HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09A_SP-18-57_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Intl Airport_Taxiway G_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐18‐57_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Intl Airport_2019‐01‐
15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 11, 2019
Application received: November 30, 2018
1200 Airport Drive
Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐57
Meeting date: January 15, 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‐18‐57
Staff Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP‐18‐57 of the City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to amend a
previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of 1) constructing an
expansion of the existing taxiway “G” for the purpose of an aircraft holding area, 2) constructing a jet
blast deflector, 3) miscellaneous taxiway turning radius improvements, and 4) stormwater
improvements, 1200 Airport Drive.
CONTEXT
In 2016/2017, the Applicant applied for site plan approval for the currently proposed project in
conjunction with relocation of taxiway “A” and reconstruction of taxiways “M” and “H”. At that time, the
Board had concerns about the ability of the taxiway “G” aircraft holding area to adhere to the performance
standards of LDR Appendix A. The Applicant ultimately withdrew their application for the taxiway “G”
portion of the work. The current application presents a reconfigured version of the 2016/2017 proposal
in which the aircrafts are aligned parallel to the adjacent Airport Drive instead of perpendicular as
previously proposed, and a blast deflector structure is proposed to separate the aircraft holding area from
the adjacent roadway.
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 November 30, 2018 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 % 33.9% 34.3%
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
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
#SP‐18‐57
Staff Comments
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.
The applicant has provided the following statement in support of these criteria.
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. certifies that the construction drawings and accompanying
specifications for this project are being prepared and will be finalized in accordance with the
Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA’s) Advisory Circulars for Airport Improvement
Projects. These final construction drawings and specifications will be stamped and signed by a
Professional Engineer(s) registered in the State of Vermont.
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider these criteria satisfied by the above
statement.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site Plan or PUD review required
B. Multiple structures and uses permitted
C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation.
Staff considers the proposed project does not affect compliance with these criteria.
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).
3.06(I) Buffer Strip for Non‐Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries.
(1) Where a new non‐residential use is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a
residential district, or where an existing non‐residential use, structure or parking area that
is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district is proposed to
be expanded, altered or enlarged, the required side or rear setback shall be increased to
sixty‐five (65) feet. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty‐five (65) foot
setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other plantings as a
screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within the fifteen (15)
foot wide buffer area.
(2) The Development Review Board may permit new or expanded nonresidential uses,
structures and/or parking areas, and new external light fixtures, within the setback
and/or buffer as set forth in (1) above, and may approve a modification of the width of the
required setback and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above. In doing so the DRB
shall find that the proposed lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to be provided adjacent
to the boundary of the residential district will provide equivalent screening of the noise,
light and visual impacts of the new non‐residential use to that which would be provided by
the standard setback and buffer requirements in (1) above. However in no case may the
required side or rear setback be reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning
district in which the non‐residential use is located.
The applicant has provided the following response in response to these criteria.
#SP‐18‐57
Staff Comments
A buffer between the existing perimeter road and the fence would violate Title 49 CFR
1542.203 Security of the Air Operations Area because we have to be able to see the
perimeter fence from the perimeter road . Any buffer, particularly the type of buffer
described in LDR Section 3.06I and copied here, “A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet
wide within the sixty‐five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens,
fencing, and/or other plantings as a screen,” would not allow for that.
A buffer would also violate our Wildlife Hazard Management Plan as directed by Title 49
CFR 139.337 Wildlife Hazard Management. In the interest of human health and safety,
we must keep the amount of edge, perching, nesting, burrowing areas, etc…, to an
absolute minimum in order to make the airfield as undesirable as possible to birds and
mammals.
Regarding the relocated section of the Perimeter Road, the attached plan shows the
westerly edge of the proposed road varying 56’ to 69’ from the airfield perimeter fence
(Zoning boundary). As explained above, a vegetated buffer cannot be created between
the road and fence, however slight shifts in portions of the road relocation may be
possible to achieve a 65’ separation distance.
Based on available aerial photography, it appears that there is limited vegetative screening
where the relocated perimeter road is within 65 feet of the residential district. Staff has included
the below annotated aerial image for clarity. Staff considers there are at least two potential
options available to the Board. The first would be to accept the Applicant’s offer to relocate the
road 65‐feet from the zoning district boundary. The second would be to allow the Applicant to
supplement the existing screening on the vacant properties, which are owned by the airport.
Staff considers the second alternative would be more consistent with the intent of these criteria.
#SP‐18‐57
Staff Comments
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the application on December 20, 2018 and provided
the applicant with comments. The applicant provided revised materials to address the Stormwater
Section’s comments and on January 4, 2019, the Assistant Stormwater Superintended indicated their
comments have been addressed. Staff considers these criteria met.
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 applicant is proposing to expand Taxiway G, relocate the perimeter road, and add a blast
deflection structure. Staff has no concerns about how these changes will affect pedestrian
movement or parking, but considers that the relocated perimeter road and blast deflection
wall should be shielded from the adjacent properties through a combination of vegetation
and screening.
(2) Parking:
(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.
The project does not affect parking. Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
(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.
No new buildings are proposed. The blast deflection wall is proposed to have a nominal height
of 14‐feet and an overall height that is somewhat taller. Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to provide information on the overall height of the wall and consider this height in
making it’s determination on screening.
#SP‐18‐57
Staff Comments
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.
Wire‐served utility services are not proposed to be affected. Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
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.
See discussion above under Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts. There is no
minimum required landscape value for this project because no buildings are proposed.
Staff considers compliance with snow storage requirements of Section 13.06 are not affected by this
application.
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‐18‐57
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. Staff considers the proposed perimeter road will be limited to internal
airport operations therefore standards of Section 15.12 do not apply.
OTHER
16.03 Standards for Erosion Control during Construction
The applicant has submitted erosion control sheets in support of the project. The applicant has indicated
the following in support of these criterion.
Low profile erosion control measures (e.g. rolled fiber material) at the LOD will be installed and
maintained. The Erosion Control Plans will be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure
these perimeter controls are clearly identified.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval requiring the plans to be amended to reflect
erosion control measures at the limit of disturbance (LOD).
Fire
The acting fire chief reviewed the plans on December 20, 2018, and indicated they had no concerns with
the Project.
Appendix A: Performance Standards
The Project involves construction of a jet blast deflector to dissipate wind energy generated by aircraft
leaving the proposed holding area. Based on a conversation with the wall supplier, the wall is designed to
deflect wind energy upward, where it primarily decays by thermal mixing.
The applicant has performed a compressible fluid dynamics simulation to evaluate the potential impacts
of an airplane firing its jets to achieve breakaway thrust in front of and perpendicular to the blast
deflection wall. A report of the results of that simulation was submitted to Staff and is included in the
Packet for the Board. Breakaway thrust is the thrust necessary to set the aircraft in motion from a stop.
It assumes the aircraft is 100‐ft from the deflector, which Staff considers to be appropriate based on the
proposed geometry. The submitted model output shows that the maximum wind velocity in this
conservative analysis is below 10 mph at locations on or near the ground 80‐feet behind the wall, which
is representative of locations along Airport Drive. The highest wind velocity behind the wall is 19 mph at
a height of 112 feet. These conditions would only occur under the modeled perpendicular orientation;
under skewed orientations, the velocity could be expected to be lower.
Staff has no concerns with the winds resulting from the proposed expansion.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues herein.
#SP‐18‐57
Staff Comments
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner