HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06A_SD-19-07_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_QTA_PP FP_SC#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
1
1 of 12
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐07_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_QTA_PP
FP_2019‐03‐19.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 15, 2019
Plans received: February 12, 2019
1200 Airport Drive
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐07
Meeting date: March 19, 2019
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‐19‐07
Staff Comments
2
2 of 12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐07 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to
amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an
existing car wash facility, 2) constructing 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 Development Review Board reviewed the sketch plan application on January 15, 2019.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 2/12/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
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.
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. At Sketch, the board determined they were comfortable with
this assessment and did not need an exact calculation of building coverage.
1. There appears to be a trapezoidal‐shaped area between the existing building to be retained at the
north of the site and the proposed dumpster location that is currently impervious. Staff
recommends that since there is no apparent use for this impervious area, the Board require the
applicant to return it to a pervious condition.
2. Staff notes the direction of the north arrow is inconsistent between plans, making it challenging to
refer to various portions of the property. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to
review the north arrow on all submitted plan sheets and make corrections as necessary.
6.02F Airport District Additional Standards
All applications within the AIR District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05
and the following additional standards:
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
3
3 of 12
(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.
At sketch, the Board requested that the applicant provide documentation of compliance from the
applicable regulatory entities responsible for airport approach cones as part of their final plat
application. The applicant has not provided this information.
3. Staff recommend the Board request documentation of compliance with these criteria, in particular
the potential for obstruction of aerial approaches to the Airport, prior to concluding the application.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site plan or PUD review required. Development according to industrial and airport district
regulations shall be subject to site plan or planned unit development review
Site plan standards are addressed below.
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.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation
(1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the
presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance
(defined as no further than one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of these districts). Any
requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal
agreements acceptable to the City Attorney.
(2) Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible.
(3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number
of curb cuts onto the public roadway.
(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
The proposed facility will displace 112 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. At
Sketch, the applicant described where the displaced vehicles will park. As part of this application,
the applicant has submitted a narrative and plan showing what they described at sketch.
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
4
4 of 12
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they find the submitted documentation sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with these criteria or whether they will require the applicant submit an
update to their parking needs assessment.
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).
Staff considers this criterion not applicable due to the Project’s location within the interior of the
airport property.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
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 consists of a replacement of structure associated with an existing use which is proposed to
continue. The project is located within the Northeast Quadrant in the Plan. Staff considers this criterion
to be 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 submitted renderings showing that the proposed building will be white with brick
pillasters and green accents. The fueling canopy is proposed to be white. At sketch, the Board did
not specifically consider the transition between structures and between structure and site. Staff has
included a screen capture showing the appearance of the adjacent parking garage to allow the Board
to evaluate this criterion.
5. Staff recommends the Board consider the transitions from structure to site and from structure to
structure based on the provided renderings.
Based on the provided site plan, it appears pedestrian access to the facility will be only via the north
end using an existing sidewalk which connects to the White Street parking lot. No pedestrian facilities
are apparent at the south end of the lot connecting to the terminal or to the parking garage where
rental cars are stored when they are not using the proposed facility.
6. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require pedestrian access between the south end of
the proposed facility and the terminal or parking garage.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
5
5 of 12
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(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) – (vii) N/A
Staff considers that no parking is proposed to be closer to the street (Airport Drive) than exists today.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
7. As alluded to above, the Board did not consider these criteria at sketch and recommends the Board
consider them as part of this hearing.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
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.
A new internal access drive connecting the White Street Lot to the main airport driveway is proposed. No
additional roads or driveways are proposed. Staff considers this connection as addressing this criterion,
and 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.
Utility connections are proposed to be underground. Staff considers this criterion met.
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 proposing a screened dumpster enclosure at the northwest corner of the facility. Staff
considers this criterion met.
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
6
6 of 12
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
A. Purpose. The City of South Burlington recognizes the importance of trees, vegetation, and well‐
planned green spaces in bringing nature into the city and using these as a resource in promoting the
health, safety, and welfare of city residents through improved drainage, water supply recharge,
flood control, air quality, sun control, shade, and visual relief. Landscaping and screening shall be
required for all uses subject to site plan and planned unit development review. Street tree planting
shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision or planned unit development. In evaluating
landscaping, screening, and street tree plan requirements, the Development Review Board shall
promote the retention of existing trees while encouraging the use of recommended plant species.
In making its decisions, the Development Review Board may refer to the Vermont Tree Selection
Guide, published by the Vermont Urban & Community Forestry Program and/or the
recommendation of the City Arborist.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and
screening is required for all uses subject to site plan and 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 total cost of the building is estimated at $3,829,000 by the
applicant.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
Staff considers that while the interior of the proposed facility is designed as a vehicle staging area and
focuses on the movement of vehicles (as opposed to the parking of vehicles), there are two areas on
the southwestern side (19 spaces) and the northeastern side (15 spaces) which are configured as
vehicle parking areas for which these standards should apply.
(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 considers this criterion met for the southwestern parking area. Staff considers
constraints of federal regulations appear to preclude compliance with this standard for the
northeastern parking area, and considers the Board may grant relief from this standard as a
PUD.
(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.
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
7
7 of 12
8. Staff considers the applicant should provide interior parking islands for these two areas. Staff
considers for the purpose of this standard could be met by replacing four (4) parking spaces of
the total 34 with vegetated islands.
(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.
Curbing is proposed where the parking areas abut vegetated areas. Staff considers this
criterion met, but that demonstration of compliance with this criterion should be reevaluated
against any required plan modifications.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. 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.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
The proposed perimeter trees are called out as having a caliper between 2” and 2.5”. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the landscaping plan to require a
minimum of 2.5” caliper.
13.06G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require
minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced.
Table 13‐9 (modified to include project calculations)
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
Cost of proposed project
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $33,290
Minimum Landscaping $ $45,790
Proposed Landscaping $45,810
The applicant’s calculation of proposed landscaping value only includes landscaping that is proposed
to be planted along the north side of White Street and along the west side of Airport Drive. They
have also submitted a planting plan for around the proposed facility, for which they have not
provided a schedule of values.
At sketch plan, the Board indicated they would like to understand whether the LDR allowed
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
8
8 of 12
landscaping to be located off of the immediate airport property. Staff considers the Board has made
this interpretation for a larger version of this same project in the past, but has not made this
interpretation on other projects. There do not appear to be specific provisions with in the LDRs
prohibiting it. Several sections of 13.06 pertain to the distribution of landscaping, specifically by
requiring landscaping of parking areas, screening and buffering, and landscaping of front yards of
non‐residential and multi‐family uses.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider the proposed off‐site landscaping
adequately meets the purpose of the landscaping standards, stated in 13.06A, and the other
required elements of 13.06, with a large portion of the landscaping located off the airport property.
10. Section 13.06C requires screening along lot lines where a commercial district abuts a residential
district. Staff considers this standard applicable for two reasons. First, there is no exception to this
rule where a commercial district abuts undeveloped residential lots. Second, Staff recommends the
Board discuss whether this standard allows a portion of the required landscape budget to be planted
in the locations proposed by the applicant as screening.
11. If the Board determines it will accept the applicant’s proposed landscape plan, Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to provide an estimated value of the on‐site landscaping for inclusion in
the required landscape bond, as Staff assumes the on‐site landscaping will enter into the Board’s
consideration of whether the purposes of the landscaping section are met.
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on February 22, 2019 and offers the following additional
comments.
Tree Protection specifications look good but trees to be protected should be designated
on the plans
Areas that are to be planted that are currently under pavement will require
decompaction and either soil amendment or soil replacement to a depth of 2.5 ft. to
support tree growth
Planting Norway and White Spruce on 10 ft centers is very tight spacing unless they are
intended to be maintained as a hedge
Along White St it looks like trees are being planted under the crown of existing trees but
there is no indication if removal of the existing trees is planned
12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the landscape
arborist prior to closing the hearing. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify
whether trees along White Street are proposed to be removed to allow planting of new trees, and
that the Board not consider replacement trees as counting towards the required minimum landscape
budget.
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
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
9
9 of 12
applicable limit.
Setback and site coverage requirements are unchanged. Staff considers this criterion met.
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.
LID practices are not proposed. The Stormwater Section reviewed the application on February 12, 2019
and has no concerns. The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent indicates that while the applicant has
reduced the amount of impervious compared to the previously approved plan, the have kept the
previously approved stormwater system, in case they increase the amount of impervious on the site at a
future point in time. Staff considers this criterion met.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
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 proposed car wash and fuel facility is proposed to replace an existing car wash and fuel
facility. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water and
wastewater allocation prior to recording the mylar, and to obtain final water and wastewater
allocation and connection permits prior to issuance of a zoning permit, or to certify in writing
that no additional flows are proposed.
13. The Director of public works reviewed the provided oil‐water separator design and requests the
Board require the applicant to provide an operation and maintenance plan for the separator and
include as a condition of approval the following:
The applicant shall comply with the O&M plan for the car wash’s oil/grease separator and keep
all files and annual inspection reports on record for inspection.
(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. The applicant has provided erosion
prevention and sediment control plans (Sheets C‐701, C‐702 and C‐703).
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
10
10 of 12
14. Staff notes the provided plans omit tree protection for the existing trees to be preserved within
the limits of disturbance, and recommends the Board require the applicant to amend their plan
to address tree protection.
(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.
As discussed above, the Applicant is proposing to add a connection from the existing White
Street parking lot to the main airport driveway. No changes to trip generation are proposed.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
The project is proposed to be constructed on existing impervious surfaces. 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 project will not affect open space areas. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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 3/12/2019 and notes that fire apparatus can’t make the
turn into the southern entrance. He further notes that the applicant needs to motorize the gate
and place an Opticom system.
15. Staff recommends the Board require fire access be adequately addressed prior to closing the
hearing, as the means of addressing the southern entrance configuration may vary.
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
11
11 of 12
(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.
No changes to roads are proposed. Sidewalks are addressed above. Stormwater is addressed
above. Staff considers this criterion will be met when other concerns discuss above are met.
(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.
Based on submitted materials, lights within the private property will be downcast, shielded, and
less than 30‐ft in height. No changes to public infrastructure are proposed. Staff considers this
criterion 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.
The project slightly reduces lot coverage. The Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on
February 22, 2019 and has no concerns.
OTHER
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
For this use, the applicant is required to provide one short term bicycle parking space for every 5,000
gross square feet of building area, or a minimum of four. Staff considers the Board is able to apply this
standard to just the proposed facility and not to the overall airport PUD. The proposed facility involves a
7,990 sf proposed building and a 800 sf existing building to be retained. Therefore the minimum number
of short term bicycle parking spaces is four, the minimum number of long term bicycle parking spaces is
two, and the minimum number of clothes lockers is one. At the time of the first site plan application, the
applicant must provide at least 50% of the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces. Bicycle
racks must meet the minimum spacing and siting standards of LDR Section 13.14B(2). The applicant will
be required to place the remainder of the required short‐term bicycle parking spaces as part of their next
site plan approval.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plan to provide at least two short term
bicycle parking spaces for the proposed facility and demonstrate compliance with the long term and
clothes locker requirements by providing a floor plan showing their location. Staff recommends the
#SD‐19‐07
Staff Comments
12
12 of 12
Board consider whether they would allow the long term and clothes locker requirements to be met in
the existing building to be retained (and renovated).
Snow Storage
Snow storage for the facility is proposed to be located off‐site at a nearby parking lot off Airport Dr. Staff
has no concerns with this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicants to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner