Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_Minutes PAGE 1 MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 AUGUST 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 August 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; Q. Mann, M. Behr, J. Lesko, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; E. Quallen, R. Dickinson, A. Dery, J. Anderson, W. Higgins, R. Greco, F. MacDonald, B. McMeekin, M. Mittag, C. McQuillen, F. Delwiche, B. Britt, A. Cousins, G. Knisley, A. Gill, C. Ruggiero, B. Currier, C. Scott, P. & D. Allison, A. Blair, D. Smith, M. Todd, V. & Al. Bolduc, An. Bolduc, M. Malpuri, D. Johnson, B. Sirvis, Christie, Michelle, C. Frisbie, J. Hawkins, M. Lisak, A. Chalnick, E. Nelson, S. Daniels, T. Yeats, Elizabeth, Miles, C. Casey, K. Ryder, D. Leban, S. Homsted, Michael, J. & C. Ruggerio, R. Jeffers 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: Amendments to the LDRs went to the City Council last week and will be warned for a public hearing to be held in early September. Last night, the City Council passed an updated Water Ordinance. They will be considering an updated Sewer Ordinance at their next meeting. 5. Continued 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: Staff noted that the applicant requested a continuation. Ms. Lesko moved to continue SP-24-17 and CU-24-06 to 17 September 2024. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-24-26 of the City of South Burlington to develop an existing 60.7 acre undeveloped site with a parking lot and recreation path and change the use to public park, 124 Nowland Farm Road: Ms. Quallen reviewed the history of the city’s purchase of the property using Open Space and Conservation funds. There is now a plan to move forward with a recreation path and parking lot. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to confirm that utility lines will be underground. This was confirmed by the applicant. #2. Staff requested the sizes of the impacted wetlands. Mr. Dickinson showed the plan and indicated the wetlands. Wetland area “C” is 8882 sq. ft.; area “M” is 1142 sq. ft.; area “L” is 6064 sq. ft. for a total impact area of 11,018 sq. ft. Ms. Keene noted that area “M” is not regulated. #3. The applicant was asked to demarcate the border of the unimpacted wetland and buffer. Ms. Quallen said they can do this with mowing and signage. Mr. Dickinson said the State prefers 4x6 signs every 50 feet. #4. The applicant was asked to address the comments of the city’s Stormwater Section. Mr. Dickinson said they have submitted the information. There is very little increase in runoff. Ms. Quallen noted that the State signed off that a 9050 permit is not needed. Mr. Behr asked about site lighting with regard to height and downcasting. Ms. Quallen said lighting is only 15 feet tall and won’t spill onto the neighbors. Mr. Dickinson directed attention to the detailed lighting plan. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Ms. Greco: She opposes the use of asphalt and also the size and lighting of the parking lot. She prefers permeable pavement. Approval should be delayed until this is explored. Mr. Mittag: Concerned with lighting and noted that other natural parks have no lighting in their parking areas as parks close at dusk. He asked to reduce the size of the parking area as there are never more than 5 cars in the gravel parking areas now. Mr. MacDonald: There should be shrubbery on the south side to block light. He questioned whether brush hogging can continue. It should happen once a year. Mr. McMeekin: Less parking is better. The runoff to the east surprised him and he felt this was good. He noted that a “20-year storm” may be a “10—year storm” now. Ms. McQuillen (representing Common Roots): Overall supports the project. Wants to be sure there is no effect of stormwater on the land they lease. They also don’t want the public tromping through their vegetable gardens. There is an electric fence there. They want to be sure their lease is protected. Ms. Delwiche: Opposes any plans to develop the land including the path and parking lot. She is concerned with bobolink habitat. The path goes through the meadow where they nest. Mr. Britt: The surface is clay; putting a permeable surface wouldn’t change anything. The path is being paved to accommodate wheelchairs, strollers, etc., so the Park can be for everyone. Ms. Cousins: Paving the path will make it accessible to the neighborhood. Very much supports the project. Mr. Knisely: Objects to asphalt. Concern with heat and runoff effects on creatures. Feels a bridge would be preferable where the path crosses the wetland. Sees no need for lighting. Miles: Opposes asphalt and lights. He liked the 3 white oaks and suggested more of them. Mr. Behr asked the applicant to address the lighting issue. Ms. Quallen said the lights could be on a timer. Mr. Behr cited issues with pervious paving which, he said, bogs up and becomes asphalt after a few years. Stressed that this is a park for the whole city. He felt the impact is minimal and represents a balance of benefit to residents and conservation. He would like timers on the lights and also plantings on the north side. Ms. Mann asked about the bobolinks. Ms. Quallen said there are significant communities of various species. There are statewide inventories. She noted they will continue to brush hog once a year. Ms. Greco asked why there is a mowed area on either side of the path. Ms. Quallen said that was in response to people who want to walk on an unpaved area. It is only 10 feet on one side of the path. Ms. Leban: Suggested posting the speed limit on the path. Following public input, Ms. Lesko moved to close SP-24-26. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Continued Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-24-12 of O’Brien Eastview, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a planned unit development of 155 homes in single family duplex, and 3-family dwellings on 11 lots totaling 23.9 acres, 24 commercial development lots totaling 39.8 acres, and 25.2 acres of undeveloped or recreational open spaces. The amendment consists of subdividing a 0.17 acre lot for the purpose of a battery storage microgrid in an area previously approved for open space, adding 14 units in 2-family homes, replacing 2 large single-family homes with 4 detached cottage-style units, modifying the approved phasing, and other minor amendments, 500 Old Farm Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked the Board for more direction regarding a temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Ms. Keene noted that some of the items on the list are already allow. She showed the list of items that are not included: a. Concrete curbing b. Concrete sidewalks c. Topsoil/seed d. Installation of water main e. An item where documentation can be provided where best practice prohibits it from being done (e.g., work where the DPW would prefer it be done in warmer weather Ms. Keene asked what the Board would agree to. Mr. Gill noted the Board wants to ensure that the natural playground is completed by the 75th home. He said they can make a full effort to do that, but weather conditions for a large part of the year could affect their ability to accomplish it. They also can’t do a sidewalk in December because it will fail; doing it in April is better. Water mains cannot be installed from mid-November to mid-March, and this could interfere with other work getting done. Ms. Keene said she spoke with DPW and was told the asphalt plants close, but concrete does not. She also got clarification about what Mr. Gill said regarding water mains. Mr. Homsted said the Water Dept. will sometimes extend the period by a week or two, but they will not allow mains to be installed in February, and manufacturers will not provide warrantees if mains are installed at the wrong time of year. Mr. Johnston said he was OK with the whole list. Ms. Lesko agreed and used the phrase “unforeseen/controllable.” Ms. Keene said she would use that language in the motion. Mr. Gill stressed that this is a massive project with many variables. They can’t have the ability to sell homes shut down because that is how they keep the project going. Mr. Behr said the Board wants to be as flexible as possible to allow the applicant to work with staff. He agreed with some latitude with seasonal buffers. Mr. Gill asked for language to allow them to get back before the Board if an issue arises. He said they usually know in advance when there will be an issue. Mr. Gill then cited an issue that has come up as they are working on building the park. The Old Farm Road portion will be lowered 4-6 feet. That work isn’t happening and is not required till the 125th unit. Connecting the rec path to that road isn’t possible until the road is lowered. Phasing has to allow for such possibilities/conflicts. Staff and the Board were OK adding this to the list. Mr. Gill also noted that at the bottom of p. 5, there is a question of density. He stressed that density is not changing. Ms. Keene said that because there is no master plan, there is no vesting, so this is not an issue. Mr. Gill said the finding of fact is not relevant and will go away with the new zoning that is going into effect. Ms. Lesko then moved to close SD-24-12. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-14 of Christopher and Janet Ruggerio to subdivide an existing 13.5 acre lot developed with two barns, a single family home, and accessory shed into two lots of 1.9 acres containing the 2 existing barns (Lot 1) and 11.6 acres containing the existing single family home and shed (Lot 2), 197 Autumn Hill Road: Ms. Philibert that there is a request for the applicant to come back with redesigned plans. She asked why they are not doing that. Mr. Currier said the first item is for a “robust conversation.” The intent of the project is to deed some of the land to the neighbor to the north. This requires subdivision review. The regulations allow for this. He read the regulation and said they feel they meet the requirements. Ms. Keene noted that a boundary line is allowed when 2 parcels are submitted at the same time and there is a maximum size. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff asked for a discussion of whether protection of wetland standards supersedes rules 15-A-11 and 15-A-12. Ms. Keene said that what is on the site are 2 barns and a large mowed area. The Board would have to see a reduction of the mowed area. Subdivision standards say you can’t put anything into a wetland or wetland buffer or subdivide a wetland or wetland buffer. Mr. Currier showed where the buildings are completely within the buffer. They submitted a revised plan. They are planning no development with regard to the barns. They believe this fits the subdivision regulations. He added that the minimum lot size for all other uses is 40,000 sq. ft., and this meets that requirement. Ms. Keene said once subdivision exists, development is possible within the rules. She asked how the applicant proposes to modify the wetland standards. They would need an opinion from a wetland scientist. Mr. Currier said that would not be needed with this application; the new owner could do that at another time. Mr. Behr asked what potential development the new owner could do. Ms. Keene said the barns are not in good shape, but they could have multi-family housing with exterior modifications. They could also have limited neighborhood commercial. She felt the plan is more realistic if there are only interior renovations. She asked if the Board would consider the new proposal as allowable. Mr. Currier read the regulation he believes allows this. It allows building only in the buildable portion of the lot. He added it is not cut and dried that you can’t put a subdivision line through a non-developable area. #2. This no longer applies. #3. The applicant was asked for a plan for development of each parcel. Mr. Currier said they would develop to a minimal extent on the eastern side so the western corner could support something small. The intent is not to develop the property to the full extent allowable. Ms. Keene noted the new LDRs will eliminate the Conservation PUD. Mr. Currier said he could see a duplex on the southwest corner with some single-family homes elsewhere. Ms. Keene said the primary concern is access as there are a number of restrictions. Mr. Johnston said it would be good to know what the applicant intends to do with the barns. Mr. Ruggiero said it was the Jewett’s who were planning to build 28 lots. He and his wife never favored that. They are trying to do the 2-acre cut-out from each lot to put in a couple of houses, not build it out. They would like the barns to remain, and the other lot could be for their children someday. #4. Staff noted there would be a road limitation because of the dead end street. The applicant asked how to address this in light of the regulations. Mr. Currier said he didn’t think crossing the wetland was viable. He didn’t feel the 200-foot road standard would preclude development and that a loop could work or the option of a road to the northern lot. He noted there is a right-of-way on Windswept Lane to the Jewett line. Mr. Behr said the DRB needs to see that so they can see there is the ability to do something down the road, even with the constraints on the lot. Ms. Quinn said it would be different if this was a subdivision where it was clear there would be no future subdivision possible. Mr. Currier said he thought that was a new interpretation of the “carve-out.” Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Lesko moved to continue SD-24-14 to 4 September 2024. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 9. Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-15 of Christopher and Janet Ruggerio to subdivide an existing 19.5 acre undeveloped lot into 2 lots of 17.6 acres (Lot 1) and 1.9 acres (Lot 2) and reconfigure an existing private road (Autumn Hill Road) by removing approximately 580 feet of length and connecting to an existing public road (Windswept Lane), 197 Rear Autumn Hill Road: Mr. Ruggerio said he felt this was a more straightforward application than the other. Mr. Currier said they are planning a new driveway off Windswept Lane. There is a 60-foot right-of-way to Windswept which would be a private drive. They would relocate Autumn Hill Road to the right-of-way. There is minimal wetland crossing. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to modify the subdivision boundary. Mr. Currier said they submitted a revised plan which accomplishes that. It shrinks the lot to about an acre. He showed the new plan and said there is still room for a house. #2. The applicant was directed to submit a revised sketch plan application prior to submission of preliminary plat. This will be subject to the regulations in effect at that time. Mr. Currier said that has been addressed. #3. The applicant was asked to revise the plan so that habitat blocks and connectors are not being subdivided. Mr. Currier said the new plan addresses that. #4. The applicant was asked to compute the buildable area. Mr. Currier said it is .8 of an acre. #5. Staff indicated it support of comments from DPW and directed the applicant to address them in the revised sketch plan application. Mr. Currier said they will remove Autumn Hill Rd. He added that the neighborhood has been talking about doing that for some time. He then asked if the Board would talk about the number of units off Autumn Hill Rd. There was a requirement to upgrade to a public road with the next unit. He said that access would be improved. There would be 5 units for the first 500 feet. Mr. Behr asked why there are curb cuts off the driveway. Mr. Currier said they meet Fire Department requirements. Mr. Johnston said he was more in favor of a driveway into Autumn Hill Rd. than 2 curb cuts. #6. Staff asked how many buildings are being proposed. Mr. Currier said only one. #7. Staff asked about utilities. Mr. Currier said they will use both city water and city sewer. #8. Staff questioned whether to allow reconfiguring to allow for infill development. Ms. Keene said the draft regulations have a minimum threshold of 2 acres below which there is no minimum density, so with a single family home the Board does not have to require allowing for future development. In the new regulations, that will change, so it will depend on which regulations the applicant comes in under. Mr. Currier said that once the new regulations are warned, they will have to come in under those. #9. All homes must front on a public or private street. Ms. Keene said the Board does have some ability to modify some standards. Mr. Currier said this lot has no frontage. Ms. Keene said the Board would like the applicant to demonstrate that modifying the standard would better meet the purpose of the regulations. #10. The applicant was directed to redesign the plan to avoid bifurcating the connector. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Mr. Scott: They preserved the lands of the Scott Preserve with the intention of causing surrounding lands to be conserved. They were able to do this because they created carve-outs. Is in favor of Board amending 1970s decision. Mr. Allison: The neighborhood unanimously opposes elimination of the end of Autumn Hill Road. They feel it would have adverse impacts including increased traffic and noise. It is a quiet neighborhood with a lot of wildlife. He said Autumn Hill Rd. has worked for 40 years. There is a utility easement along the road. Neighbors oppose cutting into Windswept Lane. Mr. Blair: He favors this application. He lives across from the 2 barns. He didn’t see why that can’t be used for more housing. He said that no matter what is built, the animals will still be there. Ms. Smith: She said she has nothing very negative to say about the application, but she is opposed to having the road come up to the first duplex. The tree line behind her house in very important to her and she would oppose removal of any of those trees. Mr. Todd: He was concerned with increased traffic if there is access on Windswept Lane. Mr. Chatterjee: Has no objection to the development but has the same concerns about the road as other neighbors. Mr. Ruggerio said the road for Windswept was supposed to be one road, but there was a feud between 2 property owners. Mr. Behr explained the history of those 2 roads and said the connection of Autumn Hill and Windswept was always planned. Members were OK concluding the sketch plan. 10. Continued Final Plat Application #SD-24-11 of Allyson and Vincent Bolduc to subdivide an existing 16.46 acre lot developed with a single family home and accessory structures into two residential lots of 2.0 acres and 14.46 acres, retain the existing single family home and accessory structures on the 14.46 acre lot, and construct a duplex on the 2.0 acre lot, 252 Autumn Hill Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff is requiring a revised subdivision to exclude protected resources. Mr. Currier said the first plan should that 2 acres extended into the wetland to the west. They submitted a new plan that corrects this. The western boundary was moved. The building envelope is now within a .74 acre lot. They will need a setback reduction for this to work, reducing the required 30-foot rear setback to 5 feet. Ms. Keene asked why they don’t just shift everything to the south. Mr. Currier said when you go through to the first tier, it involves mature trees. The habitat block exchange wants them to be further north. Mr. Behr suggested changing the lot line to square it off. Ms. Keene noted that the LDRs said a building lot may extend into a wetland only to meet the minimum lot size or frontage requirements for the district. Mr. Currier said if staff prefers, they can subdivide following the buffer. That would just make it a more irregular lot. The regulations say you just have to demarcate the buffer, and they intend to do that. Ms. Bolduc said the rest of the land is in conservation and will not be used. #2. Staff asked to require the applicant to reconfigure the lot/easement so there is actual access to Lot 1. Mr. Currier said they can just slide over. He showed this on the plan. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Ms. Lesko moved to close SD-24-11. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 11. Minutes of 18 July: Ms. Philibert moved to approve the Minutes of 18 July as written. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed with all present voting in favor. 12. 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 10:30 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on September 4, 2024 PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 4 SEPTEMBER 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Wednesday, 4 September 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; Q. Mann, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Planner; A Richardson, K. Kass, M. & M. Todd, RMR Group, Kayla, D. Darrow, K. Bradley, V. Bolduc, T. Kaiser, S. Chatterjee, B. & J. Goldberg, S. Daniels, T. Yeates, D. & D. Smith, S. Pallisk, J. Dagesse, S. Longrief, N. Longo, L. Lackey, A. Culp, S. Beall, S. Homsted, S. Greer, K. & N. Wright, N. McGovern, Dr. E. Nelson, D. Marshall, C. Ruggerio, B. Currier, P. & D. Allison 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: There were no announcements. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 2 5. Master Plan Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-16 of City of Burlington, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport to establish a master plan for an approximately 901.6-acre existing airport complex. The master plan includes six phases over 21.8 acres and consists of a 28,000 sf north terminal expansion, a 4.0 acre multi-use path, a 8.3 acre maintenance complex with 41,500 sf building, a 3.4 acre apron expansion, a 2.3 acre project involving hangar and apron expansion, and a 25,000 sf south terminal expansion, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Lackey showed a plan of the existing Airport and indicated the location of the new planned facilities. The part of the building that now houses administrative offices will all be a third floor area for the public to view planes without having to go through security. Mr. Lackey then showed a plan indicating the current North Concourse. He noted that they are now getting larger planes which take up more space and also double the number of passengers. They will be doing away with this North Concourse as it has too little space for passengers waiting to board. The new facility will have space for departing and arriving passengers. Mr. Lackey noted that the 28,000 sq. ft. building will have geothermal heating with solar on the rooftop. This project will not be noticeable from the public drive. Regarding the rec path, Mr. Lackey showed an overhead view of where this will go. There will also be some landscaping which will not fit elsewhere on the site. He noted that this is the plan that will come to the DRB next. Mr. Longo said there have been public meetings on this and received a lot of comment including adding community gardens. Mr. Lackey said the project following the rec path will be the SRE Building which houses large equipment (e.g. snow plows, sanding equipment). The FAA requires that this equipment be stored indoors. It will be located in the north area in a 41,000 sq. ft. building on 8 acres of paved area which will include a fueling area. The next project will be the air cargo area and apron. They will improve the building and increase the apron to accommodate another cargo plan. Following that, the Pratt & Whitney hangar expansion will be done. They need more room to work on jet engines. This is located near the new Beta hangar. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 3 The South Concourse area is 6-7 years off and will be similar to the North Concourse project. Mr. Lackey noted that the hotel which was previously approved is going back out for an RFP. The location is the same as previously proposed. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked to describe why there is a less than 1 acre building on an 8.3 acre project. Ms. Dagesse distributed written information to members. She explained that this is a fueling farm to service large vehicles which require a large turning radius. These vehicles need to access the taxi-way. #2. The applicant was asked to clarify the project area and indicate the purpose of the cargo apron expansion. Ms. Dagesse said there will be 3.4 acres of earth disturbance (for the service road and staging areas). The cargo apron expansion is for a new carrier and also allows for larger aircraft so there will be fewer planes per day. #3.The applicant was asked to provide a “napkin sketch” of this phase. Ms. Dagesse showed the sketch. Mr. Longo said this would support any type of aircraft. He also noted that the Pratt & Whitney repair station is the largest on the East Coast. Ms. Keene noted that until now sketch plans have been non-binding; however, the Board must now make a decision as to whether a Master Plan is required. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to require a Master Plan. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 4-0. #4. The applicant was asked to describe how they will meet the landscape requirement and submit the rec path application with the North Concourse project. Ms. Dagesse said they are working on that now, and it should be submitted right after the North Concourse project. She added that they understand they will need to meet the landscape requirement. Mr. Longo stressed the need for the North Concourse project which is a safety concern. The rec path will have to be built next spring/summer. Mr. Lackey added that the building is a 2-year project. The rec path can go in next year. Mr. Longo said if they don’t start the terminal project this year, they won’t have a terminal to operate from. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 4 #5. The applicant was asked how the rec path may or may not factor into their FAA approved plans. Ms. Dagesse said the path will go from Airport Drive to Dumont Avenue. Mr. Longo said it will provide a more welcoming look. He also noted the land that must be there for noise buffering. Mr. Lackey added that the path will join 2 parts of existing paths. #6. Regarding infrastructure improvements outside of the individual phases, Ms. Dagesse said they will include this in the Master Plan. #7. The applicant was directed to provide appropriate management structure for elements not wholly the responsibility of the Airport. Mr. Nolte said they will do this for anything not under their control. Mr. Lackey said this part of all of their contracts. #8. The applicant was asked which approvals will be sought at the Master Plan level. These should include a pallet of landscape materials and roadway cross-sections. Ms. Dagesse said they will respond appropriately. #9. The Board was asked whether they prefer a context map with the vicinity of each project or a less detailed context map for the entire parcel, or a combination of both. Members agreed to return to this item. #10. The applicant was asked to discuss what is “on site” in this instance. Is the land owned by the Airport where the rec path and other amenities are to go? Ms. Keene said the rec path is not “on site,” and asked whether the Board will agree to consider it “on site.” Mr. Longo said it will be accessible to the public. The Airport will maintain ownership of the land. Mr. Moscatelli said there are no other options as to where it can go. He was OK with it being considered “on site” since the Airport will retain ownership. Other members agreed. Public comment was then solicited. A member of the public asked whether there will be fencing between the path and the homes. Ms. Dagesse said that is unknown at this time. Members and the applicant agreed to continue the discussion on 17 September’s meeting of the DRB. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-24-30 of Meadowlands Animal Hospital to construct an 8.946 sf veterinary hospital with supporting parking and DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 5 infrastructure improvements on an existing undeveloped 4.0 acre lot, 39 Bowdoin Street: Mr. Beall said the building has not changed from the previous application. It is just at a different site. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. The Board was asked whether it will approve the front setback waiver. Mr. Gillies noted that instead of the required 50 feet, the applicant is proposing 32.7 feet on Bowdoin Street and 31.2 feet on Meadowland. Staff recommends approving these setbacks. Mr. Beall noted that the building is smaller than other buildings in the area. They are also increasing the streetscape. Mr. Gillies reminded members that there is a huge wetland on the site. Members were OK with the proposed setbacks. #2. Staff questioned whether placement and orientation were consistent with the prevalent pattern. Mr. Beall cited the wetland issue and said it is impossible to build a larger building on this site. He felt they are consistent with the overall character of the neighborhood. Members voiced no issues. #3. The applicant was asked to discuss building scale and any related mitigation. Mr. Gillies said the regulation clearly applies to a building that is too large. The Board had no issues. Mr. Johnston said it fits with the other buildings. #4. Staff asked whether the size of the parking lot can be reduced. Mr. Beall said the client believes they need 28 spaces. He showed a rendering with significant landscaping and indicated how the landscaping shields the parking from the street. #5. The applicant was asked about site amenities. A triangular “parklet” was shown in front of the building. It will have 3 benches and variety of native species. Mr. Gillies said this meets the regulations. #6. The Board was asked to discuss whether coordination with the Director of Public Works should be required. The applicant noted that Public Works is concerned with the condition of the shared use path, and clarified that they will replace a part of the path (he showed where), about 120 feet. Public Works other comment is about the sidewalk on Bowdoin Street. Mr. Beall said they are not affecting that sidewalk and shouldn’t have to replace part of it. That should be DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 6 worked out with the whole business park. It was noted that none of the streets in the business park have yet become city streets. Board members did not feel the applicant should have to meet with Public Works if they’re not touching that sidewalk. #7. The applicant agreed to comply with Water Department comments. #8. The applicant showed an image of dumpster screening by a cedar fence enclosure. #9. The applicant indicated they had already updated the plans to include the location of the easement. #10. The applicant said they have provided planting details to the City Arborist. #11. The applicant was asked to discuss whether the 5 identified islands can include additional plantings to meet the criterion. The applicant showed a plan with additional plantings. Mr. Gillies noted that one island is just grass. The applicant said that will be for snow storage. Ms. Mann felt it should be landscaped. Mr. Gillies said snow can be hauled off-site. Ms. Keene suggested a tree further back with room for snow up front. #12. The applicant indicated they have added the required curbing. #13. The applicant indicated they have added a shade tree as required. ` #14. Regarding landscaping, the Board was asked which non-plant elements they would consider OK. Mr. Beall said they submitted a new plan which removed the gravel path. They have mostly plants plus an exterior bench and exposed aggregate concrete. Members were OK with this and the additional planting on the island. #15. Regarding comments from the Stormwater Section, Mr. Beall said they worked with Monica and addressed the comments. They asked to make this a condition of approval. #16. Fence details were already shown. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 7 Mr. Johnston moved to close SP-24-30. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 7. Continued Master Plan Application #MP-24-03 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately 10.0 acre lot developed with 3 homes and an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility into 10 single family home lots ranging from 0.26 acres to 2.05 acres, one single family home lot with an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility on 1.52 acres and 1.0 acre civic space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall noted they have added more details to the Master Plan and to the Preliminary Plat which follows. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Previously addressed. #2. Staff questioned whether to consider the silo a utility cabinet. She showed the existing condition plan including the 3 residences and the existing silo. The subdivision will create a separate area for utilities. Members felt the silo qualified as a utility cabinet. #3. Staff considers the provision of an additional right-of-way to be unnecessary. Ms. Keene said the city has a plan to eventually develop a rec path (she indicated where). The Board agreed the added right-of-way was not needed. #4. Staff asked whether the civic space will be shared by various property owners. Mr. Marshall said it will. #5. Staff asked what measures will be included to accomplish the intent of the civic space. Mr. Marshall said that within the one acre of common area there is a T turnaround beside a gravel wetland. There is also a forebay to allow for sediment to be settled. The top water will be used for irrigation of planting areas. He said they can be planted out to be very aesthetically pleasing. Member had no issues. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 8 #6. Regarding the roadway, the applicant was asked to confirm that there will be gravel only for Phase 1. It would be brought to standard when the road extends to the adjacent property. Mr. Marshall said Phase 1 is very constricted and not a high use area. He said that Phase 1 will not include a sidewalk; that will be in Phase 2 or 3. Right now, they are planning only Phase 1. Mr. Marshall noted that the property is in the Industrial zoning district. Act 47 allows up to 5 units an acre. The family is not interested in doing that. The goal of this application is to provide for additional family members to live. Ms. Keene asked if the proposal is to keep an open drainage system. Mr. Marshall said the sidewalk will be in Phase 2. They were asked that there be no curbs and a swale in the road to make it easier to plow, and that is the concept they went with. #7. The applicant was asked that utilities be in the future right-of-way. Mr. Marshall said the State has new rules to comply with regarding separation of systems. There will have to be some work to clear that up. #8. Staff questioned whether the buildings will be sprinklered. Mr. Marshall said they initially sized the water traditionally. They were told they would have to sprinkler the homes, so they will be putting in a water main. The Fire Marshall said if they put in a hydrant half way down, they won’t have to sprinkler. #9. The applicant was asked about meeting the “block” standard. Mr. Marshall said the block they propose is larger than usual but connects to Hinesburg Road. There is a template for creating a “super block.” #10. The applicant was asked the total number of developable units (not counting the ADU). Mr. Marshall said there are 3 existing homes, 9 additional units and a duplex. He showed the location of these on the plan and indicated the ADU unit. Ms. Keene asked the Board if they felt this was an adequate mix. Members said it was sufficient. #11. The applicant was OK with including resource land as a separate item. #12. The applicant agreed to update the rights-of-way. #13. The applicant agreed to include the parking facility as a use type. #14. Staff asked how the inclusionary requirement will be met. Mr. Marshall said there would be one duplex unit it Phase 3. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 9 #15. The applicant was asked to confirm 12 peak hour trips. Mr. Marshall said that is the figure. #16. Staff asked if water use has changed. Mr. Marshall said they will provide new numbers as water will increase. #17. Staff asked about construction staging areas. Mr. Marshall reviewed the road construction area which would use one of the 3 lots (he showed this on the plan). #18. Staff reminded the applicant that the City will not accept the road until it connects with the property to the south. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Continued Preliminary Plat Application #SD-24-08 of WGM Associates for phase one of a concurrent master plan consisting of 11 single family Homes and an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility. The phase consists of the creation of 7 lots, 3 containing existing single family homes, 2 to contain new homes, one to contain an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility and new home, and one civic space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road: Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted the dichotomy between existing zoning and Act 47 and said the Board needs to decide if a density lower than what is allowed is acceptable. Ms. Mann said she had no issue with what is proposed. Mr. Moscatelli said there is nothing that says they have to maximize development, so the Board should work with what it is given. Mr. Johnston agreed. #2. Staff noted that the roadway will not be considered a public infrastructure until it is built to city standards. #3. The Board was asked to review “alternate compliance” and discuss the applicant’s compliance. Under consideration are crushed stone surface with a higher K value, the swale, and consolidation of the sidewalk and roadway into one surface as part of a shared use design. Mr. Marshall explained “K value” involved new public works standards for low-volume roadways. He said they are asking for adoption of these new standards. He added that what is proposed would DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 10 serve as a sub-base for a public road. It is built to endure and handles 10,000 pound trucks every day. Mr. Moscatelli said he is comfortable with this for Phase 1. Other members agreed. #4. Staff asked that the applicant be required to present a proposal that provides reasonable surety that the pavement and sidewalk will be constructed such as a bond for the duration of the Master Plan. Mr. Marshall cited the financial burden on the applicant when there are no plans to go forward with Phases 2 and 3. Mr. Moscatelli asked if there is an alternative. Ms. Keene said this has been done with a condition of approval in the past, but it has been a problem. Mr. Marshall asked how they can put everyone on notice of the conditions of approval to be sure people are educated about this special situation. Mr. Moscatelli said the concern is that 5, 10 or 20 years down the line there will be no one who remembers this and who will then pay for it. Ms. Keene said the Master Plan is good for 10 years. When it expires, no additional house would be allowed in this district. There could be industrial development which could make it easier to upgrade the road. #5. The Board was asked to consider street design criteria in light of “alternate compliance.” Mr. Marshall said there are different ways to comply with the rules. He noted #a would comply but is not practical. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to continue both MP-24-03 and SD-24-08 to 15 October 2024. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 9. Continued sketch plan Application #SD-24-14 of Christopher & Janet Ruggerio to subdivide an existing 13.5 acre lot developed with 2 barns, a single family home, and accessory shed into two lots of 1.9 acres containing 2 existing barns (Lot 1) and 11.6 acres containing the existing single family home and shed (Lot 2), 197 Autumn Hill Road: Mr. Currier noted the letter from the northern neighbor interested in purchasing the northern portion. Staff comments were then addressed as follows: #1. Staff noted that as many as 36.8 units could be required. The applicant is proposing only 24. Staff asked that they show they can accommodate the 36.8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 11 units. Mr. Currier said the remaining acreage is 5+ acres. He showed a plan with potential density. It drops to 32 units, and the 4-plexes get smaller. He also showed an arrangement of lots with a possible layout to the minimum standard. He said the Ruggiero’s are not applying for this at this time. #2. The applicant agreed to meet the wetland standard when the property is surveyed. #3. The applicant was asked to comply with the provisions of LDR 12.06E that allows maintenance and development of existing structures by allowing subdivision of a lawn area equal to the required minimum standard. Ms. Philibert said the applicant has grouped lawns, etc., so she felt they comply. No issues were raised. #4. The applicant was asked why they have more than the required setback, and if there is no reason the Board was asked to require only the required setback. Mr. Currier said they brought the setback right up to the structure I the rear. They feel 5 feet is very close and wanted more “breathing room.” He showed the setback line at 15 feet and said they could compromise at 10 feet. Members were OK with this. #5. This was deemed not relevant. Public comment was then solicited and received as follows: Ms. Goldberg: Cited the history of the original subdivision which had very specific stipulations. She noted that Court decisions have relied on “original intent.” The suggestion of connection to Windswept without development is not allowable. Ms. Goldberg said the increase in the potential number of units was never foreseen. She noted the Ruggerio’s want only 10 units but are required to plan out the whole area, so they could decide on a full build-out in a year or so. She asked the Board to visit the property and asked whether existing neighbors should bear the burden of increased traffic. She felt allowing a separate curb cut makes much more sense and that construction of the proposed connector would be devastating to the existing community. Mr. Johnston noted the connection is not part of this application. Ms. Keene said they are planning only to subdivide 2 lots. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD [DATE] | PAGE 12 Dr. Nelson: Agreed with Ms. Goldberg and said the sketch plan road does not appear clear. The road is higher than the Windswept properties. The impact would include lights and noise that would come from above. Mr. Allison asked if a full buildout plan should show the access. Mr. Gillies said there is a “theoretical” buildout, just to show what is possible. Mr. Johnston stressed that this application is not for any additional units. Mr. Currier said they would like to combine preliminary and final plats. Ms. Keene said she is not sure what is now allowable under State law as this is just the subdivision. Members were OK with combining if it is allowable. 10. Minutes of 18 June and 6 August 2024: The spelling of Ms. Chatterjee’s name was corrected. Mr. Moscatelli then moved to approve the Minutes of 18 June and 6 August as presented and amended. Mr. Johnston seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 11. Other Business: Ms. Keene advised that the next meeting will include a discussion of draft amendments to the LDRs. The Council will have a public hearing on those amendments the night before the DRB meeting. Ms. Keene said members can email her with any questions. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 10:11 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ________________________. PAGE 1 DRAFT MINUTES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 17 SEPTEMBER 2024 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 17 September 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. Lesko, J. Moscatelli, C. Johnston ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; M. Gillies, Development Review Planner; K. Peterson, Senior Planner; M. Ingalls, Stormwater Project Manager; T. McKenzie, L. Yankowski, S. Moncrief, D. Read, L. Lackey 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: There were no announcements. 5. Presentation by Senior City Planner Kelsey Peterson of warned draft amendments to the Land Development Regulations: Ms. Peterson noted the amendments are now with the City Council which will continue its review at its next meeting. The amendments address the two statutory bills (Acts 47 and 181). The Planning Commission held a number of sessions for public participation as well as a public hearing before passing the approved draft on to the City Council. Ms. Peterson said there are three theme areas to the 10 amendments: Thriving Neighborhoods (which addressed the 2 legislative acts), Transportation and Technical and procedural amendments. Thriving Neighborhoods: These amendments consolidate the previous 14 residential zoning districts into: a. Low-scale neighborhood districts b. Medium-scale neighborhood districts c. Higher-scale mixed uses d. Queen City Park Currently, units per acre density, minimum lot size, setbacks, etc., are differentiated by zoning district. In the draft, minimum lot size is determined by building type with associated dimensional standards. Building types are allowed by district (e.g., low-scale allows between one and 4-unit buildings. Ms. Peterson showed a map identifying where each of these districts is located. She noted that the previous Airport and Airport/Industrial districts have been combined into one, and the residential allowance for I-O Districts has been removed. Park land has been designated as Parks District. Conserved land has been designated as NRP. A portion of the former R-12 District has been shifted to C1-LR where buildings are already approved. Ms. Peterson said that TDRs will have the same value as before. TDRs will apply to both residential and commercial buildings in mixed use and commercial areas. TDRs have been removed as sending areas from neighborhood housing districts. Inclusionary zoning now aligns to optional State Affordable Housing Development definitions and thresholds but makes Inclusionary Zoning mandatory in projects of 10 or more units. There are different percentages for rental, ownership and a higher rate for developments of over 25 units. There are also predictable bonus height allowances for developments that do more inclusionary than required. In the Transportation section, the traffic overlay system which has limited infill where the city would like to see it, has been replaced by a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) system. There are also changes regarding EV charging which exceed state requirements. The previous “EV capable” regulations has been upgraded by “EV ready.” Ms. Peterson also noted that Article 15 has been reorganized with regard to subdivisions, Master Plans, and PUDs. Administrative approval is now allowed by minor subdivisions. Master Plans are required for multi-year and/or multi-phase projects. An applicant must demonstrate a minimum density of 4-6 units per building acre. These units don’t have to be built; the applicant must just show they could be built. The Conservation PUD has been eliminated, and the TND PUD is optional. The General PUD is limited to amending existing PUDs and new PUDs in the Airport and I-Ag Districts. The Master Plan now allows for a one-time up to 2-acre “carve out” that would not trigger a master plan. The applicant must demonstrate access for future development or conservation but does not have to provide a full master plan. Ms. Peterson also showed the list of minor technical amendments. Ms. Keene said she will upload the presentation to the meeting packet. Mr. Kochman asked if there will be a complete new LDR. Ms. Peterson said there will, and it will be 50 pages shorter than the current LDRs. 6. Site Plan Application #SP-24-32 of the City of South Burlington to amend an existing plan for a park. The amendment consists of expanding the dog park and reconfiguring the parking lot and related site improvements, 95 Swift Street: Ms. Ingalls said the goal of the project is to address ponding issues in the park. She showed the location on the map. Staff comments were addressed as follows: #1. The applicant was asked if the quality of the vegetation buffer will be improved. Ms. Ingalls said the intent is to regrade it and let it vegetate to make sure the water can get into the wetland. #2. Regarding improvement to the wetland, Ms. Ingalls said they have submitted a memo regarding the functions and values of the wetland. The dog park location is mostly a fill area. Where they propose to work is already impacted. She stressed that sediment will no longer go into the wetland. #3. Staff asked about requiring a Field Delineation Report. Ms. Ingalls said they provided documentation of the functions and values of the wetland. Ms. Keene said staff feels that is sufficient and a Field Delineation Report is not needed. #4. Staff asked the Board to have the applicant describe the curb. Ms. Keene showed the plan and indicated the parking areas and rec path. Typically, the rec path is 5 feet wide. The applicant is proposing asphalt curbing at the end of the park, and staff questions whether that is needed. Ms. Ingalls said they would prefer not to do the curbing. She noted they are proposing 6 trees and 3 signs to help keep people off the grass and to identify parallel parking. Members were OK with that. #5. The applicant agreed to comply with recommendations of the City Arborist as to tree types. Public comment was solicited and received as follows: Ms. Yankowski: She has been trying to get this done for years. She noted how wet the area is because of bad drainage. Mr. Johnston then moved to close SP-24-32. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. The motion passed unanimously. 7. Continued master plan sketch plan application #SD-24-16 of City of Burlington, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport to establish a master plan for an approximately 901.6-acre existing airport complex. The master plan includes 6 phases over 21.8 acres and consists of a 28,000 sq. ft. north terminal expansion, a 4.0 acre multiuse path, an 8.3 acre maintenance complex with 41,500 sq. ft. building, a 3.4 acre apron expansion, a 2.3 acre project involving hangar and apron expansion, and a 25,000 sq. ft. south terminal expansion, 1200 Airport Drive: Staff comments were picked up from where the previous presentation left off, as follows: #12. The applicant was asked to confirm the change of fence type. Mr. Lackey showed a picture of the existing wall and wrought iron fence. They now propose the use wrought iron fencing throughout. The fencing would be consistent with what is there now. Members were OK with this. #13. The applicant agreed to do an evaluation of vehicle trips and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) at the next stage of review per the new LDRs. #14. Staff questioned whether to require robust screening where the fence is transparent. Mr. Kochman asked why when it is interesting to see the tarmac. Ms. Keene said the LDRs require screening between dissimilar uses, but it is up to the Board. Members were OK with leaving it unscreened. #15. Regarding the landscaping budget, the applicant was asked to discuss the process and timeline in relation to the concourse expansion. Mr. Lackey said they propose the landscaping at the time of the CO. Ms. Keene noted that in the past, this has been required at the time the Zoning Permit is pulled. Mr. Moscatelli said if they don’t do the rec path and the terminal is done, they can’t open the terminal until the path and landscaping is done. Mr. Kochman suggested having this as a stipulation. Members were OK with this. Public comment was then solicited. There was no public comment. 8. Continued 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: Staff advised that this application was withdrawn. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-24-31 of SBRC Properties, LLC, for alteration of grade for the purpose of removing stockpiled fill material from a vacant lot: Ms. Philibert advised that there are no staff comments and that the Board has draft Findings of Fact. Mr. McKenzie explained that quite a few years ago, top soil was put on the lot. They now want to remove it. It will be given to their sister company for its use. Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to close SP-24-31. Mr. Moscatelli seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Site Plan Application #SP-24-34 of AAM-15 to amend a previously approved plan for a 39.5 acre parcel developed with a parking lot. The amendment consists of expanding the existing stormwater treatment pond and reducing the number of parking spaces, 870 Rear Williston Road: Ms. Philibert said the Board has a draft set of findings of fact. Mr. Read said there is a question as to whether the applicant must plant 3 shade trees along the parking lot. Mr. Gillies said new parking lots are required to meet the requirements. This is a reduction of a non-conforming use, and the Board could determine they a making an improvement. Mr. Read said they are trying to limit the footprint to the greatest extent. They could find a way to plant the trees if the Board so desires. Mr. Johnston expressed concern with the viability of the trees on a slope. Mr. Read said they could move the fence so the land is a little flatter. He stressed that the trees would have to be salt tolerant. Mr. Kochman suggested the applicant consult with the City Arborist as to tree type and viability. Mr. Moscatelli moved to close SP-24-34. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 11. Minutes of 4 September 2024: The Minutes were not available for action. 12. 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 8:10 p.m. These minutes were approved by the Board on ___________________________.