HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-20-21_1150 Airport Dr_Beta Air Inc_PP FP#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
1
1 of 12
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐21_1150 Airport Dr_Beta Air Inc_PP FP_2020‐07‐
21.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 15, 2020
Plans received: June 16, 2020
1150 Airport Drive
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐20‐21
Meeting date: July 21, 2020
Owner/Applicant
City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport
1200 Airport Drive, Box 1
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Co Applicant
Beta Air, Inc.
1150 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C
Airport‐Industrial (AIR‐I) District
777.84 acres
Engineer
Stantec
55 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐20‐21 of Beta Air, Inc. to amend a previously approved plan
for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 23,500 sf three‐story addition to an
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
2
2 of 12
existing 39,200 sf one‐story existing hangar/office building, reconfiguring the adjacent parking area, and
related site improvements, 1150 Airport Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Development Review Board held a public meeting to review a sketch plan application for this
project on May 5 and May 19, 2020. There do not appear to be significant changes from this plan
compared to the sketch plan application.
The most recent DRB approval for the building at 1150 Airport Drive was in 2013 and consisted of
installation of a sewer pump station. Since that time, the project has received three administrative site
plan approvals, including recently approval for reconstruction of the north and west facades, and
construction of a short‐term restricted landing pad for the landing of battery powered aircraft. This
application represents a significant expansion and alteration to the existing building and parking lot
layout.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 6/16/2020 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The Project is located in the Airport‐Industrial District (AIR‐I) and the Transit Overlay District. All
applications for development within the AIR‐I district must be reviewed pursuant to the planned unit
development standards. The applicant is requesting certain waivers which may be allowed by the Board
as a PUD.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 3 ac 942 ac No change
Max. Building Coverage 30 % Unknown Additional
24,674 sf
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 34.4% 34.4%1
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. 64 ft. +/‐ No change
Min. Side Setback 35 ft. Unknown No change
Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. N/A N/A
@ Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown +1,500 sf
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Unknown 45 ft.
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested, see discussion below.
1. The applicant has stated that they are providing a net reduction of 6,403 sf in lot coverage.
Based on inspection of the plans, it appears that the total lot coverage is nearly unchanged.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe where lot coverage is being reduced.
Staff notes that permeable pavers, while potentially creditable for reduction in impervious for
stormwater purposes, still count towards lot coverage.
2. Front Setback Coverage: At sketch, the Board discussed whether to require the applicant to
provide a calculation of front setback coverage. In the vicinity of this project, the front setback
coverage far exceeds the maximum allowable 30%. At sketch, the Board considered no calculation
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
3
3 of 12
of front setback coverage was necessary. However, Staff considers the Board’s decision may differ
if the applicant is proposing 1,500 sf of additional coverage. Staff recommends the Board revisit
this discussion in light of the proposed expansion.
AIRPORT DISTRICT STANDARDS
All applications within the AIR District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05
and the following additional standards:
(1) No use shall be permitted which will produce electrical interference with radio
communications or radar operations at the Airport.
(2) No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion
with airport lights.
(3) No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the Airport.
(4) All uses shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration,
and any other federal or state regulations pertaining to airports.
The applicant has received FAA approval for the proposed project under Aeronautical Study Number
2020‐ANE‐190‐NRA. Staff considers this criterion met.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site Plan or PUD review required
The application is being reviewed as a PUD. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. Multiple structures and uses permitted. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures,
and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board
determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area and
frontage requirements may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate
ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage
requirements. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the
normal maximum for the applicable districts.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. [Reserved]
D. Buffer Strip. Properties in the Airport, Mixed Industrial Commercial, Industrial Open Space and
Airport Industrial districts that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along
the abutting line, as per Section 3.06(I) (buffers).
Section 3.06(I) pertains to non‐residential uses whose side or rear boundaries are within fifty feet
of the boundary of a residential district. The Project is proposed to be more than fifty feet of the
residential district when measured from the front boundary. Staff considers this criterion not
applicable.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.6 General Review Standards
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
review standards for all site plan applications:
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
4
4 of 12
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive
plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are
compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource
conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant. Staff considers that
the proposed hangar expansion is compatible with the airport. The site is not located in the south
end of the quadrant. The land use policy for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐
residential. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
The applicant is proposing insulated off‐white metal panels with corten steel accent pieces and
significant glazing for the proposed addition. Architectural elevations and renderings showing the
appearance of the site from the street have been provided.
The applicant is requesting a height waiver to allow the addition to be 45‐feet high. The
addition is proposed to increase the building height from one story to three stories, and the
third story is a partial story with a rooftop deck. The allowable height for flat roofs is 35 feet.
Staff estimates the existing building to be 27‐feet high measured to the midpoint of the pitched
roof. The site is bordered to the north by a small utility/hangar building approximately two
stories high, and to the south by a small sewer pump station. South of the pump station is the
City cemetery. At sketch, the Board was generally supportive of the requested height waiver.
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they have any further questions for the applicant as it
pertains to consideration of the request for height waiver.
Adequacy of planting is discussed under site plan review standard 14.07D below.
As part of the new connection to the parking area to the north, the applicant is proposing to install
a concrete sidewalk to the Site. However, this sidewalk does not continue, and it appears
pedestrians are expected to walk in the parking area to the main building entrance. There are no
pedestrian facilities proposed to convey users of the southern parking area to the building.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plans to provide for safe
pedestrian movement to the building entrance both from the north and from the south.
Regarding adequacy of parking, Staff notes that the applicant has incorrectly referenced South
Burlington parking count recommendations. There are no parking count recommendations for this
use in the LDR. Previous recommendations were removed, in part, because they were considered
to be baseless.
Staff estimates there are approximately 110 parking spaces in close proximity to the project, while
the applicant estimates there are 80. The applicant has indicated they anticipate 120 employees in
the future. Staff considers parking to be adequate.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
5
5 of 12
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one
or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The
Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
(ii) The parking area will serve a single or two‐family home;
(iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that
allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street;
(iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re‐used and parking
needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s);
(v) – (vii) Not Applicable
Consistent with the plans submitted at sketch, the applicant is proposing to significantly
modify a non‐conforming front parking area. At sketch, the Board provided guidance that
they may consider the proposed modification allowable under 14.06B(2)(b)(iv) if the net
result was improvements in the aesthetics of the site, including the creation of a green space
opposite the building entrance. The referenced green space would not only result in softening
the appearance of front parking, it would also meet the requirement for 10% interior
landscaping for parking areas.
5. The applicant has not provided the requested green space. Compliance with minimum interior
landscaping is discussed below. Staff recommends the Board review the provided plans,
elevations and renderings and discuss whether they consider the proposed front parking
alteration to be acceptable.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
See discussion above pertaining to architecture and height.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
The building makes up a portion of the airport perimeter fence. It is bordered on the north by a small
hangar/maintenance building and on the south by a sewer pump station which is located within the
airport fence. The applicant is proposing a new connection to the north through the north end of the
reconfigured parking lot. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
6. It appears no modifications to wire served utility services are proposed. Staff recommends the Board confirm
this is the case with the applicant.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
6
6 of 12
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
7. The applicant is proposing an enclosed dumpster to the south side of the building. The applicant has stated
that the dumpster will be enclosed but has not provided a detail. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to provide a dumpster screening detail prior to closing the hearing.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening
shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape
requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
The applicant estimates the building cost to be $6,224,000. The required minimum landscape value is
therefore $69,740, as follows.
Total Building Construction
Cost
% of total Construction Cost Required Value
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional Over $500,000 1% $57,240
Total $69,740
8. The applicant has stated that they are providing $123,000 in landscaping, but has not provided a detailed
breakdown of landscaping costs to support this claim. Staff recommends the Board require a detailed
landscaping cost prior to closing the hearing. Staff considers this important to verify that the applicant’s
proposed landscaping includes only trees and shrubs and elements which the Board finds contribute to
meeting the intention of this section.
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 7/9/2020 and recommends the following:
In the Tree Protection Specs is to the note at the end, which currently reads “NOTE: If Contractor
fails to enforce tree protection measures, resulting in damage and loss of tree(s), Contractor
shall replace tree(s) with a 4" caliper substitute at the Contractors Expense,” add “In addition to
liquidated damages.” If that isn’t clear, the contractor may just view the planting of a 4 inch
replacement tree as a cost of doing business that is preferable to following the protection specs.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the request of the City Arborist.
10. The applicant has indicated they intend to remove six (6) mature maples and to transplant one. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate how they propose to compensate for the
value of these six trees to be removed. Staff considers the Board may wish to direct the applicant to
apply the required replacement value towards the approved overall airport landscaping plan (MS‐20‐01).
Several additional landscaping standards apply to this property, as follows.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
7
7 of 12
All off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be
curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers
as approved by the Development Review Board.
(1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with
trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb
sufficiently to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to
mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and
properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations
it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety
to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot
to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
Staff notes that there appear to be two existing trees which are proposed to be
retained whose trunks are located within the proposed parking lot, a 12” spruce and
an 8” apple. Without doing extensive research at this time, but based on the
knowledge that most of the airport landscaping was part of a previous site plan, Staff
considers these trees were part of a previously required landscaping plans and must
be replaced separately from the required minimum landscaping for this project.
11. Staff recommends the Board discuss these trees with the applicant and provide
direction on whether to modify their plan to retain them or to provide replacement
trees on a caliper by caliper basis.
Staff otherwise considers this criterion met.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces
and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent
(10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with
trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured
parking or below‐ground parking.
The applicant has not provided a calculation of interior parking lot landscaping.
In the northern parking area, the applicant has proposed a space the size of one
interior parking space to be grass. No curbing is proposed.
In the southern parking area, no interior landscaping is provided.
12. Staff considers this criterion does not appear to be met and recommends the Board require the
applicant to modify their plan to meet it prior to closing the hearing.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically
designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff
as per 13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum
dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage
of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged.
13. It does not appear that curbing is proposed. 13.06B(5)(c) recommends that where
runoff is intended to flow off the parking area for stormwater treatment that curb
breaks be limited to five feet. With consideration for the robust landscaping proposed,
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide concrete or granite
curbing at the perimeter of the parking lot.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
8
8 of 12
All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road
runoff or salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be
placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall
be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
The applicant is proposing 65 parking spaces. Including the existing trees to be retained,
the applicant has proposed more than 13 shade trees, but these trees are concentrated
around the northern lot. The southern lot taken alone contains 30 parking spaces and
should therefore have six shade trees. Four or five, depending on whether the Board
considers the northern tree as shading the lot, are proposed.
14. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the northern tree in the southern lot counts
as a shade tree, and that they require the applicant to amend their plan to provide six
shade trees in the southern lot.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off‐street parking areas, off‐street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse,
recycling, and compost collection (excluding on‐site composting) areas, and utility
improvements such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be
effectively screened.
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
There appears to be a new HVAC unit proposed on the front of the building. The area in front
of the unit is proposed to be planted with grass which reaches a mature height of 8”.
15. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide more substantial screening for
this unit. Other elements are screened to a greater or lesser degree by proposed trees.
(3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to
protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the
site. The landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the
Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of
persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall
be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development
Review Board, may be substituted for the required planting.
Staff considers these criteria met.
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development
Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively,
decreasing or increasing the requirements.
16. Staff considers compliance with this criterion should be evaluated when a breakdown of
landscaping costs has been provided.
Snow storage is proposed at the northern end of the parking lot. Staff considers the snow storage to
be adequate.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
9
9 of 12
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5)
feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
See waiver requests discussed elsewhere in this document.
F Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on 7/14/2020 and recommends that the DRB include a
condition that the applicant regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
17. Staff recommends the Board include such a condition.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
No new public roadways are proposed. Parking and sidewalk dimensions match those specified in the
LDR. Staff considers this criterion met.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
standards for all PUDs.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the provided plans on 7/9/2020 and offers the
following comments.
1. Sheet C‐106: The SBWD strongly recommends installing a main line valve on the sprinkler
line downstream of the domestic service connection in order to maintain domestic service
when the fire service is out of service.
2. Sheet C‐106: The SBWD strongly recommends installing a water shut off on the domestic
service near where it is tapped off from the fire service line. This will avoid having to shut
down the fire service line in the event the domestic line needs repairs or has to be isolated.
3. Sheet C‐106: Contact the SBWD to inspect connections on the domestic water service line
prior to burying.
4. Sheet C‐107: #1. CWD Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and
Appurtenances.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
10
10 of 12
18. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to comply with comments
1, 2 and 4 of the South Burlington Water Department as conditions of approval. Staff can
provide a marked up plan to the applicant providing more information on these comments. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with comment 3 of the South Burlington
Water Department as a condition of approval.
The applicant has received preliminary water and wastewater allocation for the project.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The project will disturb greater than one acre of land and will be required to obtain a state
General Permit for construction. Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
The applicant has estimated that the Project will generate 21 additional PM peak hour vehicle
trips over existing conditions, based on the proposed additional floor area and ITE trip
generation values.
The provided traffic memorandum suggests that a lower trip generation may be anticipated
based on the proposed employee expansion, but ultimately recommends not taking that into
consideration in order to reduce the need for future permit amendment.
19. Staff recommends the Board find the proposal represents an increase in 21 vehicle trips per PM
peak hour for the purposes of traffic impact fees.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on
the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural
Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
No natural resource impacts are anticipated. Staff considers this criterion met.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in
the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in
which it is located.
See discussion of visual compatibility with existing structures above under site plan review
standards. Staff considers the use consistent with the comprehensive plan and purpose of the
zoning district.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The applicant is proposing to construct an open space area for employees near the north end of
the site. Staff considers there are limited opportunities to create contiguous open spaces and
considers this criterion met.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
11
11 of 12
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular
access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,
and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/8/2020 and indicated they had no comments pertaining
to the Board’s authority. Staff considers this criterion met.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
Roads, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping are discussed elsewhere in this document.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the plans on 7/8/2020 and indicated he had no
comments.
The applicant has provided a photometric drawing. It is not apparent whether the photometric
drawing has taken into account the impacts of the existing and proposed trees on the lighting
levels, but it appears that lighting levels outside the property line exceed the limit of 0.3
footcandles in LDR Appendix A.
20. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the proposed fixtures can be
modified slightly to meet the limit, and whether the photometric drawing takes into
consideration the effects of the proposed landscaping.
21. The applicant has proposed automatic dimming to 30% levels when the site is unoccupied. Staff
recommends the Board clarify with the applicant whether the proposed photometric drawing
represents maximum levels or 30% levels.
Lighting standards otherwise appear to be met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review
standards above.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and
integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to
generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and
groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.
See discussion above under Site Plan Review standard pertaining to Low Impact Development.
OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
#SD‐20‐21
Staff Comments
12
12 of 12
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
The project requires three short term bicycle parking spaces. The applicant is proposing two inverted‐U
type bicycle racks. Four racks have been provided near the main entrance, though no detail on the type
of racks has been provided. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that racks meet
the minimum requirements of 13.14 and Appendix G.
Long‐term bicycle parking is required for buildings altering more than 50% of the structure. The
proposed addition is less than 50% of the structure, but the applicant has stated in their cover letter a
strong commitment to alternative transportation. If more than 50% of the structure were proposed to
be altered, the applicant would be required to provide two long term bicycle parking spaces and one
clothes locker.
22. Staff recommends at a minimum that the Board strongly encourage the applicant to provide long term
bicycle parking. Staff further considers the Board may require long term bicycle parking since the project
is reviewed as a planned unit development. Staff considers the nexus for requiring long term bicycle
parking is that the applicant is asking for significant modifications of the required motor vehicle parking
standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner