Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 06/18/2024 PAGE 1 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 JUNE 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 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, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; T. McKenzie, A. Poulos, A. Frosino, L. Lackey, D. Carman, D. Bright 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 advised that at last night’s meeting, the City Council re-appointed Mr. Kochman and appointed Jody Lesko to the DRB. Ms. Lesko will join the Board for its 2 July meeting. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 2 5. Site Plan Application #SP-24-17 and Conditional Use Application #CU- 24-06 of SBRC Properties, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an outdoor storage yard. The amendment consists of constructing a 1.02 acre paved parking lot and changing the use to commercial parking facility, 1877 Williston Road: Mr. McKenzie said he owns the storage yard which was used for construction storage. It is now underused. When Pete’s lost a lot of their parking and storage for RVs, he felt the parking facility would be a better use for the property. Mr. Gillies said staff has no issues with the Site Plan and Conditional Use standards, and they are willing to move to a draft motion which has a few issues. #1. The applicant was asked to clarify whether there will be any dumpsters. Mr. McKenzie said there will not. #2. The applicant was asked to identify snow storage plans. Ms. Poulos said they were OK with the condition to relocate snow storage at the western end of the parking lot. Mr. Kochman said he looked at the definition of “commercial/private parking lot. He asked if there is a use with which this property is associated or is it a principle use. Ms. Poulos said it is just a commercial parking lot. Mr. Kochman said he did not feel it meets the definition that is attached to it. He said that as he reads the definition, it was designed for the exclusive use of a business which is different from a commercial parking lot. He added that if it fits another category, he can consider it. Mr. Poulos said their original request was for “outdoor vehicle storage.” They also discussed a private provider including vehicle storage, but it was clear it didn’t fit that category. Mr. Moscatelli said it has to fit some category as it is not a prohibited use. Ms. Keene said her definition is that this is a parking facility. If it is to Pete’s RVs, it would be a business. Mr. McKenzie said it would be “for customers.” Mr. Kochman said he still feels it doesn’t meet the last sentence of the definition. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 3 Mr. Behr said he was comfortable with it as presented. It is a commercial or private parking facility and can be a “stand-alone” parking facility. #3. The applicant was asked to revise the relocation of the access drive so it is not within the Flood Plain Zone. Ms. Poulos said they will do that. She showed a plan with everything outside of the Flood Plain Zone. #4. Staff asked for details of the fence. Ms. Poulos said they will provide this. Mr. McKenzie said it is likely to be a standard chain link fence. Mr. Kochman said if it is a parking lot, it has to comply with landscape standards for parking lots. Mr. Gillies said this requires 1 shade tree for every 5 parking spaces and 10% interior landscaped islands. Mr. McKenzie said it will be difficult to meet those standards, and they will have to do some engineering. Ms. Keene noted that in the past, the Board has allowed a couple of large islands instead of a number of smaller islands. She showed a picture of what she would consider to be 10%. Ms. Poulos said the biggest concern with islands is the movement of large vehicles through the lot. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Behr moved to continue SP-24-17 and CU-24-06 until 2 July 2024. Ms. Mann seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-24-26 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 Technical Center, including reconfiguration of the parking and site circulation, 200 Devinci Drive: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to relocate the crosswalk to provide safe pedestrian movement. Ms. Keene said the proposed location is OK, but there is concern raised in connection with stormwater as to whether it should be curbed. #2. Staff raised a question regarding the turning movement plan. Mr. Frosino showed a new plan. He noted that Beta’s loading dock will have to be accessed by a 53-foot long trailer which will have to back in. That is why the entry is as large as it is. Mr. Frosino also showed the entry of buses unloading, then pulling out. He showed a small triangular piece that they will be closing and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 4 indicated the proposed pavement. He then identified the security gate into the Airport which will be maintained. #3. The applicant was asked to raise the sidewalk so it is protected. Mr. Frosino showed why they feel this cannot be done because of truck traffic. Trucks use up most of the space to back into the loading docks, and adding curbing there would impact truck turning movements. He showed an area where they could put a raised sidewalk, but it would require ADA ramps on either side. The applicant also noted that the receiving loading dock area is Beta’s property. Mr. Gillies showed an area where the sidewalk could be put. Mr. Frosino said their preference is to keep it where it is. He didn’t know that students would use it. Ms. Keene said they have to weigh the 2 arguments against each other. She read the regulations regarding sidewalk requirements and noted that there is not a requirement for curbing because most of the time separation is a better alternative. Mr. Frosino said they could move the sidewalk and provide a short area of curbing, but the rest of the section would have to remain flush because of vehicles driving over it. This is the gate where the Airport brings in trucks. Mr. Kochman asked how much time is used by those trucks. Mr. Lackey said it is limited, but he didn’t have exact numbers. Mr. Kochman suggested a temporary barrier. Mr. Frosino said he was trying to visualize that. Mr. Kochman said about 18 inches high metal piping supported that would allow a truck to get through. Ms. Keene said there are a few ways to protect pedestrians: visual separation, curbing, or bollards. She said she would not recommend anything that isn’t “normal” because of the liability. Mr. Lackey asked what they are trying to protect. He suggested moving the fence further to the west. Mr. Behr felt they had belabored this. He noted they have done what the applicant requests on residential streets. He was comfortable shifting the fence away and just curbing it. Mr. Lackey said there is limited truck traffic when students would be present. Ms. Keene noted that an O’Brien development has a permanent visual barrier of a change in pavement. Mr. Frosino asked if they did that, would they have to move the fence. Mr. Moscatelli said his concern is with trucks needing to get into the walkway. If they move the fence, the conflict is eliminated. Mr. Gillies said they would still need curbing because the truck drivers would still take the 4 feet for turning. Mr. Kochman said that moving 4 feet to the left and curbing meets the regulations. Mr. Frosino noted there are light poles there that would have to be avoided. They will work on it. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 5 Mr. Frosino noted they have increased the landscaped area to meet the 10% requirement. He also showed a plan where curbing has been added. Members voiced no objection to these. #6. Regarding shade trees, the applicant noted they coordinated with USDA. The aim is to reduce wildlife hazards to aircraft in the field. Larger trees attract birds of pretty which are a hazard to aircraft. Ms. Philibert asked if the Board can cut some slack on this. Ms. Keene said the Board has authority regarding dimensional standards. She read from the regulations that would support the applicant’s argument. Mr. Lackey noted the Board has allowed ornamental grasses on Davinci. Mr. Frosino noted they tried to put in 2 small trees, cut the USDA did not approve of that and asked that they be removed. Ms. Philibert said safety preempts beauty. #7. Regarding snow storage, the applicant showed a revised snow storage plan. Members were OK with this. #8. Regarding compensation for tree removal, Mr. Keene noted they will be removing 4 trees from the front of the building. They are asking to have shrubs and ornamental grasses as compensation. Members expressed no objection to that. #9. Regarding stormwater, the applicant indicated they had met with stormwater people and provided an updated model and plans. Staff will review this information. #10. Regarding screening of the transformer and generator, Mr. Frosino said they shifted the transformer to make room for some shrubs. They also got confirmation that the generator won’t be required, and there is a good chance it will be removed from the project. Mr. Frosino suggested putting the sidewalk on the opposite side of the light poles and relocating the fence 8-10 feet to the left and putting the walkway there. He stressed that they are trying to get the project to bid. He showed where the new sidewalk would be and where there would be a portion of raised sidewalk to the building. Members were OK with this. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 6 Mr. Behr moved to close SP-24-20. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 7. Master Plan Application #MP-24-02 of Burlington School District to amend a previously approved Master Plan for a 340,000 sf manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sf office and retail building, a 15,600 sf commercial building, and an 85,000 sf flight instruction and airplane use building on 40.43 acres. The amendment consists of modifying the access and circulation to an adjacent existing hangar, 154 Davinci Drive: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff recommends the Board affirm that it will accept the submission requirements as having been adequately addressed. Ms. Keene said this is a minor amendment to a Master Plan. Staff considers that not a lot of background information is needed. Members were OK with that decision. #2. Regarding phasing, staff asked to include a condition modifying the approved phasing to require the removal of those elements as part of the “orange phase” consisting of the second half of the manufacturing building. Ms. Keene noted that when the tree replacement plan happened, there were some minor amendments to the phasing plan. The Board approved that. At that time, staff didn’t update the Master Plan. They are trying to do that now. The applicant was OK with this. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close MP-24-02. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion pass with all present voting in favor. 8. Minutes of 4 June 2024: Mr. Johnston moved to approve the Minutes of 4 June 2024 as written. Ms. Philibert seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 9. Other Business: No other business was presented. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 June 2024 PAGE 7 As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:45 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on September 4, 2024