shading. Ms. Dagesse said they updated the plan to show landscaping around the parking lot and added as much as they could near the northern entrance and near the bioretention area. Ms. Keene said this does not meet the intent of the regulations. Ms. Dagesse said there is no room for landscaped islands because of the configuration of the parking lot. Mr. Lackey DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2024 PAGE 5 added that they can’t plant trees on the embankment. They also don’t want trees on the Airport side of Davinci Drive. Ms. Keene suggested continuing to digest this information until the next meeting so staff can do an analysis. #10. Staff noted that curbing is required to protect adjacent landscaping except where there is a stormwater collection or treatment area. Ms. Dagesse indicated where there will be curbing and where there won’t be. Members agreed to relook at this when they know about landscaping. #11. This landscaping item will be discussed at the next meeting. #12. Ms. Dagesse noted there were no stormwater concerns raised at the meeting with City people. #13. Regarding a Determination of No Hazard application, Ms. Dagesse said it is not required. #14. Ms. Dagesse noted that the “hotspot” 15-foot candle was removed. #15. and #16. Screening of the generator and transformer were shown with additional plantings. The location was indicated on the plan. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Moscatelli moved to continue SP-24-20 until 18 June 2024. Mr. Behr seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Minutes of 21 May 2024: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 21 May 2024 as written. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 6-0 with Ms. Mann abstaining. 10. Other Business: Ms. Philibert noted receipt of an email from City Manager Jessie Baker asking for information as to the type of expertise the Board would be looking for in a new member. Mr. Kochman suggested another civil engineer. Ms. Philibert agreed. Ms. Mann suggested someone with an urban planning background or possibly another lawyer. Mr. Behr added someone with previous board experience. Mr. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 JUNE 2024 PAGE 6 Moscatelli said the member should understand it “isn’t what you like; it’s what meets the law/regulations.” As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:24 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on_________________.