HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SP-19-35_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Intl Airport_garage_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐35_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Intl
Airport_garage_2019‐10‐01.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 27, 2019
Application received: September 13, 2019
1200 Airport Drive
Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐35
Meeting date: October 1, 2019
Applicant & Owner
City of Burlington, Burlington International Airport
1200 Airport Drive #1
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
55 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID 2000‐0000C
Airport Zoning District
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Continued site plan application #SP‐19‐35 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to
amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a
5,400 sq. ft. addition to an existing maintenance building to provide covered storage for snow removal
equipment, 1200 Airport Drive.
CONTEXT
The applicant was scheduled to be heard on October 1, 2019. Due to scheduling issues related to the
Board, the application was continued to October 15. On October 4, the applicant met with Staff to discuss
issues raised in the October 1 Staff comments and to develop a plan to address those comments. The
applicant has not provided revised materials at the time of this writing, but the below red highlighted
comments note the applicants proposed approach. In all cases, Staff recommends the Board discuss the
item with the applicant, as no resolution has yet been presented.
The applicant is proposing a 90 ft by 60 ft pre‐engineered steel addition to the existing building. The
proposed use of the building will be for covered storage of the airport’s snow removal equipment. The
addition will have four 20 ft by 14 ft overhead doors. The proposed addition will adjoin the existing
maintenance garage. The maximum height will be equal to the height of the existing garage, though the
addition will have a sloped roof. The addition is proposed to be located in an existing gravel area currently
used for maintenance vehicle parking, and involves the construction of a subsurface stormwater
infiltration feature.
This project is subject to review under the Land Development Regulation Standards covering the Airport
District, 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards, Section 14.06 General Review Standards, Section
14.07 Specific Review Standards, and Appendix A Performance Standards
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner have
reviewed the plans submitted on September 13, 2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered
items for the Board’s attention are in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Airport Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 3 ac 942 ac No change
Max. Building Coverage 30 % Unknown No change
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 34.3% 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
Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown No change
Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. Unknown No change
√ Zoning Compliance
1. Staff notes this calculation does not appear correct as it adds 5,400 sf of impervious, equal to
the area of the building, while the provided stormwater modeling shows a reduction in
impervious of 483 sf. The applicant has acknowledged this error and stated they will provide
corrected values as necessary.
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
AIRPORT DISTRICT 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.
2. The applicant has not provided documentation of compliance from the applicable regulatory entities
responsible for airport approach cones. Staff recommends the Board request documentation of
compliance with these criteria prior to concluding the hearing. The applicant has stated they will
have submitted for FAA approval prior to the continued hearing. The FAA has 45 days to respond. If
the applicant demonstrates submission, Staff recommends the DRB include a condition requiring
approval prior to issuance of the zoning permit.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site plan or PUD review required. Development according to industrial and airport district
regulations shall be subject to site plan or planned unit development review
Site plan standards are addressed below.
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.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation
(1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the
presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance
(defined as no further than one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of these districts). Any
requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal
agreements acceptable to the City Attorney.
(2) Parking shall be placed to the side or rear of the structures if possible.
(3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number
of curb cuts onto the public roadway.
(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
The proposed facility will not affect formal parking areas. The proposed facility will provide for
indoor parking of maintenance vehicles. Staff considers this criterion met.
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).
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
Staff considers this criterion not applicable due to the Project’s location within the interior of the
airport property.
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
3. The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent provided comments to the applicant on their
proposed oil water separator by email on September 27, 2019, but otherwise by verbal
conversation indicated the stormwater system appears to meet the requirements of 12.03.
The applicant provided updated materials to the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent on
October 8. Staff anticipates they will have an update at the time of the hearing.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.6 General Review Standards
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
review standards for all site plan applications:
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 is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive
plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are
compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource
conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant. Staff considers that
the proposed use is compatible with the airport. The site is not located in the south end of the
quadrant. The land use policy for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐residential.
Staff considers this criterion 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 building addition is proposed to be constructed of pre‐engineered steel. Based on
available imagery, the existing maintenance building is slightly visible to the public from the
end of Customs Drive, and is constructed of what appears to be EFIS or stucco. It is adjacent
to an existing brick maintenance building, and other buildings on Customs Drive appear to be
constructed of vertical steel panels. Staff is not particularly concerned about the construction
of the building except to ensure the materials are high‐quality and long lasting. The applicant
has not proposed any plantings, which is discussed under 14.07D below. As there is no new
interaction with the public right of way, Staff considers pedestrian movement to be not
applicable. The proposed addition does appear to result in the removal of four existing
parking spaces on the west side of the existing maintenance building.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss ask the applicant for what those four parking spaces are
used, and discuss whether their removal will be detrimental to the adequacy of parking areas.
The applicant has stated they will be prepared to provide a narrative description of parking at
the hearing.
(2) Parking:
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
(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.
No new parking is proposed. Staff considers the parking to be removed is located to the front
of the building relative to Customs Drive.
(2) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and
scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining
buildings.
The 5,400 sq. ft. expansion is proposed to be the same height as the existing building it will be
added on to, with a sloped roof. The resulting building will be in similar size to adjacent buildings.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
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.
Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.
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.
5. The project requires one existing overhead utility pole to be relocated. Staff considers the scale of the
project does not warrant the utilities being located underground. Staff recommends the Board discuss
whether the overhead electric should be located underground. The applicant has indicated they will
review with GMP what it would require to relocate the utilities underground, and be prepared to
provide an update at the hearing.
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 not proposing any new solid waste handling facilities. Staff considers this criterion met
as part of prior site plan applications.
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‐
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,
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
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 total cost of the building is estimated at $250,000 by the applicant,
requiring a minimum of $7,500 in new landscaping. 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 13.06G(3) are not reduced. At recent site plan hearings for the airport, the Board
indicated they were willing to consider locations for landscaping not immediately adjacent to
proposed buildings, when it was illogical to locate landscaping at the building itself.
6. The applicant has not proposed any landscaping. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to provide the minimum required landscaping value in trees and shrubs.
Staff has encouraged the applicant to develop a landscape “master plan” which they can add to
each time they develop another project within the Airport PUD. The applicant has indicated they
will do this prior to the next application, but they wish to enhance an existing landscape area for
this project. They have not yet provided a landscaping proposal.
13.06B(6) Snow Storage
Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for erosion
and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
7. The applicant has not shown snow storage on the provided site plan. Staff recommends the
Board discuss this with the applicant.
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.
Staff considers that no modification of standards is necessary.
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
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
See discussion of stormwater management standards above.
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. The applicant has illustrated on their site plan how vehicle circulation
will operate at the proposed building addition.
8. Staff recommends the Board review the circulation but require the applicant to remove the arrows from
the plan as a condition of approval to prevent confusion as to whether the arrows need to be painted on
the ground.
SECTION 12.02 WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS
These standards apply to all lands within 50‐feet of a wetland.
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
The applicant is proposing an unknown square footage of Class II wetland buffer impacts. The
buffer is being impacted for the purpose of grading and a new stormwater outfall.
(2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3)
below.
9. The applicant has not submitted any information indicating the State DEC has approved the
impacts. The applicant has indicated they intend to submit to the State DEC for approval as
an allowed use prior to the continued hearing. Staff recommends the Board require evidence
of this request being made prior to closing the hearing, and that the Board require issuance of
the State DEC permit prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
(3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,
may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development,
erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and
landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
The proposed impacts are a small portion of the overall wetland. Staff considers this criterion
met.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
The encroachment does not adversely affect the stormwater treatment system. Staff
considers this criterion met.
#SP‐19‐35
Staff Comments
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified
in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate
landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
10. The applicant has not provided a field delineation or wetland report, therefore Staff considers
this criterion cannot be evaluated at this time. The applicant has indicated they will provide
information on functions and values of the wetlands to allow the Board to evaluate whether
they’re impacted.
OTHER
16.03 Standards for Erosion Control during Construction
The applicant has included erosion control measures as part of their submitted site plan. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to amend their erosion control notes to comply with the
requirement to stabilize exposed soil within 48 hours of final grading.
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
For this use, the applicant is required to provide one short term bicycle parking space for every 20,000
gross square feet of building area, or a minimum of two. At recent site plan hearings for the airport, the
applicant and the Board agreed it would make sense to address bicycle parking for the airport PUD in a
few discrete areas, as work in each area is proposed. This represents the first site plan application for the
Aviation Avenue area.
11. Staff considers the minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for this application is two, with two
long‐term bicycle parking spaces (two per tenant, required for a building expansion of more than 5,000
sf), but encourages the Board to discuss with the applicant the bicycle parking approach for the
Aviation Avenue area as a whole as agreed upon in the previous PUD amendment (#SD‐19‐07). The
applicant has indicated they only own two buildings; the maintenance building and the Aviatron
building southeast of the maintenance garage, and they intend to provide one inverted‐U type rack
outside and provide locking storage for two bicycles inside. Staff considers the Board should require
the applicant to indicate where the bicycle parking will be located prior to closing the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner