HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 04_SD-20-21_1150 Airport Dr_Beta Air Inc_PP FP
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‐20‐21 1150 Airport Drive
DATE: August 4, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
Beta Air, Inc. has submitted preliminary and final plat application #SD‐20‐21 to amend a previously approved
plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing a 23,500 sf three‐story addition to an
existing 39,200 sf one‐story existing hangar/office building, reconfiguring the adjacent parking area, and related
site improvements, 1150 Airport Drive. At the July 21, 2020 hearing, the Board heard the applicant and
continued the hearing to allow review of materials submitted between the time of packet publication and the
hearing, and to accept additional testimony on subjects described below.
LANDSCAPING
The applicant provided a revised planting plan and detailed landscaping budget on July 21. The applicant
estimates the building cost to be $6,224,000. The required minimum landscape value is therefore $69,740.
The applicant further estimates the value of trees to be removed at $16,918, for a total minimum new and
replacement value of $86,658
The applicant is proposing to install the following breakdown of landscaping features:
Type Value Totals
New Trees $14,030
New Shrubs $7,600
Trees and Shrubs Subtotal $21,630
Replacement Trees $17,050
Grasses $27,213
1
Vegetation Subtotal $65,893
Decorative Bike Racks $3,360
Fencing approved as part of MS‐20‐01 Airport
Overall Landscaping Plan2
$20,580
Landscaping Total2 $89,833
The physical constraints of the site – as with many sites associated with the Airport – make the placement of
the entire landscaping budget on or proximate to the site a challenge. It was for this reason that the Airport
and Development Review Board established a mechanism to design and install off‐site landscaping in a
cohesive manner via the approval of application #MS‐20‐01.
#SP‐20‐020 #SP‐20‐021 #MS‐20‐03
2
Staff considers that the proposed landscape budget includes several items which may not be consistent with
the purposes of the City’s landscaping standards, while at the same time recognizing that as a result of the
significant replacement value of the trees to be removed, the site is adequately landscaped.
The purpose of the landscaping standards includes the following statement:
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.
As such:
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether providing $27,213, or 39% of the minimum required
landscaping budget, in grasses is consistent with the purpose of the landscaping standards.
2. The applicant has requested credit for $6,820 in bollards at the entry plaza, which Staff has excluded from
the above table. Staff recommends the Board not allow credit for installation of bollards, as Staff considers
they are functional for safety rather and do not further the purpose of the landscaping standards.
3. Staff instead recommends that the Board discuss whether in lieu of $27,213 in grasses and $6,820 in
bollards, those funds be allocated to implementing MS‐20‐01. Note: a portion of the on‐site landscaping,
consisting of vegetation and ornamental fencing along Airport Drive, are contemplated in areas 4 & 5 of
MS‐20‐01.
While including elements of the overall landscaping plan approved in MS‐20‐01 is allowable as long as the
minimum standards of 13.06 are met, MS‐20‐01 includes several conditions which pertain to this proposal,
discussed immediately below.
MS‐20‐01
Miscellaneous approval MS‐20‐01 includes the following stipulations.
At such time as installation of features approved in this plan is proposed, the applicant must provide a
detailed landscaping plan, to include a plant list, planting and hardscape details, concurrently with the
site plan for which the landscaping is proposed to be installed.
Any required landscaping located outside the immediate area of future projects shall be consistent
with this overall landscaping plan
Landscaping installed consistent with this overall landscaping plan shall be allowed as credit towards
required minimum landscaping budgets for projects within the Airport PUD.
The improvements shall be constructed in the order described by the applicant at the May 5, 2020
hearing, with the entrance features first, then the streetscape, then the recreation path, each
proceeding from south to north.
The applicant shall be responsible for tracking both expended budget and progress on the plan, and
this information shall be submitted at the time of site plan application for individual projects. Should
the cost of an individual segment of this plan exceed the required minimum landscaping budget for a
project at the airport, the applicant may “bank” the excess to apply to a future project.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the conditions of MS‐20‐01, including
preparation of a detailed plan of the offsite improvements, construction of the entrance features first*, and
provision of a budget for the proposed offsite improvements, prior to closing the hearing.
#SP‐20‐020 #SP‐20‐021 #MS‐20‐03
3
*Staff is comfortable with elements of the landscaping plan that happen to be both on‐site for this project
and part of the overall landscape plan considered in MS‐20‐01 being installed concurrent with this project,
as it serves to meet the requirements to adequately meet on‐site needs.
The City arborist reviewed the revised planting plan on July 23 and offers the following comments
1. The prices for trees seem to be in an acceptable range. Bear in mind that these are installed costs which
are typically around 3 times the wholesale cast
2. It looks like the spruce and apple only have about 3 feet to where the pavement will be located. It is
unlikely the trees will survive long term given the amount of root loss they will incur during the
construction process
3. If the actual value of the trees to be removed is accurate then the proposed replacements are
appropriate. With no tree appraisal or documentation as to how that value is determined it’s anybody’s
guess as to whether the value replaced equals the value removed.
5. The spruce and apple trees referenced by the Arborist are located on either side of the transformer cabinet
between the parking area and the street. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to assume these
trees will be effectively lost during the development, and require their value be provided in replacement
plantings, or to require the applicant to modify their plan to reduce impacts to these trees.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
All off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be curbed and
landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers as approved by the
Development Review Board.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a
collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c) below.
Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have
a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged.
On July 21, the applicant testified that they were providing for stormwater pretreatment at the edge of
parking areas. Therefore 13.06(B)(5)(c) applies.
13.06B(5)(c) Islands are strongly encouraged to be graded and planted to serve as collection and treatment
areas for stormwater management. It is recommended that sections of drop curb no greater than five feet
in length be installed to allow stormwater to flow off the paved parking lot and onto the island for
treatment. At the DRB’s discretion, curbless parking areas and planting islands may be allowed where
these are specifically designed for stormwater management. However, ends and corners of such areas
must be protected with curbing to prevent cars from driving over or parking on planted areas.
6. Staff considers the final sentence of 13.06B5(c) requires the applicant to provide curbing at the ends of the
parking areas. The only proposed curbing appears to be at the entrance drive. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to provide curbing at the ends of parking areas, and show it on the layout and plan
(curbing is currently only shown on the utility plan). Staff considers this can be a condition of approval.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off‐street parking areas, off‐street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and
#SP‐20‐020 #SP‐20‐021 #MS‐20‐03
4
compost collection (excluding on‐site composting) areas, and utility improvements such as transformer(s),
external heating and cooling equipment shall be effectively screened.
(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.
(3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect
neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The landscaping
shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development Review Board, will
effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing on adjoining properties. The
plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review Board,
may be substituted for the required planting.
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate screening or
would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development Review Board may modify the
planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or increasing the requirements.
There is a 12’x7’ transformer unit proposed at the front of the parking area. No screening is shown for the
transformer. On July 21, the Board discussed with the applicant screening for the HVAC unit at the building
and for the dumpster, but no discussion of the transformer transpired.
7. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant the height of the proposed transformer, and require them to
demonstrate how it will be fully screened on three sides.
8. The transformer is not shown on the landscaping plans and appears to conflict with an area to be planted
with 15 Shenandoah Switch Grass (mature height 3‐4’). Staff recommends the Board discount the value of
these grasses from the landscape budget ($375) as it will not be possible to plant them in the location of the
transformer.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner