HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SD-18-33_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_SC#SD‐18‐33
Staff Comments
1
1 of 5
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐18‐33_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl
Airport_Hotel_Sk_2019‐01‐15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 11 2018
Plans received: December 12, 2018
1200 Airport Drive
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐33
Meeting date: January 15, 2018
Owner/Applicant
Burlington International Airport
C/O Mr. Gene Richards, Director of Aviation
1200 Airport Drive, Box 1
So. Burlington, VT 05403
Co Applicant
BTV Hotel LLC.
C/O Donald Wells
277 Blair Park Road, Suite 130
Williston, VT 05495
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C
Airport District
777.84 acres
Project Contact
Rabideau Architects
550 Hinesburg Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐33 of Burlington International Airport/BTV Hotel, LLC to amend a
#SD‐18‐33
Staff Comments
2
2 of 5
previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 102 room
5‐story hotel adjacent to 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.
The Development Review Board held a public meeting to review a substantially similar application on
April 17, 2018. The Applicant failed to submit an application for preliminary plat within 6 months of the
sketch plan meeting, therefore the previously reviewed sketch plan is invalid and must be reviewed by
the Board again.
This plan differs from the previous sketch plan by the removal of three rooms, refinement of the tree
preservation plan and refinement of the proposed circulation patterns.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 12/12/2018 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.
1. 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
remind the applicant that they will need to demonstrate that this test is met as part of
subsequent applications.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
The applicant has provided a plan (Sheet SP1) showing the required 50‐ft front yard setback and has
indicated they will be seeking a waiver to allow a 40‐ft front yard setback. From the provided site plan, it
appears that the adjacent existing parking garage meets the 50‐foot setback requirement.
2. Staff recommends the Board provide guidance to the applicant on what information they want to
see from the applicant to determine whether to grant the setback wavier.
#SD‐18‐33
Staff Comments
3
3 of 5
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 65 feet high. The northern end of the parking garage is 58 feet high
and the southern end adjacent to the proposed hotel is two stories lower. 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 (1/2) 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
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 (and if so what types), which are allowable above the maximum height but may
trigger review under conditional use standards.
Airport District 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 site plan review standards relate to access and circulation, utilities, waste disposal, landscaping, and
low impact development.
#SD‐18‐33
Staff Comments
4
4 of 5
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 LDRs discuss the use of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, and
visual interruptions to create transitions between buildings of different styles. The proposed structure is a
combination of brick and natural stone, which materials Staff considers are generally consistent with the
adjoining parking garage.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed hotel is compatible in scale with the
adjoining parking garage and with the adjacent residential development, or whether additional
transitional elements may be needed.
The applicant has not shown proposed landscaping on the provided plans. Staff reminds the applicant they
must show the minimum required landscaping in accordance with Table 13‐9 as part of the next application.
The applicant indicated the project cost may be on the order of ten million dollars, resulting in a required
landscaping value on the order of $100,000.
7. The Board has the flexibility to allow the applicant to provide the required landscaping anywhere on
the airport PUD, to allow some of the required landscape value as hardscape improvements and to
allow some credit for existing vegetation not approved as part of a prior site plan if they determine
that the landscaping standards are otherwise met. Staff therefore recommends the Board discuss
the overall landscaping program with the applicant as part of this meeting.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the provided plans and offers the following comment:
No information was submitted regarding stormwater. This project should comply with §12.03 of
the City’s LDRs.
Staff reminds the applicant that they will need to submit stormwater information as part of subsequent
applications.
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 reviewed the provided plans and notes that the Project will need a full review from
the Fire Marshal’s office.
The applicant has provided a roof deck at the southeast corner of the upper story.
Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation
LDR Section 15.12 pertains to standards for roadways, parking and circulation.
#SD‐18‐33
Staff Comments
5
5 of 5
The Board has the authority to require pedestrian easements through PUDs to facilitate pedestrian
circulation within the PUD. The applicant has provided a circulation diagram as part of their application
package. Circulation was a major topic at the April 2018 sketch plan meeting.
Since the proposed hotel primarily serves airport users, Staff considers a defined and safe pedestrian route
from the hotel to the terminal is needed. The proposed pedestrian connection between the hotel and
parking garage occurs on the third level. The existing pedestrian connections between the garage and the
terminal occur on the second level.
8. The applicant is proposing a crosswalk at the corner of the hotel nearest the terminal. Staff
recommends the Board review the circulation pattern and ask the applicant to describe the
potential pedestrian and vehicular movements. Of particular interest is the potential for vehicle‐
pedestrian conflicts at the new crosswalk and ground‐level pedestrian movements between the
garage and hotel.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner