HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-20-22_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_PP FP#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
1
1 of 12
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐11_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl
Airport_Hotel_sketch.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 15, 2020
Plans received: June 18, 2020
1200 Airport Drive
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐20‐22
Meeting date: July 21, 2020
Owner/Applicant
Burlington International Airport
C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation
1200 Airport Drive, Box 1
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Co Applicant
BTV Hotel LLC.
C/O Rabideau Architects
550 Hinesburg Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C
Airport District
777.84 acres
Engineer
Stantec Consulting
55 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐20‐22 of Burlington International Airport & BTV Hotel, LLC to
amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a
111 room hotel near the northern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive.
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
2
2 of 12
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Airport district. Development within this district must be reviewed
pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards.
Until recently, the LDRs required all projects within this district be reviewed under PUD standards.
The Board previously approved final plat application #SD‐19‐11 for a similar hotel located south of the
existing parking garage. The FAA rejected that application due to conflicts with their Air Surveillance
Equipment. The present application would be a replacement for the previously‐approved project. The
previously approved hotel had 105 rooms and an on‐site restaurant. The current proposal includes 111
rooms and no restaurant. The currently proposed location is a parking lot; the proposed hotel will result
in a net reduction in parking.
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐11 for the project was reviewed by the Board on April 7, 2020. As part of
that meeting, the Board’s review focused on access and circulation, and aesthetics of the building.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 6/18/2020 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 3 ac 942 ac No change
Max. Building Coverage 30 % Unknown No change
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 34.5%* 34.4%
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Unknown >50 ft.1
Min. Side Setback 35 ft. Unknown No change
Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. N/A N/A
Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown Unknown2
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Unknown 65 ft.
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested
* Includes permitted projects that have not yet completed construction
1. The applicant has stated that greater than 50‐foot setback is provided from the planned 80‐ft
Airport Drive right of way as required under 3.06. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to amend their plans to show the planned ROW. Staff considers this can be a condition
of approval.
2. The applicant is proposing to locate an outdoor patio within the front setback. Front setback
coverage for the airport is limited to 30% and refers to non‐building coverage within the front
setback. The Board has on prior applications considered front setback coverage for the airport
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
3
3 of 12
PUD as a whole rather than on a project by project basis. Staff considers the proposal to include
a well landscaped outdoor patio space in the front setback enhances rather than detracts from
the purpose of the front setback coverage limitation, which is to improve the appearance of front
setbacks of commercial properties, and recommends the Board allow the applicant to construct
this improvement without requiring further computation of front setback coverage.
The maximum allowable height for a flat roof building in the airport district is 35 feet. The applicant is
proposing a five‐story building to be 65 feet high. The main portions of the building are proposed to be 54‐
feet high. The northern end of the parking garage adjacent to the proposed hotel is 58 feet high and the
southern end is two stories lower. Development in the airport district is eligible for a height waiver as
follows.
(b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table
C‐2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may
waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning
district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a
plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre‐construction grade,
post‐construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the
proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other
public rights‐of‐way.
3. The applicant has provided architectural renderings and elevations in support of the waiver request. Staff
recommends the Board review the architectural renderings and elevations and determine whether any
additional information is required to determine whether to grant the requested waiver.
Airport District Additional Standards
The Project is located in the airport district and the transit overlay district. Hotel is not an allowed use
within the airport district. However, the definition of Airport Uses in Article 2 includes “other uses
designed to serve aviation passengers and industry.” The Board has consistently considered that the
hotel meets this definition and staff considers this topic needs no further discussion here. Staff
recommends the Board include an affirmative statement of this finding in their decision.
All applications within the AIR District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05
and the following additional standards:
(1) No use shall be permitted which will produce electrical interference with radio
communications or radar operations at the Airport.
(2) No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion
with airport lights.
(3) No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the Airport.
(4) All uses shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration,
and any other federal or state regulations pertaining to airports.
The applicant has stated in their cover letter that this project has received a 7460‐1 determination
from the FAA indicating that there are no impacts to the approach cones and RADAR equipment.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide this letter as a condition of approval.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site Plan or PUD review required
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
4
4 of 12
The application is being reviewed as a PUD. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. Multiple structures and uses permitted. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures,
and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board
determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area and
frontage requirements may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate
ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage
requirements. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the
normal maximum for the applicable districts.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. [Reserved]
D. Buffer Strip. Properties in the Airport, Mixed Industrial Commercial, Industrial Open Space and
Airport Industrial districts that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along
the abutting line, as per Section 3.06(I) (buffers).
Section 3.06(I) pertains to non‐residential uses whose side or rear boundaries are within fifty feet
of the boundary of a residential district. The Project is proposed to be more than fifty feet from
the residential district when measured from the front boundary. Staff considers this criterion not
applicable.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of
structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.
Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.
14.6 General Review Standards
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
review standards for all site plan applications:
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use
policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive
plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are
compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource
conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant. Staff considers that
the proposed use is compatible with the airport. The site is not located in the south end of the
quadrant. The land use policy for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐residential.
Staff considers this criterion met.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement,
and adequate parking areas.
The applicant is proposing a combination of fiber cement siding, brick, metal and limestone. Staff
considers this generally compatible with the materials of the adjacent parking garage. Plantings are
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
5
5 of 12
robust, and the landscaping includes common hardscape elements duplicated on both the north
and south of the building.
At sketch, the applicant had not yet solidified the proposed internal circulation in the hotel area.
The current proposal shows access from Airport Drive and exit onto the airport circle driveway,
sharing an exit with other airport traffic. The Fire Chief indicated no issues with the proposed
circulation. It appears that the one‐way nature of the driveway from Airport Drive will be enforced
by a narrowed throat as the driveway enters the hotel drop off area.
The applicant is proposing a new sidewalk along the south side of the airport driveway circle,
connecting at the south end to an existing pedestrian crosswalk to the terminal.
5. There is also a new pedestrian entrance to the garage proposed just east of the proposed cooling
tower, which is just east of an existing pedestrian entrance to the garage. Staff recommends the
Board discuss with the applicant pedestrian sight distances for this proposed pedestrian route, and
whether it is necessary given the proximity to the existing pedestrian garage entrance.
6. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify whether the vehicular garage
entrance will be one way or two way, and if one way, which direction.
There are no specific parking requirements for the airport or airport related uses in the LDRs. The
applicant estimates that based on a study of internal capture between hotels and airports, there
will be a parking demand of 45 vehicles generated by the hotel. The applicant is proposing nine (9)
on‐site parking spaces with additional hotel parking in the existing parking garage as parking for the
hotel. The applicant has indicated there will be a total reduction of 95 spaces with this application.
At sketch, the applicant stated that part of the impetus for this project is to take advantage of
underutilized parking.
7. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant about the location of ADA compliant spaces for
hotel users.
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
The applicant’s requested height waiver is discussed above under zoning district standards.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
6
6 of 12
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
8. The applicant has not shown the proposed wire‐served utility connections. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to demonstrate the general proposal, including any proposed transformer locations,
prior to closing the hearing.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
The applicant is proposing a brick walled enclosed dumpster between the hotel and the parking garage.
Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening
shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum landscape
requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
13.06G Landscaping Standards.
(1) The Development Review Board shall require compliance with any Tree Ordinance or
Landscaping Design Standards enacted by the City of South Burlington, subsequent to the effective
date of these regulations.
(2) Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan.
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced.
The applicant estimates the building cost to be $11,000,0001. The required minimum landscape value is
therefore $117,500, as follows.
Total Building Construction
Cost
% of total Construction Cost Required Value
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional Over $500,000 1% $105,000
Total $117,500
The applicant’s landscaping memo references the removal of 35 mature trees. These trees are shown on
sheet LA100. Many of these trees are in areas not proposed to be impacted by the proposed hotel, and
1 The landscaping cover memo references a cost of $10,000,000. The previously approved hotel proposal was
estimated to cost $11,968,710. Since this proposal is largely similar to the previous approval, Staff has assumed
the $11,000,000 provided in the application form is correct.
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
7
7 of 12
include a number of trees within the public right of way. Staff considers only three trees require removal,
including two 12” pines in the proposed sidewalk and one “8” Ornamental” located in the proposed exit
driveway.
9. Staff recommends the Board only allow removal of trees directly impacted by the project, as the City’s
landscaping standards are intended to result in a mature canopy over time and the value of mature trees
can only nominally be replaced by planting of immature trees.
The City Arborist offers the following additional comment regarding replacement trees:
Calculation for replacement value of existing trees is generally calculated based on the tree’s size
at the time of removal not the original planted size.
The applicant has requested that the value of perennials, ornamental grasses, stone pavers, and dry‐laid
stone wall be applied to the required minimum landscape value. The Board may only allow things other
than trees and shrubs to be applied towards the minimum landscape value if the landscaping objectives
are not otherwise reduced. Further, the Board recently approved miscellaneous application MS‐20‐01
establishing an overall landscaping plan for the airport which the airport agreed to draw upon when
required minimum landscaping could not be provided on site.
The purpose of the landscaping standards includes recognizing “the importance of trees, vegetation, and
well planned green spaces in bringing nature into the city and using these as a resource in promoting
the health, safety, and welfare of city residents through improved drainage, water supply recharge,
flood control, air quality, sun control, shade, and visual relief.”
10. Staff recommends the Board review the proposed planting plan and determine if the proposed plantings
meet the landscaping purpose, or if the applicant should be required to provide landscaping approved in
MS‐20‐01 in lieu of some of the proposed plantings.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
(1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow
for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking
lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy
for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and
for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between
the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in
parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior
of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground parking.
Fewer than 28 surface parking spaces are proposed. Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as
a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c)
below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side,
and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are
encouraged.
Parking spaces are curbed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
8
8 of 12
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or
salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant.
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on July 9, 2020 and expressed no concern about the plant
selection.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly
throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum
of thirty (30) feet apart.
There are nine parking spaces proposed. Staff considers there many more than two trees which
could be considered as meeting this criterion. Staff considers this criterion met.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
The proposed trees meet this criterion.
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species
should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the parking
lot and the site.
A mix of species is proposed. Staff considers this criterion met.
The applicant provides the following statement with regard to snow storage.
Snow from the hotel site access road will be plowed to a location in accordance with the Airport’s
existing operations.
Staff considers no separate snow storage area is needed for the proposed hotel.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five (5)
feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
The applicant is requesting a height waiver, discussed above.
F Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans on 7/8/2020 and requests that the Board include a
condition that the applicant regularly maintain all stormwater drainage and treatment infrastructure.
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
9
9 of 12
Otherwise they did not indicate any issues with the plans.
11. Staff recommends the Board include such a condition of approval.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
No new public roadways are proposed. Staff considers the dimensions of the various proposed
driveways to meet the required minimums without being excessive.
The applicant has proposed a 19.28 wide drive aisle behind the proposed surface parking near the hotel
entry. The minimum required standard is 22‐feet. 15.12M states the following.
Modifications of Requirements: The administrative officer or development review board may approve
minor modifications to parking lot dimensions as specified in Table 13‐2 where the applicant can
demonstrate the necessity of modifications and safety of the motor vehicle and pedestrian circulation
are retained.
12. Staff considers pedestrian safety is not impacted by this reduction. However, Staff recommends the
Board discuss with the applicant whether the reduction is necessary. Staff considers a reduction of 2.75
feet to be significant and recommends the Board require the applicant to reduce the requested
modification.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
13. The applicant has provided an estimate of average and peak water demand, and average
wastewater flow. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary water
and wastewater allocation prior to recording the mylar, and to obtain final water and
wastewater allocation and connection permits prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the plans on 7/10/2020 and offers the
following comments.
Sheet C102: This is a hydrant lead and may only be 6” diameter. Excavation or potholing to
determine lines size before connection is recommended.
Sheet C109: Install new 8” DI Class 52 Water main and new 8” hydrant and gate valve in
accordance with CWD specifications, including Blue bolts, V‐Bio poly wrap, etc,
Sheet C109: Connection to the existing water line will require the shut down of the hydrant
supply line by the SBWD.
Sheet C111: Can notes 1‐6 be eliminated?
14. These comments are technical in nature and have been provided in the form of a marked up plan
set to the applicant. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address comments 2
and 4 of the South Burlington Water Department as a condition of approval, and include
comments 1 and 3 as conditions of approval.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
10
10 of 12
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The project will disturb less than one acre of land. The applicant has provided erosion
prevention and sediment control plans (Sheets C‐114. C‐115 and C‐114).
15. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the numbering on the second C‐
114 for recordkeeping purposes.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the EPSC plans or notes to
reflect the permanent stabilization timelines of Article 16.
17. Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to update their tree protection to
reflect the actual trees to be preserved; trees within the proposed sidewalk and driveway are
shown as protected.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
The applicant estimates that the Project will generate 38 PM peak hour vehicle trips. The
applicant has updated their study of the previously‐approved study of the Rochester airport
hotel which concluded that the on‐airport hotel generates trips 40 to 47% less than the standard
ITE value.
18. Staff recommends the Board accept the applicant’s proposed trip generation for the purpose
of calculating traffic impact fees.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on
the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural
Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
No natural resource impacts are anticipated. Staff considers this criterion met.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in
the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in
which it is located.
See discussion of visual compatibility with existing structures above under site plan review
standards. Staff considers the use consistent with the comprehensive plan and purpose of the
zoning district.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
Staff considers the provision of a patio space adjacent to the existing recreation path along the
front of the airport supports compliance with this criterion.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular
access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
11
11 of 12
and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 7/8/202 and indicates there are no comments pertaining to
site plan or PUD review.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Lighting is proposed to be downcast and shielded.
19. The applicant is proposing a new pole‐mounted fixture near the entrance drive which results
in lighting levels somewhat in excess of 0.3 footcandles beyond the property line. Staff
recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether fixture A1 can be adjusted to
better comply with the footcandle requirements of Appendix A that lighting levels do not
exceed 0.3 footcandles beyond the property line.
20. No information has been provided about the existing light pole to be relocated. Staff
recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide documentation of the existing light pole
to be relocated indicating it is downcast and shielded. If it is not, Staff recommends the
Board not allow the applicant to relocate this light and instead require them to replace it
with a compliant fixture.
Other elements are discussed elsewhere in this document. Staff considers this criterion will be
met when other concerns discuss above are met.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
No changes to public infrastructure are proposed. The Director of Public Works reviewed the
submitted plans on 7/8/2020 and had no concerns. With the exception of lighting discussed
immediately above, Staff considers this criterion met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review
standards above.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and
integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to
generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and
groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.
See above under stie plan review standard pertaining to low impact development.
OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
#SD‐20‐22
Staff Comments
12
12 of 12
The previous approval for the hotel considered the terminal area as a whole, including the hotel, and
provided the required long term bicycle parking for the hotel within the airport garage. Staff
recommends the Board reaffirm that this is still the plan and require the applicant to include that
approved plan as part of the record for this project.
Regarding short term parking, the previous approval met the short term bicycle parking requirements
for the hotel by providing spaces adjacent to the hotel. For the proposed 60,228 hotel, the required
minimum short term bicycle parking is 12 spaces.
21. The applicant appears to be proposing six bicycle racks near the hotel exit driveway, but has not
indicated whether these racks will accommodate one or two bicycles each. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to update their plans to reflect inverted U type bicycle racks
accommodating two bicycles each.
In addition to short and long term bicycle parking spaces, the applicant must provide one changing
facility, one unisex shower, and three clothes lockers meeting the minimum standards in 13.14C(2). This
appears to be provided.
22. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that the lockers meet the dimensional standards of
13.14C(2) as a condition of approval.
Signage
Staff notes the Applicant has shown on some of their plans the proposed location for a hotel sign.
23. Staff notes the applicant must remove all signs from the plans, including callouts of sign locations. The
Board may not approve signs or sign locations as part of the current application, and Staff
recommends the Board include a condition to this effect.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
332'332'332'332'331'331'
331'331'331'330'330'330'
330'330'330'329'329'329'329'329'329'329'328'328'328'328'328'328'328'
SS
SS SS SS SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSGGGGGGGSSSSSSSSSSSSSD15/4GVSGVDDWVSSSSSD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD DDUE UE UE UE UE UEUTUTUTUTUTUT
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
DDDDDDDEXISTING R.O.W.
CENTERLINE TRAVELED WAY33.00'SD SD
3' WIDE STONE BLOCKSEAT WALL
CONCRETE WALK
24" STONE DRIP EDGE(TYP.)
BLUESTONE TREADFLUSH TO LAWN (TYP.)
OUTDOOR KITCHEN
CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS
DRY-STACKED STONE WALL
FIRE PIT AND PATIOFURNITURE
BRICK DUMPSTER ENCLOSUREWITH WOODEN SWING GATE
SAFETY BOLLARD (6)
CONCRETE PAVEMENT
CONCRETE WALK
PROPOSED GENERATORLOCATION (REFER TO MEP)
PROPOSED COOLING TOWER(REFER TO MEP)
WOODEN SCREEN FENCE (8' HT.)
CONCRETE WALKBIKE RACK (6)
STONE DUST SURFACE
CONCRETE WALK
FLUSH GRANITE COBBLES
TRUNCATED DOMES (TYP.)
CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS
WOODEN SCREEN FENCE (8' HT.)
EXISTING GARAGE ENTRANCE
RE-ALIGNED ASPHALT PATH,CONNECTS TO EXISTINGMULTI-USE PATH
CONCRETE WALK
AIRPORT DRIVEAIRPORT CIRCLEPARKING GARAGE EXIT
EXISTING ASPHALTMULTI-USE PATH
RE-ALIGNED ASPHALT PATH,CONNECTS TO EXISTINGMULTI-USE PATH
PROPOSED HOTELFFE 331.50'
ISSUE
RELEASE DATE
REVISIONS
PROJECT NO.
MADE BY
REVIEWED BYBTV Suites46 Airport CirSouth Burlington, VT 05403Permit Set
05.15.2020
20017001
TH/RL/BD
AP
131 C h u r c h S t r e e tB u r l i n g t o n, V T 0 5 4 0 1tel: 8 0 2. 8 6 2. 0 0 9 8w w w . s e g r o u p . c o mLandscape Architects and Planners
LA201
NOT FORCONSTRUCTION
0 20'10'40'
RENDERED
SITE PLAN
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 136 West Street Suite 203, Northampton MA 01060-3711
June 17, 2020 File: 195311636
Attention: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403
Dear Marla,
Reference: Proposed BTV Airport Hotel
Per your request we have updated our traffic forecasts for the proposed hotel at the Burlington Airport. The updates reflect a change in the building program increasing the number of hotel rooms from 105 to 111. The proposed change will increase the proposed hotel trip generation from 36 to 38 PM peak hour vehicle
trips.
Traffic forecasts for a proposed 105-room hotel were provided in a letter to you dated May 2, 2019. The trip
estimates were developed based on trip generation data published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) adjusted to account for the unique location of this hotel. Since the hotel is sited on the
airport property, a portion of the hotel guests are expected to include airline flight crew members. Flight
crew members, who can walk between the hotel and airport terminal, would generate fewer vehicle trips
than guests at the hotels included in the ITE database. Data gathered at another on-airport hotel and data
collected relative to possible hotel demand from flight crews was used to adjust the ITE rates. The data
indicated that on-airport hotel trip rates are 40 to 47 percent lower than the average ITE rate of 0.60 PM
peak hour trips per hotel room. Consequently, an adjusted trip rate of 0.34 trips per hotel room was applied
to the proposed hotel. The 105-room hotel was expected to generate 36 PM peak hour trips. Applying the
same trip rate, the slightly larger, 111-room hotel, is expected to generate 38 PM peak hour trips.
We trust this information will help inform your review of the hotel proposal. Please do not hesitate to contact
us if you have questions.
Regards,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Rick Bryant, P.E. Senior Associate
Phone: 413 387 4502
Rick.Bryant@stantec.com
c. Chris Gendron
rb \\us0286-ppfss01\workgroup\1953\active\195311636\transportation\permits\south burilngton\preliminary-final plat\2020 06 17 updated materials\2020-
06-17_well_trip generation update.docx