HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-20-15_1150 Airport Dr_Don Stewart#SD‐20‐15
Staff Comments
1
1 of 5
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
SD‐20‐15_1150 Airport Dr_Don Stewart_sk_2020‐05‐
05.docx
Report preparation date: April 29, 2020
Plans received: April 7, 2020
1150 Airport Drive
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐20‐15
Meeting date: May 5, 2020
Owner/Applicant
City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport
C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation
1200 Airport Drive, Box 1
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Stantec Consulting Services
55 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C
Airport‐Industrial (AIR‐I) District, Transit Overlay District
777.84 acres
Architect
Scott & Partners
20 Main Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Location Map
#SD‐20‐15
Staff Comments
2
2 of 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐15 of Don Stewart to amend a previously approved plan for an airport
complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 17,200 sf two‐story addition to an existing 39,200
sf one‐story existing hangar/office building, reconfiguring the adjacent parking area, and related site
improvements, 1150 Airport Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
This project is located south of the existing airport terminal driveway and north of the Heritage Aviation
building reviewed by the Board at a sketch plan level on 4/21/2020.
The most recent DRB approval for the building at 1150 Airport Drive was in 2013 and consisted of
installation of a sewer pump station. Since that time, the project has received three administrative site
plan approvals, including recently approval for reconstruction of the north and west facades, and
construction of a short‐term restricted landing pad for the landing of battery powered aircraft. This
application represents a significant expansion and alteration to the existing building and parking lot
layout.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 4/7/2020 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The Project is located in the Airport‐Industrial District (AIR‐I) and the Transit Overlay District. All
applications for development within the AIR‐I district must be reviewed pursuant to the planned unit
development standards. But for this provision within the AIR‐I zoning district, only site plan standards
would apply to this project; no subdivision is proposed and the applicant is not requesting consideration
as a planned unit development.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Dimensional Requirements
The applicant has provided an estimate of lot coverage but has not provided an estimate of building
coverage. The maximum allowable building coverage for this district is 30% and the applicant estimates the
total lot coverage, including all buildings and paved areas throughout the Airport complex, to be only 34.3%
(maximum allowable is 50%). Staff therefore considers it highly unlikely the building coverage exceeds the
maximum allowable. Consistent with recently reviewed sketch plan applications for other projects within
the airport PUD, Staff recommends the Board allow the applicant to provide only a calculation of lot
coverage and omit calculation of building coverage.
The applicant indicates they intend to request a waiver from the maximum allowable height of 35‐feet for
flat roofs to 45‐feet. Section 3.07D(2) also allows the Board to grant a height waiver in the case of increased
setbacks. For each 1‐ft of additional height, front setbacks are increased 1‐ft and side by 0.5‐ft. Front
setbacks in this district are 50‐ft from the planned ROW (80‐ft wide on Airport Drive). It appears the existing
building is approximately 63‐feet from the ROW.
#SD‐20‐15
Staff Comments
3
3 of 5
1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether the existing or planned ROW is shown on the
plans, to determine if a height waiver is available based on setbacks alone. If the applicant is not eligible
for waiver by providing increased setbacks, Staff considers the Board may only grant a height waiver by
considering the project as a PUD, which allows the Board to request additional improvements to offset
the impacts of the requested waivers.
The maximum allowable front setback coverage is 30% for all non‐residential uses.
2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to apply this standard to the project area or to the
airport PUD as a whole.
The applicant has not provided information on front setback coverage as required on the sketch plan
application form. Staff notes that with the current front parking configuration the applicant may exceed
front setback coverage within the project area, and that the applicant may be increasing front setback
coverage over existing conditions.
3. Staff recommends that if the Board determines the front setback coverage applies to the airport as a
whole, the Board waive the application requirement to provide a calculation of front setback coverage.
If the Board determines front setback coverage applies to the project area, the applicant must be under
the maximum, or not exceed the current in the case of an existing nonconformity.
Airport‐Industrial (AIR‐I) District Additional Standards
The district’s standards relate to electrical interference, light and glare, physical obstruction to airport
approaches and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration and other federal and state regulations
pertaining to airports.
Staff considers that the applicant will need to provide documentation of compliance from the applicable
regulatory entities responsible for airport approach cones as part of their final plat application.
Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
Within airport districts, parking areas must be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum
number of curb cuts onto the public roadway. This project shares a curb cut with the building to the north.
It appears the curb cut to the south serves only this project.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to request the applicant close one of the existing curb cuts,
or whether this condition may be allowed to persist as an existing curb cut to be retained.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of
structures to the site (including location and adequacy of parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings
and the adjoining area. Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.
Parking
Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall
be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
#SD‐20‐15
Staff Comments
4
4 of 5
The existing site has parking located to the front of the existing building. The applicant is proposing 32
parking spaces which are nearer to the street than the existing parking, including 28 single‐loaded parking
spaces which front directly on the street. It also appears the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the
parking north of the north driveway, though it is not clear whether the proposed parking is nearer the street
than the existing parking. It appears the parking to the south of the site is located in the same footprint as
existing non‐conforming parking. The Board is familiar with exceptions to the requirement that parking
shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. The Board may only approve the minimum non‐compliant
parking to overcome the conditions which warrant exception, including parking needed to meet ADA
requirements, unique site conditions such as utility easements or unstable soils, and existing buildings to be
reused that preclude parking to be located to the rear and sides of the building.
Of further note is that the applicant’s proposed parking configuration impacts several large existing trees in
the north end of the proposed parking lot. These trees provide screening and support the applicant’s
proposed overall landscaping plan goals of a well landscaped buffer along Airport Drive. Staff considers
their removal would be a detriment, in addition to requiring replacement above and beyond the minimum
landscaping budget.
5. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to reconfigure their proposed parking to comply with
the parking location standards. Options may include locating parking to the sides or rear, reducing the
number of proposed parking (no parking minimums exist for this use), or limiting the proposed parking
to within the footprint of the existing parking area if the Board considers the existing site to preclude
parking to the sides or rear.
Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area
Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe how their proposed architecture and
landscaping will work harmoniously with each other and with adjoining buildings, including those across the
street.
Access to Abutting Properties
The building proposed as part of this application serves as a portion of the security fence around the airport,
and it continuous with the fence on the north and south sides. Staff considers that because of this
limitation, the requirements for access to abutting properties do not apply.
Landscaping and Screening
The project will require landscaping based on the building construction cost in addition to replacement
landscaping for any trees proposed to be removed. The airport is presenting an overall airport landscaping
plan to the Board concurrently (MS‐20‐03). The intent of that landscaping plan is to provide pre‐approved
locations for landscaping beyond that which is required for screening and buffering on individual project
sites. The applicant has stated in their application narrative that they anticipate the required minimum
landscape budget can be provided on site. Staff has recommended the Board consider as part of MS‐20‐03
whether applicants should be required to prioritize providing landscaping towards the overall landscaping
plan or on individual sites once minimum landscaping requirements are met. Staff considers the Board the
decision on MS‐20‐03 will apply to this project at the next stage of review.
6. Staff notes the Board generally requires applicants to meet minimum interior parking lot landscaping on
sites where parking is significantly altered from existing conditions. Depending on the results of the
above discussion pertaining to parking, Staff considers the applicant may be required to comply with
minimum interior landscaping and shade tree requirements.
#SD‐20‐15
Staff Comments
5
5 of 5
Low Impact Development
The City Stormwater section provided the following comment on April 23, 2020.
The information provided is sufficient for sketch plan review. In a future application, please provide
all necessary information outlined in 12.03D of the City’s Land Development Regulations, so that
compliance with the City’s stormwater Management Standards can be evaluated.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, compatibility with
the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, and public infrastructure.
Fire Protection
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 4/23/2020 and noted that it appears the Fire Department Connection
(FDC) is obstructed by landscaping.
7. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to identify the location of the FDC to allow evaluation
of the Fire Chief’s comments.
OTHER
Signage
8. The applicant has shown a potential sign location on their plans. Staff notes signage is reviewed under
a separate ordinance and may not be included on DRB plans. Staff further recommends the applicant
and the airport meet with Planning and Zoning Staff to review allowed signage, as there are tight
restrictions on the number of signs allowed for a single property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner