Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 01/15/2019 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. 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: 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. 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: 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. 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. 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. 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 Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com               TO:    South Burlington Development Review Board    FROM:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SP‐18‐51 102 Allen Road Site Plan Application    DATE:    January 15, 2019 Development Review Board meeting      NFI Vermont, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously  approved plan by constructing a 3,255 square foot building addition to an existing group home.  At the  December 4, 2018 hearing, the Board heard the applicant and continued the hearing to deliberate on  deficiencies in their landscaping plan.  The applicant has not submitted any new materials for this hearing.     A) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    Landscaping and Screening Requirements    At the December 4 hearing, the Board discussed with the applicant the need to install additional landscaping  and provide replacement for the removed vegetation.  The applicant has performed a survey of the trees to be  removed.    Staff has provided copies of the two most recently approved site plans for the property, each of which focuses  on a different portion of the Site, and excerpted the relevant section of the LDRs below.     The LDRs require a minimum landscaping value of 3% of the building cost up to $500,000, which in this case  works out to $7,500.  In addition, any landscaping which was included on a previously approved site plan must  be maintained in perpetuity.  The previous site plans for this property included the wooded areas where the  applicant is proposing to remove trees with a total size of 32 caliper inches.  The Board’s precedent is to require  replacement of those 32 caliper inches of trees.    The current landscape plan provides $8,165 in landscape value, which includes five 5‐6’ arborvitaes, four 2 ½”  maples, and four 2 ½” white pines.  Since the minimum is $7,500, $665 of that value can be considered  “replacement” for the trees to be removed.    Staff recommends the Board discuss the tree replacement deficiency with the applicant.    3.06 I.          Landscape Maintenance. Maintenance and responsibility. All planting shown on an   approved  site  plan  shall  be  maintained  by  the  property  owner  in  a  vigorous  growing  condition  throughout the duration of the use. Plants not so maintained shall be replaced with new plants at the  beginning of the next immediately following growing season. Trees with a caliper of less than 5” may  be replaced on an inch‐by‐inch basis with trees of the same genus of at least 2” caliper each. No permit  #SP‐18‐51  2 shall be required for such replacements provided they conform to the approved site plan. Replacement  of trees with a caliper of greater than 5” shall require an amendment to the site plan.      RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues  herein.     Respectfully submitted,      ____________________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner #SD‐18‐32  Staff Comments 1 1 of 4  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐32_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl  Airport_QTA_sk_2019‐01‐15.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: January 11, 2019  Plans received: November 30, 2018  1200 Airport Drive  Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐33  Meeting date: January 15, 2018  Owner/Applicant  City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport   C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation   1200 Airport Drive, Box 1   So. Burlington, VT 05403      Property Information  Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C  Airport District  777.84 acres   Architect  PGAL  1425 Ellworth Industrial Dr #15  Atlanta, GA 30318  Location Map      #SD‐18‐32  Staff Comments 2 2 of 4    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐32 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 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.    PERMIT HISTORY    The Project is located in the Airport district.  Development within this district must be reviewed  pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards.   Until recently, the LDRs required all projects within this district be reviewed under PUD standards.    The Development Review Board approved a larger version of this project in 2016 (#SD‐16‐10).  At that  time, the proposed building was approximately 30% larger and involved twice as many fueling positions.     COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have  reviewed the plans submitted on 12/12/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for  the Board’s attention are in red.    CONTEXT    The Project is located in the airport district and the transit overlay district.  Auto rental with private  accessory car wash & fueling is an allowed use.  All applications for development within the AIR district  must be reviewed pursuant to the site plan provisions of Article 14 unless the PUD or subdivision  provisions control.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions    The applicant has represented that the proposed facility will not result in a change to overall lot coverage,  which the applicant estimates to be 34%.  The maximum allowable lot coverage for this district is 50%.  The  applicant has not provided an estimate of building coverage for existing or proposed conditions.  The  maximum allowable building coverage for this district is 30%.  Staff considers it unlikely the building  coverage exceeds the maximum allowable.    Historically, the Board has allowed the airport to provide estimated coverage calculations as long as it is  demonstrably well within the allowable maximums due to the overall size of the property.  Staff  recommends the Board discuss whether they would like the applicant to provide existing and proposed  building coverages.      Airport District Additional Standards    The district’s standards relate to electrical interference, light and glare, physical obstruction to airport  approaches and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration and other federal and state regulations  #SD‐18‐32  Staff Comments 3 3 of 4  pertaining to airports.      Staff considers that the applicant will need to provide documentation of compliance from the applicable  regulatory entities responsible for airport approach cones as part of their final plat application.    SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of  structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.   Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.    Parking  The proposed facility will remove approximately 45 parking spaces from the lot accessed via White Street.   Staff considers that though there are no specific parking requirements for airports in the LDRs, previous  applications rely on a parking needs assessment to demonstrate that there are sufficient parking spaces to  accommodate the demand generated by the uses present on the airport property.    Staff considers that the applicant must update the parking needs assessment to reflect the current uses and  anticipated demand, and to demonstrate that the remaining parking has sufficient capacity to serve the  existing uses with the proposed reduction in parking.  Staff recommends the Board specifically discuss with  the applicant the current use of the parking spaces to be removed, and where those vehicles will be parked  in the future.     Traffic  The proposed facility includes staging for 159 cars, with an additional 37 parking spaces around the  perimeter.  The applicant has indicated the facility will be used only by the car rental agencies and will be  closed to the public.  The existing facility appears to have approximately the same vehicle capacity based on  Staff review of aerial imagery.  The applicant has provided the following information pertaining to traffic.  The improvements to the QTA site do not correlate to additional trips as the rental car market  (number of transactions) remains the same regardless of additional capacity. The ready/return  spaces in the garage has not changed. A reduction in traffic, trips and vehicle miles travelled will  be achieved due the fact that with additional storage capacity vehicles will not have to be moved  as frequently during peak periods.  A traffic study prepared for the original Rental Car QTA  project is attached.  The basis of the original report is not effected by the facility redesign.     Staff has included the traffic study in the packet for the Board.  Based on the information provided, Staff  does not have concerns about the potential increase in trips generated by the facility.      Compatibility with Adjoining Buildings and Area  The applicant has submitted architectural renderings demonstrating that the façade treatment will be  compatible with the existing adjacent parking garage.  They have also provided a conceptual landscaping  plan which proposes to locate the required landscaping on airport owned land in two locations: west of  Airport Drive and south of the main airport public entrance, and west of Airport Drive and north of White  Street.  Staff considers the Board has historically allowed Applicants with well‐vegetated sites to plant  landscaping within the PUD, but the proposed locations are outside the PUD.      Staff recommends the Board consider the Applicant’s proposal, and discuss how the landscaping should be  configured to best provide screening of the facility from adjacent properties.  #SD‐18‐32  Staff Comments 4 4 of 4    Low Impact Development  The Stormwater section reviewed the plans on December 26, 2018 and indicated that the applicant must  submit information indicating how the proposed changes will impact previously approved stormwater  treatment system, including, but not limited to, drainage area maps, calculations, HydroCAD models as  part of the next application.  The applicant has indicated they are working with the Stormwater Section  to satisfy these concerns.      Staff notes that final materials relied upon to make a determination of compliance with the LDRs must  also be submitted to Planning and Zoning in order to be incorporated into the decision.    Staff reminds the applicant that snow storage areas must be shown on subsequent submissions.    PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS    PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, compatibility with  the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, and public infrastructure.    Fire  The Deputy Fire Chief has indicated that the fire marshal’s office approval has been expired for two years  and the applicant must re‐apply.  The applicant has indicated they are preparing a new application for  approval by the Fire Marshal’s office and they expect to submit this during the week of January 7th.    Solid Waste  Staff notes the solid waste handling facilities are not shown on the provided plan and reminds the  applicant they will need to include the information on the next submission.    PERFORMANCE STANDARDS    Appendix A.3 pertains to noise.  The applicant has indicated that based on information provided by  Station Managers, the typical hours of operation for the facility are 8:00 AM – 10:00 PM daily.  It is  possible that operations could extend past 10:00 PM under high demand situations, and consequently  the applicant is requesting the facility be permitted to operate 24 hours day/7 days per week.    Staff considers Appendix A does not have any standards which pertain to hours of operation and hours of  operation are outside the jurisdiction of the DRB, but noises generated by the facility may not exceed the  decibel standards in A.3(b) between midnight and 8AM.  Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to  request the applicant provide noise level forecasts as part of the next application for this project.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.     Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTCONSOLIDATED QTA - SITE PLAN11/27/2018 Burlington AirportImpervious Area Calculations for So. Burlington Permitting11/30/2018Jon LeinwohlAirport Parcel Size (Excludes Acquired Residential Lots) = 942 AcresAcres SF % Coverage Acres SF % Coverage Acres SF % CoverageRental Car QTA (2018) 319.67 13,924,656 33.9% -0.11 -4,900 33.9% 319.55 13,919,756 33.9% Reduction in net imperviousOverall Impervious AreaExisting Net new ImperviousCommentsPermitted New Impervious Memo To: John Leinwohl From: David DeBaie File: Burlington Airport – 195311029 Date: March 22, 2016 Reference: BTV - Car Rental Quick Turnaround Facility Traffic Impact Assessment At Burlington International Airport on Airport Drive in South Burlington Vermont, rental cars are brought to and from the airport from multiple offsite locations for prepping in advance of the next rental of each vehicle. Some vehicles remain on site where the facilities are limited. A new Quick Turn Around (QTA) facility is proposed which will enable the prepping of all rental vehicles on site. This facility will increase the efficiency of rental car prepping and is expected to reduce the need for shuttling vehicles from offsite facilities to meet car rental demands at the airport. Considering the proximity of offsite car rental facilities to the airport, the potential traffic impact of this facility can be generally assessed by the resultant number of shuttle trips through the Airport Drive/ Williston Road intersection during the evening peak hour when traffic conditions are worse than other times of the day. An increase in shuttle trips through the intersection during the evening peak hour may negatively impact the operations and a net decrease would likely indicate no negative impact. The actual number of trips may be higher but the total trips will be proportional to the number of vehicles shuttled. The information contained in this memorandum has been provided by the existing car rental companies which include: Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Enterprise, Hertz, National and Thrifty. Of these, Dollar only operates from the airport and has no local facility off the airport to or from which rental cars might be shuttled. The operation of these car rental companies will not contribute to an increase or decrease in evening peak hour trips through the Airport Drive and Williston Road Intersection. Avis operates an offsite facility at 1890 Williston Road which is just east of the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection. Driving to and from this offsite location and the airport involves passing through the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection. Under existing conditions as many as 20 vehicles are shuttled to and/or from the airport during the evening peak hour. With the QTA only vehicles that require repair and general maintenance would be shuttled to and from the offsite location; a maximum of 5 vehicles are expected to be shuttled offsite. The net change is 15 fewer Avis evening peak hour trips shuttled through the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection. Budget shares the local offsite car rental facility at 1890 Williston Road which is just east of the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection. ….NO INFO Enterprise, National and Alamo use the existing facilities for prepping rental cars while sharing two offsite locations. One is located at 700 Airport Parkway and the other at 1891Williston Road. Raveling to and from 700 Airport Parkway does not involve a trip through the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection. Trips to and from 1891 Williston Road does involve a trip through the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection. No peak hour trips between the airport and 1891 Williston Road regularly occur under the current operations. With the QTA, combined as many as 5 gb v:\1953\active\195311193\transportation\traffic\quick turnaround facility traffic impact assessment 032216.docx March 22, 2016 John Leinwohl Page 2 of 2 Reference: BTV - Car Rental vehicles are expected to be moved to this location during the evening peak hour. These 5 trips would have a negative traffic impact. Hertz operates onsite and at 228 Aviation Drive offers rental vehicles for those who are using the general aviation facilities. The QTA is not expected to change this operation and therefore no additional trips are expected. Thrifty operates an offsite facility at 1710 Williston Road. Trips between the airport and this facility do not pass through the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection because there is easier access to the back via Airport Road. No traffic impact is expected due to Thrifty rental car trips. PM Peak Hour Trips Through Airport Drive and Williston Road Rental Car Companies at BTV PM Peak Hour Rental Vehicle Offsite Shuttle Trips Net Change Note Current With QTA Alamo 0 5 5 Combined with Enterprise and Thrifty Avis 20 5 -15 Fewer shuttle trips Budget No info Dollar 0 0 0 No offsite facility Enterprise * * * Combined with Alamo Hertz 0 0 0 No change due to QTA National * * * Combined with Alamo Thrifty 0 0 0 Access via Airport Road TOTAL 20 10 -10 No Negative Traffic Impact Conclusion: With information from 7 of the 8 rental car companies at BTV, Stantec concludes that there will be fewer Evening peak hour shuttle trips through the Airport Drive and Williston Road intersection and therefore the proposed QTA will not have a negative traffic impact. gb v:\1953\active\195311193\transportation\traffic\quick turnaround facility traffic impact assessment 032216.docx #SD‐18‐33  Staff Comments 1 1 of 5  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐33_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl  Airport_Hotel_Sk_2019‐01‐15.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: January 11 2018  Plans received: December 12, 2018  1200 Airport Drive  Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐33  Meeting date: January 15, 2018  Owner/Applicant  Burlington International Airport   C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation   1200 Airport Drive, Box 1   So. Burlington, VT 05403    Co Applicant  BTV Hotel LLC.  C/O Donald Wells  277 Blair Park Road, Suite 130  Williston, VT 05495  Property Information  Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C  Airport District  777.84 acres   Project Contact  Rabideau Architects  550 Hinesburg Road  South Burlington, VT 05403  Location Map        PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐33 of Burlington International Airport/BTV Hotel, LLC to amend a  #SD‐18‐33  Staff Comments 2 2 of 5  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.    PERMIT HISTORY    The Project is located in the Airport district.  Development within this district must be reviewed  pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards.   Until recently, the LDRs required all projects within this district be reviewed under PUD standards.    The Development Review Board held a public meeting to review a substantially similar application on  April 17, 2018.  The Applicant failed to submit an application for preliminary plat within 6 months of the  sketch plan meeting, therefore the previously reviewed sketch plan is invalid and must be reviewed by  the Board again.    This plan differs from the previous sketch plan by the removal of three rooms, refinement of the tree  preservation plan and refinement of the proposed circulation patterns.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have  reviewed the plans submitted on 12/12/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for  the Board’s attention are in red.    CONTEXT    The Project is located in the airport district and the transit overlay district.  Hotel is not an allowed use  within the airport district.  However, the definition of Airport Uses in Article 2 is as follows.    Airport uses. Fixed‐ and rotary‐wing operations together with retail sales and service operations  related  to  public,  private,  and  general  aviation,  including  aircraft  sales,  repair,  and  storage,  commercial shipping and storage, restaurants, rental vehicles, and other uses designed to serve  aviation passengers and industry.    1. Staff considers that the Board should support the categorization of the hotel to fall under “other  uses designed to serve aviation passengers and industry” if the project is designed and located in  such a manner as to be clearly oriented to serve those clients.  Staff recommends the Board  remind the applicant that they will need to demonstrate that this test is met as part of  subsequent applications.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions    The applicant has provided a plan (Sheet SP1) showing the required 50‐ft front yard setback and has  indicated they will be seeking a waiver to allow a 40‐ft front yard setback.  From the provided site plan, it  appears that the adjacent existing parking garage meets the 50‐foot setback requirement.    2. Staff recommends the Board provide guidance to the applicant on what information they want to  see from the applicant to determine whether to grant the setback wavier.  #SD‐18‐33  Staff Comments 3 3 of 5    The maximum allowable height for a flat roof building in the airport district is 35 feet.  The applicant is  proposing a five‐story building to be 65 feet high.  The northern end of the parking garage is 58 feet high  and the southern end adjacent to the proposed hotel is two stories lower.  Development in the airport  district is eligible for a height waiver as follows.    (a) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the  limitations set forth in Table C‐2. For each foot of additional height, all front and rear setbacks  shall be increased by one (1) foot and all side setbacks shall be increased by one half (1/2) foot.  (b)  For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table  C‐2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may  waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning  district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a  plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre‐construction grade,  post‐construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the  proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other  public rights‐of‐way.  (c)   Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations,  that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C‐2 may be approved by the  Development  Review  Board  as  a  conditional  use  subject  to  the  provisions  of  Article  14,  Conditional Uses. Such structures do not need to comply with the provisions of subsections (a)  and (b) above.  Without providing additional front and side yard setbacks, the DRB must review a structure which exceeds  the maximum height of 35 feet as a PUD.  Therefore assuming the applicant desires to move forward with  their proposed height, Staff has included a discussion of PUD review criteria below.    3. Staff recommends the Board determine what information they want to see from the applicant to  determine whether to grant the height wavier.    4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether the provided height includes roof  appurtenances (and if so what types), which are allowable above the maximum height but may  trigger review under conditional use standards.      Airport District Standards    The district’s standards relate to electrical interference, light and glare, physical obstruction to airport  approaches and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration and other federal and state regulations  pertaining to airports.      Staff considers that the applicant will need to provide documentation of compliance from the applicable  regulatory entities responsible for airport approach cones as part of their final plat application.    SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS    General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of  structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.   Specific site plan review standards relate to access and circulation, utilities, waste disposal, landscaping, and  low impact development.  #SD‐18‐33  Staff Comments 4 4 of 5    The applicant is proposing to use the existing parking garage as parking for the hotel.  Staff considers that  though there are no specific parking requirements for airports in the LDRs, previous applications rely on a  parking needs assessment to demonstrate that there are sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the  demand generated by the uses present on the airport property.    5. Staff considers that the applicant must update the parking needs assessment to reflect the current  uses and anticipated demand, and to demonstrate that the existing parking has sufficient capacity  to serve the proposed hotel.    The LDRs discuss the use of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, and  visual interruptions to create transitions between buildings of different styles. The proposed structure is a  combination of brick and natural stone, which materials Staff considers are generally consistent with the  adjoining parking garage.      6. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed hotel is compatible in scale with the  adjoining parking garage and with the adjacent residential development, or whether additional  transitional elements may be needed.    The applicant has not shown proposed landscaping on the provided plans.  Staff reminds the applicant they  must show the minimum required landscaping in accordance with Table 13‐9 as part of the next application.   The applicant indicated the project cost may be on the order of ten million dollars, resulting in a required  landscaping value on the order of $100,000.    7. The Board has the flexibility to allow the applicant to provide the required landscaping anywhere on  the airport PUD, to allow some of the required landscape value as hardscape improvements and to  allow some credit for existing vegetation not approved as part of a prior site plan if they determine  that the landscaping standards are otherwise met.  Staff therefore recommends the Board discuss  the overall landscaping program with the applicant as part of this meeting.      The Stormwater Section has reviewed the provided plans and offers the following comment:  No information was submitted regarding stormwater. This project should comply with §12.03 of  the City’s LDRs.   Staff reminds the applicant that they will need to submit stormwater information as part of subsequent  applications.    PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS    PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, compatibility with  the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, and public infrastructure.    The Deputy Fire Chief reviewed the provided plans and notes that the Project will need a full review from  the Fire Marshal’s office.    The applicant has provided a roof deck at the southeast corner of the upper story.    Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation    LDR Section 15.12 pertains to standards for roadways, parking and circulation.  #SD‐18‐33  Staff Comments 5 5 of 5  The Board has the authority to require pedestrian easements through PUDs to facilitate pedestrian  circulation within the PUD.  The applicant has provided a circulation diagram as part of their application  package.  Circulation was a major topic at the April 2018 sketch plan meeting.      Since the proposed hotel primarily serves airport users, Staff considers a defined and safe pedestrian route  from the hotel to the terminal is needed. The proposed pedestrian connection between the hotel and  parking garage occurs on the third level.  The existing pedestrian connections between the garage and the  terminal occur on the second level.    8. The applicant is proposing a crosswalk at the corner of the hotel nearest the terminal.  Staff  recommends the Board review the circulation pattern and ask the applicant to describe the  potential pedestrian and vehicular movements.  Of particular interest is the potential for vehicle‐ pedestrian conflicts at the new crosswalk and ground‐level pedestrian movements between the  garage and hotel.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.     Respectfully submitted,    Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SP‐18‐57_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Intl Airport_2019‐01‐ 15.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: January 11, 2019  Application received:  November 30, 2018  1200 Airport Drive  Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐57  Meeting date: January 15, 2019  Applicant & Owner  City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport  1200 Airport Drive #1  South Burlington, VT 05403    Engineer  Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.  55 Green Mountain Drive  South Burlington, VT 05403  Property Information  Tax Parcel ID  2000‐0000C  Airport Zoning District           #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments  PROJECT DESCRIPTION    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 aircraft holding area, 2) constructing a jet  blast deflector, 3) miscellaneous taxiway turning radius improvements, and 4) stormwater  improvements, 1200 Airport Drive.    CONTEXT    In  2016/2017,  the  Applicant  applied  for  site  plan  approval  for the  currently  proposed  project  in  conjunction with relocation of taxiway “A” and reconstruction of taxiways “M” and “H”.  At that time, the  Board had concerns about the ability of the taxiway “G” aircraft holding area to adhere to the performance  standards of LDR Appendix A.  The Applicant ultimately withdrew their application for the taxiway “G”  portion of the work.  The current application presents a reconfigured version of the 2016/2017 proposal  in which the aircrafts are aligned parallel to the adjacent Airport Drive instead of perpendicular as  previously proposed, and a blast deflector structure is proposed to separate the aircraft holding area from  the adjacent roadway.      This project is subject to review under the Land Development Regulation Standards covering the Airport  District, 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards, Section 14.06 General Review Standards, Section  14.07 Specific Review Standards, and Appendix A Performance Standards    COMMENTS    Development  Review  Planner  Marla  Keene  and  Director  of  Planning  and  Zoning  Paul  Conner  have  reviewed the plans submitted on November 30, 2018 and offer the following comments.  Numbered items  for the Board’s attention are in red.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS     Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed   Min. Lot Size 3 ac  942 ac  No change   Max. Building Coverage 30 %  Unknown  No change   Max. Overall Coverage 50 %  33.9%  34.3%   Min. Front Setback 50 ft.  Unknown  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  No change   Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft.  Unknown  No change  √  Zoning Compliance      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  #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments  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 provided the following statement in support of these criteria.      Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. certifies that the construction drawings and accompanying  specifications for this project are being prepared and will be finalized in accordance with the  Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Advisory Circulars for Airport Improvement  Projects.  These final construction drawings and specifications will be stamped and signed by a  Professional Engineer(s) registered in the State of Vermont.    Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider these criteria satisfied by the above  statement.      6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts    A. Site Plan or PUD review required  B. Multiple structures and uses permitted  C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation.    Staff considers the proposed project does not affect compliance with these criteria.    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).  3.06(I) Buffer Strip for Non‐Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries.    (1) Where a new non‐residential use is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a  residential district, or where an existing non‐residential use, structure or parking area that  is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district is proposed to  be expanded, altered or enlarged, the required side or rear setback shall be increased to  sixty‐five (65) feet. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty‐five (65) foot  setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a  screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15)  foot wide buffer area.  (2) The Development Review Board may permit new or expanded nonresidential uses,  structures and/or parking areas, and new external light fixtures, within the setback  and/or buffer as set forth in (1) above, and may approve a modification of the width of the  required setback and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above. In doing so the DRB  shall find that the proposed lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to be provided adjacent  to the boundary of the residential district will provide equivalent screening of the noise,  light and visual impacts of the new non‐residential use to that which would be provided by  the standard setback and buffer requirements in (1) above. However in no case may the  required side or rear setback be reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning  district in which the non‐residential use is located.  The applicant has provided the following response in response to these criteria.  #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments    A buffer between the existing perimeter road and the fence would violate Title 49 CFR  1542.203 Security of the Air Operations Area because we have to be able to see the  perimeter fence from the perimeter road .  Any buffer, particularly the type of buffer  described in LDR Section 3.06I and copied here, “A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet  wide within the sixty‐five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens,  fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen,” would not allow for that.    A buffer would also violate our Wildlife Hazard Management Plan as directed by Title 49  CFR 139.337 Wildlife Hazard Management.  In the interest of human health and safety,  we must keep the amount of edge, perching, nesting, burrowing areas, etc…, to an  absolute minimum in order to make the airfield as undesirable as possible to birds and  mammals.    Regarding the relocated section of the Perimeter Road, the attached plan shows the  westerly edge of the proposed road varying 56’ to 69’ from the airfield perimeter fence  (Zoning boundary).  As explained above, a vegetated buffer cannot be created between  the road and fence, however slight shifts in portions of the road relocation may be  possible to achieve a 65’ separation distance.  Based on available aerial photography, it appears that there is limited vegetative screening  where the relocated perimeter road is within 65 feet of the residential district.  Staff has included  the below annotated aerial image for clarity.  Staff considers there are at least two potential  options available to the Board.  The first would be to accept the Applicant’s offer to relocate the  road 65‐feet from the zoning district boundary.  The second would be to allow the Applicant to  supplement the existing screening on the vacant properties, which are owned by the airport.   Staff considers the second alternative would be more consistent with the intent of these criteria.             #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments  12.03 Stormwater Management Standards    The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the application on December 20, 2018 and provided  the applicant with comments.  The applicant provided revised materials to address the Stormwater  Section’s comments and on January 4, 2019, the Assistant Stormwater Superintended indicated their  comments have been addressed.  Staff considers these criteria met.    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:  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 use 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 to expand Taxiway G, relocate the perimeter road, and add a blast  deflection structure.  Staff has no concerns about how these changes will affect pedestrian  movement or parking, but considers that the relocated perimeter road and blast deflection  wall should be shielded from the adjacent properties through a combination of vegetation  and screening.      (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.    The project does not affect parking.  Staff considers this criterion not applicable.      (2) 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.    No new buildings are proposed.  The blast deflection wall is proposed to have a nominal height  of 14‐feet and an overall height that is somewhat taller.  Staff recommends the Board require  the applicant to provide information on the overall height of the wall and consider this height in  making it’s determination on screening.    #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments  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.    Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.    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.    Wire‐served utility services are not proposed to be affected.  Staff considers this criterion not applicable.    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.    The applicant is not proposing any new solid waste handling facilities.  Staff considers this criterion met  as part of prior site plan applications.    D.  Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,  and Street Trees.    See discussion above under Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts.    There is no  minimum required landscape value for this project because no buildings are proposed.  Staff considers compliance with snow storage requirements of Section 13.06 are not affected by this  application.    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.    Staff considers that no modification of standards is necessary.    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  #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments  pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.    See discussion of stormwater management standards above.    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.  Staff considers the proposed perimeter road will be limited to internal  airport operations therefore standards of Section 15.12 do not apply.    OTHER  16.03 Standards for Erosion Control during Construction    The applicant has submitted erosion control sheets in support of the project.  The applicant has indicated  the following in support of these criterion.    Low profile erosion control measures (e.g. rolled fiber material) at the LOD will be installed and  maintained.  The Erosion Control Plans will be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure  these perimeter controls are clearly identified.     Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval requiring the plans to be amended to reflect  erosion control measures at the limit of disturbance (LOD).    Fire    The acting fire chief reviewed the plans on December 20, 2018, and indicated they had no concerns with  the Project.    Appendix A: Performance Standards    The Project involves construction of a jet blast deflector to dissipate wind energy generated by aircraft  leaving the proposed holding area. Based on a conversation with the wall supplier, the wall is designed to  deflect wind energy upward, where it primarily decays by thermal mixing.       The applicant has performed a compressible fluid dynamics simulation to evaluate the potential impacts  of an airplane firing its jets to achieve breakaway thrust in front of and perpendicular to the blast  deflection wall.  A report of the results of that simulation was submitted to Staff and is included in the  Packet for the Board.  Breakaway thrust is the thrust necessary to set the aircraft in motion from a stop.   It assumes the aircraft is 100‐ft from the deflector, which Staff considers to be appropriate based on the  proposed  geometry.    The  submitted  model  output  shows  that  the  maximum  wind  velocity  in  this  conservative analysis is below 10 mph at locations on or near the ground 80‐feet behind the wall, which  is representative of locations along Airport Drive.  The highest wind velocity behind the wall is 19 mph at  a height of 112 feet.  These conditions would only occur under the modeled perpendicular orientation;  under skewed orientations, the velocity could be expected to be lower.    Staff has no concerns with the winds resulting from the proposed expansion.    RECOMMENDATION    Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the  issues herein.   #SP‐18‐57  Staff Comments    Respectfully submitted,      ___________________________  Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 18 December 2018, 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. Cota, B. Sullivan ALSO PRESENT: P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Development Review Planner; R. Gonda, D. Murdoch, S. Dopp, D. Sherman, D. Peters, B. C. Toline, S. Partilo, N. Hyman, D. Crawford, R. Greco, S. Hartman, R. Rushlow, B. Bartlett, G. Mortgone, P. Kahn, R. Brinkerhoff, D. Wheeler, T. Perreprow, L. Hammond, D. Seff, P. Smiar, P. O’Leary, M. Boucher, B. Currier, A. Shields 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 move item #9 to follow item #5. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: Mr. Miller noted that he will be leaving the Board along with Ms. Smith will be leaving the Board at the end of his term which means there will be 2 openings as of 1 July. 5. Miscellaneous permit application #MS-18-07 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades on Kennedy Drive. The upgrades consist of replacing a stormwater detention basin with a gravel wetland and expansion of the treatment practice to the north and east, West Twin Oaks Terrace and Kennedy Drive: Mr. Wheeler noted that when Kennedy Drive was widened, 7 stormwater ponds were installed. The city is now looking to upgrade them. One issue is water that is going by pond #3, and this will be addressed. They will also modify ponds 2 and 7 in the near future. The work for this will be entirely funded by the State. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 2 Mr. Wheeler then addressed staff comments as follows: #1 – Regarding limiting the duration of the permit, Mr. Wheeler said the goal is to bid the project in January and finish by November. Mr. Miller suggested a 2-year limit. Mr. Wheeler said that would be fine. #2 – Regarding encroachment into the wetland, Mr. Wheeler provided a letter from the State of Vermont Wetland Program that no wetland permit is needed. Staff considers the Board cannot make use of the findings of the wetland program for evaluating compliance with the standards for wetland protection. Mr. Wilking asked how wildlife will be affected. Mr. Wheeler said they are not adding runoff, but reducing the amount of water going into the wetland. This will provide a significant improvement to the stream, wetland, Lake and wildlife. #3 – There is a significant improvement in phosphorus reduction (from 0% removal to 60% removal). They have State approval dated 12 December 2018. #4 – Regarding landscaping, some invasives will be removed. The 250 sq. ft. of impact will be restored. Mr. Hyman said there were problems caused by another such project, including destruction of wildlife. Mr. Wilking responded that the applicant has said it will improve the quality of wildlife in the wetland. Mr. Wheeler said the Department has considered wildlife. No other issues were raised. Mr. Cota moved to close MS-18-07. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. (formerly #9) Minutes of 4 December 2018: Mr. Kochman said his concern for accommodating musicians may have been overstated. Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 4 December 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. (formerly #6) Miscellaneous application #MS-18-06 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for alternate compliance with the entrance requirements of the T4 Urban Multi-Use District Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulations Section 8.06H for a 20,200 sq. ft., 100-room, 5-story hotel building, 1068 Williston Road: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 3 Ms. Keene noted the Board can review only the project entrance requirement. Mr. Smiar reviewed the history of the project and noted they had incorporated the thoughts of the Board. He showed a rendering of the proposed entrances. The door facing Williston Road will be a functional public entrance during business hours. There is also an interior door available only to guests via a key card. Mr. Wilking said if you’re only walking into a lobby, he still has the same issue. The applicant indicated they have considered the possibility of an art gallery in that lobby. Mr. Miller said if it is an entrance to the hotel, it should be accessible to the hotel or there should be a buzzer system. The applicant indicated they can do a buzzer system. Ms. Keene said staff feels that meets the requirement. Mr. Cota moved to close MS-18-06. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 8. (formerly #7) Master Plan Application #MP-18-01 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 103 single-family homes, 26 dwelling units in two-family homes, 20 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 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: and 9. (formerly #8) 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 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in two-family homes, 20 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 66.4 Transfer of Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Wilking and Mr. Sullivan recused themselves due to potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Wilking retained his party status. Mr. Miller advised that Mr. Wilking will not have a greater influence given to his comment because of his Board status. Mr. Miller noted the attorney representing a group of neighbors has asked for a postponement. Members felt comfortable proceeding. Mr. Kochman noted that Mr. Seff can file a motion to “stay” the proceedings. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Miller noted receipt of written comments and noted that everyone will be given the opportunity to speak with a 2-minute limit. There will be a strict 9:30 deadline to the hearing which will be continued at that time. Mr. Boucher said they will present changes from the last hearing following meetings with staff. Review of the GIS resulted in a minor shift of the zoning boundary. Mr. Boucher indicated where on the plan. He recommended continuing the hearing to update the plan to incorporate this shift. The application is now for 154 units 95 single-family, 35 town house style multi-family, and 24 duplexes throughout the neighborhood. They have eliminated one access to Nowland Farm Road and now have only one wetland crossing. There is also direct access to Dorset Street. Stormwater storage has been split into two separate units. The internal green spaces have been widened and now connect to the natural resource zone (Mr. Boucher indicated this on the plan). They also created a green connection as common space with a walking path. Almost every lot now back up to green space. The project’s main road, Dewberry has been oriented toward Camel’s Hump. Recreational elements have been added including benches, passive recreation areas, rec paths, a small playground area with basketball courts (Mr. Boucher indicated the location on the plan). They plan to maintain a large open field and additional green areas on the edges of the neighborhood. They meet all landscape requirements. There will be delineation between backyards and common areas by plantings and boulders. Mr. Boucher showed lighting areas at the intersections and street crossings. Mr. Kochman said the plan looks like 3 distinct neighborhoods: multi-family, multi-family and single family. He asked if they can be integrated. Mr. Boucher noted there are changes in the zoning that affect this. There are also environmental concerns. Mr. Miller noted the zoning change is a Planning Commission issue. The applicant then addressed staff comments as follows: #1 - Site coverage will be updated. #2 – Staff considers Elderberry Rd. a connector road because it will eventually connect to the property to the south. The Board agreed. #3 – The applicant will designate open space consistently. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 5 #4 – A traffic impact study was submitted. The city’s third party reviewed it. The applicant commented on the review and is waiting for a response. They are OK with the staff’s proposed condition. #5 – Ms. Keene noted the city has studied one of the intersections (Spear St. and Nowland Farm Road) and is looking at options. #6 – The applicant is OK with review by the Natural Resources Committee. #7 – Mr. Kahn said they will provide elevations for the multi-family buildings. #8 – Each phase will include some communal elements. The applicant noted the elements in each of the proposed phases. #9 – The applicant is OK with the designation of the pre-construction grade and will consider whether to flatten the rear yard grading. #10 – No lot width to depth ratio will be less than 1:1. The Board and applicant are OK with that. #11 – Lots 82-88 have already been reconfigured. Ms. Keene noted the applicant has requested to relocate the district boundary line by 50’. There are additional green areas shown which will be conserved. #12 – The applicant will provide updated coverages after reconfiguration. #13 – The applicant will provide overall building and lot coverage calculations. Mr. Kochman noted a submission from the public questioning whether the Riparian Connectivity overlay map is accurate. Mr. Conner said just looking at it briefly, it appears to be a blowup of a map in the Comprehensive Plan. He added that the map is taken from a report. Staff has met with the State biologist regarding the designation of a riparian connection who advised that some “potential” connections in that layer don’t exist any more. Mr. Kochman cited the relationship between the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations which have been reviewed by the courts. The “aspirations” are not binding, but the “requirements” are. Mr. Kochman pointed out that the opponents DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 6 have pointed out the need to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He advised the applicant to come back and indicate how they don’t violate the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The applicant then presented the Preliminary Plat and addressed the staff comments as follows: #1 – They are OK with providing the option to purchase TDRs. #2 – They are willing to look at alternative building designs to comply (along Elderberry Lane). No two adjacent buildings will be the same style. Mr. Boucher showed where waivers would apply to setbacks, from 20 feet to 15 feet on the front and 5 feet on the side. #3 – They will comply with the view protection zone. #4 -The applicant is okay with the payment methodology. #5 – Same response as in Master Plan re: traffic study. #6 – The applicant will accommodate review by the Natural Resources Committee. #7 – Addressed above (providing elevations). #8 – Will provide revised stormwater plans. #9 – Addressed above (preconstruction grade). #10 – The applicant will show electric and telecom lines. #11 – The applicant will incorporate unit design guidelines. #12 – The easement has been provided. #13 – The applicant indicated the location of dumpsters which will be screened. #14 – The applicant will submit an open space management plan. #15 – They will present a plan showing the mature trees to be preserved. #16 – The applicant will obtain a preliminary wastewater allocation. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 7 #17 – The applicant will provide a draft of the homeowners’ agreement including open space management. #18 – The Board approves the parking layout as proposed. Ms. Keene noted the Board has to explicitly grant a waiver for parking on side of the street in the areas indicated. #19 – There will be no variations from the standard indicated. #20 – They will revise the single-family corner type floor plans to meet the regulations. #21 – They will demonstrate that they have a permit for the wetland crossing. #22 – The Board was okay with the wetland permit being provided at the time of the first zoning permit. Mr. Miller asked about the price range of the proposed homes. Mr. Kahn estimated from the high $200,000s on “affordable” homes to $400,000-$600,000 on premium lots. Public comment was then made as follows: Mr. Seff: Represents 14 interested persons who have been identified on a handout. They do not feel the Board has jurisdiction to hear this application. They feel the plan does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan as there is development planned in a primary conservation area. This area is supposed to be protected, not destroyed. Mr. Miller said the Board will analyze which maps are appropriate. Ms. Dopp: Questioned the moving of the boundary line. Ms. Keene read from the LDRs the appropriate passage. She noted the applicant has compensated for the shift elsewhere on the property. Mr. Gonda: Opposes the project because of the riparian strip. He cited the presence of wildlife in the area and also noted that the brook connects two wetlands. He said if the project is to proceed, he would remove buildings on the east side of Elderberry Lane. Ms. Partilo: Cited the importance of wildlife and streams. She was concerned with pollution from pesticides and also with traffic. She noted traffic was counted in the summer when school is not in session and didn’t take into account new homes. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 18 DECEMBER 2018 PAGE 8 Mr. Shields: Cited traffic issues. He was also concerned with the reduction in lot size which would change the character of the neighborhood. He also felt landscape budget numbers should be higher. Mr. Wilking: Noted that he would have neighbors 20 feet off his property line and that the transition between Village Commercial and Village Residential needs to be seriously considered. He felt the 50-foot boundary change was significant. Ms. Greco: Cited uncommon species of wildlife in that corridor because other habitat has been blocked off. She said the wetlands are there to purify water. The more they are paved over, the more polluted things become. Mr. Kochman suggested the applicant look very carefully at Mr. Seff’s memo and work with a lawyer to present a contrary argument. He indicated he would now vote against the plan. Mr. Cota moved to continue MP-18-01 and SD-18-29 to 29 January 2019. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 10. 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 9:38 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk _____________________________________ Date DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 20 November 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, F. Kochman, M. Cota, B. Sullivan (via phone) ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Assistant Administrative Officer; J. Messina, R. Rushlow, B. Gardner, P. Washburn, M. Goldfield, C Montgomery, B. Bartlett, D. Peters, W. & K. Hays, R. Brinckeroff, D. Heinberg, C. Miller, D. Seff, K. Shepard, P. Kahn, S. Dopp, C. Fran, A. Chalnick, C. Myers 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 move the South Village application to #5 on the Agenda because they are asking to withdraw. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-31 of South Village Communities, LLC, to amend a previously approved Master Plan for a multi-phase, 334 unit, planned unit development. The amendment consists of reducing the total number of units to 278, converting Lot 11, currently approved as educational, to residential, and converting Lot 11A, currently approved as residential, to limited neighborhood commercial, 1840 Spear Street: Ms. Keene advised that the applicant requests to withdraw and will resubmit at a later date. Ms. Keene also noted receipt of letters from people in the neighborhood. 6. Appeal #AO-18-01 of Tom and Donna Anfuso, et al, appealing the decision of the Administrative Officer that the Master Plan application #MP-18-01 and Preliminary DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 2 Plat Application #SD-18-29 of Dorset Meadows Association, LLC, were complete as submitted on 26 September 2018, 1505 Dorset Street: Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Seff, representing the appellants, gave members a handout enumerating statutory references. He then presented the two points upon which the appeal is being based, as follows: a. The appellants believe the applications are premature and invalid because the DRB sketch plan review is still open as there was no formal decision on the sketch plan which they believe is mandatory and prerequisite to filing the applications for Master Plan and Preliminary Plat review. b. Even if the applications were timely, Mr. Conner lacked authority to deem the applications complete because Ms. Keene, who signed the applications as “administrative officer, was not the city’s administrative officer. Mr. Kochman said that with respect to “a,” the DRB’s precedent has been that the Board reviews recommendations made by staff and staff determines if the application is complete. Anyone who disagrees with that determination has to tell the Board why the application is not complete. Mr. Conner stressed that sketch plan review is not warned as a “public hearing.” Applicants are not under oath during that review. It is simply a meeting at which the Board can provide non- binding guidance to the applicant(s). Mr. Kochman added that the DRB has never made a formal finding on a sketch plan, and the Land Development Regulations do not require them to do so. That precedent is well established. Mr. Conner was asked if there would be any harm in the Board formally approving a sketch plan. Mr. Conner said that there would be harm because it would create an appealable action which could be appealed to the Environmental Court. The Board would have made a formal decision without seeing more than a single page of the application. He added that this interpretation was upheld in the Saxon Partners case before the Environmental Court related to the BJ’s Warehouse sketch plan application. With regard to point “b,” Mr. Conner presented a written statement that neither State law nor the Land Development Regulations require the administrative officer to state when an DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 3 application is complete. That determination can be made by the administrative officer or any of the staff appointed by the City Council as assistant(s) or acting staff. He then noted that in March, Ms. Keene accepted the position of Assistant Zoning Administrator and in August he was appointed as the zoning administrative officer by the City Council, position which he still holds since the appointment of Dalila Hall was as “Acting Administrative Officer,” which will be effective until the next City Council action in March, 2019. Mr. Rushford, attorney for the Dorset Meadows applicant, said he agreed with staff’s memorandum and with staff’s argument regarding the sketch plan. Mr. Kochman asked Mr. Rushford if there is anything that says the DRB has to take a final vote on a sketch plan. Mr. Rushford said he does not believe there is. Public comment was then solicited as follows: Ms. Peters asked why there isn’t a vote on a sketch plan. Mr. Miller said the purpose of sketch plan review is to provide guidance to the applicant so that the applicant doesn’t waste time or money on a plan that the Board will not approve. Mr. Chalnick said he was at the sketch plan hearing and it just “kind of ended.” He felt there should be a vote so people know what is happening. Mr. Seff said an applicant needs their “ticket punched, so they can go ahead with preliminary plat. Mr. Kochman said that is not true. An applicant can foolishly go ahead and file a preliminary plat even when the DRB has indicated it does not favor the plan. Mr. Conner provided Board members with copies of the Saxon Partners Entry Order. As there was no further testimony, Mr. Cota moved to close the hearing. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board. 7. Conditional Use Application #CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previous approved conditional use permit for construction of a 14’x17’ detached accessory structure to be used as a 186 sq. ft. accessory residential unit. The amendment consists of reducing the rear setback to 5 feet and increasing the height to 15 feet, 30 Myers Court: Mr. Washburn said they were at the DRB in March and went through the construction phase. There were some “misunderstandings,” to be dealt with now. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 4 Mr. Washburn said one of the issues is what constitutes “living space.” He noted there are many different figures available from different sources. Building code regulations require that any point needs to be 7 feet in height. The highest point in the loft space is 6’5” and 6’6” in the cellar. Ms. Keene noted there is no dimension in the LDRs. Staff feels this is not living space. Mr. Washburn said the loft/attic is not intended as living space; it is for storage only. Ms. Keene said the LDRs limit the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit. If the Boards determines the loft/attic is living space, then the accessory unit is too large and can’t be approved. Mr. Kochman confirmed if the loft/attic is not habitable, it is approvable. Mr. Washburn said the other issue is building height. He acknowledged they drew the plan wrong. The foundation had to be high enough for sewage to flow downhill. They made the mistake of thinking the final height was based on frontage, not on previous construction grade. Mr. Kochman asked how high above the allowable height is it. Ms. Keene said about 16 feet. Mr. Washburn said if they have to tear it down, they will lose their life savings. Ms. Keene suggested the Board can approve a new preconstruction grade because of physical necessity. She showed on the plan where the new line would be. Members had not issue with that. Mr. Messina, representing the owner of the abutter’s property, said they didn’t contest the original permit based on the language submitted. They feel the conditional use permit is inaccurate. His clients hired TCE to do a measurement and they found it was 21 feet to the peak, 18 feet to half-peak (this was done by laser, not an on-property measurement). They are asking for a third part confirmation of the numbers so that the DRB can have all the facts before making a decision. Mr. Messina gave members a copy of their engineer’s report. Ms. Keene noted the difficulty in determining pre-existing grade since the site has already been disturbed. If the Board establishes a new pre-construction grade, that is the place from which a new measurement will be taken. Mr. Messina then showed a picture of what the structure looks like from the neighbor’s house. Mr. Miller said he felt a third party measurement was a good idea. Members agreed measurements should be done by an independent engineer. Mr. Cota moved to continue CU-18-12 to 5 January 2019. Mr. Kochman seconded. Motion passed 5-0. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 5 8. 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, 4 new parking spaces, and pedestrian walkway, 102 Allen Road: Dr. Myers explained that NFI is a 501C-3 offering mental health and special ed services. Many of those they serve are in DCF custody. The house in question was donated to the Alenbrook Foundation many years ago and was given to NFI 10 years ago. It is state-funded and serves 8 youth, 4 girls, 4 boys on 2 separate floors. They received feedback through DCF/Licensing that their bedrooms are very small, and they were encouraged to expand them. Dr. Myers also noted that the youth are more “problematic” now, with developmental trauma, and there is a need for staff rooms overnight. It is felt that it will be better to have all the rooms on one floor, so they can be monitored by one person. Mr. O’Leary said the plan is to add 1640 sq. ft. in a 2-story addition along with a gas line in the back of the existing building. They will also increase the size of the water line and add a sidewalk on the back for the property and 4 new parking spaces. He indicated the 50-foot setback from the seasonal watercourse. There would be a small incursion for grading. Mr. Kochman asked if the population of the facility would be increased. Dr. Myers said it would not. Ms. Keene noted the property is well-screened from abutters. Staff notes were then reviewed. The applicant noted that placing existing wiring underground would be a sizeable investment for a non-profit. Members were OK with leaving the wiring as is. Mr. Sullivan noted they would need a finding of ‘infeasibility.’ The applicant was OK with all other staff requirements. Ms. Keene noted the application could not be closed until the Board sees an upgraded landscaping plan as it has to approve a specific plan. A representative of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee asked about the gap in the sidewalk on Allen Road and asked if there is a way to facilitate that sidewalk being built. Ms. Keene noted that sidewalk is a priority project. The Board would have to decide whether there is a nexus for requiring it of the applicant. Dr. Myers said they are willing to work with the city on an easement. Mr. Kochman felt it is a city problem and would be an “inappropriate requirement” for this applicant. Other members agreed. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 20 NOVEMBER 2018 PAGE 6 Mr. Cota moved to continue SP-18-51 to 4 December 2018. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 5-0. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:25 p.m. _____________________________________ Clerk