HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-24-002 - Supplemental - 0154 da Vinci Drive#SP-24-02
1
1 of 10
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-24-002_154 DaVinci Drive_BETA_2024-01-03.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: December 27, 2023
Plans received: December 8, 2023
154 da Vinci Drive - BETA Air, LLC
Site Plan Application #SP-24-02
Meeting date: January 3, 2024
Owner
City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport
1200 Airport Drive #1
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
BETA Technologies, Inc.
1150 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax ID 2000-00000
Mixed Industrial & Commercial Zoning District
Engineer
Stantec
193 Tilley Drive Suite 101
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
#SP-24-02
2
2 of 10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan application #SP-24-002 of BETA Technologies, Inc. to amend a previously approved planned
unit development of a 344,000 sf manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sf office and retail
building, a 15,600 commercial building, and a 85,000 sf flight instruction and airport use building on
40.43 acres. The amendment consists of after-the-fact approval to modify the approved landscaping
adjacent to the manufacturing and office building, provide replacement for improperly removed
vegetation along Williston Road, modify the driveway configuration for the existing building at 355
Valley Road, and minor site improvements, 154 Davinci Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The previously approved plans for this project included #MP-21-02, a Master Plan approval for the
development of the Beta Air, LLC, complex which was proposed to be developed in four phases, #SD-21-
28 for a 344,000 sf manufacturing and office building in two phases, #SP-22-024 for a 85,000 sf flight
instruction and airport use building, and #SP-22-056 for additional parking.
This application is subject to the LDR effective 11/20/2023. Some of the more relevant differences
between the LDR applicable to the most recent approvals and the current application include more
specific criteria for the site plan review criteria pertaining to relationships between buildings and sites,
both internal and external, and more access and circulation criteria.
CONTEXT
The applicant is nearing completion of the first phase of approved Preliminary and Final Plat #SD-21-28,
which consists of a 163,000 office, storage, and manufacturing building and associated parking and
stormwater management facilities. They have made several modifications to the approved design, most
of which have been accepted by the Administrative Officer as “field changes” under 14.05H(1).
14.05H(1) Field Changes
(a) During construction, the Administrative Officer may authorize or require, in writing, at his/her
own determination or upon the request of the applicant, minor adjustments to a site plan
which does not affect the substance of the site plan approval. Such minor adjustments shall
be consistent with the intent of the approved site plan. All determinations of eligibility for field
changes are subject to the discretion of the Administrative Officer.
(b) Where conditions are encountered which constitute a material change to an approved site plan
or where the developer otherwise wishes to modify the approved site plan, an amendment to
the approval shall be filed with the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer for
review in accordance with procedures required for such applications.
There are three changes for which modification is being requested that does not constitute a minor
adjustment to the site plan unaffecting the substance of the previous approval. These three requested
changes are the subject of this site plan application and report.
This project is subject to Site Plan Review Standards and is located in the Mixed Industrial & Commercial
Zoning District, as well as the Transit Overlay District and the Traffic Overlay District - Zone 3.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Marty Gillies, hereafter referred to as ‘Staff’, have
#SP-24-02
3
3 of 10
reviewed the plans submitted on 12/8/2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for
Board review are in red.
The proposed changes consist of the following.
1. Removal of mature trees required to be retained on the portion of the site near Williston Road and
replacement with new trees. In SD-21-28, the Board specifically required retention of a 32-inch
maple and a 34-inch maple along the proposed recreation path between Williston Road and the
approved building, directing the applicant to modify the originally proposed grading and rec path
alignment to retain the trees. The applicant also proposed, and the Board approved, retention of
some existing trees along Williston Road. The applicant has removed the large mature maples as
well as a 14-inch honey locust along Williston Road. While these removals are extremely
unfortunate, they are irreversible and therefore Staff recommends the Board move forward with
review of the tree replacement plan, discussed under 13.04 below.
2. Reconfiguration of the driveway to 355 Valley Road, access to which was approved to be from the
new site roadway. In the below screen shot, the approved configuration is shown on the left and
the proposed configuration is shown on the right. Staff considers the impacts of this proposal to
largely be one of safety and has accordingly obtained fire department review and requested DPW
review of the proposed plan; see below.
3. Removal of trees required to be planted along the west side of the building and installation of trees
along the site roadway. The applicant has provided sheet L-205 to highlight the differences between
the approved plantings, located in the 50-ft between the approved building and the existing hangar
building at 240 Valley Road. This plan does not clearly show the existing buildings, therefore Staff
has provided three images below: the first showing the buildings and their addresses, the second
showing a street view of the existing building and the approved building, and the third facing the
space between the two buildings. Note in the aerial image the approved manufacturing building is
under construction and does not appear as a building. Sheet L-205 also shows additional street
trees that have been planted along the site roadway. Staff considers the removed trees and the
additional planted trees to have very different effects on the site.
#SP-24-02
4
4 of 10
1
Staff has determined that items #1 and 2 could be reviewed as administrative site plan amendments
under 14.04B(1)(c) “Approval of plans showing as-built adjustments beyond standard field
adjustments, provided that such adjustments do not require the amendment of any condition of
approval in the most recent findings of fact.” However, 14.04B(1) permits DRB review of any site plan
amendment subject to the discretion of the Director of Planning and Zoning. Staff has determined that
item #3 does require DRB review. Since it is simpler and permissible to consolidate all three
1 In the first photo, a portion of the space between the buildings is blocked by a white colored container using the
loading dock. In the second photo, one can see a transformer that the Board did not, either intentionally or
inadvertently, require to be screened.
#SP-24-02
5
5 of 10
modifications into a single site plan amendment, Staff has required the applicant to take that approach
and Staff has incorporated all three requested changes into this report.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
No changes to dimensional standards are proposed.
Traffic Overlay District
No changes to trip generation are proposed.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
A. 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 DRB shall consider the following.
The project is located along a private road constructed to public roadway standards, pursuant to
15.12D. Staff recommends the Board consider the context of the development both in
relationship to Williston Road and in relationship to the private street.
(a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along
the street.
(b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the
street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s
existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade.
(c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between
existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development.
Staff considers this criterion applicable to the landscaping between the approved
manufacturing building and the existing hangar. The existing hangar is approximately
35,000 sf and the approved manufacturing building is approximately 10x larger at 344,000
sf. The space between the two buildings is approximately 50-ft wide, which is as wide as
some of the City’s street rights-of-way, which include in their cross section two-way travel
lanes, a greenbelt with street trees, and a sidewalk or recreation path.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide plantings between the two
buildings to mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale.
(d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability
within the area proposed for development.
(e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of these regulations.
(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.
#SP-24-02
6
6 of 10
No modifications to approved parking are proposed.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials
and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping,
buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of
different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
(3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
(a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of development
defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations, position and
orientation of principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached building types.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features that
define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side and
back yard areas through context sensitive design.
The approved manufacturing building is clad in insulated metal panels, with corten steel finds
near the principal entrance area. The entrance area has an irregularly shaped large awning that
extends for most of the southeast façade. The facades which will be most visible from the street
are the southwest and southeast.
2. One of the approved field changes was to modify the window configuration on the side of the
building facing the existing hangar. The applicant has removed many of the windows at the
second-story level and added more windows at the front of the building near the private street.
Staff considers this change further supports the need for landscaping between buildings, and
again recommends the Board require the applicant to provide it.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
Site amenities are required for additions exceeding 5,000 sf to non-residential structures. This
requirement is not applicable.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Environmental Protection Standards
All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental
Protection Standards.
No changes affecting compliance with Environmental Protection Standards are proposed.
B. Site Design Features.
All proposed development shall comply with standards for the placement of buildings, parking and
loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space, stormwater, lighting, and other applicable
standards related to site design pursuant to these Land Development Regulations.
These standards are contained in Article 13 and are discussed below.
C. Access and Circulation.
#SP-24-02
7
7 of 10
All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation standards of Section 15.A.14.
Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this application.
The applicable sections of 15.A.14 follow.
15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is
arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian circulation standards
under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone
Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and, for
state highways, VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of
application. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the
location and arrangement of streets, must be designed to:
(6) Design intersections and other access points to City specifications to include curb radii
necessary to accommodate anticipated vehicle types and speeds while also minimizing
pedestrian crossing distances.
(7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians,
including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high-
accident locations.
Staff has requested Department of Public Works review of the revised driveway for 355 Valley
Road as it pertains to safety and sight distances and anticipates having an update at the time of
the hearing.
The Fire Marshall reviewed the revised driveway on 12/26/2023 and indicated there were no
concerns.
3. Staff recommends the Board require adjustments to the proposed driveway modification if
recommended by the Department of Public Works.
(8) Align access points with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing access
points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and functionally feasible.
(9) Minimize vehicular access points (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots along
pedestrian-oriented street frontage; and provide, where physically feasible, shared vehicular
access to frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side streets, service lanes,
shared driveways, or rear cross connections between adjoining parcels.
Staff considers the proposed modification does not affect compliance with criteria 8 and 9.
D. [Reserved for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)]
E. Building Form.
Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban Design Overlay District, and
other districts with supplemental building form standards shall adhere to the standards contained
therein.
These standards are not applicable to this project.
F. Streetscape Improvements.
A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an existing structure exceeding the thresholds
listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section 8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or
Section 3.11(D) in all other zoning districts, shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts,
and related street furniture (trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street
#SP-24-02
8
8 of 10
Type and Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit
requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
The applicant is proposing additional plantings along the site road. This criteria is new since the original
approval, and inadvertently references the incorrect section. The correct referenced sections are
14.04(B), 8.11(D), and 3.15(D), which will be corrected with the next round of LDR amendments. The
Board did not require street trees at the time of original approval, and no building extension/expansion is
proposed, therefore Staff considers this criterion to be not applicable. The applicant is welcome to
provide street trees at their discretion, and the City Arborist has no issues with the installed trees.
G. 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.
While this application does affect access, Staff considers it does not change compliance with this criterion.
H. 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.A.18, Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met.
I. 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 (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced
or screened.
No modifications to criteria H and I are proposed.
C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
A. 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. As noted above, the applicant has improperly removed three trees, consisting of a 32-inch maple, a
34-inch maple, and a 14-inch honey locust, and has proposed replacement plantings consisting of a
total of fourteen (14) four to six inch maples, oaks, and honey locusts near Williston Road and the
#SP-24-02
9
9 of 10
south end of the site road. Staff considers the tree replacement plan to be acceptable, assuming
acceptance of the City Arborist’s comment below, and recommends the Board confirm.
C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land
shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two
adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s
appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or
is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a
residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible from a
public street.
As noted under 14.06(A) above, Staff considers the approved manufacturing building to differ from the
adjacent existing hanger in scale and architectural style, and therefore buffering should be required.
(1) There shall be sufficient landscaping, walls, or fencing of sufficient height (minimum of three (3)
feet) and opacity to effectively screen the parking or loading area year-round from adjacent
public streets.
The proposed replacement plantings along Williston Road provide additional screening of
approved parking and site features, and, as indicated by the City Arborist on 11/14/2023, “the
trees along the entrance road on the north side are pretty tightly spaced and will have overlapping
crowns eventually but that could be the design effect they are after and isn’t necessarily a
problem.”
An additional comment of the City Arborist is as follows
I would caution against planting Sugar Maples in close proximity to either Williston Rd or
the entrance road, as they are quite intolerant of the site conditions in those locations.
5. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that Sugar Maples are not permitted as species for
the proposed replacement plantings near the Williston Road site entrance.
(2) Screening of a parking or loading shall be provided where headlights from vehicles on site
may be visible and project parallel to a public street.
(3) There shall be sufficient landscaping, walls, or fencing of sufficient height and opacity to
effectively screen outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and compost collection (excluding
on-site composting) areas.
(4) 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
(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.
(6) Recreational vehicle parking areas shall be screened with evergreen trees and shrubs and such
landscaping plan shall be part of the application.
(7) Additional landscaping above and beyond the minimum landscape budget formula may be
required for the purpose of adding a buffer strip along I-89 to properly screen development from
the highway.
#SP-24-02
10
10 of 10
Staff considers the remainder of these specific screening and buffering criteria to be not applicable.
G. 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.
The previously approved plantings between the approved building and the existing hangar consists
of six (6) 3 – 3.5” American hornbeams, four (4) apple serviceberry (a decorative tree), and six
eastern hemlock installed at 8 – 10’ height. There are additional of each of these species proposed
to be installed elsewhere on the site, though in the proposed configuration as previously stated
there are no trees between the two buildings.
(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 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 costs below are
cumulative; for example, a landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of
three percent of the first $250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the
next $250,000 in construction or improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over
$500,000. The landscaping budget shall be prepared by a landscape architect or professional
landscape designer.
The total value of the omitted trees was $20,400. The previously required landscaping cost for the
first phase of the manufacturing building was $657,500 and the applicant provided $787,580 in
plantings. No fiscal credit was granted for retention of existing trees. Therefore the value of the
omitted trees and the improperly removed trees is not an issue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board review the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner