Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/04/2024 PAGE 1 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 October 1, 2024.