Okay. Could you check your microphone? Okay. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Jared. Welcome to the South Burnings and Development Review Board for Tuesday, January 15, 2019. The first item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the accomplished rooms if there is an emergency. These two doors here are the best way to get out. We can also go out the way we came in, but it's going to be important if there's an emergency to meet in the South Parking Lot, which is right behind me, and we can make sure everybody is safe and okay. Next item on the agenda are additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items. Are there any? There are none. Number three, comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Does anyone have any comments or questions not related to the agenda? Hearing none, announcements. There would be a couple of openings on the DRB coming up in June-July, so if anyone's interested, it's a ton of fun. 12 of Paul J. Wasper to amend a previously approved conditional use permit for construction of a 14 by 17 detached accessory unit. To be used as a 186 square foot accessory residential unit, the amendment consists of reducing the rear back to five feet and increasing the height to 15 feet at 30 Myers Court. The applicant has requested continuation to January 29th. I'll entertain a motion to continue. It's been moved and seconded. We continue this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. So number six, continue site application SP 18-51 of NFI Vermont to amend a previously approved site plan for a group home. The amendment is to construct a building addition for new parking spaces and pedestrian walkway at 102 Allen Road, who is here for the applicant. No one. It's a pretty simple amendment. Does the board have any comments? So there's the tree replacement deficiency does the board have any comments that we want to make in public? I don't think we need to have the applicant here because we know what we know and this application has all the information that we need to know. Does the board feel that this $665 of existing So there's 32 caliber inches of trees to be removed. The applicant is proposing to exceed their minimum landscape value, minimum heart of landscape value by $665. Historically the board has required applicants to replace trees that were on a previously approved site plan last hearing. The board expressed changing that precedent. So stop comments include the relevant sections of the LDRs and the previously approved plans. Comments on whether this change in precedent to allow the additional $665 of landscaping budget to be replaced for the trees to be removed. So the staff comments on the paragraph that the board has always used to require the inch by inch replacement. Guidance beyond that is, I would say, limited to non-existent. You've got the word shall in there twice and shall in Vermont means must. I don't think there's a may that does allow the exercise of discretion but only within the parameters of that sentence. So there is no, some of the trees to be cut down, most of all of the trees to be cut down are greater than a five inch caliper. The standard requiring caliper trees of the caliper less than five inches may be replaced on an inch by inch basis with trees of the same genus at least two caliper each. No permit shall be required for such replacements provided they conform to your site plan. Replacement of trees of the caliper greater than five inches shall require an amendment to the site plan. There's no question that they are proposing to amend their site plan. The question is what the replacement of the trees greater than five inches must consist of. Because you have to replace it on an inch by inch basis when it's greater than five inches just to amend the site plan. So the question at hand then is what would the board like to do instead because the inch by inch to all trees regardless of size. The trees that they are proposing to remove are greater than five inches therefore the board has the flexibility to not require them to replace on an inch by inch basis but that's not what the board has done over many many years. Not just the board, administratively the city has been enforcing this for years. So the board expressed that they wanted to change that precedent the last time this was discussed. I would like to. Yes. So I guess the question is does the board want to do away with it altogether? Does the board want to come up with some medium? I mean in this case the applicant is proposing an extra $665 worth of trees. Is that enough? Does the board want more? Does the board want some in between? Does the board want to consider the existing or the landscaping to remain? What is the rationale for departing from the precedent? What's compelling about this case? Well there were some extenuating circumstances like the fact that it's bare bones nonprofit. And it's off the main road. None of these trees are going to be visible by the passerbys. They were replanted. There's not the area for it. And the fact that we're taking down trees that were on a previous site plan. And it's a heavily treated site? The fact that they're heavily treated area? They're making a yes it is exactly. And they're making an effort to landscape it in a way that will be... So what Delilah has up now is the previously approved site plan. The previously approved site plan did not itemize trees. It showed tree areas. I just think it looked like clouds. I think the fact that it's a bare bones nonprofit is a bad rationale. But the rest of them are pretty good rationales. Particularly the fact that the trees were not specifically identified. I think that's significant. We could... I'm sorry, go ahead. I mean I think we should frankly have a rule that says that it's got problems. I was going to say that trees that aren't specifically identified in a site plan are outside the scope. We interpreted it as outside the scope of the intent of the regulation. But unfortunately that lends itself to abuse too. They quickly occurred to me as soon as the words came out of my mouth. You could cut off the whole back end of a forest. John, you're the one most affected by this. What do you think? Hey listen, if I was... I'm glad I had a chance to read it word for word and sort of listen to all of you. I mean if I read it word for word I don't believe larger trees are intended... Trees greater than 5 inches are intended to be replaced inch for inch. And I think that the administration of that over the years is wrong. So I'm all for that. With that said, we can look back at a case that happened on Shelburne Road about a year and a half ago where cedars were just mowed down and they were all 6, 8, 10 inch cedars. And this is actually an example of us not requiring them to put them back inch for inch. We just put back the cedar hedge. Because they will presumably grow to be that big. Well, right, but I mean the other side of this that was administrative against me was we took down an apple tree that started off as a 2 inch galliper and it had gotten big enough that it undermined the building. So we had to take it down. It was then a 14 inch tree and we had to replace it with 7 inch trees. For which there was no space. Yeah, and we actually put it in Market Street setback so the city would have to take them back. So I don't think we can come up with a guiding rule other than at the board's discretion. Because the board's going to have to look at each case and it's going to have to say are there mitigating circumstances like what you're talking about John and what we see here and we figured out. I would hope we would say something like that. We could say our precedent is X. The mitigating circumstances which will not be enforced here because of the following mitigating circumstances. I'd like to leave out the identity of the applicant because I think that's a bad road to go down and list the site specific reasons if we could. Marla is that coherent enough to work with me? So in this case is the board inclined to not require any replacement? I think sorry if everybody's good with what Frank said I was moving on potentially preemptively. I think the budget they've given us is adequate. Yeah, I agree for sure. I think we're going to start to get on shaky ground when we try to make our case by case case as best we can. But it's getting a little shaky. I would like the planning commission. Is it us or is it the planning commission that should identify or clarify this section? Because obviously it's been administrated a certain way for decades. It could be either. It could remain up to the board to interpret unclear language or the planning commission could make it a way. What I'm thinking about though is can we direct administratively? Because this is often done administratively rather than the board. Can we direct administratively to say replacement of the trees to a reasonable standard or something? I know that's so vague as to be useless. But a 14 inch tree, yeah, you might want to replace it with two or three inch trees or two inch trees. But if the project is so overburdened with landscaping. I'm interested in what Brian thinks is I try to think about what's supportable. We have a longstanding precedent about how we've interpreted it. So that's sort of the law and if we want to depart from it on a case by case basis to me that's the best argument for holding up. And even that is not the greatest but it's plausible. Yeah, I'm not so wedded to it has to be a certain way because we've always done it that way. I mean we're quasi-judicial. We're not judicial. We're not bound by precedent. Starry decisis doesn't apply. In this particular instance, it's clear that there is no requirement of particular size replacements for trees with a caliber of greater than five inches. I think by not giving any guidance on that, the Planning Commission has left it to our discretion on a case by case basis. And I don't think, I mean we should try as hard as we can to be consistent and we certainly shouldn't look at the identity of the applicant. I agree totally with that. But I don't think we have to adopt the standard tonight. I think we can do case by case. So with respect to John's suggestion about administrative officer decisions, I think he makes a good point that this does come up again and again. And I think that we as staff have been over the last month since this board conversation happened previously telling applicants, we're not really sure where things stand right now. And I think that staff is open to following the lead of the board, but we're going to need more than one example. So one idea, and I don't know if this would make sense or not, is the administrative officer always has the discretion to kick something to the board. We could kick you a couple of examples that we wouldn't have otherwise kicked you to get some new, some more precedent under our belt. I think that's a good idea. I think the way I read this, and I don't know how many of you have planted large trees, but a five inch caliper tree is a big, expensive tree. And I think that's what was intended here. And that's where I'm headed with it, but I'm happy to see more cases.  That's that's my take on what I've read, but let's let's get more cases. Yeah, I was just saying, I don't think we should commit to a particular formula. Like if it's greater than five inches, the replacement has to be 50%, you know, something like that. I think it should be flexible enough to take account of site conditions, as in this case, where it doesn't make sense to plant a lot of large trees. And they're, and they're, they've hit the landscaping plan anyway. Right, right. Mark, Mark, any comments? Yeah, I've been listening to the conversation and the direction you guys have been talking about it seems as though, you know, I think this is something we need to hash out a little more and maybe something the planning commission takes up to get a little bit of direction because I'm not a huge proponent of the entry into a placement because I think we should be looking at site plan on a case by case and cost of construction, which is how we've published landscape plan.  I know it takes time and trees are not fast-blowing, but I just think we should be looking at it on a case by case basis based on construction costs. Thank you, I'm putting on a quick consideration. Sounds good. Comments from the public? None. I would move that we close continued site plan application SB 1851 of NFI Vermont Incorporated. Second. Second. Second. Closes application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstained. Hearing none. Number seven. Skeptical application SD 18-33 of Burlington International Airport slash BTV Hotel LLC to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 102 room, five-story hotel adjacent to the southern end of the existing parking garage at 1200 Airport Drive. Who was here for the applicant? Many people. I'm here. I'm Greg Rabbidow from Rabbidow Architects. I'll be the project's architect. With me on my left is Chris Gendron from Stantec, the project's civil engineer. And there are a great many people from the airport including Gene Richards, Nick Longo. I can't remember everybody's name off the top of my head. And they're here to help answer questions if they come up. Okay. So just as a procedural addition to the way we run things, I'm going to read a description of the sketch plan procedure. Because there's been questions about it. Sketch plan is a high level. This is for people who don't know what sketch plans are. Sketch plans a high level review and discussion where an applicant receives feedback from the board on the major elements of the project before it's fully designed. During the meeting, the board may provide oral guidance to the applicant which constitutes the board's determination in quotes that the application meets the purposes of the land development regulations. These comments are to help guide the applicant to a later application that meets LDR requirements and contributes to the goals of the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. It's not a formal hearing. It does not result in a binding decision. There will be an opportunity for public questions after the board completes their initial discussion of the project. Members of the public are welcome and encouraged to ask questions or provide feedback at this very early stage of an application. Please direct all questions and statements to me, the board chair. The board may choose to continue the meeting to a later date if there are questions that remain to be examined. The future date will be announced prior to concluding this item for the evening. Upon conclusion of the sketch plan meeting, an applicant who wishes to move forward with their project will have an application. The next level of review includes additional public notices and a formal public hearing. A more detailed description of the sketch plan review is available at the back of the room. If anyone wants to look at that, it's available back there. Please describe the project. Bill, I just found out today that my office represents the city of Burlington in this manner, so I'm going to have to recuse myself just on this item. Not on the following two, though. Okay, just on this item. Thanks, Brian. Okay. It would be helpful if we could bring up the site plan. A couple at the very end. Yeah, I think that's what you're looking for. One up. One up. There we go. That's good. And it's also helpful for me if I can stand, if that's all right with you, but I'll bring the mic with me. You don't want it going to make it? No, you're just only going to go again so far. So far? It's pretty good. I think this is probably good enough. Thank you. So what you're seeing is a small corner of the airport. At the bottom of the drawing, just above the word site plan, is the existing driveway that enters Burlington Airport from Airport Drive. And you're seeing it about as far as just before you start to get to the terminal in the drop-off area. The large rectangular block in the center of the image is the proposed hotel. Just above that is the existing parking garage. And this is a repeat of a sketch plan that was done back in April. We went off.  And one of the things that's happened since our last visit is that we've secured a commitment for a franchise from the Marriott Corporation. And one of the things that's done is it's given us a very specific set of interior requirements, room dimensions and things to satisfy the requirements of the Fairfield Inn and Suites. So the building has gotten a little bit longer since April. It's really just caused by a few inches of difference in the width of every guest room. But that's very important to the franchise people. They won't approve us if we don't provide exactly that. And that change in length will have a big impact on our discussion a little bit about the front yard setback waiver that we're requesting. In addition to a front yard setback waiver, we're also asking for a waiver of the allowable height in the district. In the case of the height, we intend to demonstrate to you that it's based on its relationship to the dimensions of the garage and not to the district in general. The garage is five, six stories tall at one end. And this building, when it's finished, will be similar in height to the tall portion of the existing garage. A sort of horizontal gray band goes between the two buildings, the proposed hotel in the existing garage. That is a newly proposed access lane that would allow hotel traffic that begins to enter the site but does not enter the garage to exit back out to airport drive, airport parkway without having to go through the entire drop off pickup area of the airport. It also provides a sort of fire separation between the garage and the hotel. And it's also the one of the means by which we may enter the garage. Hotel guests may enter the garage through that second gate. We're working on details of that with the with the airport right now, but that seems to fit best with how they've deployed resources within the garage right now. The hotel will depend entirely for its parking requirement on the garage itself. And I expect that we'll spend some time talking now and at the future of plat hearings about the adequacy of that parking.  They keep a close eye on utilization. I don't think we're going to get into precise numbers tonight, but suffice it to say that they they are not using 100% of that asset. And that's one of the things from their perspective that's making this project desirable. The hotel came about as a part of a request for proposals from the airport who have through their own studies identified the need for close in hotel rooms for a lot of airport patrons who come from two or more hours. away so people from the Northeast Kingdom and the Cantons to last Eastern townships who use Burlington Airport as their as one of their primary airports. The the airport believes and our applicants agree that having an airport hotel would allow people who come in from the kingdom to spend the night and get those 546 o'clock, you know, first thing in the morning flights that we've all taken. That having a facility like this is necessary for the support of the airport. And that is one of the findings this board will have to make is that is that the hotel uses a compatible with and consistent with airport uses the building would have one story of guest service level which would be dining area, front desk, lounge. There's there's a number of small meeting spaces and things that go along with with the program and then four stories of guest rooms above. And the exterior is proposed to be a combination of composite siding, brick, natural stone and some metallic panels. We're taking cues from the design of the terminal building is somewhat modern but not not an exact copy of the terminal. And the another difference as far as how the the building lays out versus the earlier iteration some of you may have seen. We've separated the canopy feature reworked access into the garage and that fire lane I was talking about earlier. Previously we had that we had traffic going underneath the hotel building. We just couldn't make our lobby work with that configuration it took too much of the first floor footprint. And we also needed to do some refinement around as you can look around the canopy you'll see the access to the garage is just beyond but we needed to provide a bypass lane and some turning maneuvers so that people coming to check in are not blocking or including the main access to the airport. I'm not going to get into much of the details of the agreement on the parking other than to say that hotel guests will there's an arrangement for hotel guests to have parking while they're staying in the hotel and then a hope is for the duration of their vacations elsewhere there. They will they'll pay the normal daily rate when they're not staying in the hotel with their car still on a property. This particular image the dark square in the middle with the shadow coming off of it is a proposed pedestrian connection between the parking garage and right now the third level of the of the hotel. This is something that that the airport feels strongly about that they would like to see a pathway directly from the hotel through the year through the garage and into the airport by the existing pedestrian bridges that that Spain span the main entry. And the idea there is that somebody staying in the hotel could go from their guest room to the terminal without having to go out into the weather. No access other than with card. Yeah right exactly you'd have to have a guest room key to to make that transition from the garage back into the hotel. I expect people will always be able to go from the hotel into the garage but other than that we have shown pedestrian connections could we go back to the site plan for a sec. You start to see a hint of it up here just just towards the center of the top of the page that in addition to that we're also proposing a sidewalk connection from the from the hotel building via that crosswalk to a sidewalk that would take you outside the garage along the westerly side of the main access drive so that you could cross over to the terminal at that first crosswalk that's usually attended. I'm going to show a few other things but the important the important setback that we're going to talk about tonight is a long airport Parkway. And you can see where the the ordinance shows the setback versus where we're proposing it to be so that's that's roughly a 10 foot variance there. And I'm going to let Chris to do a quick take on the utilities so that we can get everything on the table and then we'd like to answer your questions. Thank you. So just to give you a brief overview of what we're looking at existing if you start down on airport driveway with the entrance there is a slew of utilities power communications that run along the curb line on the hotel side that will need to relocate to fit the hotel footprint in. In addition there is a sewer line that runs through but we won't need to relocate that that runs on the south side of the hotel. There is a water line that will have to work with the Champlain Water District to relocate. What's helpful about that is that that is actually on a loop system so we can disconnect one end and the the terminal building will still be able to be fed and along with all the other buildings will be able to be fed. There's a gas line that needs to be located as well that that will likely be relocated along the new access road in between the parking garage and the proposed hotel. And the power and communications with power that's also another loop system so they can disconnect on one end and the airport can be fed from another. And communications is we're still working through the details on how we're going to figure out relocating the communications. And one thing that always comes up is how we're going to treat our stormwater. We have all every intention to work with Dave Wheeler and Tom DiPietro and come up with a good plan to get this to work but preliminarily we're thinking about putting in an underground infiltration system stormwater infiltration system on the west side of the proposed hotel. And that will likely collect all of the access road and the hotel footprint and infiltrate most of that stormwater into the ground. That is bearing any we have to do some soil tests to make sure that's possible but generally on the airport property we've had really good good soils that permit that activity. And I think that's that's all I had to talk about for utilities unless you can think of anything else. Greg. No it just occurred to me that I should mention the airport has asked us to include our waste management facility to integrate it in with the existing waste management facility that's on site there. I think logistically they like it security wise they like it it's better to have all that in one location so hotel staff will take their trash across the street to the existing dumpster enclosure that's there by the end of the secondary terminal. So with that I think those are the broad strokes I would like to hear any questions that the board may have. Well perhaps we could step through staff comments. So the red comment number one relates to the issue that I brought up earlier that one of the things that will have to happen for us to be successful is that the DRB will have to make a determination that the hotel use falls within the aviation category that this this hotel is sufficiently related to airport operations to be allowable in the district. And we've talked about this before it seems to have been okay as an issue in the past I don't know if anybody has any particularized concerns about that. But seeing as how it was that the process started with the airport the airport identified the need and then went out and found people to execute on it I think does reinforce that argument pretty strongly. The walkway does as well I don't remember that for that and maybe it wasn't April I can't remember but that certainly lends to that. And there is an agreement between the airport and the applicants to allow airport passengers to come over and take advantage of the facilities in the hotel. It's one of the few places where you'll be able to get food outside of the TSA portal. So I know Skinny Pancake has a little kiosk underneath the stairs but this will provide people another option. Any comments from the board on this mark anybody? It seems to me like it absolutely is it's it's another use designed to serve aviation passengers in the industry so yeah. Maybe if you're talking about a five story hotel just squeeze that under the concept of other uses it's a little bit of a stretch but I agree that literally it works. I'm still getting a newspaper stand you know. They have one of those already. A couple of them actually. Mark you up there? Yeah no I mean I while I I guess I agree that a hotel is a nice amenity for an airport especially here where you know there's a reason that there's airport shuttles that go to the airport at you know all hours a day. Because it is a complimentary use I just sort of. I'm not trying to be the only companion on the board but I'm just questioning you know if. If it's you know what you could define as not being you know complimentary use to an airport you know if you're looking for a reason to. You know it's there's a pretty explicit set of lists of uses or of. Items that do fall under the airport uses repair storage commercial shipping storage restaurants rental vehicles and other uses serve aviation passengers ministry. You know I think if I would feel that they would have added in logic you know if that was an intended use. That was kind of my point yeah. I you know I I I think South Burlington has not figured out what's going to happen with the property around the airport yet. The largest industrial parks we have with the highest noise. So while I've stayed in any number of airport hotels. I'm not sure I agree but I'm not against it either so I'm I'm I don't have a good answer at the moment. Mr. Chair can I introduce myself. Thank you very much. So sketch plan again no need to swear anybody in so go ahead and identify yourself. My name is Nick long though I'm the deputy director of aviation for the airport. One of the things to that will support an aviation airport use for the hotel is this is going to be highly used by crew members of the actual airlines. So as you might know and as Greg mentioned earlier most of our flights actually every single one of our flights departs between the 530 and 630 timeframe in the morning. And every single one of those crew members needs an overnight stay because not all of them do live in the area. So one of the reasons that is highly attractive to the airline our airline partners and that we're already working with our airline partners is this hotel for that overnight stay for airport use. That's important. Thank you very much. Can I ask you a question? Absolutely. The rooms and meals taxes. The portion that's local goes to Burlington or South Burlington. That's a South Burlington tax. Thank you very much. Burlington is not asserting any governmental rights in this area. I'll restate sort of the foundation of my argument which is by lease terms this hotel is going to provide services to guests in the terminal by allowing them access to the food and the lounging and the fitness features. The second thing is the projects are interlaced because this project is wholly dependent on the airport for its parking. And third identifying the need and establishing the project was an airport project that we had responded to. So those are our feelings why it should be considered as such. I had a question. I'm not sure I heard you right. I thought I heard you say that you would vision. I mean obviously what's going to happen here is that inside the parking garage hotel clients are going to completely monopolize everything close to the hotel. I thought I heard you say well we envision cars will be there a day or two if someone is going to be need longer term parking we hope hope that they will go to one of the long term parking areas.  No I think I think what I said was that hotel guests the hotel will create some accommodation for the guests to pay for their parking while they're in the hotel. If they stay on and let's say they go to Aruba for two weeks they're going to they're going to still be airport parking customers. They'll they'll park in the garage and pay the pay the normal rate right. But deal. So this is also a driver to help use up utilize the parking for the for the airport which you know they want they want to utilize that. Some of the things that are going on in the airport that you may not be aware of is there's a special zone created on the ground floor close to the terminal for short like short term parking. We moved our access back and the connection to the hotels at the third store to sort of push people up and because they will they'll park close to the hotel when they when they arrive. But the airport staff is very clear that the garage has a lot of capacity that if you go up to levels five and six there's always spaces and that's my experience as well. Hotel guests are not going to take over a twenty two hundred car parking garage. There's a hundred and a hundred and four rooms did I say. So you know even when it's completely full it's still going to be the lesser share of someone's got that third floor spot. You know the first one next to the entrance into the to the passageway into the hotel and they decide to go to Aruba they can sit there for two weeks. Is that right. Well you know every time I go to the airport it's the parking garage is full of people who beat me to the good spaces. I you know I always try to leave a half an hour to get from the parking garage over to the terminal because just for that driving around as long as there's capacity in the garage. You and I shouldn't have a problem because the capacity is there to handle the demand. But but but these these are the spaces closest to the terminal. Not really because because they're they're sort of down at the far south end of the garage which which really makes them what I'm getting at is there's some way to force them into those places that are in a new ski. So we've had a lot of we've had a lot of talks about you know transitioning people out to longer term stay lots. I know for sure that employees of the hotel are going to be parking. They're not going to be parking in these prime spaces. They're going to be over where all the airport employees park. If you want us to to work on that issue as we come back to preliminary plan and give you more detail about how this is supposed to work. I'm sure the airport and the applicant would be happy to share the airport restrict the space simple have a restricted space to active airport guests. I don't want to jump into the middle of that because it's part of their lease agreement. But I think if we explain fully what they've agreed to you'll find more you'll find more friends. I think what Frank's asking for is a special DRB space. Yeah, six or seven spots. We have talked about how to how to guide people away from the ground floor right by the entrance. And I think you know that's why we've kind of moved things around the way we have but we can continue that conversation. Yeah, I was surprised. I was up on the third floor the other day in the middle of I mean I picked up my mother two days before Christmas and center off the day after. And the third floor was, you know, not a ghost town but you could you could park anywhere up there. I just never go up there. The airport has had fantastic utilization. I mean they are I think they're doing a fantastic job over there. There are several times days of the year weeks of the year, you know, around school holidays, for instance, where where the garage really gets used. But even still I think their utilization reports because they're keeping track of people paying right so they know who's coming and going show that there's still a fair amount of capacity in that in the garage and in the surrounding satellite lots. So the airport's good on that. I'm sorry. Sure. Please identify yourself. Please identify yourself. I'm Gene Richard, director of aviation. One thing that we have been faced with that you all have been faced with is the Uber lift. That has changed airports throughout the United States and probably the world as far as the low factors we are anticipating. We're not getting those low factors anymore. So this actually is a really great opportunity for us to better utilize the garage and have less days of lower levels. So it's a good opportunity. It's a win-win for the customer and a win-win for the city and win-win for the airport. Thank you. I had another question about the site plan because I wasn't reading it very well. I didn't quite follow what the actual drop-off point is.  I want to drive out. Show me my route where she's getting dropped off and how I'm getting out. What's the next page actually? It has the arrows for circulation on it. Wait. Oh, after it? Yeah. Does that help at all? So you come in the access drive now.  You would cab off to the left and there's a two-lane road. The internal lane is under the canopy. The external lane is a bypass lane. And so you would stop here. You'd drop your wife off and then you would go either here or here and go into the garage and park. Or back out there for George? Or you would go back out to here and exit only. And we can direct the direction of that exit if we feel it's proven to sort of force a right turn or something. That'll come out of the traffic analysis, I think. But it's possible to do this operation without having to enter the mainstream of traffic going through the terminal and drop off here. Okay, so... We saw this as a potential area here for queuing of cars waiting to go into the garage. I'll say they're really busy and the people are checking in at once. This is a little constricted, but they've got all of this double-lane here to queue up.  That's one way. That's one way? We're thinking one way, yeah. Because we don't want to be entered. We don't have too much traffic circulating up from here. I mean, the main thrust of the traffic must be this, and we have to respect that for the airport to work. So I don't know if we'll be using this access for hotel gas or if that's operational for the garage, but we've provided more than one connection point along there. All right, that answers my question. If we're ready, let's move on to comment number two. Bill, let me back up for a second, because I'm back on number one in my head still. You know, the library makes me think of this. Everything's changing use these days, and I think realistically we probably haven't kept up is my take on that description. And so while it's planning an LDR issue, I've changed my mind. I don't have a problem with this. Okay. Thanks. Comment number two, if we could. This is about the setback that I referenced earlier and our request for a waiver, a 10 foot waiver of the front yard setback. I think the staff comments go into a little bit more detail about the ordinance and the LDRs and how, in this case, I think we have a multi-unit PUD and that the board has the right to waive this if they find it's in service of good design or consistent with the zoning regs. That would be the clause that we would be employing. And you know, the change came for us, the change came in shifting the footprint a little bit more westerly because of the change in the franchise. We've got to secure a real franchise, which is good, but it came with some dimensional requirements. And the work it took to make all that sequence of entry that I was just talking to Frank about. So pushing the building 10 feet closer to the street helps all of that work. The buffer in front of the airport is 50 feet wide. It's really well vegetated. I think the board has a discretion to do it. I guess the question is, are they willing to do it? Are there serious concerns about that? I think it helps, too, that everything across the street has been turned into parkland. So in proposing that we have this front yard setback, we're not going anybody else's ox, we're not getting closer to people across the street. In fact, that whole area is really beautiful when you come out of the airport. It's sort of strange to see what used to be backyard trees just sort of out in the wild like this, but I think that feeds into that consideration. So economically, I take it you can't build a 94-unit hotel, because that's the difference. Or go a floor higher. Well, a floor higher would involve a different waiver, which we're already asking for. We've been known to be promoting it, but I'm saying you're asking for two waivers instead of potentially only one. We are asking for a taller building because we're attaching to a building that's already there that's pretty tall. And the front yard setback is, you know, if the guidance was, we can't see a way to giving that to you. I'd go solve that problem and come back. It's interesting.  How tall is the parking garage on this side of the hotel? The parking garage is 58 feet high. Right, but this is the southern end. The southern end is three tiers high, and I think each tier is like ten-foot-six, so let's say like 30. That's about right. Somewhere around 30 feet to the deck, maybe a few four feet up to the top of the walls. But the garage itself, about halfway down, adds another couple of stories plus the roof terrace. So we think that's germane to this conversation. So I went out and looked at it just because I was thinking about this very question. And the northern end of the parking garage is near to the height that the hotel is supposed to be, but the southern end of the parking garage really does taper off and it splits. I think, like Greg said, a little south of the middle. So a little less than half of the mass of the building is that three-deck. So it's two, when you talk about, you know, a building that doesn't have parking on the roof, it's a two-story, equivalent of a two-story building, adjacent to where the hotel would be. Well, there's an east elevation that shows what it looks like. Oh, the garage, yeah, down on the bottom there? Yes, that's the west elevation, but okay. So you're seeing the bridge, which is dark, and the dark band that's vertical is the stairwell in the distance, and there's the top of the garage, roughly corresponding to our fourth floor. So you're going way above the garage? At that end, but as you go down past the deli and the garage pops right up. I believe it has five or six stories at that end? I have, on my thumb drive, I have the working drawings for the parking garage if anybody wants to look at those images. But bear in mind, we're going to expose our short elevation to the street. The garage itself is several hundred feet long. It's a big building. It's not just tall, it's several blocks long. Yeah, in my view, you see it as one. In my view, you experience it as one. Here's a big building, it's this high here, and it's this high here. So to me, having something that's this high, seven feet taller, compared to this, that's where I'm going to be looking at. I'm not going to feel like there's just this part where there's a two-story difference. I'm going to be looking at the whole thing and thinking, yeah, 58 here, 65 there, pretty close. So to me, I'm not going to feel like a jarring out of context, inappropriately too tall structure. Yeah, I wouldn't want to see it go taller, though. You wouldn't want to see it go taller? Which John was raising the point. I'm not asking for it. Really what I'm asking about is that they've encroached on the front yard setback by 10 feet. It's still 40 feet, so it's not a bad setback. But they've encroached on it for, I assume, for economic reasons, because otherwise they would have just proposed a 94-room hotel. Well, it's not like, if we go on to the next point, it's not like, and your point about they're asking for two waivers is hardly pertinent here because it looks like when you grant the height waiver, you're supposed to get an improvement in the setback or a greater setback. I didn't think that was true under Clause B of this section of the LDRs. I thought... You don't have to, but that is one mechanism. If the applicant wanted to get higher without a waiver, they could get some setbacks or they can just flat out request the waiver, which is what they're doing here. Bill, can I waive? Yeah, go ahead, Mark. In regards to, you know, the Board doesn't have a lot of teeth and hasn't given a lot of teeth to height waiver requests over the years.  There really isn't, you know, a height limitation in the city. Even though it says, you know, wait a minute, the Board doesn't have a lot of latitudes, but that said, you know, you're asking for a front yard setback waiver and a height waiver, you know, and the parking garage, you know, while it is 58 feet tall at the northern, southern side, you know, it's only about 36 feet tall adjacent to this building, but the parking garage actually has more fenestration on the sides that you're seeing than because I'm looking at the southern zone, I'm looking at the east and the west elevations are in essence five-story blank wall, you know, and you're asking for one of those five-story blank walls to be closer to the street than the parking garage, which has, you know, arched rhythmic opening. So, you know, for that reason alone, I don't see any benefit we're getting from granting a height and a setback waiver, you know, when, what you're projecting to the street is basically a big blank wall, you know, so I'm not inclined for either of them for that purpose, that reason, you know, I guess I'm more lesser inclined for the height waiver because we're not blocking anything, but the front yard setback, you know, you're bringing a blank wall close to the street than the parking garage even is. Those aren't windows facing the street? There are windows at the end of the corridor, and there are windows on the street level, but he's right, I mean, at the guest room levels, we don't have windows shown, but you know, I would be willing to take from Mark that suggestion that if the street elevation was a little more interesting, there might be a different conversation, but right now we're just sort of reflecting how hotel rooms work, which is the windows at the end, and there's furniture on both walls. But we can work that issue if it's of concern to you, Mark. We would be having a different conversation if it presented more of a street frontage elevation, because you also show a concrete path, you know, sidewalk to the front building, but that's going to an egress there that doesn't even have access from the lobby, so pretty much people coming down the stairs would go out, but there's no one coming from the street that would go into that side of the building. Not without a guest room key, anyhow, yeah. I'd be willing to take that as a challenge to do better. I mean, if the architecture is the barrier, then we can improve that. One thing I noticed, I mean, the request for the height says 65 feet, but the dimensions of the elevations submitted with the application show that the roof deck is at 56 feet above the floor. And I think the difference came from, we briefly looked at building this using modular construction, and that was adding building height, but I think we could limit the request for a height waiver to something closer to 60 feet instead of 65. The roof deck being at 56 and the rest of it just being bumps and grinds to make the building more interesting. No, no, the numerical thing isn't what concerns me, because I'd hate you to take aesthetic things away from it just to get a better number. I'm glad Mark picked up on that, but that's a great concern to me too. And when you say you're going to improve it architecturally, it doesn't sound like you mean you're going to put windows in. It sounds like something else. Well, I guess just I was trying to give myself as much latitude as possible.  I think we should, if we're going to open that up, we should think broadly what will make this the best facade for South Burlington. And then dance around the issue with putting windows in upset the whole internal floor plan for what you've got designed for your tenant. It might mean I have to go back to Marriott and ask for an exception on the endrooms, or it could be that we look for a way to rotate. If they want to be in the hotel with a bigger hotel than they can get normally through the dimensional standard, they might have to accept some Quick Boat Pro to get that. I will say generally in our work with Marriott and the other major franchise organizations, if we come to them with a problem that starts at the zoning level, they get more flexible than if it's just coming from the applicant, the franchisee. So if the charge from this board is we don't want any blank walls facing the street, I can either rotate the rooms at that end of the building 90 degrees so they're facing outwards, or I can find a way to get some windows into the plans on the sides. I'll do that, and I'll just go to them and I'll say the local zoning for people made me do this, and you may feel used by it, but I think everybody gets what they want. I like the idea of rotating the rooms, but there's also the idea of maybe those faults glazing that looks like windows but is not, huh? Spandrel. Spandrel, thank you. Yeah, if I'm going to do it, I'd like it to be real. But why don't we take that as guidance from the, can I take that as guidance from the board that if we do something to improve the elevations, you'll be more receptive to that idea? Both the east and the west. Yes. Yes. So can I ask the board just because I feel like this might come up in Greg's conversation, and it'd be good for him to have some advanced guidance on it. If he says, I'd like to rotate the rooms and the hotel says, Okay, you can do that, but we need another five feet at the expense of another five foot setback waiver beyond the 10 that they're already asking for to get a really stellar facade with the board feel comfortable with that. You know, I mean, I'm kind of, I think, Mark, don't let me misrepresent what you're saying, but I think I'm kind of with you that the height or the extent of the waiver in this particular circumstance with nothing across the street and no views to worry about is not nearly as important as what you're presenting to the street. Is that, is that? Exactly. Okay. And if it, to answer your question, Marley, if you came another 10 feet and had something on the first floor and a terrace and a, you know, and the thing stepped back a little bit, I think I'd be happier. So I would, I don't anticipate asking for more than that. I don't see a real connection from the street into the hotel rather than just the egress sidewalk, you know. But please don't take that as an open invitation to decrease the setback for it. Yeah, I started to say, I think my, my performer, the cost estimating is all based on the square feet we have. I don't think I need to enlarge the building to solve this problem. But I think if we look hard at the units on the ends, we can, I'm sure we can find a way to make that a more active facade and I understand what the board is looking for. Well, but I think, I think John just said that, you know, the idea of setback, you know, series of setbacks might support pushing it out. I mean, Greg pointed out that it could be, it could be artwork. The front of Allard Square has a nice piece that I think Conan did that's on the front of it. You know, something interesting to make the, make the face work better. And this is a general principle throughout South Burlington. We just don't like blank walls that we have to look at. So it really isn't, we're not picking on you. Sometimes we get tips sometimes we don't. I value the guidance and I see it would be a better project if it had a more attractive street presence. And if that's, if that's what the board feels they want to see in order to feel comfortable with that. When we come back for preliminary plat, we'll have, we'll have a solution for that problem. I'm confident I can get that done. Great. And I think we'll refine our request for the height waiver to, to, to the least number we can live with. But I think it'll be less than 65. I think it's probably going to be more like between 58 and 60. But don't shave it just to get a better number if it's going to affect your aesthetics or like a better roof wash. I think, I think in fact what's, what's going on is if you look at the drawings that were in your package is, is we were showing 56 feet to the top to the roof deck. That earlier number was preserving some flexibility to go modular. And I don't think we're going to go that way at this point. We would have. I see a dimension of 16 feet 11, you know, and change to the top of the secondary flat roof. Right. That 55 is to the elevator penthouse. Well, There's something up there. See between columns five and six. Yeah. I think what we can, what we can leave it at is that, is that I'm going to, I'm going to define that number more closely at preliminary plan. But it won't be 60. It won't be as much as 65 feet, I don't think. Including the apparatus on the roof. Well, I don't have any information right now about mechanical design stuff, but there, there may be one or two. So I'll have to get, I'll have to, I'll have to get some information from our contracting partner to, to answer that question. We need that before or when you submit preliminary just because it's a different set of standards. So I just need to know whether I need to look at those standards or not. Okay. That's a big deal either way. I just need to know. So I think that's three and four. That's three and four. Yeah. So moving on. Number five. The parking needs assessment. I talked about that in broad terms. The airport does have data sets on utilization of the garage. What I've been authorized to say for tonight is that they have more than enough parking to accommodate the additional 100 plus spaces that will need to do this project. I will work with the airport to get that data into a format that's useful to you and acceptable to them. Okay. Number six. We've already talked about this a little bit. It's, it comes back to this conversation about the relationship of the building to the parking garage. Yep. I think so. Seven. Seven is something we will employ. It's not so much a request for a waiver as a sort of reflection of the truth that the site as it stands now has a lot of beautiful specimen trees. One of the nicest things about the airport is that stretch of parkland going in front of the garage. So it is likely to meet our ordinance requirements for adequate landscaping that some of it may be used for landscaping projects elsewhere on the airport BUD. So we'll plant what we need, what we want around the hotel and to the extent that we're falling short in terms of dollars to meet the requirement. What this says is that we can find other needy places at the airport where where plantings are acceptable. One thing we have to deal with here that's unusual for projects is we've been asked to be careful to not use a lot of ground shrubs because they don't want places where people can hide. So, so I know it's a little odd. Obviously we're going to need some shrubs or some other kinds of woody plants to just. What is that directed at? I don't know. You know that this is how it came to me was was they don't want a lot of shrubs along fences and stuff because they need to be able to observe and they're secure. It's not airport security. Right. 100% airport security. That doesn't mean we can't plant trees and it doesn't mean we're not going to meet our requirement. It may mean though that there are places, other places at the airport that have been identified as needing some kind of remedial landscaping. We may ask you for that. We've done this in the past with the airport. Yes. Yeah, we've done this before. The place where they take the rental cars to get them washed in and turn them around, that got approved. And I think all their landscaping was met elsewhere on the airport. The other thing we are likely to do is to identify some trees. There are some large specimen trees that we're retaining and we may want credit for. But it's about roughly $10 million project. I think the landscaping budget is going to be quarter of a million dollars, $300,000. I have a hard time thinking where I'll put all that on this half acre parcel. Because it's already richly landscaped. But we will meet the requirement, but we may meet it as a contribution to the whole. Do you now own... There's houses that came down across the airport drive. Do you own that land now? Correct. There's only three houses that we do not own across the airport drive. None of them are repeated. I mean, I haven't been over there to look. What's on those empty lots now? Grass. It's trees. It's almost ethereal. So would they be able to use some of their budget to further... Or maybe it doesn't need it, I don't know. It's a different property. It's not part of this BUD. I mean, they're physically different properties. I don't know how the parcels are just... We've been down this road before and determined that we needed to be on the airport parcel. Okay. Last time we talked about the quick turnaround facility with the car wash, we were trying to see if we could find some way to put blah, blah, blah. Yes, so we tried. Good point. I know that from talking to Chris, the StanTech works at the airport a lot. There are a lot of little remedial projects that the airport has a list going. The things they want cleaned up and we'll find a way to contribute to it. I think that's just something that takes some explaining because it's not something we do often hear. Is there anything that the board wanted to provide some input on as they look at that? Anything that has come up as part of previous projects that is sorely needing the blindscape being or anything? Or just let them run with it and see what they come up with. Yeah, not being there, looking at it. I think you have to be one way on that.  You are one way and I think it has to stay one way. I can't imagine how it will work. We don't want to encourage people to sort of shortcut the entrance to the airport if they're coming from Winooski, say, either. So it's really sort of keeping people from pulling into that secondary driveway as opposed to using the main entrance. So we'd like to see that one way going out. That's important. I don't see any reason. I mean, yeah, I don't feel any, unless anyone marked may have some ideas for specific improvements to landscaping, but I don't see any need to give specific direction. I'm happy to take shots at it. I still think there should be a big South Burlington, excuse me, not South Burlington airport sign on the corner. We've talked about this before. If we could make that part of our landscape budget, we would love to do that. Oh, that doesn't come on in a landscape. You can make it out of flowers. I'll vote for it. So we just, I don't know if that was a common ingest or not a common ingest, but signs cannot be part of the site plan. It's a location. It can't be part of, there's nothing to do with signs, it can be part of the site plan. By the way, are the trees you've shown a site plan to what extent are they there? I think those trees are intended to represent trees that are there now. I know that Stan Tech went out and picked up all the existing trees on the site. We're going to work between sketch and preliminary to take to take those locations and identify what they are by species and caliber. But that information is in hand.  It's spectacular. So we don't want to, we don't want to start trying to plant in between them and crowding them out. That should help your street side presentation also. Yes, it definitely will. We'll prepare a rendering viewed from Airport Parkway. If we're talking about those trees and how beautiful they are and that they should be preserved, it just comes to mind that Chris said that's where the infiltration basin is going. No, we can squeeze it in the area to the west is where there isn't actually a lot of trees. It's kind of that was that went into the consideration of placing it there. So if you're just to the west of the hotel site, you can see there's a little bit of a gap there. And that's that's why we were proposed. That's partially why we wanted to propose it there. It doesn't need to be big. It looks like a big site, but in reality with the infiltration rates we get it, it allows us to put in a pretty small facility. Are you adding any significant amount of heart space? I mean, what is not really it's mostly building in terms of this discussion about stormwater flows. It's the it's the fire lane between the two structures and a little bit of patio out front. Well, I mean, the roof of the building is is impermeable, but it is impermeable. But it's treated differently than than parking lot stormwater because it's less contaminated. It's it's more of a pure rainwater as opposed to parking lot runoff. You're not picking up sediment. What I'm getting at this, what is the surface where the footprint is now? It's all grass. It's all grass. So it is having. We're adding a little over half an acre, I think, total impervious surface. I checked that without the road. Including the roof? Mostly the roof or at least half of it. Probably, you know, 12,000 square feet of it is roof. As part of this project, we'll be meeting all the LDR storm chapter. I'm not blanking on what chapter it is, but we'll be meeting all the LDR requirements for stormwater as well as getting a stormwater permit that will be required for this project. And luckily, the soils here are very sandy, so we infiltration is a reasonable option to pursue. If we're ready, move on to comment number eight. This is a big deal. We really don't want anybody hurt. Obviously, nobody wants people hurt. So if we go back to the very last plan in my plan set, we can see the crosswalk. I think they're talking about a show on this one. The one just previous it does. Yeah, you can see the crosswalk bars there. We want to be able to get people from the front door of the hotel over to the terminal via the outside route as well. The frequency of cars coming through there is substantially less than the frequency of cars going through the main terminal driveway. But I think staff is just raising some safety concerns about this. We've given you the sort of turning maneuvers and the grain of the traffic.  It is low speed, very low volume. You could almost think of it almost like you're walking through a parking lot at this point with the low amount of traffic that you have and the low speeds that you're dealing with. But if that entrance, excuse me, that entrance to the garage, the one right there, right, with the lilies on. Anyone can access that even if I'm just going to the airport and not using the hotel at all. I don't think you can now. Isn't that gated off? But it won't be gated off if this whole, in other words, I drive around and take a lap. Can I now just not do that and go straight through? Because I'm confused and I just see that entrance. It is currently open. I think that's the plan for the future, right? I just see, you know, that's the first entrance you see to the garage. If you're not familiar that there's another entrance around there, you might be direct. I'm just trying to figure out if there's going to be a line there by people that don't realize it, be better off if they went past that, you know, the police outpost and went around and took a left. You could address that partially through signage. I think that, and if we reinforced it with a pavement treatment, because generally around the front door of the hotel, we want some kind of special pavement. We don't want just asphalt. Usually they want a concrete surface just because paused vehicles drip stuff and they can. But, you know, maybe that crosswalk needs to have a raised surface or change of material or something that sort of warns drivers. Well, do you absolutely want to prevent people who have missed the left that goes in under the next to the hotel? They have missed that. And now they're at the next place. Do you absolutely want to prevent people from making a left into there? Because if you do, you just extend a curb so that it's only a right turn. Looks like it's got a little horn to it. It does have a horn. That's what I was thinking. Just extend that horn. It's going to be less likely someone to make a sharp left hand turn in the pedestrian. You know, I'm happy to sort that out. I think we need to get some input from the airport and what their expectations are about this short term lot. But we also will have a traffic consult working with us and maybe they can recommend some pedestrian safety measures. Right. And then your signage would need to say that this is that first entrance is both for short term parking and for the hotel. And that's the only way you're going to get to that short term or the hotel. You can't miss it and then do unless you got a little smart car. There's lots of different options available.  There's also just reducing the skew of the crosswalk so that you're not looking like this to see if they're coming, but you're looking more in your peripheral vision. It sounds like, you know, Greg's going to have that sort of look into it. More comments on this? Okay. Mark, all good? I'm all good. Okay. Our comments question from the public. Hearing none, sketch plan is concluded. Thank you. I anticipate we'll be back fairly quickly with our next step of application, but I appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda, sketch plan application also. You can just remember what I just read. Sketch plan application 18-32 of city of Burlington and national airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of raising an existing car wash facility constructing a new 7,990 foot square foot auto rental car wash facility and constructing a 2,353 square foot six position fuel and canopy at 1200 airport drive who was here for the applicant. Sketch plan, so I don't need to swear you in. So if you'll go ahead and describe the project. Sure. So again, my name is Nick Longo, deputy director of aviation. And I'm John Linwall with stand tech consulting. And this is slightly different from what you've seen in the past. We have made some revisions reduction in the scope of what we're planning to do. What we've shown on this particular diagram is at the very bottom half of the pages is the previous application that you have seen in the past, as well as the layout and the facade that used to be on there. And at the very top, those three images, not only the new site plan, but also the facade that you'll see with our new application, which is very consistent with what we've shown you in the past.  So if I start out at the garage, you can see some colored lines on there. There's a red and an orange line coming out of the corner of that garage. That would be perfect. Yeah, the zoomed in page of that top left, there you go, perfect. So that corner of the top left corner of the garage is really the initial part of the entire transaction of a car rental agency. So imagine yourself renting a car. Obviously you're doing that inside the terminal, walking out to the garage, picking up your car. Take your car away, return the car into the same parking area inside the garage. The service agents of the car rental companies then use that light orange line to take that vehicle into this new QTA or quick turnaround facility. They go into a queuing spot, which are all of those lines going into what you see there is six fueling bays, which they fuel the vehicle. There are vacuum stations in that area as well. It's a full canopy sitting on top of a concrete slab. Those three, excuse me, those six fueling stations then funnel into those three car wash bays. The difference between this application and the last between the building and the fueling stations is the last application. You saw 12 fueling bay, a fueling station. This is now reduced to six and you only saw two car wash bays with three maintenance shops and three office spaces. The office space and the maintenance shops have been removed and now three vacuum, which is the orange positions on that map and the car wash facility itself, which is the light purple right there. Three bays and six fueling stations because there are three entities using this facility. Avis budget is one entity. Hertzdaller is the second entity and Enterprise National Alamo is the third entity. So everything is split up evenly with this facility. And then once you finish with that light orange line, you're going into the red area where now the vehicle, again in all essence of the name, is a quick turnaround facility. It quickly goes back into the garage for the next customer to pick up. The site is generally reduced. The footprint, the fence line is reduced from your previous version of the application. You can see some darker gray areas that we outline as ad alternate pavement. We are actually going to be paving those and would be requesting that as part of this application. So that's really the site itself. Another major change is the fueling truck designation, which is the blue line designated from the blue line, which originates out of airport drive coming into what I call white street extension over there. That right hand turn into the parking area into a designated lane specific for the fueling truck itself. There is a underground 15,000 gallon fuel tank over there. That has not changed from the previous application's position. The reason for that is if ever there's an expansion of the airport, we don't want to limit our footprint with a car rental facility like this. So generally that footprint stays the same. We're just reducing the scope of work and keeping that fueling underground tank where it is. However, it is outside the fence. Lastly, as I mentioned, the office space was removed from the previous building application. That yellow building right there, while we don't intend to use it right now, especially talking with the car rental agencies recently, we don't intend to use it as an office space building. We do want to keep it in there just in case there is potential for an office space need for this particular site. Right now it's a vacant building that we don't use for anything because we're planning to use it for this facility. It used to be the old parking shuttle building a long while back. Let's see. The entrance, it is a secured site, so there is gated entrances. There is today, but this is a much secure facility. But there's an additional gated exit or entrance in the back area. Just above the yellow building there, which is east of the yellow building right there. Right there. That is a gated access point as well. If there is car carriers that come in to drop off additional rental cars, which there certainly is in the industry, that point of access can be used so that airport drive is no longer needed to access the site. Meaning taking cars off either in the parking lot or on adjacent sites that we do own and bringing them around our airport circle. As part of the job, or this scope of work too, there is also a designated entrance to our FAA, Federal Aviation Administration Facility for the air traffic controllers. So just to the right of those light orange and red lines right there, that's a designated exclusive entrance for the FAA facility. No longer, right now they do share an entrance, so that does split that up. So the fuel tanks, obviously there's long pipes going from the fuel tanks to the fuel installation. Correct. You can see the red outline on this site plan here. That goes to that canopy, the fuel station canopy. And it's generally a very straight line from the fuel tank to those canopies, or to the fuel station. Okay. Unless the board has questions, we can dive into staff comments. I apologize. Sorry. It's all right. First comment. We have traditionally allowed the airport to provide estimated coverage calculations as long as they are demonstrably well within the allowed maximums. So I'm assuming that we want, as a board, that we want them to continue, we want John to continue doing that from stand-tock. It looks like there is a calculation in the packet. Right, for lot coverage, but not for building coverage. The maximum coverage is 50%. They've calculated that lot coverage is 34%. Just eyeballing it, buildings are not the majority of that. The maximum allowable building coverage is 30%. So they're obviously well under the maximum allowable building coverage. So it's as long as it's not a huge project, having that would be helpful. Okay. Next comment. Staff considers that the applicant must update the parking needs assessment. Can we back up just a second, just relating back to the project, the sketch plan, the previous sketch plan project. What impact does that have on building and lot coverage? The lot coverage numbers are calculated and are under the allowable. The building coverage numbers are not calculated, but they are obviously well under the allowable because the allowable, it only exceeds the total lot coverage, only exceeds the allowable building coverage by a tiny bit. And there's no way the buildings are the majority of it. Okay. Thanks, Frank. This is a point of clarification then. So the board would like to see building percent coverage as well as total lot coverage? We haven't historically asked for it. It seems obvious based on, you know. Yeah. I mean, I was assuming, I apologize. I was assuming it had been something that was always done. So if this is a new requirement, and it's, as you say, obviously not a problem, I'm happy with not asking for it. Sorry about that. The board and plenty of other projects has not required calculation of coverage when it is obviously well under. Things like subdivisions of farm properties. I don't know. Right. Yeah. Things where they're adding 100 square feet of dumpster pad, that sort of thing. Right. Sounds good. So I apologize for lack of clarity. It occurs to be the airport being the airport. And not just a one-shot farm development. And with a certain tension for increasing its usage. Maybe just as a benchmark, we ought to see a coverage number not because we're concerned about it, but just to know where we were on thus at such a date. So when the next one comes up, we've got something to look back on. Yeah. So that's what we did with the lot coverage. Because I had that same sentiment and I, you know, begged and pleaded before today's hearing that they give us an updated lot coverage benchmark. Okay. I did not go so far for the building coverage. But is that, I mean, is that tricky? Is that, is it asking something considerable to ask for the, for the coverage numbers? Is that hard? It's not an unreasonable request. I think again, it's, it's kind of intuitive.  I mean, are we talking about a half hours at a computer or are we talking about going out with a tape measure figure, if we speak? It's a reasonable request. It's probably a, you know, a day of calculation and a day to check it or something like that. Maybe that's excessive. Yeah. I would never, never, never mind. I liked a lot coverage. I mean, a day's work is considerable. Yeah. Two days' work is considerable. Right. Yeah. Good. Next comment. Update the parking needs assessment. I think that the last applicant told us that we're going to need that. We're going to, we're, they're going to give us their data on utilization. Is this different? Yeah. No. I, if it's the same information, if the, I guess the kicker here is that this parking, this project does remove some parking on the White Street lot. It's probably the same analysis. Just including that information. Yeah. So that same, that same analysis that was going to be done for the hotel. Yeah. Yeah. So that, that same analysis that was going to be done for the hotel can, can be used as part of this application as well. It could be. I guess the point of distinction is that in the discussion on the hotel, it was primarily focused on the garage usage. Right. And now we're bringing it into the discussion. So it's a bit different in that way. Correct. Yeah. One of the things you're absolutely right. This does absolutely displace 45 approximately. So 45 approximately parking positions. One of the things that we use this particular area for is employee parking and crew parking only. You can see to the north of this facility, which is to the left side of it to relocate that 45 loss to just off the page there, you can see a corner of a lot right there. That's also additional overflow capacity. So as we planned for the displacement of this parking facility or this QTA facility here, we knew that we were going to have to displace those employee and crew parking. And just to cover every little corner, there's also what we call La A, which is just adjacent to the parking garage. That also is for oversize. That is a public parking lot, paid public parking line and secured lot. But that also is an area that we can use for employee and crew parking if we absolutely need to. Can you talk about parking lot date? I did. So good. I think we're good on that. Other comments, questions from the board? Staff? I'm good. Next staff comment. Compatibility with joining buildings and area. Landscaping to configure to provide the best screening to best provide screening of the facility from adjacent properties. I think we are you all hinted at that at the last agenda item. But what we have provided you in the past was some off this site landscaping opportunities across the street. There are still going to be landscaping right there on the, there's some green strips adjacent to the, to this particular site between I guess you can say the building and the blue line. So you can landscaping plan will occur across the street. Across which street? Excuse me across airport drive to, to, to, I'm not sure what the word is, but shield the residential areas from, from the airport as a whole. So if I can jump in here. Isn't that what you just said? We haven't allowed that in the past. There was a prior approval and what you said earlier confused me because I don't know the history of it, but the prior approval did allow what they're proposing now. And I'm not sure what the mechanism, you guys were there. I wasn't. So if you guys remember. I remember, I didn't remember where the landscaping was proposed for. I know we were allowed to move it around, but, but was it on that side of the street? Yeah, what I would call, okay, what I would call is that Ray told us, no, you can't, you have to have it on the parcel, on the airport possible, you can't do it across the street. Go ahead, John. I'm sorry. I just wanted to maybe help clarify this discussion a bit. If we go down a couple of drawings, Marla, maybe the next one to start. Another one, please. Yes. This is the revised site landscaping plan. So perhaps you could zoom in on that a bit. So we have. We are proposing some additional. Scroll down a bit if you can there. So you can see the site. There you go. So right at the, at the bottom of the page, if you will, which is on the airport drive side of the site, the plantings that you see there are proposed new ones. So there is an effort being made to add some landscaping to screen the project from the, from the street. So that's being done there to meet the budget. However, the landscaping budget. We're proposing to do what was approved the last time, which is to provide some of the makeup for that landscaping on the other side of airport drive. So if you can scroll down to the next sheet, Marla, there, there are two locations where landscaping was approved previously. The top left is at the corner of streets, not labeled on there clearly, but that is white street and airport drive, airport drive extension. And there's some landscaping proposed right at the south end of that gravel parking lot, which is used by car rental agencies. So we're trying to coordinate slightly with the use of the, this particular project. Is that, that, that upper left drawing, that, that's still on airport park, on airport property. So on the newly acquired residential lots, yes. It's across, it's across the street. Across the street from the, from the top left is across the street. Well, it's across the street, but it's, doesn't the airport property. That's across the airport drive. That's white street there, right? Right. But the white street and the airport drive. The full park. Okay. It's, it's here. Correct. It's right there. Yes. This is, this is what that, that place is. Right. That was a former house. Is that what you're saying? Years and years ago. That, that right now is. We've had that for a long, long time. Absolutely. Yes. I, I always think of that as airport property. Maybe. Absolutely. Maybe not. Was, did the airport by that property? Yes. Did the airport by the properties that are there? So it's the same entity that owns all of them. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Let me, let me see if I can. Sort out. What the hangup is. I mean, if you, if what we're doing is amending a, you know, I don't know how far back the original approvals for the airport. 2016. I'm sorry. The former QTA project was 2016. I don't know. Years and years and years. Okay. So presumably there's an original project that shows the airport property. If that across the street land isn't on that plan, then you're talking about a separate project unless you amend your site plan to incorporate your new property, which seems to me to be the solution that allows us to, to distribute landscaping where it might make the most sense. Exactly. Does that make any sense to you? Thank you very much. You're good. So I can do some research on what constitutes the airport PUD today. I think that there are more potential implications to enlarging the PUD than just landscaping. But that's the discussion that we can have if these areas that they're proposing aren't in the airport PUD, which I believe that they are not. Well, I'm suggesting that maybe they should. Yeah, I'm not sure. I'm not sure we want. I'm not sure the city of South Berlin wants them to try to pull all those old family house lots into the PUD either. Well, then they shouldn't be putting landscaping. That's what landscaping on it. That's where I thought we wound up. Yeah. Last time we discussed it. Should not. This is why we crowded the corner. Yeah. I'm sure you recall. We put tons of, or you put tons of landscaping right onto the corner of Williston Road and an airport drive because we needed to get it on the parcel. I don't recall what the job was that we were doing at the time. I think I want to say it was that little building that like, like a few buildings. Oh, yeah. You know, I don't know if that's right. Right. Would you help out a little bit here? Can they do something off the property on something else that they own? I mean, because what just occurred to me is sometimes we asked for that, for example, to create public amenities that's off their property in the right-of-way, fix the right-of-way, expand the right-of-way on city land, for example. Does it help if we are putting in a request to rezone those properties, to eventually put those into a single part of the airport property? I'm sort of being shot down on that idea and put it into that. I mean, it may be the city wants to push you into that. I don't know what they have in mind for it. But the planning department would like to see so I'm going to shut up about that and just think about a way to allow the most flexible use of landscaping so we don't wind up with silly configurations. Generally, I don't think there's a problem as long as the two parcels are under common ownership, but of course that could be reasonable. We need to make sure there isn't anything in the LDR that says you can't do that. Well, the only thing would be, you know, you've got a landscaping budget. That's a percentage of the quote, project. And we define part of the project as something on an auto. You see what I'm saying? So is the direction of the board, then, to generally supportive of wherever that went, something that allows it to be off property and to see if we can creatively find a way to allow that? On the airport property that's outside of the PUD. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, on a gut level, it does not seem objectionable. Right. Exactly. And I don't think we need to continue the sketch plan to figure that out. We can just figure it out when you come in for preliminary final. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Clarification, I guess. We're coming in for preliminary final plat. Very quickly on this. We have our design all done. Can we submit the plans that you're looking at on the other side of airport drive and assume that that will be okay, or should we wait for some direction from you on that? I think it's a bit of a leap. I'm not unconfident, but I don't feel as though it's a slam dunk. So, let's you and I discuss it, I guess. Out of curiosity, my apologies if this is off track a little bit. If this isn't allowable, how do we proceed with a landscaping budget if it can't fit on that site itself? Or I guess it can fit on the airport somewhere. Got ya. That's okay. Just not on this particular site. Not sensical. Try to avoid nonsensical. Well, that was my point. No, but you know, you could put rubs down all the way at the end of the airport parkway down at the end of the, you know, I don't know. There's rubs. People hiding them.  As long as he gets his T.R.B. parking space. Landscaping around your parking space. Next comment. If it's okay. Final materials on low impact stormwater? Yeah, essentially where, again, this is a plan, a site plan, and a stormwater treatment system that was previously approved and permitted both by the state of Vermont and approved by South Burlington. So we're working with the stormwater people with Dave Wheeler specifically on that to make sure that we're providing the information that he needs to be satisfied that we're meeting the requirements. So it's a work in progress with him. Just out of curiosity, I assume your car wash is recycled? Yes. Primarily, there's some waste, but that goes to the sanitary sewer, not to stormwater. Yeah, but it's primarily recycled. Next comment. Hours of operation, performance standards. They now exceed the decibel standards in the LDRs between midnight and eight. And I guess, yeah, so the comment from staff is, should we ask whether to request the applicant to provide noise level forecasts of how stormy do we feel? I think we've got a letter from a neighbor who was concerned about that. We're talking about noise from movement of rental cars. Car wash. And the car wash. Yeah, main of the car wash. I would think it's the main of the car wash. Next to an airport where... After midnight and before 8 a.m., Oh, you are before 8 a.m. Before 8 a.m. Yes. Okay, first departure. But still, you know, if you were running, if you were running cars back and forth all night long, that'd be pretty annoying if you were a neighbor. I can't imagine being annoyed by that and not being annoyed by the clients. Yeah, because it's one o'clock in the morning. It's one more level. Plains land. There are scheduled flights. I took that land and came back. Is that correct? Scheduled flight arrivals after midnight. Correct. Absolutely. Yep. If I may add some more detail to the actual building. So our hope is, and the plan to design this is to contain all of that noise as well as the full operation within obviously this building. So we have built high speed doors on both ends. So this is going to be a shot, if you will, operation. But just to add onto it a little bit more, this is not a different use than what we currently have there today. It, of course, is in a slightly different location than what we have today. But we would be open to look at his concerns. I haven't read this yet, but to see exactly what we can add to this facility. But the hope is to contain that noise level if there is within that building. It's also an approved Jean Richards again. It's also an approved situation because the vacuuming will be inside of the building except in the parking lot next to the street on the third floor is where they're doing it now. It's pretty much 24 hours a day. So the great part about this is at the lower level, it's inside the building where the door is shut. So I think it will be an approved situation for what we currently have. Good point. Thank you. What I keep picturing is the car washes of when I was a kid and the radio blaring. That's the thing that would get me going is the wrong type of music at 2 o'clock in the morning. We'd be happy to have that a condition of... I'll tell you what the right kind of music is. Yeah. Okay, more comments, questions from the board.  He said no, he's good. Okay, good. Comments, questions from the public. You're in now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Next on the agenda. Sorry? So the sketch is concluded then? The sketch is concluded. Yes. Thank you, Bill. Site plan application SP 18-57 of City of Burlington, Burlington National Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. Amendment consists of constructing an expansion of existing taxiway G for the purpose of an airport holding area. Constructing a jet blast defector... detector... deflector. So I need this tax way turning radius improvements and stormwater improvements at 1200 airport drive as you have to get. Site plan application, would you please raise your right hand? Do you promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the penalty of perjury? Thank you very much. Identify yourself. Again, my name is Nick Longo, Deputy Director of Aviation for the Burlington International Airport. And John Linwall with Stantec Consulting. And we have a description of site plans that I will very quickly read. Land development projects that do not require subdivision or qualifies a planned unit development are eligible to be reviewed as site plans. In this hearing, the applicant will describe the project and the applicant and the board will step through staff comments thereby considering the proposal's conformance with the applicable land development standards. Next, the chair will invite public comments and questions. All questions and comments should be directed to the chair. Board may choose to continue the meeting to a later date if there are questions that remain to be examined. The future date will be announced prior to the evening. At the end of the hearing, the board will vote on whether to close the hearing and once closed, will issue a decision on the site plan within 45 days. The decision will be mailed to the applicant and to those who have identified themselves as an interested person on the sign-up sheet that goes around. If no appeal of the board's decision is made within 30 days, the decision is final. Applicant may proceed with the application for a zoning permit to implement the project. Once again, more detailed description is available back to you. Please describe the project. First and foremost, I am very excited to present this to you. You've seen portions of this in the past on previous projects and portions of what we call our taxiway golf, also on previous projects. The reason I'm excited for this, the first time in the history of the Burlington International Airport, we're going to have a full parallel taxiway, which we've never had before on our main runway. This provides a substantial amount of efficiency, safety, coordination with our air traffic control partners in the tower. And while we've completed two of the three portions already of this project, this portion that we're presenting to you today is the final completion, the connection, so to speak, from the north to the south to connect those areas. As part of this project, there is going to be presented before you a holding bay is what we call it. This allows aircraft, which is this in the main picture on the top, the red area, this allows aircraft to essentially go to the side of the road, if you will. So the taxiway, as you can imagine, is where aircraft go to and go from the end of the runway back to the terminal building or wherever they're going to be parking on the airport. That pull off, if you will, the holding bay allows them to pull to the side because they don't necessarily, they meaning the aircraft, the pilot, don't necessarily know when they can actually depart the aircraft. They have to wait for air traffic controllers at their destination airport, essentially, to allow them to take off from their origin airport. This allows that aircraft to pull to the side, wait for that departure clearance time to arrive, so that other aircraft, if they're, and there are, as we discussed, many flights, only 13 usually, all occurring with a one hour time period, that will all use one end of the airport. Currently, what we do is we actually taxi on existing taxiway systems and hold aircraft on those taxiways. To do that, we have to actually take an aircraft onto the runway, an active runway, and put them onto what we call currently, taxiway mic, which is about in the middle of the picture there, not too relevant to the conversation, only that it's not an efficient, and it's certainly not a safe operation to have a taxiing aircraft on an active runway. This completely gets rid of that. The most important thing that I think we want to present to you today is we did listen to you. We know both from the city staff, both from the city administration and from your board that jet blast was a high concern for this particular holding bay. So what we're presenting to you today is that jet blast barrier to contain the jet blast from the holding bay area. There are many additions, many turns, many changes within the main structure, the main part of this project. The green area is not the entire project, but essentially it comprises portions of it. The entire project is mostly in the central part of the terminal and the crossing of our two runway systems. A very complicated project. Extremely, the coordination that has to take place just to get the construction and the phasing within that area is extensive, but just that holding bay by itself is extremely important to the airport like I said and to finish up for the efficiency and for the safety of it. The holding bay to the left of the project site. Yes. There's a red line which is blown up in the bottom portion of the picture right there. That red line there's actually two red lines. So one of the red lines is you can see is a road. The one that's obviously not connected to anything else, that's the jet blast barrier. That road is a perimeter road that we use many times a day for many different reasons from Vermont National Guard going back and forth to our airport operations staff patrolling the fence line for both security safety what we call FOD which is for an object debris essentially garbage or things that should not be out on the airfield. Our USDA agent needs that perimeter road so to check for wildlife rodents and things like that and also to check for breaches in the fence line. The jet blast barrier is on the other side of the perimeter road. All of that is within our current fence itself which is what we call the airfield. So everything on this picture is within the airfield. What is the jet blast barrier? Can we look at the jet blast barrier? Absolutely. So a jet blast barrier is a prefabricated metal structure and it's intended to deflect the flow from the jet engines to jet blast up at a 50-degree angle from the surface and that allows it to dissipate above the ground level and it addresses the concern that the board and the public had at the last hearing about airflow from the aircraft engines reaching airport parkway specifically. I think that was the issue that we were challenged with addressing. So these are industry standard structures that are designed for this purpose and the airport is next listen, heard what you said and came up with the best industry solution to address it. Are those houses right behind it? This is not our airport. This is a profile picture of a different airport. So this is at the barn's air guard base in Westfield, Mass. An installation there. Can you explain the idea that it bounces off and then dissipates? How does that work? It goes upwards. It's deflected upwards. So there's some graphics here that are in your package, I believe. These just as a little bit of background, these are diagrams for an analysis that was developed by a Ph.D. that's affiliated with blast deflectors incorporated, which is a company that has perfected this product. And this is a basically a graphic simulation of their mathematical analysis that they do. And the idea is to show graphically what happens to the jet blast behind the aircraft as it meets this deflector. So, yeah, so these we can get into the numbers if you're interested in them, but I think the takeaway to begin with is that this is, if you look at that graphic, that's what happens to the jet blast when it meets the deflector. When we say jet blast, are we just talking about force of air and maybe some particulate, or are we talking about noise in many ways? So the noise is unabated. It's not designed to address to mitigate noise. They're designed strictly to to address the air flow behind the aircraft. We were concerned about this because it's so much closer to the road. But the noise isn't going to change. And in the previous iteration when the board saw this before, it was even closer to the road than it's proposed to be without the jet blast deflector. Provided of fairly robust analysis, compressible fluid dynamics analysis, which I've reviewed exhaustively and talked to the designer. That we feel is pretty good. I'm sure John can answer questions about it. You know, I've looked at it a lot. We can answer lots of questions about it. Well, they're still having noise concern. They're not adding to it. You know, over and above So the noise is analyzed in an entirely different study, which we're undergoing right now. Specifically ground level noise. Only taxi level noise will be analyzed. So far, obviously there's different criteria that the FAA puts into place on what decibel levels or what average decibel level contour lines are around the airport. Just specifically talking about ground level noise, those decibel levels are generally within the fence line of the airport. I'm not saying you can't hear a taxi in the aircraft or anything like that, but the thresholds that the federal government, the FAA puts out are within that fence line. Well, it's not the taxi jet I'm concerned about.  Right, which is not on this particular site. It's it's on the airport, of course, but just the taxi way. It's not the takeoff movements are not affected by this application. Let me be clear too. This holding area is what you're calling this is at the say the beginning of runway 15. In other words, for planes taking off to the south east. Correct. So it would only be when the weather conditions are such, usually when the wind is from the south that the planes would be holding in this area predominantly from the north, they'd be taking off going the other way on the runway runway 33. Absolutely. So I think you could say fairly that this is dependent on the time of the year when the impacts are going to be the most. And with the prevailing winds generally being in the south during the warmer months, you know, this would be the holding would be going on here in the spring, summer. Beautifully said. You must be a pilot. I'm taking off. And to expand on that too, we do radar analysis. We just did a radar analysis depicting exactly what you just said. How many times does an aircraft depart to the south versus to the north? Right now it's about 50-50, but you're absolutely right. It's seasonal as well. So when that prevailing wind is generally from the south, it's going to be used. So given that the takeoff that would require the use of the holding bay is generally in the spring, summer, early fall, that's also the time of year when it's likely to be foliage on the trees. Does the foliage create a noise? It does. I'm not the expert at that. Of course, on how trees or foliage creates that movement. Nor does the actual maps that we and the FAA produce. They actually do not take into account those trees as when we create the maps. So it's assuming those trees are not there when we take them. They want to be conserved. Absolutely. Now, another question along the lines of the alloys here. If you comply with the FAA noise requirements which you said in the perimeter of the airport, do we have any regulatory authority about noise that occurs that's perceived outside the airport? Or is that preempted by the FAA? I don't know. I may have to defer that to consultants and or some illegal advice, but from a township or city in our scenario. I would not know the answer to that. I would suggest that you do follow up on that. I'm not saying I know the answer, but I think if the answer is that we have the authority to regulate that. Specific to this project of noise. Gotcha. I don't think that's the answer. I don't know. I've got a preemption airport preemption by the airport. Like our case before the second circuit federal preemption starting to sort of my attention. Did you go with airports? It was dealing with communications towers, but it's the same thing. It's preemption of the field because there's a federal legal authority that you see that has occupied their field. It's the same analysis. So as a comprehensive plan to noise abatement, however, we are completing, which is again today, what we call noise compatibility program. The first step to that program is to complete a noise contour line to get that baseline of where the noise is produced and what the contour lines look like. The second step, which would include the holding bay, the operations that happen at the holding bay, and everything that's on this site. The second step is to complete a noise contour line to get that baseline of where the noise is. If that is insulation program or housing insulation program, then that's the route that we would have to go down to. But it has to be a collaborative effort on a whole. That's the only way we can get federal funding to do this. We wouldn't be able to get federal funds with this particular project. We cannot proceed with this project and building this substantially large jet blast barrier without your guidance and without your conditional is it called a conditional recommendation to add this jet blast barrier. Stronger requirement. It needs to be a requirement of your findings that we have to do this. Otherwise it's not eligible for reimbursement. And to give you a scale of this particular jet blast barrier, this is a $1 million price tag to this project. It is a large project in a whole. This is approximately $15 million as a whole. But this would add $1 million to the project cost. We wouldn't be able to get that reimbursement without a required condition of this site. So if this is the direction of the board, we need that requirement to move forward with funding to do this. So you need us to tell you you have to do it. Yes. If that's what it is. Where are we going to ask them? Right. We took your advice and we did a lot of research and incorporated your thoughts and processes from last time. What we're trying to do is look at what doesn't have contention or less contention and listen to what you had said last time. So in doing so, talk to the FAA, it is not something they would fund if we just decided to put it up. If it's something that is required from you, then that would be included potentially in the project. So one of the questions which is that these guys are going parallel to the taxiway. So if we could go to that where it showed this, because it made it look as though there's only during the turn that the jet blast is pointing back. It's not like they're sitting there parking and then they turn it up and everything is going right toward Parkway. Great point. I think as part of the project is a perpendicular staging area from the last application. So now that is a major change. This is parallel. So that idle thrust, if you will, when the aircraft is waiting for that departure time is no longer pointed at the road or the fence. The only time that jet blast is going to occur is when they make that turn headed towards the end of the runway. When they crank up from sitting there and they get up to whatever 5 or 10 or 15 miles per hour, that is also parallel to the road, right? Correct. That's correct. And, you know, Nick makes a good point and I'm glad we're discussing it. We did have a different we changed the geometry of the holding bay from what you saw a year ago or more now. And that was done with the FAA's approval reluctantly, I'll add, because it's not the current standard, the parallel design that you're seeing tonight is not their current standard and they will issue a modification of standards. They've told us to do this. So we've not only changed the geometry of it, but we've also, you know, we're proposing if it is required to add this jet blast deflector as well. So it's two significant changes that are being made here. Not to belabor this jet blast thing, because I like it, but does it have to be that long? It fits. Okay. In the reason, it's a good question, Jennifer. The reason is because the, I don't know, perhaps you could go back to an earlier slide. I think it might be the second or third one. The one that shows, yeah, keep going up. Yeah, the orange color. Yeah. And John, I didn't include that one that showed the envelope of the potential blast because I thought that one was confusing. This one? Yeah. So the, you can see that the holding bay is quite long. And the reason for the length is to accommodate two aircraft. So the way these, the way the holding works is that an aircraft will pull over. They have to hold there until they're released by air traffic control. Another plane could come up behind him, the first one, and he could receive his clearance to go before the one in front of him does. Depends what their destination is. If one guy's going to Chicago, he may get released before the guy who's going to New York. So you have to have a little bit longer bay to accommodate the two aircraft in this case. So if the aircraft in the, to the right in the southerly more position goes first, then he's going to be deflecting the jet blast toward the barrier, and it could occur further down to the right in the picture. So that's, that accounts for the length of it. And the, the actual length of it is determined. It was a mathematical thing. It's determined by, you know, the extent of the jet blast, if you will, all far behind the aircraft that extends. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, if we could step through this, any more questions before we do that? First comment, we've got four criteria. Following additional standards, no use permitted which produces electrical interference. No lights or glare which interfere with vision or cost confusion with airport lights. No use which could obstruct aerial approaches. All use is still comply with applicable provisions VFA and other federal state regulations. So, do, does the board consider the statement from Stantec sufficient to answer those requirements? I'm assuming that in your comment that by being subject to FAA's advisory circulars that you do, in fact, are conditions one, two and three. Yes. Okay. Board comments, questions? Next comment. Next staff comment. Based on available aerial photography, there appears there's a 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 two potential options available to the board. The applicant has offered to relocate the road 65 feet from the zoning district boundary. Second, it would be to allow the applicant to supplement the existing screening on the vacant properties which are owned by the airport, which gets back to what we were talking about earlier, right? Sort of. This is not required landscaping in the sense that it's a dollar value. The standard specifically requires a buffer when an existing non-residential use structure or parking area is within 65 feet of the residential district. It doesn't say anything about where that buffer has to be, but it does say landscape with dense evergreens fencing and or other plantings. So the applicant has said, well, we can just be outside of that 65 foot strip. It feels a little maybe like doing an end run to move so you're 66 feet away. Maybe some screening should happen. No problem with that end run. I mean, that's the point of the rule. If they were 66 feet, we wouldn't be talking about it. Does it have any housing on it? No. Correct. And you're going, you're trying to rezone it? Correct. It's also gene measures again. It also will never be able to have residential housing on it ever again to require it. A grain of shorts that we made in the FAA. So all these, all this land that we're talking about is residential. It's not applicable. It is to you. It isn't to us because it can never have a whole lot of again. I just realized I need to swear you in. Please raise your right hand. You probably tell the truth. The whole truth, nothing but the truth on the panel. Thank you. Sorry to catch that earlier. This is when we switch from sketch plan and you swear with. Yeah. That's all right. My fault. So board for the comments on which of the two options do we want to see vegetative screen or 66 feet. Okay. I'm okay with neither. I'm okay with with not doing the vegetative screen and letting this is a security issue. These guys need to be relatively close to the fence line. You know, we've done when it comes to public security, we have consistently gone along with the fire department, the police department. I would, I would argue that if they don't think screening is appropriate, we shouldn't do screening and they should be able to put it wherever they want to. I'd I'd invite the applicant to comment. I concur with that as I stated before, we use that many of the entities at the airport use it like the National Guard, USDA agents, but mostly our own staff, our airport operation staff to adhere to both security requirements of the airport as well as what we call part 139 of the code of federal regulations to operate the airport for those regulations. We're also Jean Riches again, we've also worked really hard to make sure that all the vegetation is kept up and clean and looks very part light and very presentable to the community. So we've worked really hard to make sure what we do have looks very good, we hope, and are obviously open to suggestions. But the screening makes it really challenging for the airport anywhere remotely close to the field in the tracks, wildlife, and that's contradiction in everything that we don't want to make a home for Aber or anything else. We try to do the best we can to keep what we have clean. Good. Further board comments? Next staff comment. I think there's should have been read at the bottom of the next page. Yeah, I got two items at the bottom of the next page. Relationship proposed structures to the site. Staff has no concern about how these changeable pedestrian movement are parking, but considers that the relocated perimeter road and blast defection should be shielded from through combination of vegetation and screening. So I think we just answered that because of security it shouldn't be. So then on to what Jennifer was saying, staff recommends board require the applicant to provide information on the overall height of the wall and making its determination of screening. So of course you'll provide that as part of your plan. Information on the height of the wall. The barrier is 14 feet tall physically. And that's kind of nominal, which made me wonder if that was actual. The well, we need to verify that I think with blast deflectors doing the design. This is at this stage the work that they have done for us is analytical based on the design aircraft we've given them. They haven't done a site-specific design meaning that they don't, they haven't designed that barrier to the inch right now. But all the information that they provided us so far based on the criteria that we've given them indicates it'll be 14 feet max. So as we get into the final design on it that could change slightly and we certainly would provide the detail for that. It's different, but I think everything we've got it right now on every topic, even more. Do you promise all the truth and nothing about the truth on any of the data that they provided us with? I really don't see this changing and it is a things party or packet and they do have a dimension on here that's right down to the inch which is here 2 feet 10 and 1 8 inch. So the overall height is approximately 14 feet and we don't see that change. Okay. There's no elevation though I think our significant variation. Okay. Board comments, questions on this last staff comment, staff recommends the board included conditional approval requiring the plans to be amended to reflect erosion control measures at the limit of disturbance LOD. So right now the erosion control plans that have been developed they're probably 90% design level right now and we did not have a note on there at the limit of disturbance we'll add one so that there is provision made for some kind of erosion protection at the limit. So thank you very much. Let's see. So site plan I have heard nothing that requires continuance of this hearing comments from the public hearing none. That's wonderful. So I'll entertain a motion to close the hearing. I have a move that we close site plan application SB 1857 of the city of Burlington, Burlington International Airport. Second. It's been moved in second and closed this application. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Next item on the agenda is minutes. Minutes from November 20th and December 18th. Thank you very much. Yes. So we've all had a chance to read the minutes and Frank, you said you had a couple of comments. On December 18th, which one are you doing first? We'll do them both together if it's okay. Well, on December 18th, I have a on the page numbers are cut off. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good to see you all. On the fourth page, after number 13, Sue, you must have had your tongue in your cheek or you're out to get me on this one. November 20th. You have two paragraphs on the back and forth over the neighbor's submission about the first paragraph as far as I'm concerned is completely wrong. I drafted not completely wrong. It is faithful to reciting what was in material and leaves out what that part of the discussion was about in my opinion. I would rather substitute for the first paragraph the following somewhat windy couple of sentences. You're on page four. No, he's He's five. He's five. I don't have a number. That's after number 13. Got it. After it says number 13? Yes. The next paragraph where it says Mr. Cone noted a submission for the public questioning whether the overlay map is accurate. That was not the question from the public. I question whether the overlay map the applicant couldn't answer. Paul beat around the bush for a while and eventually he said yeah. And then I said well in that case I object I think the neighbor's objection is probably well taken but this is your first shot at it so come back next time and tell me how you comply with section 15.1810 of the of the LDRs or I have actual language here that I would seek to have the second paragraph that's not how I'd write it but I won't quibble about the second paragraph that's more or less what happened. First paragraph I want to strike what Sue wrote and substitute the following let me take a deep breath. Mr. Cokman noted that a submission from a group of adjoining property owners challenged development on the grounds that it could not meet one of the requirements for section 15.18 of the LDR because a portion of the area is overlaid by a primary conservation area shown on map number 7 attached to the comprehensive plan and the plan states that primary conservation areas are not to be developed end of sentence. Mr. Cokman asked the applicant of a sketch of the overlay area submitted by the adjoiners accurately depicts the relationship with the primary conservation area as shown on map number 7 to the project which the applicant's representative said he was seeing the sketch for the first time. At the request of the chairman the director of development Mr. Conner testified that the sketch is accurate. Mr. Cokman told the applicant that in that case based on his understanding of the applicable law his impression was that the adjoiner's objection is well taken. I proposed to substitute that for the existing first paragraph second paragraph undisturbed. I would propose sorry to belabor this but that was a lot of words and I would really like for a draft to be available to the board for review before we approve it I would not recommend the board not approve it on the basis of Frank's representation. So let's approve we can just defer the 18th so give it to Sue she'll incorporate it and then we'll look at it next time. I think that makes sense. That was right. Yep. Okay so I would make a motion we approve the minutes from November 20 second moved and seconded that we approve the minutes from November 20 2018 all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Thank you very much and that is the end of the development of your board meeting at 931 thanks all take care. Thank you very much take care.