HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04A_SD-20-22_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_PP FP_memo
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐20‐22 1200 Airport Drive Preliminary and Final Plat Application
DATE: September 15, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
Burlington International Airport & BTV Hotel, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking
preliminary and final plat approval 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.
At the July 21, 2020 hearing, the Board began the hearing but did not complete review of all applicable criteria.
Before continuing the hearing, the Board provided feedback to the applicant that they should revise their plans
to retain a greater number of existing trees. The applicant has made modification to reflect this request, and
the initial section of these Staff comments reflect the updated plans. The remainder of staff comments
included herein are unchanged from the July 21 staff comments.
14.07 Site Plan Review Standards
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 $10,000,0001. The required minimum landscape value is
1 The updated 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
2
therefore tentatively $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 updated landscaping memo proposes the removal of 27 mature trees, including a number within
the City ROW. Existing trees are shown on sheet LA100, though their size and species are not indicated as
required by the LDR. The current proposal represents a reduction from 35 trees which were originally proposed
to be removed. Many of the trees proposed to be removed are in the area where the applicant is proposing to
straighten the recreation path along the front of the property. This recreation path is partially in the City ROW
and partially within airport property, and is largely maintained by the airport. The proposed straightened path
will be entirely within the City ROW.
1. The purpose of the realigned path appears to be to create a larger “front yard” for the airport hotel. Staff considers
the user experience of having a recreation path meander along the front of the hotel to be equally, if not more,
appealing, than having a large lawn area and recommends the Board direct the applicant to retain the path in
it’s current alignment, yielding a more interesting path and retention of a greater number of mature trees. As
previously stated, 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.
2. The applicant continues to calculate replacement value based on original planted size. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to update their calculations to reflect the size at the time of removal and provide
commensurate replacement landscaping.
As the Board is aware, the applicant has obtained approval #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.”
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. Trees and shrubs represent only 40% of the proposed landscaping value.
#SD‐20‐22
3
3. With consideration for the additional required value for replacement trees, Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to use the approved elements of #MS‐20‐01 rather than providing additional landscaping on site.
4. Staff further recommends the Board review the proposed planting plan and determine if the proposed pavers,
stone wall, ornamental grasses and perennials further the landscaping purpose, and where they do not, require
the applicant to provide landscaping approved in #MS‐20‐01 in lieu of those elements of the landscaping plan
which do not further the landscaping purpose.
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
(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.
#SD‐20‐22
4
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 on July 21.
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. Otherwise they did
not indicate any issues with the plans.
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.
5. Staff considers pedestrian safety is not impacted by this reduction. However, Staff recommends the Board
discuss with the applicant why they believe the reduction is necessary. Staff considers a reduction of 2.75 feet
to be significant and likely to result in unsafe parking conditions, and recommends the Board require the
applicant to reduce the requested modification.
#SD‐20‐22
5
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.
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?
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 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).
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the numbering on the second C‐114 for
recordkeeping purposes.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the EPSC plans or notes to reflect the
permanent stabilization timelines of Article 16.
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.
#SD‐20‐22
6
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.
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, 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 use a new 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.
#SD‐20‐22
7
(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
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.
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.
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.
#SD‐20‐22
8
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