Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08B_2019-01-15 DRB Minutes Draft DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 15 January 2019, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr (via telephone), M. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; G. Rabideau, N. Longo, S. Lusier, G. Richards, L. Lackey, C. Gendron, D. Zazzaro, J. Leinwohl, P. Kelley 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 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: Mr. Miller noted there would be openings on the DRB in July and invited interested persons to apply. 5. Continued Conditional Use Application #CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved conditional use permit for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory rental unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to five feet and increasing the height to fifteen feet, 30 Myers Court: Members were advised that the applicant had requested a continuation to 29 January. Mr. Cota moved to continue CU-18-12 to 29 January 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 2 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-18-51 of NFI Vermont, Inc., to amend a previously approved site plan for a group home. The amendment is to construct a building addition, four new parking spaces, and pedestrian walkway, 102 Allen Road: No one was present to represent the applicant. Members agreed they could proceed with the application. The issue is the removal/replacement of trees totaling 32 caliper inches. Ms. Keene described that the applicant is proposing $665.00 in landscaping beyond the minimum requirement, and noted it would change the precedent if the Board allowed the $665.00 to replace the requirement to provide a total of 32 inches of tree caliper. Mr. Wilking noted the Board has been requiring “caliper-by-caliper” replacement. Mr. Cota said the property is off the main road and not very visible. Mr. Miller added that the site is already heavily treed. Ms. Keene added that the trees were not specifically identified on the previous site plan. Mr. Kochman felt that would be a justification for him not to require a “caliper-by-caliper” replacement. Mr. Wilking agreed and said he didn’t feel the wording of the regulation required a “caliper-by-caliper” replacement. Mr. Sullivan said he wasn’t “wedded to the precedent” and added that the DRB is a “quasi- judicial” board and not “judicial.” In this case, he felt there is no specific guidance for a “caliper-by-caliper” replacement. Mr. Wilking asked what would happen with Administrative Officer decisions on similar matters. Ms. Keene said staff is now not really sure where they stand on this issue, but offered that the Administrative Officer would be willing to bring this issue to the DRB when it comes up to help establish a new precedent. Mr. Sullivan said he felt the regulation should be flexible enough to consider site conditions. Mr. Behr was OK with that direction and felt that site plans should be looked at on a case-by- case basis. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-18-51. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-32 of Burlington International Airport/BTV Hotel, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 102 room, 5-story hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 3 Mr. Miller read the description of “sketch plan review” and noted that this is an informal discussion with the applicant and that no decision would be rendered by the DRB. Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Rabideau identified the existing driveway from Airport Drive and the location of the proposed hotel. This will be a Marriott Hotel which has specific indoor requirements which result in the building being a little longer than originally proposed. They will be asking for a waiver of the front-yard setback and also building height. The building will be similar in height to the tallest part of the parking garage. Hotel parking will be in the garage. Airport people say there is enough parking in the garage and on surface lots to meet the existing and with hotel needs of the Airport. The ground floor of the hotel will include the reception area and some small conference rooms. There will be 4 stories of guest rooms above that. Another change from the original sketch plan is that they have updated the drop off area and circulation into the garage. This way, people checking in are not blocking entrance to the Airport. Mr. Rabideau showed a potential pedestrian connection from the third floor of the hotel to the Airport building. He also identified pedestrian connections from the hotel to the terminal. Mr. Gendron showed where the existing utilities (except for the sewer line) will have to be relocated. Utilities will now go along the new access road. They will work with the Stormwater Superintendent regarding stormwater. Mr. Rabideau added that they will use the existing Airport dumpster. Staff comments were then reviewed as follows: a. Members agreed that the hotel is specifically related to Airport activities and is therefore allowed. Mr. Longo noted the hotel will be used by airline crew members and that Airport passengers not staying at the hotel can still use the hotel restaurant. b. Regarding the setback waiver request, Mr. Rabideau noted there is a 50-foot wide vegetated buffer in front of the Airport, and that the hotel will not be close to any use across the street. Mr. Wilking asked what would happen if they lost 10 rooms or lost 10 feet and added a story. Mr. Rabideau was unsure. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 4 c. Regarding height, it was disclosed that the portion of the garage adjacent to the hotel is equivalent to a 2-story building. The garage is 700’ long, and a little less than half the mass is equivalent to a 2-story building. Mr. Miller felt it was OK to compare to the tallest part of the garage. Ms. Smith expressed concern with it being any higher than is already proposed. Mr. Behr said the Board’s precedent regarding height is that unless it’s blocking a public view, the Board has generally been pretty flexible. Mr. Behr was concerned that what is being projected to the street is a big blank wall, compared to the parking garage which has a lot of arched openings, and pointed out that the entrance facing Airport Drive wouldn’t be used much. Mr.Behr also said that if windows are not possible on that side then perhaps art could be considered. Mr. Rabideau said they can work on that issue, possibly rotating rooms to get windows to face the street. Mr. Rabideau said they’ll look at the height waiver request and revise it to request what they actually need. d. The applicant will get information from the Airport regarding parking needs for both airport and hotel uses. e. Regarding landscaping, Mr. Rabideau said they will plant what they can around the hotel and would like to get credit for retaining the existing trees. They would like to find other places on the Airport where planting is appropriate. Mr. Gendron said the stormwater system will not impact the existing trees. Soils are sandy so infiltration potential is high. f. Regarding the pedestrian access to the terminal, Mr. Rabideau said they are considering a raised surface to that cross-walk. They expect the frequency of cars crossing the crosswalk will be low. Mr. Cota asked if anyone could use the entrance to the garage. Mr. Longo said they could. They will consult a traffic consultant regarding safety concerns and look into a raised surface or a change in materials. Ms. Keene said there are many options including reducing skew. No other issues were raised, and there was no public comment. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 8. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-33 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of 1) razing an existing car wash facility, constructing a new 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3) constructing a 2,353 sq. ft., six position, fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 5 Mr. Longo noted this plan is slightly different from the what DRB saw in the past because it is smaller. He showed a picture of the proposed garage and indicated where customers would enter and where service people would take cars to fueling stations and the wash bays. There would be 3 wash bays, one for each rental company using the facility. He said there would be no change to how the public rents a car. In the future, office space may be moved to the now vacant small building on the site therefore with the current plan the building will remain. This is a fenced site with a gated entrance at the front and at the rear. There is also a gated entrance from this site to the FAA facility. Staff comments were addressed as follows: a. Regarding building coverage, Ms. Keene noted that allowable building coverage is 30% and they are well under that. b. Regarding parking needs, staff comments noted that this project does remove some parking on the White Street lot. Mr. Longo said they can relocate the 45 lost spaces to a vacant, overflow lot (he showed this on a plan). c. Regarding screening and compatibility with nearby buildings, Mr. Longo said there are landscaping opportunities across Airport Drive. Ms. Keene said this has been allowed before. Mr. Kochman asked why it was allowed before if it’s not part of the PUD. Mr. Leinwohl showed a revised landscaping plan and indicated where landscaping was previously approved off-site. Ms. Keene said staff will research what constitutes the “airport PUD,” and whether even if outside the PUD the proposed landscaping can be allowed. Mr. Sullivan didn’t think there would be a problem if both properties are under the same ownership unless the LDRs specifically don’t allow this. Mr. Kochman said it wasn’t objectionable on a “gut level.” d. Regarding noise, Mr. Miller noted receipt of a letter from a neighbor. Mr. Longo said the hope is to contain all noise on-site. This is not a different use from what is there today. Mr. Richards added that vacuuming will be done inside the building with the doors shut. He felt this would be an improvement from what is there now. The Board felt they did not need to see a noise level forecast. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 6 There were no other issues or public comment. 9. Site Plan Application #SP-18-57 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of 1) constructing an expansion of the existing taxiway “G” for the purpose of an airport holding area, 2) constructing a jet blast deflector, 3) miscellaneous taxiway turning radius improvements, and 4) stormwater improvements, 1200 Airport Drive: Mr. Miller read a description of a “site plan.” Mr. Longo noted that for the first time in the history of the Airport they will have a full parallel runway. This is the final part of that project. The holding bay will allow aircraft to go to “the side of the road” to await departure clearance. This is particularly important at the time of day when they have 13 flights departing within a one-hour period. There is now not a safe, efficient way to accomplish that. The perimeter road is used several times a day for safety, for National Guard and for FAA inspector. When originally presented, the jet blast was a high concern. They are now presenting a jet blast deflector. Mr. Leinwohl showed a photo of this and noted it is a pre-fab metal structure which deflects the blast upward at a 50-degree angle. He added this is the best industry standard to address the problem. He also said that this does not deflect noise but they’re studying noise from taxiing separately and the noise contours from taxiing alone are not generally audible outside the airport property. Mr. Sullivan noted the holding bay would be mainly used in spring and summer when the prevailing winds are from the south and when there is foliage on the trees. He asked if that would help abate noise. Mr. Longo said he wouldn’t count on it. Mr. Longo noted the Airport is completing a noise abatement program in collaboration with the city. Mr. Leinwohl noted they have also changed the geometry of the holding bay to addressed issues raised last time. The FAA has agreed to this even though it is not the current standard. Ms. Smith asked about the length of the deflector. Mr. Leinwohl said it will accommodate 2 aircraft simultaneously, which may leave the holding bay in either order. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 7 In addressing staff comments, Mr. Leinwohl noted there is no electronic interference and no glare or interference with airport lights. Ms. Keene noted there is a requirement of a buffer within 65 feet of a residential district, but the regulations don’t say where the buffer has to be. Mr. Wilking asked if the “residential” area is owned by the Airport. Mr. Longo said it is. Mr. Richards said there will never be residential use there because of an agreement with the FAA. Mr. Wilking was OK with no vegetative screening. Mr. Richards said they have worked hard to be sure the vegetation they have is attractive and does not attract wildlife. Regarding erosion control methods, Mr. Leinwohl said they are at 90% design level now. They will include a note regarding erosion control. There was not further Board or public comment. Mr. Cota moved to close SP-18-57. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 10. Minutes of 20 November and 18 December 2018: Mr. Kochman asked that in the minutes of 18 December, the following paragraph replace the language on p. 5, following #13: Mr. Kochman noted that a submission from a group of adjoining property owners challenged the development on the grounds that it could not meet one of the requirements of section 15.18 of the LDR because a portion of the developed area is overlain by a primary conservation area shown on Map #7 attached to the Comprehensive Plan, and the Plan states that primary conservation areas are not to be developed. Mr. Kochman asked the applicant if the sketch of the overlay area submitted by the adjoiners accurately depicts the relationship of the primary conservation area (as shown on Map #7) to the project, which the applicant’s representative said he was not prepared to do inasmuch as he was seeing the sketch for the first time. At the request of the Chair, the Director of Development, Mr. Conner, testified that the sketch is accurate. Mr. Kochman told the applicant that, in that case, based on his understanding of the applicable law, his impression was that the adjoiners’ objection is well taken. Ms. Keene suggested not approving the 18 December minutes until the DRB has had a chance to see the amended copy. Mr. Cota then moved to approve the Minutes of 20 November 2018 as written. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 15 JANUARY 2019 PAGE 8 11. 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 9:31 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date