HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SP-21-018_1200 Airport Dr_Terminal#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
1
1 of 8
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-21-018_1200 Airport Dr_Terminal_2021-06-01.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 26, 2021
Plans received: April 23, 2021
1200 Airport Drive
Site Plan Application #SP-21-018
Meeting date: June 1, 2021
Owner/Applicant
City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport
C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation
1200 Airport Drive, Box 1
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000-0000_C
Airport District
777.84 acres
Location Map
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
2
2 of 8
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP-21-018 of Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved
plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing an approximately 33,440 (gross) sf
two-story addition to the south end of the existing airport terminal, 1200 Airport Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The most recent amendment to the airport PUD was to construct a small addition on the south side of
the Beta building, located south of the terminal. The airport has also obtained approval to construct a
hotel north of the existing parking garage, a larger addition on the north side of the Beta building, and
an addition for Heritage Aviation, also south of the terminal. Zoning permits have been issued for the
Beta approvals. The hotel and Heritage Aviation projects are on hold at this time.
The Board reviewed sketch plan application SD-21-09 for this project on April 6, 2021.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 4/23/2021 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The Project is located in the Airport district. Development within this district must be reviewed
pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards.
Based on the sketch plan review, Staff considers there are no triggers for PUD or subdivision review,
therefore this applicant is being reviewed as a site plan.
As described by the applicant, this project is to support a reconfiguration of the internal operations
within the airport terminal building. The proposed addition is located in an area currently paved and
within the airport security fence. While the applicant is considering a long-term overall terminal
expansion, which may have more impacts, Staff considers the impacts of the current proposal to be
limited.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
√ Min. Lot Size 3 ac 942 ac No change
√ Max. Building Coverage 30 % Unknown +16,720 sf new
√ Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 34.4% 34.4%1
√ Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Unknown No change
√ Min. Side Setback 35 ft. Unknown No change
√ Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. N/A N/A
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
3
3 of 8
√ Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown No change
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Unknown 36 ft.
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested
1. The applicant indicated in their application form that the lot coverage is unchanged. However,
Staff estimates 6,500 sf of impervious is being removed and replaced with landscaping in front
of the building. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify what the change in
impervious is for the purpose of accurate recordkeeping both for this permit and for the City’s
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. Staff further recommends the Board
ask the applicant to clarify whether the provided values include approved but not yet
construction projects (in particular, the airport hotel).
The maximum allowable height for a flat roof building in the airport district is 35 feet. The applicant
is proposing the addition to be 36 feet high. Development in the airport district is eligible for a
height waiver outside of PUD review as follows.
3.07D(2) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the
limitations set forth in Table C-2. For each foot of additional height, all front and rear setbacks
shall be increased by one (1) foot and all side setbacks shall be increased by one half (1/2) foot.
The building is set back more than 300 ft from the front lot line and more than 1,000 ft from any side
lot line. Staff considers the proposed height to be allowable under this provision.
Airport District Additional Standards
All applications within the AIR District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05
and the following additional standards:
(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 FAA approval for the
proposed height. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide demonstration of
approval of the proposed project by FAA as a condition of approval.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site Plan or PUD review required
The application is being reviewed as a site plan. 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
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
4
4 of 8
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
14.06 General Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies
for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The project consists of a building expansion associated with an existing use which is proposed to continue.
The project is located within the Northeast Quadrant in the Plan. Staff considers this criterion to be met.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from
structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and
adequate parking areas.
The applicant has submitted architectural elevations of the new proposed facades (west, south, and
east). At the far left of the west façade, the applicant shows the edge of the existing façade where it
will adjoin the new building addition. The new addition has similar windows and siding type to the
existing building, with the addition also having a granite veneer along the base of the building. There
are proposed to be awnings over the windows.
2. Though Staff considers it appears this criterion may be met, Staff recommends the Board request
the applicant provide renderings to clarify the scale of the proposed elements, including the
proposed exterior “fins” and sun shades.
(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.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one
or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board
shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act;
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
5
5 of 8
(ii) – (vii) N/A
No parking changes are proposed as part of this application.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
The applicant has submitted an architectural elevation, a landscaping elevation, and two context
photos in support of this criterion. See discussion under 14.06B(1) above.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision
of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
No changes to access are proposed. At sketch, the applicant indicated they intentionally made the
architecture of the addition complimentary to the existing building but without awnings so as not to
detract from the main entrance. Staff considers this criterion met.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
The electrical service to the building is proposed to be underground. The transformer will be located in
the same location as an existing transformer. The transformer is proposed to be screened. Additional
discussion is under landscaping below. Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
The applicant is proposing a screened dumpster enclosure at the southern corner of the project area. No
information about the screening has been provided.
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide specific information about how the
dumpster will be screened prior to closing the hearing.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
A. Purpose. The City of South Burlington recognizes the importance of trees, vegetation, and well-
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
6
6 of 8
planned green spaces in bringing nature into the city and using these as a resource in promoting the
health, safety, and welfare of city residents through improved drainage, water supply recharge,
flood control, air quality, sun control, shade, and visual relief. Landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and planned unit development review. Street tree planting
shall be required for all public streets in a subdivision or planned unit development. In evaluating
landscaping, screening, and street tree plan requirements, the Development Review Board shall
promote the retention of existing trees while encouraging the use of recommended plant species.
In making its decisions, the Development Review Board may refer to the Vermont Tree Selection
Guide, published by the Vermont Urban & Community Forestry Program and/or the
recommendation of the City Arborist.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and
screening is required for all uses subject to site plan and planned unit development review. The
minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations.
The 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 applicant has submitted site plan application #SP-21-
020 providing detailed design of landscaping at the northeast corner of the intersection of Airport
Drive and Williston Road as required under MS-20-01, which will be reviewed by the Board at their
June 15 meeting. Based on the submitted materials, the total cost of the building addition is
estimated at $13,286,271 by the applicant.
13.06G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require
minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-9 below. In evaluating landscaping
requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced.
Table 13-9 (modified to include project calculations)
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
Cost of proposed project
$0 - $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional over $500,000 1% $127,862.71
Minimum Landscaping $ $140,362.71
The applicant has proposed $106,885 in landscaping features, as follows.
Trees and Shrubs $34,220
Grasses $14,095
Hardscape $58,570
4. Staff recommends the Board review the provided landscaping plan and determine whether to
allow the grasses and hardscape as credit towards the minimum required landscaping. The
relevant provision of the LDR is as follows.
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
7
7 of 8
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.
Depending on the Board’s determination on the above, the applicant has between $33,477.71 and
$106,142.71 of landscaping to locate in the areas approved in #MS-21-01. While the most
conservative approach would be to continue this hearing until it has been demonstrated that the
minimum required landscaping has been provided, Staff considers a condition of this approval can
be drafted which restricts the applicant from obtaining a zoning permit for this terminal expansion
project until such time as the required minimum off-site landscaping has been approved. Though it
is premature to discuss the substance of #SP-21-020, as it has not been warned for this date, Staff
notes that #SP-21-020 has a total estimated cost of $116,954, greater than the maximum required
off-site landscaping of $106,142.71 for this approval. The work proposed in #SP-21-020 does not
include phasing. #MS-20-01 allows costs beyond the required minimum to be “banked” for future
use, therefore Staff recommends the Board condition this approval on approval and concurrent off-
site construction of the remainder of the required $140,362.71 landscaping not provided on site, as
established in #MS-20-01.
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on May 19, 2021 and offers the following additional comments.
• The narrow southern end of the island has pretty minimal soil volume to support tree
growth. If trees are to be planted in this location, Honeylocust will probably fare better than
River Birch due to the reflected heat from the pavement
• Planting Details and Specs should be included
Tree Protection Plan
• Crown Pruning-pruning the crown to compensate for root loss is an outdated treatment and
is not recommended
• Lowering the grade in the tree protection zone should be avoided. If minimal excavation is
absolutely essential, excavation should be done using an air spade or air knife to minimize
root damage
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the landscape
arborist prior to closing the hearing. Staff notes that River Birch have been presented as the central
unifying element of the landscaping design and recommends the Board direct the applicant to find a
creative way to address the comment rather than removing the trees entirely.
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.
No waivers aside from height, discussed above, are required.
#SP-21-18
Staff Comments
8
8 of 8
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 Stormwater Section reviewed the application on May 20, 2021 and offered that the applicant is
sending stormwater to an existing infiltration system and providing a slight reduction in impervious. Staff
considers this criterion met.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
No changes to roadways, parking, or circulation are proposed.
OTHER
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
Regarding short term parking, for the proposed approximately 33,440 sf addition, the required
minimum additional short term bicycle parking is 7 spaces.
Approval #SD-19-07, for the Quick Turn Around facility, allowed the applicant to address bicycle parking
standards for the general area of the airport terminal, which includes the Quick Turn Around Facility and
appurtenant buildings, the terminal building, the air traffic control complex and the proposed hotel. The
applicant has installed the approved short-term parking.
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an updated accounting of the required
and provided number of bicycle parking spaces, both short and long term, and calculate whether
additional spaces are required as part of this application. If additional spaces are required, the
applicant should provide a plan showing where the additional spaces will be provided.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner