HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 09/17/2024
PAGE 1
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 October 1, 2024.