Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-18-10 - Supplemental - 1200 Airport Drive#SD-18-10 Staff Comments CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: April 112018 SD-18-10_1200 Airport Dr —Burlington Itl Airport_Sk_2018- Plans received: March 8, 2018 04-17.docx 1200 Airport Drive Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-10 Meeting date: April 17, 2018 Owner/Applicant Co Applicant Burlington International Airport BTV Hotel LLC. C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation C/O Donald Wells 1200 Airport Drive, Box 1 277 Blair Park Road, Suite 130 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Williston, VT 05495 Propertv Information Tax Parcel 2000-0000 C Airport District 777.84 acres Location Vlap PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proiect Contact Rabideau Architects 550 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Sketch plan application #SD-18-10 of Burlington International Airport & BTV Hotel, LLC to amend a southburlington PLANNING & ZONING 1of4 #SD-18-10 Staff Comments previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 105 room hotel near the southern end of the existing parking garage, 1200 Airport Drive. 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. COMMENTS Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Marla Keene ("Staff") have reviewed the plans submitted on 3/8/2018 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board's attention are in red. CONTEXT 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 is as follows. Airport uses. Fixed- and rotary -wing operations together with retail sales and service operations related to public, private, and general aviation, including aircraft sales, repair, and storage, commercial shipping and storage, restaurants, rental vehicles, and other uses designed to serve aviation passengers and industry. Staff considers that the Board should support the categorization of the hotel to fall under "other uses designed to serve aviation passengers and industry" if the project is designed and located in such a manner as to be clearly oriented to serve those clients. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant describe how they believe they've met this test. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions The applicant has not provided sufficient information to evaluate building, overall or front setback coverage. From the provided site plan, it appears that the proposed hotel extends into the 50-foot setback. 2. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that the front yard setback on Airport Drive is 50 feet. 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 52 feet high. Development in the airport district is eligible for a height waiver as follows. (a) 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 (112) foot. (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 southourlinaon PLANNING & ZONING 2of4 #SD-18-10 Staff Comments 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. (c) Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations, that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C-2 may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses. Such structures do not need to comply with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) above. Without providing additional front and side yard setbacks, the DRB must review a structure which exceeds the maximum height of 35 feet as a PUD. Therefore assuming the applicant desires to move forward with their proposed height, Staff has included a discussion of PUD review criteria below. 3. Staff recommends the Board determine what information they want to see from the applicant to determine whether to grant the height wavier. 4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether the provided height includes roof appurtenances, which are allowable above the maximum height but trigger conditional review. Airport 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. 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. The applicant is proposing to use the existing parking garage as parking for the hotel. Staff considers that though there are no specific parking requirements for airports in the LDRs, previous applications rely on a parking needs assessment to demonstrate that there are sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the demand generated by the uses present on the airport property. 5. Staff considers that the applicant must update the parking needs assessment to reflect the current uses and anticipated demand, and to demonstrate that the existing parking has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed hotel. The roof height of the adjoining parking garage is 57.5 feet. Staff considers the proposed hotel to be roughly compatible in scale with the adjoining parking garage. The proposed structure is a combination of southburlington PLANNING & ZONING 3of4 #SD-18-10 Staff Comments brick and natural stone, which is also generally consistent with the adjoining parking garage. 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. The Deputy Fire Chief has indicated that he reviewed the project with the applicant and requested the inclusion of a fire lane as shown on the plans. He also indicated that he has no concerns with making the fire lane less direct as long as it remains straight along the building, and that he would support construction of the fire lane using permeable pavers. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation LDR Section 15.12 pertains to standards for roadways, parking and circulation. The Board has the authority to require pedestrian easements through PUDs to facilitate pedestrian circulation within the PUD. Staff considers that the proposed restaurant in the hotel may draw pedestrians from the surrounding neighborhood. Further, if the proposed hotel primarily serves airport users, a defined and safe pedestrian route from the hotel to the terminal is needed. 6. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant how the proposed plan facilitates pedestrian circulation from the surrounding neighborhood to the hotel and from the hotel to the terminal. 7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the required fire lane could be amenitized as an open space area to create less of a back alley feel. The use of pavers may support this goal. 8. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant how vehicles dropping off or picking up at the hotel but not parking in the garage will move through the proposed hotel area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting. Respectfully submitted, 1 J Marla Keene, Development Review Planner southburlinoon PLANNING & ZONING 4of4