HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SD-19-11_1200 Airport Dr_Burlington Itl Airport_Hotel_SC
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐19‐11 1200 Airport Drive Quick Turn Around
DATE: May 21, 2019 Development Review Board meeting
The City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport has submitted preliminary and final plat application #SD‐
19‐11 to amend a 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.
At the April 16, 2019 hearing, the Board indicated that there were several topics that needed additional attention.
A summary of the status of each of these topics is as follows. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in
red.
AIRPORT DISTRICT STANDARDS
Airport District standards require that all uses shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation
Administration, and any other federal or state regulations pertaining to airports. The Board asked the applicant
to provide a statement from the FAA that the project complies. The applicant has provided the following update:
The hotel project is currently seeking approval from the FAA thru there [sic] 7460‐1 application process to
verify that the building and its construction will not conflict with Airport operations. Once approval is granted,
that approval will be sent to the City of South Burlington.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate FAA approval prior to issuance of a
zoning permit for the Project.
STANDARDS FOR ROADWAYS, PARKING AND CIRCULATION
The Board asked the applicant to extend the pavers demarcating the pedestrian route from the hotel entrance
to the crosswalk location. The applicant has done so. Staff considers this comment addressed.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.07 Specific Review Standards
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street
Trees.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off‐street parking areas, off‐street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and
compost collection (excluding on‐site composting) areas, and utility improvements such as transformer(s),
external heating and cooling equipment shall be effectively screened
SD‐19‐11
2
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
The applicant has learned they will need to provide a large air‐handling tower to support the hotel. The
equipment will be 8’‐4” wide, 9’‐0 ¾” long, and 16’‐1” high. The tower must have at least 5 ft separation
from screening for operational purposes.
The applicant is proposing to locate the tower at the northwest corner of the hotel, between the airport
parking garage and Airport Drive, on an on‐grade concrete slab. Staff considers, though large, the most
appropriate classification for the air‐handling tower, would be utility cabinet:
Utility cabinet: this generic term shall encompass electric transformers, switch boxes, telephone
pedestals and telephone boxes, cable television boxes, traffic control boxes, accessory
telecommunications transmission equipment and storage sheds, substation, or communication relay
station, and similar devices.
The Board has generally not considered utility cabinets to be structures and thus has not prohibited utility
cabinets from being located in the front yard nor from being greater than 15‐feet in height.
The applicant is proposing to enclose the tower in a 8 ft tall solid wood board fence, to be surrounded on
three sides by arborvitae and on the fourth side by the parking garage, with a gap for maintenance.
2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the proposed cooling tower location and screening
meets the required criteria.
13.06G Landscaping Standards
(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.
At the previous hearing, the Board discussed the applicant’s request to include perennials, grasses and
hardscape as part of their required minimum landscape budget. Upon research, Staff considers there are
additional details of the proposed landscaping plan which warrant discussion. The applicant is proposing to
remove a number of existing trees from the proposed hotel site. They are also proposing to retain and take
landscape credit for the retention of seven trees between 6 and 14 inches in diameter.
3. As part of previous approvals between 1998 and 2010, the applicant applied the value of both the
trees to be removed and the trees to be retained towards the minimum required landscaping budget.
Therefore Staff considers the Board should not allow the applicant to remove trees without
replacement, nor should they allow the applicant to count existing landscaping to be retained as
landscape value, as that would constitute double‐counting. Staff has raised this concern with the
applicant and anticipates the applicant will have an updated proposal available for discussion at the
hearing.
Staff considers that the Board has demonstrated their willingness to consider onsite and nearby off‐site
(airport) locations for required landscaping, including locations which enhance the buffer between
residential and commercial properties as required in 3.06I.
In considering the proposed landscaping, Staff draws the Board’s attention to 13.06D.
SD‐19‐11
3
13.06D. Front Yards of Non‐Residential and Multi‐Family Uses. In the case of non‐residential and multi‐
family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and collector streets
(see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good
appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration
are encouraged. The Development Review Board shall require the applicant to meet the provisions of
sections 13.06(F) and (G).
Airport Drive is an arterial street listed in 3.06. In addition to the considerations identified above, the Board
requested the applicant confirm the requested credit for landscaping pavers represented the incremental
value over standard concrete. The applicant has confirmed that is the case. Excluding the value of trees to
be retained, the applicant is proposing $32,000 in trees and shrubs and approximately $82,000 in other site
improvements. In other words, the applicant is requesting that greater than 70% of the required value in
site improvements other than trees and shrubs. For reference, the maximum amount of landscape budget
that can be applied towards other site improvements in the densest City Center district is 60%. While Staff
considers the Board is not restricted in the amount of the landscaping value the Board may allow the
applicant to apply towards other site improvements, Staff recommends the Board carefully consider whether
the proposed woody vegetation meets the purpose of the landscape standards:
13.06A Landscaping, Screening and Street Trees 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, 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.
4. Staff recommends the Board review the landscape plan to confirm they feel the objectives of the
landscape requirements (to create a well‐landscaped site) are met in reaching their conclusion on whether
to allow the approximately $95,000 in non‐tree and shrub improvements.
Finally, at the last hearing, the Board requested the applicant provide a landscape maintenance plan. The
applicant has provided a plan which describes required maintenance by season, including pruning, routine
maintenance, and cleanup. Considerations are made for replacement of failing plants.
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 pursuant to the
standards contained within Article 12.
Prior to the previous hearing, the applicant had not submitted a stormwater design which met the stormwater
management standards of Article 12. The applicant provided an updated design to the stormwater section on
May 3. The Stormwater Section offers the following comments:
The Stormwater Section (City) has reviewed the “Burlington International Airport Hotel” site plan prepared
SD‐19‐11
4
by Stantec, dated 3/20/2019 and last updated on 5/3/19. We would like to provide the following comments:
1. The HydroCAD model for each infiltration basin includes storage up to the 330’ contour, a large area
outside of each treatment practice. During the 25 year flood event, the basins are modeled as
overtopping onto the lawn area, potentially onto the patio, and over the drop‐off area under the
canopy in front of the hotel, essentially using the site for storage in order to meet the requirements
of §12.03E.(3).
2. Please provide a detailed maintenance plan in accordance with §12.03(D)(1)(e) of the City’s Land
Development Regulations.
3. Please provide Soil borings, infiltration testing, and seasonally high groundwater data to confirm
infiltration rates used in the HydroCAD model.
4. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to satisfy the comments of the Stormwater Section
prior to concluding the hearing.
PUD STANDARDS
(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.
At the previous hearing, the Board indicated the applicant should update the EPSC plan to reflect the
current proposed layout, show tree protection for existing trees, and include permanent stabilization
timelines of Article 16. The applicant has provided a tree protection and removal plan, and made the
required updates to the EPSC plans.
(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 on the findings
of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or
consultants.
At the previous hearing, the applicant represented that the Project will generate 39 PM peak hour
vehicle trips, which includes a 25% reduction from the standard ITE value. The Board asked the
applicant to substantiate their assumption of a 25% reduction. The applicant performed a traffic count
at the Rochester airport hotel and determined that the on‐airport hotel generates trips 40 to 47%
lower than the standard ITE value. They then conclude that the Burlington airport hotel would
generate between 33 and 38 PM peak hour trips, and would like to use 39 trips as the value for this
application.
6. Staff has no concerns with this analysis and recommends the Board make a determination on
whether to accept their applicant’s proposed trip generation for the purpose of calculating traffic
impact fees.
SD‐19‐11
5
(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’s main comments at the previous hearing were:
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.
The applicant has provided an emergency access plan, identified the location of the hydrant and removed
the parking space.
7. The Fire Chief has not yet reviewed the modified plans at the time of this writing. Staff anticipates they
will have an update at the hearing.
(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.
At the previous hearing, the Board asked the applicant to demonstrate the light fixtures are downcast
and shielded. The applicant has updated their plans accordingly. Staff considers the lighting meets the
required criteria, and this criterion will be met when other concerns discussed above are met.
OTHER
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
At the previous hearing, the Board noted the bicycle parking was inconsistent between plans. The applicant
has updated their plans to reflect the bicycle parking configuration the Board found acceptable, with long‐term
spaces under the parking garage and short‐term spaces near the hotel entrance. In addition, the applicant has
provided a interior floor plan showing where the required changing facility, shower and clothes lockers will be
located. Staff considers this criterion met.
Signage
Staff notes the Applicant has shown on some of their plans the existing sign location.
8. In order to avoid confusion, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to annotate the existing sign as
not part of this approval.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.