HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11A_2019-04-16 DRB Minutes Draft
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 APRIL 2019
The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16 April
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; P.
Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; J. Leinwohl, G. Richards, N. Longo, P. O’Leary, D.
Crawford, K. & W. Hays, D. Seff, N. Hyman, S. Dopp, D. Partite, P. Kahn, R. Greco, S. Losier,kR.
Rushford, M. Byrne, D. Peters, S. Baumaroun, A. Shields, L. Lackey, F. Landry, D. Blodgett, P.
Kelley, C. Montgomery, C. Gendron, A. Chalnick, B. Bartlett, A. Portz, S. Partio, G. Rabideau, L.
Hammond
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:
Members agreed to do the Minutes as Item #5 as several members will be recusing themselves
for later items.
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 at that time.
5. Minutes of 19 March and 2 April 2019:
Ms. Smith noted the incorrect spelling of Mr. Behr’s name and Ms. Keene’s name on p. 4 and p.
5 of the 2 April Minutes.
Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 19 March and 2 April with the noted spelling
corrections. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 2
6. Appeal #AO‐19‐02 of Dennys, Inc., appealing the decision of the Zoning Administrative
Officer to deny the Certificate of Occupancy, 730 Shelburne Road:
Mr. Conner noted that the project began in the spring of 2018. Mr. Belair issued the initial
decisions. The issue is exterior lighting, specifically a series of red slats that are lighted at night.
Mr. Conner showed photos taken from different points on Swift Street. The lights are visible
from Shelburne Road and even from the south end of Pine Street. Section 13.07 of the LDRs
states that all exterior lights shall have shielding and be directed downward so as not to be
visible from any residential street. Mr. Conner then showed a cutsheet of types of lights that
are and are not acceptable. He also drew attention to 2 site plan approvals which include a
stipulation that all exterior lights shall be shielded.
Mr. Baumaroun stated that the lights were always in the plan and were never brought up as an
issue. They were inspected during construction.
Mr. Kochman asked whether the lights were turned on during the inspection. Mr. Baumaroun
said they were not turned on. Mr. Conner noted that the “inspections” were by the Fire
Department, etc., not by Planning & Zoning staff.
Mr. Sullivan noted the applicant did not object to the stipulation at the time of site plan
approval.
Ms. Hall said she spoke with Ray Belair on 10 April. He said he only reviewed what is
referenced in the approval, which does not show anything regarding the lights in question. The
applicant said the lighting is shown on sheet A5. Ms. Hall said the plans that were emailed to
Mr. Belair did not include that sheet. The applicant said a full set of plans was submitted on 29
May.
Mr. Kochman said he agrees with Mr. Sullivan and cannot see a basis for the applicant not to
comply with the stipulation. If there was an issue, the approval motion should have been
appealed. He felt the applicant is stuck with the permit they were given. Mr. Wilking added
that it is not clear on the plan that the callout for the tower lighting isn’t part of the lighting of
the Denny’s name.
Mr. Behr said that in reviewing the drawing the DRB would have no idea that this was the
outcome. Even if pointed downward it would still have the same effect and be viewed from a
distance. The applicant replied, “That’s the idea.”
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 3
Mr. Sullivan referred to a Vermont Supreme Court case from 2005 and read a statement from
the Court.
Mr. Conner noted the approval only references a 6‐page set of plans and does not include the
sheet with the lighting. The applicant said the 6 pages were the schematic sent first. The 20
sheets were the full plans sent later.
Members agreed they would be denying the appeal. Ms. Keene said the Board will render its
decision in 2 weeks. The applicant’s option then would be to turn off the lights or to appeal the
Board’s decision to the Vermont Environmental Court. Mr. Conner added they could also
submit a different solution. Ms. Keene said if the applicant wants to submit a new application
before the Board renders its decision, they must withdraw the appeal.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Cota moved to close Appeal #AO‐19‐02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
7. Continued preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐07 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,
2) constructing anew 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wah facility; and 3) constructing a
2,353 sq. ft. six‐position fueling canopy, 1200 Airport Drive:
Mr. Leinwohl noted that 4 of the staff comments refer to landscaping, and prior to the meeting
he provided staff with a revised plan that is in compliance. Staff comments were then
addressed as follows:
1. Are in compliance with what is required.
2. They have added 4 shade trees to an added island and are in
conformance.
3. They will replace the soil that is on the island.
4. Spacing of trees has been adjusted to 20 feet as the Arborist requested.
5. They will comply with the Fire Chief’s request. Mr. Leinwohl pointed out
the shortened queueing lanes. These will be made clear to people
parking cars.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Cota moved to close SD‐19‐07. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 4
8. Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐11 of City of Burlington/Burlington
International Airport 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:
Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Rabideau said they have begun engineering work and have discovered communications
equipment which requires converting the building into an L‐shape. They have also addressed a
concern of the DRB that the street side of the building was “too plain.”
Mr. Rabideau showed the new plan with new materials facing the street. There is also a door
on the street side. The building is a little shorter, and the actual floor area is reduced by about
300 square feet. The number of rooms remains the same.
Staff comments were reviewed as follows:
1. The Airport has identified the need for the hotel, and it will offer food items
to people using the Airport. Mr. Behr expressed concern that there is no
longer a walkway from the Airport to the hotel. Mr. Rabideau said there is a
walkway, but the have eliminated the sky bridge. Mr. Wilking questioned the
tax status of the hotel, noting that the Airport has a payment in lieu of taxes
agreement with the City.
2. Regarding the setback waiver, Mr. Rabideau indicated the utility corridor
with communications equipment that is crucial to the Airport. It would cost
$500,000 to relocate the equipment. Ms. Keene noted that 50 feet are
required, and they are asking for 34 feet. Members were OK with the
waiver.
3. Members were OK with the height waiver.
4. Members were concerned with lighting standards that relate to the Airport
and felt the compliance note should come from the project’s electrical
engineer. Mr. Longo said they will provide that statement.
5. Regarding access to the parking garage, Mr. Rabideau said the Airport has
people who look at this full time and they have had to convince them that
this is right. He showed the plan indicating a special tactile pavement where
people would turn in to unload, etc. Mr. Gendron said there will an area in
the garage just for hotel parking. Mr. Rabideau said he agrees with the Fire
Chief about eliminating one parking space (he indicated it). He also noted
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 5
they have eliminated the road that went around the hotel as it would have
complicated things because the space between the hotel and garage is not
wide enough. That area has been turned into a pedestrian access and an
area for bike storage. Ms. Keene said staff is concerned with the crosswalk
alignment. Mr. Rabideau said they are trying to avoid a conflict with cars
waiting to go into the garage. Mr. Gendron added they are trying to get
pedestrians to the Airport the safest way, and that is through the garage.
There are lighted signs and markings on the ground for safety. Mr. Miller
stressed the need for good lighting there 24/7. He was OK with as there is
slow, one‐way traffic, and there is landscaping to prevent people from
walking where they shouldn’t, and there will be signage. Mr. Behr suggested
extending the paving pattern with the same material. Mr. Rabideau said
they will be happy to do that. Mr. Wilking asked if the bollards are lighted.
Mr. Rabideau said they are. Mr. Portz said there is also a light pole that
directly hits this area.
6. Ms. Keene said staff has no concerns with the area that used to be a road
between the hotel and garage. Members liked this plan much better.
7. Mr. Rabideau said they agree with the landscaping amount but asked about
credits for perennials and grasses. Mr. Portz said they understand this is
usually not included, but they play a big part in the plan. He noted the issues
with heights of plantings. He noted that stormwater areas will be planted
with perennials. Mr. Miller cited the need to have “some teeth” into
enforcing the maintenance of the perennials. Mr. Wilking noted that grasses
and perennials were approved on a Pizzagalli plan. Mr. Rabideau said they
will provide a landscape maintenance plan and stressed that the Airport is
keenly interested in the landscaping on the whole Airport property.
8. Regarding stormwater Mr. Gendron explained the 2 separate systems, one
south of the patio and one just east of the porte cochère. They are working
with the Stormwater Superintendent to finalize this and are waiting for soil
data (which was held up by big piles of snow in the area).
9. The EPSC plan will be corrected.
10. Regarding the 25% reduction in trip generation, Mr. Gendron said this is
related to airline staff who will be using the hotel and will not have vehicles.
Mr. Wilking suggested checking with other hotels to substantiate this. The
Board invited the applicant to substantiate their 25% claim if they’d like.
11. Regarding the Fire Chief’s comments, Mr. Rabideau said there is a hydrant
the Chief may have missed (he indicated it on the plan). They are OK with
removing the one parking space noted earlier. Regarding the concern for
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 6
setting up the aerial ladder truck, Mr. Rabideau said they would prefer to
come back with a firm plan for that.
12. They will provide a statement from the manufacturer that lights are
downcast.
13. They will get it done.
14. There is a master plan for bike storage. Lockers will be in a common place on
the Airport. Mr. Gendron noted the terminal and FAA building are upgrading
to provide bike racks.
15. Hotel staff has shower and lockers in the basement. This will be indicated on
the plan.
16. Signage will be removed from the plan.
Ms. Greco asked about solar panels for the hotel. Mr. Rabideau said the roof will be solar
ready, and it will be a function of whether there are still credits available. Mr. Miller noted that
credits have been reduced from 30 to 26.
Mr. Crawford said he was impressed by the landscape plan and protection of existing trees. He
asked why there are no trees on Airport Road. Mr. Portz explained that is because of the utility
lines.
Mr. Cota then moved to continue SD‐19‐11 to 21 May 2019. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
9. Continued Master Plan Application #MP‐18‐01 and Preliminary Plat Application #SD‐
18‐29 of Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots
developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to
consist of 95 single family homes, 20 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling
units in multi‐family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.80
acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off‐site through the
purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street:
Mr. Wilking recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Miller turned the Chair
over to Mr. Cota. As he will be leaving the Board in July, he felt continuity was important.
Mr. Cota read staff comments regarding the use of TDRs that may be overturned by the Court.
A modified plan has been submitted by the applicant which the applicant has indicated
attempts to mitigate the risk associated with the use of TDRs. In his comment letter, Mr. Seff
suggested waiting until the Supreme Court has ruled, but the applicant does not wish to wait.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 7
Mr. O’Leary said everything in the plan is the same except the phasing plan. There are 5
separate phases, similar to what was submitted before. The first 4 phases total 83 units. The
5th phase includes all the units that require TDRs. They are asked the Board to approve the
Master Plan for all phases and for preliminary plat, phases 1‐4, not phase 5.
Mr. Behr had an issue with this because of the TDR bonus, which may not happen, and the city
could be looking at a plan with “blank spaces.” Mr. O’Leary identified on the plan what is in
Phase 5. He said if those units are not built, the areas would be added to open space. There
also wouldn’t be multi‐family buildings, though these could be put into phases 1‐4. Mr. Kahn
said it is still a cohesive plan, just with more open space. Mr. O’Leary said all the amenities
would remain as well. Ms. Keene noted this is similar to what the Board did with the O’Brien
project, but the O’Brien project phases were clustered together.
Mr. Kochman asked why this doesn’t require a new application. He felt it is a material change,
with half the density. The applicant said it is not a material change, just a change in when
things will be built. Mr. O’Leary said the LDRs allow for phasing, and it was always a phased
project. Mr. Cota said the Board is not going to make a decision on whether it is a material
change tonight.
Mr. Kochman said he doesn’t necessarily agree with the jurisdictional question raised by Mr.
Seff, but he did agree with the riparian connection risk.
Mr. Cota said the people who live in the first four phases might be used to the open space and
would have a problem if Phase 5 is built. Mr. O’Leary said buyers would be given full
information when they buy their homes. Mr. Kahn said the public offering statement given to
buyers would disclose Phase 5.
Regarding Overlay Map #7, Mr. O’Leary said people got information from Biofinder which was a
desk‐top survey with no field work. He said they would create a topo map and delineate
everything and go out with experts for field verification. They would also verify where the 100‐
year flood plain is. He added that they know the wetland map is wrong. They have been out
with the state to identify what they have to stay away from. Mr. Kochman said the
Comprehensive Plan states you can’t build there. Mr. O’Leary said that hasn’t been followed in
the past. Mr. Behr said Map 7 is there for the applicant to do further study and clarification.
Public Comment was then solicited as follows:
Mr. Lambert: Supports the development. Lives in Cider Mill development and loves the
neighborhood, and would encourage his children to live there. Feels it makes sense to have
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 8
smaller homes on smaller lots. Cited walking trails and the conveniences of this place to live.
He wanted to see more children in the city and in the schools, also homes for retirees.
Mr. Blodgett: Lives in the existing house. Said there is a silent majority enjoying their homes
which were built by these builders. He felt it is a reasonable plan for the city.
Mr. Hyman cited conflict over Cider Mill. He felt the density in this project is all over the place
and doesn’t consider wildlife.
Mr. Seff felt there is no authority to hear this application or to make a decision while there is a
Supreme Court case.
Mr. Chalnick said the LDRs say to respect the map, and there is nothing in the LDRs that says
you have to delineate. He felt the map matches what is in Biofinder and is the best information
the State has.
Mr. Shields had several concerns including the setback of the houses from Dorset Street and
the 2 exits onto Dorset St. which are 629 feet apart. There is also the possibility of a third exit
600 feet away. There appear to be over 500 waivers from the guidelines on lot coverage, front
yard setbacks, etc. He didn’t know how the Board makes these determinations. Mr. Kochman
said they are authorized to make those changes. Regarding the buffer between zones, Mr.
Shields said the regulations said they have to be in single ownership, and he didn’t think they
were in single ownership when the regulations were adopted.
Ms. Partilo didn’t feel the concern for more children and families was justified. She would
“prefer animals to children and families.” The area is designated as conservation area.
Ms. Hammond submitted photos of wildlife and identified 84 different species of birds. She felt
the wildlife has diminished because of other development, and once they’re gone, they’re
gone.
Ms. Greco felt the project is counter to 11 vision and goals statement in the Comprehensive
Plan and counter to the City Council’s statement regarding reducing carbon footprint. This will
use massive amounts of fossil fuel as there is no public transportation in the area.
Mr. Seff asked Mr. Miller why he recused himself. Mr. Miller said he did not. He turned the
Chair over to Mr. Cota. Mr. Seff asked about Mr. Miller’s comments regarding the value of
people’s homes. Mr. Miller said that was related to Goal #1 in the Comprehensive Plan
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
16 APRIL 2019
PAGE 9
regarding affordable housing. Mr. Kochman asked Mr. Seff to stop interrogating Mr. Miller.
Mr. Cota asked Mr. Seff to summarize his letter.
Mr. Seff said he had assumed this hearing would not go forward because of pending appeals to
the Supreme Court. He felt the Board doesn’t have the right to go forward because Judge Walsh
said they shouldn’t go forward with preliminary plat or the master plan. That is now being
appealed to the Supreme Court. If the Board denies the appellant, the appellant will appeal
and say the Board had no authority to act. If the Board approves the plan, Mr. Seff said his
clients will appeal under the same grounds. He felt the developer is wasting his own money as
well has Mr. Seff’s clients’ money. Mr. Kochman said the Board’s view is that the Judge’s
language is not binding on this Board. He agreed with the risk to the developer, but that is the
developer’s call.
Mr. Seff said he agrees with Mr. Kochman that there should be a new application because of
material changes. He also believes the LDRs give map 7 authority of law.
Mr. Kochman said he would like to get an opinion regarding “material change” from the City
Attorney.
Mr. Miller moved to continue MP‐18‐01 and SD‐18‐29 to 4 June 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded.
Motion passed 5‐0.
Mr. Miller resumed the Chair.
10. Other Business:
There was no other business transacted.
As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 10:18 p.m.
____________________________, Clerk
____________________________, Date