HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-16 - Supplemental - 1200 Airport DriveCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-24-16_1200 Airport Dr_BTV Airport Proj
Next_SK_2024-09-04
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 28, 2024
Application received: July 8, 2024
1200 AIRPORT DRIVE
MASTER PLAN SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-24-16
Meeting date: September 4, 2024
Owners/Applicants
City of Burlington
Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport
1200 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Hoyle Tanner
150 Dow Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID: 2000-00000
Parcel Size: 901.6 acres
Airport, Airport Industrial Zoning Districts
Location Map
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan sketch plan application #SD-24-16 of City of Burlington, Patrick Leahy Burlington
International Airport to establish a master plan for an approximately 901.6-acre existing airport
complex. The master plan includes six projects over 21.8 acres and consists of a 28,000 sf north
terminal expansion, a 4.0 acre multi-use path, a 8.3 acre maintenance complex with 41,500 sf
building, a 3.4 acre apron expansion, a 2.3 acre project involving hangar and apron expansion, and
a 25,000 sf south terminal expansion, 1200 Airport Drive.
PROJECT CONTEXT
As a project in two or more phases over the course of three or more years, the airport must obtain
master plan approval by the DRB. Staff also calls the Board’s attention the fact that the DRB may
also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract or parcel of land where there exists clear
potential for future growth and development beyond that presented in an application, as necessary
to establish physical and functional connections between areas of proposed and potential future
development.
The applicant has already submitted a multi-use path and a maintenance complex improvement
project to the DRB for review. This master plan incorporates the previously-reviewed multi-use
path and presents a new modified proposal for the maintenance complex location.
On August 22, City Council warned the draft LDR amendments for public hearing on September
16, 2024. These draft regulations are in effect for complete applications submitted on or after that
date, pending Council adoption1. As the Master Plan would be subject to these new regulations,
staff has reviewed this application against the draft amendments, which differ from the previous
LDR in organization but not significantly in detail for commercial projects.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, herein
after referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant on July 8, 2024 and
offer the following comments:
A) 15.B Master Plan Review
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process
A. Sketch Plan Review.
Sketch plan review is required for all Master Plans. The applicant has submitted a
comprehensive cover letter describing each component of the master plan, broken down by
phase.
Phase 1 (2024): North Concourse replacement project – to include an expansion of the existing
terminal building in an area largely shielded from view of the public by the existing terminal.
(2025): Recreation Path – Staff understands this path is consistent with what the Board
1 24 VSA § 4449(d) provides the process for applications received during this period.
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
3
reviewed and approved as an overall landscape plan in MS-20-01. The airport has determined
construction of a portion of this path to be necessary to meet the required landscaping budget
for most proposed building construction
Phase 2 (2025): Maintenance complex – the applicant is referring to this as the Snow Removal
Equipment Building, which is described as a 41,500 sf building. The applicant has indicated
this phase is 8.3 acres.
1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the remaining components
of this phase that result in a less than one acre building consisting of an 8.3 acre
project.
This phase is proposed to be located at the north end of the main runway (runway 15-33)
Phase 3 (2026): Apron Expansion - This project is proposed to be located at the south end of
minor runway (runway 1-19). The applicant has described this phase as 3.4 acres but has
proposed a 7,400 square yard expansion, which is 4.6 acres.
2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify the project area. Staff further
recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify in layperson terms what the purpose
of a cargo apron expansion is.
Hangar expansion – This project is proposed to be located between the south ends of the two
runways. The applicant has indicated this phase includes expanding the existing hangar and
apron and relocating a parking lot.
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide a “napkin sketch” of this
phase, similar to that which was provided for the above Apron Expansion.
South Terminal expansion – This project involves a 25,000 sf extension of the south end of the
existing terminal to the south. This project was previewed to the Board when the terminal
expansion project was approved in SP-21-018.
4. 15.B.03A(1) requires the DRB to determine whether Master Plan review is required
under the LDR. Based on the proposed multiple phases, Staff recommends the Board
determine that Master Plan is required by taking a motion (and second) and voting on
this element of the sketch plan only. Suggested motion:
“I move that the three phase project presented in sketch plan application #SD-24-16 be
subject to master plan review.”
C. Combined Review.
Master plan review is required prior to or in association with preliminary subdivision review,
or site plan review if no subdivision of land is proposed. The DRB may simultaneously review
the Master Plan with any area proposed for preliminary subdivision or site plan review, but
must issue separate findings of fact, and any conditions of approval, specific to each type of
review.
The applicant has indicated it is their intention to seek concurrent site plan review for Phase 1,
consisting of north concourse replacement project, referred to as Project NEXT. The applicant
has accordingly submitted sketch plan level details for Phase 1 as part of this sketch plan
application.
5. That project will require site amenity and landscaping. Staff recommends the Board
ask the applicant to describe how they will meet those requirements, and if they will be
addressed with the proposed recreation path, direct the applicant to submit the
recreation path application concurrently with the concourse replacement application.
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
4
E. Neighborhood Meeting.
The applicant is reminded they must conduct a neighborhood meeting in the manner
described in this section prior to the master plan hearing.
15.B.04 Review Standards
A. Findings.
To approve a Master Plan, the DRB must find that:
(3) The proposed Development Plan demonstrates the efficient, coordinated, and integrated
development and use of land which:
(b) Avoids or minimizes and mitigates the impacts of future development on environmental
resources identified for protection, as enumerated in Article 12, and as incorporated into
the overall design;
There do not appear to be regulated resources within any of the areas proposed for
improvement in the master plan.
(d) Maintains or improves street, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, and contiguous or
accessible open space with the adjoining neighborhood, and within and between each
phase of development;
Staff notes some of the proposed improvements will be within the airport security fence
while others will be outside of it. The applicant may be able to provide some insight into
whether any of these elements will be affected by the proposed improvements. Working
with the Board, the applicant developed the Overall Landscape Plan, MS-20-01, which was
designed specifically to provide this form of connectivity and open space.
(e) Avoids, or minimizes and mitigates the adverse impacts of development on adjacent
properties and uses, through the designation of transition areas or buffer areas along the
project perimeter; and
Staff considers there to be no specific need for transition or buffer areas, but recommends
the Board include a master plan finding that buffering be reviewed on a phase by phase
basis.
(f) Includes adequate standards specific to each type and phase of development, to include
guidance for the functional and aesthetic integration of development with the surrounding
neighborhood, and provisions for buffering or screening incompatible land uses;
6. Staff considers the terminal project to have the most need for integration into the
surrounding neighborhood. The recreation path and supporting features conceptually
approved in MS-20-01 may serve as a transition between the airport and surround
uses. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss how this feature may or
may not factor into their FAA approved plans for mitigating incompatible uses.
(4) The Buildout Budget sets reasonable development parameters for the entire project and
allocated for each phase of development to coordinate with the City’s planning for
infrastructure, facilities, and services;
The required Buildout Budget is discussed below under 15.B.07G. Staff considers it to be
unlikely that there will be significant impacts on public services, but will review this criterion in
greater detail at the master plan stage of review after the Buildout Budget is submitted.
(5) The Phasing Plan and Schedule:
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
5
(a) are consistent with the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program;
Staff has reviewed the 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program and there are no projects that
are in the proposed master plan area.
(b) ensure all phases of development will occur in an orderly fashion; and
The projects are non-contiguous therefore Staff has no particular concerns with this criterion.
(c) infrastructure and facility improvements necessary to support each phase of development
will be provided concurrently with such development;
7. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to include in their master plan
application whether there will be required infrastructure improvements outside of the
individual phases to support the proposed projects, including public utilities, roads,
and sidewalks. These improvements should be incorporated into the overall master
plan as part of the related phase.
(6) The Management Plan:
The applicant must submit a proposed management structure responsible for each phase of
the project. In addition, the management plan must include any property proposed for public
dedication.
8. Staff considers it likely the airport will be responsible for construction, maintenance,
and operation of all phases, and recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide
the proposed management structure for any elements not proposed to be wholly the
responsibility of the airport as part of the master plan application.
15.B.05 Master Plan Effect
The master plan, once approved, is valid for ten years from the issuance of the first zoning permit
under the master plan.
C. Effect. When granting approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall make specific findings of
which components of the Master Plan are vested, based on the type, level, and detail of
information provided in the Master Plan, and the level of review and review processes required
for subsequent applications filed under the Master Plan. The DRB may specify in its decision
allowed modifications or changes under the Master Plan which require only administrative
review and approval by the Administrative Officer.
9. This has historically been a challenging concept to convey to applicants. However,
when done well, it can significantly simplify subsequent reviews by effectively “pre-
approving” certain aspects of a project. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the
applicant for which components or elements of the project they intend to ask approval
at the master plan level. Examples include a pallet of landscaping materials and
roadway cross sections.
15.B.07 Master Plan Components
An application for master plan requires a specific set of submission requirements that have the
effect of describing the project and how it relates to the surrounding area, both in terms of natural
features and development. Specific requirements include the following, which will need to be
submitted or supplemented at the next stage of review.
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
6
A. Project Description
This submission requirement includes the overall vision for and scope of the proposed
development, as well as any requested modifications or waivers. The applicant has not
indicated their intention to seek any modifications of waivers.
B. Context Report
The applicant is required to provide a map of the existing parcels, infrastructure, and planned
improvements within ¼ mile of the project area.
10. As this is the largest parcel within the City, Staff recommends the Board discuss
whether they prefer to see a context map within the vicinity of each project, a less
detailed context map for the entire parcel, or a combination of the two.
D. Development Plan
Pursuant to 14.06C, the applicant will be required to provide site amenities for any new
buildings or building expansions over 5,000 sf, based on 6% of the non-residential building
gross floor area. Only 50% of the required site amenity area may located off-site, and only if it
is accessible to the general public and located within 500-ft of at least one pedestrian access
point for the building requiring the site amenity.
11. Given the uniqueness of the airport, Staff recommends the Board and applicant discuss
what is considered “on site” in this instance. Is the land owned by the airport where
the recreation path and other improvements of MS-20-01 are approved “on site”?
Certain projects within this master plan will be entirely within the security fence and
options for meeting site amenities will be limited.
F. Summary Statistics
At the master plan level of review, the applicant must provide numeric values for total lot area,
area of each phase, and total buildable area. The remaining required statistics pertain to
streets and housing units and Staff considers them to be not applicable.
G. Buildout Analysis and Budget
This submission requirement differs slightly from the summary statistics above in that it
pertains to the applicants’ development program as opposed to the characteristics of the site.
It includes values for trip generations, water/wastewater demand, impervious surface, and
stormwater runoff. Staff notes that a master plan is valid for 10 years, therefore the budget
should include future growth over time.
B) Site Plan Review Standards
The application involves a sketch plan application for Phase 1 of the master plan, consisting of the
north concourse replacement project and the recreation path. Sketch plan review is not required,
but the applicant has requested sketch plan review, therefore Staff has provided a review of article
14 Site Plan Review Standards, as well as applicable standards of Articles 3 and 13, below.
The applicant has provided the following description of the project.
The improvements include demolishing the existing North Concourse wing, a space of
approximately 4,250 square feet, serving Gates 3, 5, 6 and 7. This will allow for a more
efficient and flexible gate layout as part of Project NEXT.
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
7
The existing North Concourse wing will be replaced with the construction of a new 3-level
building, with a footprint of 28,000 square feet. The lower level will include mechanical
rooms and space to support the movement and storage of ground service equipment. The
concourse level of this new building will include improved passenger amenities and
seating areas. The upper level will include administrative space for Leahy BTV staff and a
public viewing area with an outdoor space. The new building will be constructed adjacent
to and connecting the existing passenger walkway between the North garage and the
terminal. The existing structure will largely shield the new building from the Airport’s
terminal roadway. The parking garages will block the view of this new building entirely
from Airport Drive.
14.06 General Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
The applicant has submitted architectural renderings of the proposed project. Only a portion
of the proposed structure will be visible to the public. See existing and proposed screenshots
below.
The applicant is proposing to add a story over a portion of the existing concourse and extend it
to the north. They also appear to be proposing to modify the fence from concrete block to
metal. The renderings appear to complement to recent additions to the terminal and other
nearby projects.
12. Staff does not have any concerns about compatibility with existing structures or site,
but invites the Board to offer their comments, if any. Additionally, Staff recommends
the Board confirm the applicant’s intention to change the fence type, as the proposed
fence may require additional screening for the purposes of transitioning between
dissimilar uses pursuant to the landscaping standards of 13.04
C. Site Amenity Requirement.
For the 28,000 sf addition, 1,680 sf of site amenity is required.
(4) The DRB may, in its discretion, provide a credit for up to 50% of the required Site
Amenity area if the Applicant demonstrates a safe, walkable connection to an existing
Civic Space or public park that is accessible by the general public and located within five-
hundred (500) feet of at least one pedestrian access point for each building on the lot via a
walking route and/or pedestrian way. A “safe, walkable connection” shall not include or
require crossing a four-lane road.
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
8
If the Board considers the proposed recreation path to be on site, this standard would not
be relevant. If the Board considers it not on site, the applicant will be required to provide
50% of site amenity on site and provide a “safe walkable connection” to this phase to use
the recreation path to partially satisfy their site amenity requirement. If the Board
determines the recreation path to be off site, Staff calculates approximately 840 sf of site
amenity would be required on site for this phase.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the
placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space,
stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these
Land Development Regulations.
These criteria are included in article 13 and are discussed below.
D. Transportation Demand Management. Transportation Demand Management analysis is
required for all site plans. See Section 13.01.
A transportation demand management analysis will be required for the proposed concourse
expansion at the next stage of review. The trip generation analysis yields an evaluation of
required TDM strategies. Staff considers the applicant may have the opportunity to propose an
alternative approach for trip generation evaluation using their FAA master plan that anticipates
enplanements over the coming 10 to 25 years.
13. Regardless of approach, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide
the required evaluation of trips and TDM at the next stage of review.
E) Other
These criteria are discussed in the context of the proposed concourse expansion and recreation
path.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage
The applicant upgraded the site to meet the current bicycle parking requirements as part of
the south terminal expansion project approved in SP-21-018. Therefore they must now
provide bicycle parking spaces to meet the requirements for the proposed addition,
consisting of one short term space per 5,000 sf and one long term space per 10,000 sf. No
analysis of bicycle parking has yet been submitted.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees
Staff considers the applicable requirements of 13.04 are those pertaining to screening or
buffering between dissimilar uses and those pertaining to landscaping budget
requirements. As alluded to above, if the applicant is proposing to modify the existing
fence separating the tarmac from the airport driveway from opaque to transparent, the
Board may reuqire additoinal screening. Staff notes immediately adjacent to the terminal
building the fence is screened by the existing parking garage from the public way, and the
fence farther north where it is not screened it is currnetly transparent.
14. Staff recommends the Board provide some feedback on whether they will be looking
for robust screening where the fence is proposed to be newly transparent.
#SD-24-16 Airport Master Sketch Plan
9
15. In terms of landscaping budget, Staff anticipates the applicant will use the provisions of
miscellaneous approval MS-### to locate the required landscaping budget along the
proposed recreation path. Staff recommends the Board discss with the applicant their
intended permitting process and timeline for the required recreation path landscaping
concurrently in relationship to the concourse expansion project.
13.18 Transportation Standard and Congestion Policy
This is a new section within the revised LDR, which applies to all projects that generate 75
or more PM new peak hour trips (all modes), and requires a traffic study to evaluate the
capacity at impacted intersections. If the resulting intersection capacity is below a certain
threshold (the threshold depends on the type of intersection), mitigation is required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner