HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SD-19-11_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_PP FP_SC#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
1
1 of 12
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐11_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_PP
FP_2019‐04‐16.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: April 12, 2019
Plans received: March 22, 2018
1200 Airport Drive
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐11
Meeting date: April 16, 2019
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
Co Applicant
BTV Hotel LLC.
C/O Rabideau Architects
550 Hinesburg Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000‐0000_C
Airport District
777.84 acres
Project Contact
Gene Richards, Director of Aviation
1200 Airport Drive, Box 1
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐11 of City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport to
amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
2
2 of 12
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 sketch plan application for this
project on January 15, 2019. This plan differs from the sketch plan by the reduction in height (though
not in stories), improvements to the façade facing Airport Drive, reconfiguration of pedestrian and
vehicular access, and removal of the proposed sky bridge to the hotel.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 3/22/2018 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. At Sketch, the Board discussed the categorization of the hotel as falling under “other uses designed
to serve aviation passengers and industry.” At sketch, majority of the Board felt this was an
appropriate classification, but was not unanimous on this determination. Staff therefore
recommends the Board discuss whether they feel this project meets the definition of serving aviation
passengers and industry. At sketch, members discussed that the walkway from the terminal to the
hotel supported this classification, and asked why lodging was not considered an accessory use by
default. The applicant represented that the hotel is interlaced with the airport because of amenities
and parking and because the airport initiated it. Staff recommends since Sketch is non‐binding
discussion that the Board reaffirm the majority of members still agree with the hotel being an
allowed use.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
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
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
3
3 of 12
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 33.9% 34.3%
@ Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Unknown 34 ft.
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 65 ft.
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested
The applicant has provided a plan (Sheet C‐02) showing the requested 34‐ft front yard setback from the
proposed 80‐ft right of way. At Sketch, the Board discussed that in order to consider the requested setback
waiver, they wanted the applicant to provide a more engaging street frontage elevation. In support of this
request, the applicant has reconfiguired the building to place hotel room windows facing Airport Drive on
the upper stories, and a central entry door at ground level. The applicant has provided elevations as well as
a colored rendering of the hotel from Airport Drive.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to grant the setback wavier.
The maximum allowable height for a flat roof building in the airport district is 35 feet. The applicant is
proposing a five‐story building and has requested a waiver to allow the building to be 65 feet high, though
the provided elevations indicate a building height of 60 ft 8 in. 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.
The project is already being reviewed as a PUD. At sketch, the Board’s major concerns with the requested
height waver were the same as those with the requested setback waiver.
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to grant the height waiver, and consider whether to grant
the requested 65 ft. or the actual 60 ft 8 in.
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
4
4 of 12
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.
4. Based on the proposed use as a hotel, a review of the provided lighting description and plan, and the
fact that the airport is a co‐applicant on the project, Staff considers it likely these criteria are met but
recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant to provide a written affirmative
statement that these criteria are met as a condition of approval.
6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
A. Site Plan or PUD review required
The application is being reviewed as a PUD. Staff considers this criterion met.
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. Area and
frontage requirements may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate
ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage
requirements. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the
normal maximum for the applicable districts.
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.
There are no specific parking requirements for airports in the LDRs. The applicant has provided a
parking needs assessment which includes the impacts of the simultaneous application for a
reconstructed Quick Turn Around car wash and fueling facility (SD‐19‐07). The parking needs
assessment states that there are 3,109 parking spaces available in the garage, in the car wash and
fueling facility (spaces available for rental cars only), and in surface lots. The airport analyses
parking statistics, and states that during the peak times, 650 parking spaces are available.
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
5
5 of 12
Therefore they consider the addition of a 102 room hotel will not result in a shortage of parking
spaces. They offer the following narrative pertaining to hotel parking.
Approximately 20 parking spaces will be dedicated to hotel patrons on the second level of
the parking garage adjacent to the hotel. Three accessible parking spaces will be provided
for hotel patrons on the ground level of the garage in immediate proximity to the hotel.
Employee parking will be managed consistently with current airport policies regarding
employee parking usage and location.
Staff has no concern with the proposed configuration of parking.
(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
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. At sketch, the Board discussed that a defined and safe pedestrian route from the hotel to
the terminal is needed.
5. The Applicant has significantly modified the proposed access to the parking garage since sketch
and recommends the Board discuss the revised configuration with the applicant. At sketch, the
applicant proposed a one‐way out to Airport Drive from the hotel, but under the revised
configuration, this drive has been eliminated. Staff considers the proposed return lane to the main
driveway generally satisfactory, but remains concerned about the proposed pedestrian crosswalk
relative to the direction of traffic flow. The crosswalk is significantly skewed from perpendicular
to traffic flow, causing pedestrians to have to look nearly behind them before crossing the road,
and it appears the crosswalk conflicts with the parking garage access gate. The Fire Chief has
commented that the parking space on the access road will need to be eliminated, discussed below.
Staff considers removing this parking space opens possibilities for improving pedestrian safety at
this crossing.
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).
Section 3.06(I) pertains to non‐residential uses whose side or rear boundaries are within fifty feet
of the boundary of a residential district. The Project is proposed to be within fifty feet of the
residential district when measured from the front boundary. Staff considers this criterion not
applicable.
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
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
6
6 of 12
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 a combination of fiber cement siding, brick, and limestone. Staff
considers this generally compatible with the materials of the adjacent parking garage. Plantings are
robust, and the landscaping includes common hardscape elements duplicated on both the north
and south of the building. Staff’s concerns with pedestrian circulation are discussed above as they
pertain to Airport District Standards.
6. In general, the area between the parking garage and the hotel is proposed to be a utilitarian
corridor, with the primary amenity areas located on the south side of the hotel. There are two
doors located between the hotel and the garage, one an exit from a stairwell and one an exit
from a food prep area. Primary entrances are on the east, south and west sides of the building.
Staff wishes to draw this to the Board’s attention as it differs from the plan presented at sketch.
(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 is proposing one additional parking space to be located outside of the parking
garage, which is addressed under fire department comments below.
(3) 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 applicant’s requested height waiver is discussed above under zoning district standards.
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
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
7
7 of 12
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.
The hotel is proposed to be served by underground electric originating at an existing pole on Airport Drive.
Staff considers this criterion met.
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 proposing an enclosed dumpster between the hotel and the parking garage. Staff
considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening
shall be required for all uses subject to 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 applicant estimates the building cost to be $11,968,710. The required minimum landscape value is
therefore $127,187.10, as follows.
Total Building Construction
Cost
% of total Construction Cost Required Value
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional Over $500,000 1% $114,687.10
Total $127,187.10
The applicant is proposing $17,780 in trees and shrubs. The applicant has requested several other
elements be allowed to be considered as contributing towards the minimum required landscape value, as
follows.
A large quantity of grasses and perennials as infill around the trees and shrubs and in the rain
garden. $15,820
Patio and entry area pavers. $20,150
Retaining walls and stone accents. $50,700
Existing trees to be retained. $22,641 The applicant appears to have used the methodology
proposed in a paper published by the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service
Department of Horticulture (1/2006) to calculate the value of existing trees. Existing trees to
be retained include three honey locusts, one ginko and three ornamental cherry trees.
Notably, the applicant has not requested the value of hardscape between the garage and hotel be
included. The total value of the items the applicant is requesting be considered towards the required
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
8
8 of 12
minimum landscape value is $133,781.
13.06G Landscaping Standards.
(1) The Development Review Board shall require compliance with any Tree Ordinance or
Landscaping Design Standards enacted by the City of South Burlington, subsequent to the effective
date of these regulations.
(2) Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan.
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13‐9 below. 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 this section are not reduced.
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.
7. Staff recommends the Board consider the following points pertaining to the proposed landscape value:
Should the entire value of grasses and perennials be included? The applicant is required to
maintain landscaping in a vigorous growing condition and grasses and perennials are more
subject to change and may therefore present problems in demonstrating compliance with
the approved landscape plan.
Staff considers only the incremental value of the patio and entry area pavers should be
allowed to be included, as compared to the cost of standard concrete treatment.
The applicant provides the following statement with regard to snow storage.
Snow from the hotel site access road will be plowed to a location in accordance with the Airport’s
existing operations.
Staff considers no separate snow storage area is needed for the proposed hotel.
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.
The applicant is requesting both setback and height waivers, discussed above.
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
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
9
9 of 12
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
8. The applicant has been working with the Stormwater Section to demonstrate compliance with the
stormwater management standards of Article 12. At the time of this writing, the Stormwater Section
has not yet received a full package demonstrating the design of the stormwater management system.
Staff anticipates there may be an update at the time of the hearing. Staff recommends the Board not
conclude the hearing until the Stormwater Section considers Article 12 standards to be met.
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 through‐lane of the hotel access road appears to be
approximately 10 ft wide, with the drop off area another 10 ft wide. Staff considers the proposed
perimeter road will be limited to internal airport operations therefore standards of Section 15.12 do not
apply.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
standards for all PUDs.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has provided an estimate of average and peak water demand, and average
wastewater flow. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary
water and wastewater allocation prior to recording the mylar, and to obtain final water and
wastewater allocation and connection permits prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The project will disturb less than one acre of land. The applicant has provided an erosion
prevention and sediment control plans (Sheets C‐05). Staff notes the EPSC plan does not reflect
the current proposed layout, omits tree protection for the existing trees to be preserved within
the limits of disturbance, and does not include the permanent stabilization timelines of Article
16.
9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct the EPSC plan as described
immediately above and considers this can be a condition of approval.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
10
10 of 12
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
The applicant has estimated that the Project will generate 39 PM peak hour vehicle trips, which
includes a 25% reduction from the standard ITE value. The applicant explains that they consider
25% of trips will occur between the hotel and terminal without the use of a vehicle. Without the
25% reduction, the Project generates 52 PM peak hour vehicle trips.
10. Staff recommends the Board determine whether to allow the applicant’s proposed 25% trip
reduction.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on
the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural
Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
No natural resource impacts are anticipated. Staff considers this criterion met.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in
the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in
which it is located.
See discussion of visual compatibility with existing structures above under site plan review
standards. Staff considers the use consistent with the comprehensive plan and purpose of the
zoning district.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The project is proposed to be constructed in an existing open space within the airport loop road.
Staff considers though this area is a visual open space, it is not an activated space. Staff
considers this criterion met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular
access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,
and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 3/25/2019 and offers the following comments.
As the building is a proposed 5 story bldg. and its a tight lot, FD will treat the bldg. like a high rise
for fire protection purposes. We will need two points of access to the roof, one through the
interior of the building. It appears our only aerial access to the bldg. is the SE corner of the
bldg. If the aerial is “thrown” to the roof, as we have one spot we can use, it would result in the
airport access road being cut off completely. So they may want to develop a contingency plan
for traffic control. They will also need to eliminate what appears to be a parking space at the NE
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
11
11 of 12
corner of the lot as the ambulance can not make the turn back on to Airport Circle if there is a
car in that spot. The supporting fire hydrant for the fire suppression systems are not shown of
the plat. It would need to be on the same side of the street as the Hotel as the fire hoses can not
be driven over.
11. Staff recommends the Board discuss the Fire Chief’s comments with the applicant prior to closing
the hearing, to include the following three main points.
blocking of the main airport driveway when there is a fire truck on site,
the proposed parking space on the exit from the hotel driveway
the absence of fire hydrants.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
No changes to roads are proposed. The existing pedestrian walkway is proposed to be retained.
12. Lighting is proposed to be generally downcast and shielded, with the exception of the proposed
lighted bollards, for which Staff is unable to make a determination. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to demonstrate that the bollard lights will have louvers to direct lighting
downward.
Other elements are discussed elsewhere in this document. Staff considers this criterion will be
met when other concerns discuss above are met.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
No changes to public infrastructure are proposed. The Director of Public Works reviewed the
submitted plans on 3/25/2019 and had no concerns. Staff considers this criterion met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review
standards above.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and
integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to
generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and
groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.
13. As discussed above, the applicant has been working with the Stormwater Section to address
concerns. Staff recommends the Board not conclude the hearing until a positive determination
from the Stormwater Section is made.
#SD‐19‐11
Staff Comments
12
12 of 12
OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
At the previous hearing for the airport Quick Turn Around facility (SD‐19‐07), the Applicant indicated
that in lieu of addressing bicycle parking standards for the proposed facility alone, they would prefer to
address them for the overall PUD. Upon discussion, Staff and the Applicant agreed it would make sense
to consider the PUD in a few discrete areas, addressing bicycle standards as work in each area was
proposed. For the purposes of this application, the relevant area includes the Quick Turn Around Facility
and appurtenant buildings, the terminal building, the air traffic control complex, and the proposed hotel
(see graphic provided by applicant for included buildings). The applicant calculates that a total of 52
short term and eight (8) long term bicycle parking spaces are needed for the relevant area, and have
proposed the majority of bicycle parking to be centrally located within the parking garage, with twelve
short term spaces located between the garage and the proposed hotel.
14. Staff has no concerns with the proposed configuration of short and long term spaces but notes that
the applicant has modified the bicycle parking plan since their initial submission and many plans
show an outdated bicycle parking configuration. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to update their plans to reflect the current bicycle parking.
15. In addition to short and long term bicycle parking spaces, the applicant must provide one changing
facility, one unisex shower, and three clothes lockers meeting the minimum standards in 13.14C(2).
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that these facilities are provided
on the architectural floor plans.
Signage
Staff notes the Applicant has shown on some of their plans the proposed location for a hotel sign.
16. Staff notes the applicant must remove all signs from the plans, including callouts of sign locations. The
Board may not approve signs or sign locations as part of the current application, and Staff
recommends the Board include a condition to this effect.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner