HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SD-18-32_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_QTA_sk_SC#SD‐18‐32
Staff Comments
1
1 of 4
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐18‐32_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl
Airport_QTA_sk_2019‐01‐15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 11, 2019
Plans received: November 30, 2018
1200 Airport Drive
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐33
Meeting date: January 15, 2018
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
Architect
PGAL
1425 Ellworth Industrial Dr #15
Atlanta, GA 30318
Location Map
#SD‐18‐32
Staff Comments
2
2 of 4
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐32 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a
previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of: 1) razing an existing car
wash facility, 2) constructing a new 7,990 sq. ft. auto rental car wash facility, and 3) constructing a 2,353
sq. ft. six position fueling canopy, 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 approved a larger version of this project in 2016 (#SD‐16‐10). At that
time, the proposed building was approximately 30% larger and involved twice as many fueling positions.
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. Auto rental with private
accessory car wash & fueling is an allowed use. All applications for development within the AIR district
must be reviewed pursuant to the site plan provisions of Article 14 unless the PUD or subdivision
provisions control.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
The applicant has represented that the proposed facility will not result in a change to overall lot coverage,
which the applicant estimates to be 34%. The maximum allowable lot coverage for this district is 50%. The
applicant has not provided an estimate of building coverage for existing or proposed conditions. The
maximum allowable building coverage for this district is 30%. Staff considers it unlikely the building
coverage exceeds the maximum allowable.
Historically, the Board has allowed the airport to provide estimated coverage calculations as long as it is
demonstrably well within the allowable maximums due to the overall size of the property. Staff
recommends the Board discuss whether they would like the applicant to provide existing and proposed
building coverages.
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
#SD‐18‐32
Staff Comments
3
3 of 4
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.
Parking
The proposed facility will remove approximately 45 parking spaces from the lot accessed via White Street.
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.
Staff considers that the applicant must update the parking needs assessment to reflect the current uses and
anticipated demand, and to demonstrate that the remaining parking has sufficient capacity to serve the
existing uses with the proposed reduction in parking. Staff recommends the Board specifically discuss with
the applicant the current use of the parking spaces to be removed, and where those vehicles will be parked
in the future.
Traffic
The proposed facility includes staging for 159 cars, with an additional 37 parking spaces around the
perimeter. The applicant has indicated the facility will be used only by the car rental agencies and will be
closed to the public. The existing facility appears to have approximately the same vehicle capacity based on
Staff review of aerial imagery. The applicant has provided the following information pertaining to traffic.
The improvements to the QTA site do not correlate to additional trips as the rental car market
(number of transactions) remains the same regardless of additional capacity. The ready/return
spaces in the garage has not changed. A reduction in traffic, trips and vehicle miles travelled will
be achieved due the fact that with additional storage capacity vehicles will not have to be moved
as frequently during peak periods. A traffic study prepared for the original Rental Car QTA
project is attached. The basis of the original report is not effected by the facility redesign.
Staff has included the traffic study in the packet for the Board. Based on the information provided, Staff
does not have concerns about the potential increase in trips generated by the facility.
Compatibility with Adjoining Buildings and Area
The applicant has submitted architectural renderings demonstrating that the façade treatment will be
compatible with the existing adjacent parking garage. They have also provided a conceptual landscaping
plan which proposes to locate the required landscaping on airport owned land in two locations: west of
Airport Drive and south of the main airport public entrance, and west of Airport Drive and north of White
Street. Staff considers the Board has historically allowed Applicants with well‐vegetated sites to plant
landscaping within the PUD, but the proposed locations are outside the PUD.
Staff recommends the Board consider the Applicant’s proposal, and discuss how the landscaping should be
configured to best provide screening of the facility from adjacent properties.
#SD‐18‐32
Staff Comments
4
4 of 4
Low Impact Development
The Stormwater section reviewed the plans on December 26, 2018 and indicated that the applicant must
submit information indicating how the proposed changes will impact previously approved stormwater
treatment system, including, but not limited to, drainage area maps, calculations, HydroCAD models as
part of the next application. The applicant has indicated they are working with the Stormwater Section
to satisfy these concerns.
Staff notes that final materials relied upon to make a determination of compliance with the LDRs must
also be submitted to Planning and Zoning in order to be incorporated into the decision.
Staff reminds the applicant that snow storage areas must be shown on subsequent submissions.
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.
Fire
The Deputy Fire Chief has indicated that the fire marshal’s office approval has been expired for two years
and the applicant must re‐apply. The applicant has indicated they are preparing a new application for
approval by the Fire Marshal’s office and they expect to submit this during the week of January 7th.
Solid Waste
Staff notes the solid waste handling facilities are not shown on the provided plan and reminds the
applicant they will need to include the information on the next submission.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Appendix A.3 pertains to noise. The applicant has indicated that based on information provided by
Station Managers, the typical hours of operation for the facility are 8:00 AM – 10:00 PM daily. It is
possible that operations could extend past 10:00 PM under high demand situations, and consequently
the applicant is requesting the facility be permitted to operate 24 hours day/7 days per week.
Staff considers Appendix A does not have any standards which pertain to hours of operation and hours of
operation are outside the jurisdiction of the DRB, but noises generated by the facility may not exceed the
decibel standards in A.3(b) between midnight and 8AM. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to
request the applicant provide noise level forecasts as part of the next application for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner