HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_MP-21-02_3070 Williston Road_Beta#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MP-21-02_3070 Williston Road_Beta_2021-12-21
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: December 7, 2021
Application received: November 9, 2021
3070 WILLISTON ROAD
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02
Meeting date: December 21, 2021
Owner
City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport
1200 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
BETA AIR, LLC
1150 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000-0000_C
Airport District
777.84 acres
Engineer
Stantec
193 Tilley Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan application #MP-21-02 of Beta Air, LLC for a planned unit development on five lots
developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard, and a RV sales,
service, and repair facility. The master plan includes combining the five lots, resulting in one lot of
747.92 acres, and consists 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 37.6
acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 11/10/21 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the
Board’s attention are in red.
A) OVERVIEW
The Project is located in the airport industrial (AIR-I) and mixed industrial commercial (IC) zoning districts,
traffic overlay, transit overlay and airport approach cone overlay districts. The project consists of five
existing lots: the main airport parcel, and four outparcels along Williston Road. The four outparcels are
located within the Mixed Industrial/Commercial Zoning district, while the portion within the main airport
parcel is within the Airport Industrial Zoning District. The portion of the property that fronts on Williston
Road lies in the Traffic Overlay District – Zone 3 Balance of Restricted Roads, which restricts the trip
generation to 45 vehicle trips per 40,000 of land area without supplemental mitigation.
As part of the concurrent combined preliminary and final plat application for the first phase, the applicant
is proposing to consolidate the five involved parcels into one 747.9 acre lot. The master plan includes
37.6 acres of the consolidated airport parcel. The creation of this master plan area would result in this
37.6 acre area being reviewed as a PUD independent of the overall airport PUD. These staff comments
reflect only the master plan area. Staff considers the Board should require the applicant in all cases to
meet the standards of the LDR within the master plan area.
The applicant has proposed to construct the master plan in four phases
• the blue phase for which they’ve submitted a concurrent preliminary and final plat application
and which includes a manufacturing and office building,
• the green phase which includes a childcare use
• the purple phase which includes a hanger, pilot training and other commercial use building
• the red phase which includes a mixed retail and office building, parking and solar field
Aside from the blue phase, the applicant has not proposed an order for the phases.
The project involves land within the Airport Industrial zoning district and the Industrial/Commercial Zoning
district.
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
3
B) ZONING DISTRICT TABLES
Air-I Zoning
District
Requirement
Air-I Zoning
District
Proposed
I/C Zoning
District
Requirement
I/C Zoning
District
Proposed
Min. Lot Size1 3 ac 747.9 40,000 sf 747.9
Max. Building Coverage 30 % Unknown 40% No building
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % Unknown 70% Unknown
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. Unknown
Requirement Proposed
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Air-I
30 ft. I/C
47’-2”
Min. Side Setback 35 ft. Air-I
10 ft. I/C
84’-5” Air-I,
24’ I/C
Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. Air-I
30 ft. I/C
Appx 874’
Max. Front Setback
Coverage
30% Unknown
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested
1. The reported lot sizes represent the size of the involved lot, though this master plan and
concurrent final plat review consider only the involved 37.6 acres.
The applicant reports that 11.53 acres of the master plan is within the I/C zoning district, which
leaves 26.07 acres outside. However, the applicant also reports that the manufacturing/office
building has 28,965 sf of building within the I/C zoning district, which is clearly incorrect based on
the plans. Therefore Staff has not reported on proposed coverages.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to work with Staff to understand the required
dimensional computations and require the applicant to provide corrected dimensional values prior
to closing the hearing.
C) APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN
Pursuant to Section 15.07(D)(3) of the South Burlington Land Development regulations, “any application
for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that deviates from the master
plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new application for the property
and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended master plan.” As the initial master
plan, the review of these standards establishes the parameters for the project.
(a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject to
the master plan;
Floor area ratio is defined as follows
Floor area ratio (FAR). The allowable proportion of total gross square feet of principal and accessory
building area to total lot size. The ratio is an expression of the intensity of development. For
example, an F.A.R. of 1.0 would allow one square foot of building area to be constructed for each
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
4
square foot of lot area; an F.A.R. of 4.0 would allow four square feet of building area for each square
foot of lot area. A floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 could be a 40,000 square foot building on a 40,000
square foot lot. It could be a 10,000 square foot building on 4 floors or a 20,000 square foot building
on 2 floors. An FAR of 0.5 would be a 20,000 square foot building on a 40,000 square foot lot.
The applicant has requested 482,400 sf of building on the 37.6 acre project area, or a floor area ratio of
0.295.
2. The applicant has further requested in their cover memo a waiver of the requirement to establish a
floor area ratio. Staff consider establishment of this and the other four master plan criteria to be a
critical part of master plan review and does not support the request for waiver. Staff recommends
the Board discuss the requested waiver with the applicant. The Board could establish a slightly
higher FAR maxium as part of this master plan so as to give some room for modifications.
(b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;
3. This application is for the 37.6 acre master plan area. The applicant has provided a table of lot
coverages for the 747.9 acre parcel of which the master plan is a part, but since this master plan
approval will not apply to the entire 747.9 acre parcel, Staff considers this information to be
irrelevant. As discussed above, the applicant’s computations of coverages appear to be erroneous
and Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to correct them before closing the hearing.
Staff considers the Board is approving a layout, and that the actual values should not play a major
factor in the Board’s decision making.
(c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property
subject to the master plan;
Relevant definitions from the LDR are as follows.
Street, collector. A street that is used or will be used primarily for connecting local street traffic
to the arterial street system. These streets are designated in the transportation chapter of the
2001 Comprehensive Plan, or most recent update.
Street, local. A street used primarily for direct access to property and not for through traffic
flow. These streets are all those not designated as arterial or collector.
The master plan area does not include any collector roadways. Williston Road is defined as an arterial.
Staff typically recommends the Board identify at least one road within a Master Plan as a collector
roadway to support review of future master plan amendments, but this application does not include any
appropriate roadways therefore Staff considers in this case this criterion is not applicable.
(d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in the
approved master plan application; and/or
Open space is defined in the LDR as follows.
Open space. Land maintained in essentially an undisturbed, natural state for purposes of
resource conservation, and/or maintaining forest cover; or that is enhanced and managed for
outdoor recreation and civic use, working lands, or local food production. Open space must be
of a quality and size that supports its intended function or use. Open space specifically excludes
streets, parking areas, driveways and other areas accessible to motor vehicles.
Open spaces may be common to the development or owned by an organization on behalf of the public.
The master plan does not identify any areas as open space. However the project narrative refers to the
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
5
area southeast of the office/manufacturing building as the “Great Lawn” and envisions outdoor activities
associated with activities within the proposed buildings. It also discusses the recreation paths and
outdoor viewing spaces. Staff considers therefore that the project does contain open spaces.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to discuss the location of each of the significant spaces
mentioned in the application narrative, and demarcate these open spaces on a plan for the Board’s
review. Staff recommends if the Board considers these open spaces as integral to the master plan that
they be established as permanent open spaces in support of this criterion.
(e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends
projected for the total buildout of the property subject to the master plan.
5. The applicant indicates in their application narrative that the project is proposed to generate 526 PM
peak hour trips. The applicant says this is supported by a submitted analysis, but Staff has been unable
to locate that analysis. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an analysis of
how the trip generation was calculated for review prior to closing the hearing.
The applicant also notes that the trip generation is “below the 563 traffic as defined in the LDR’s.” The
project is located in the traffic overlay district and would be allowed to generate 1,692 vehicle trips per
PM peak hour. Staff is not aware of any limit equal to 563 trips.
D) CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF MASTER PLANS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply with
the PUD and subdivision standards and conditions:
(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
6. The applicant has not provided an estimate of water and wastewater demand. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to do so for review by the South Burlington Water and Water Quality
Departments prior to closing the hearing to identify whether a project of this scale would be expected
to encounter any major capacity issues. Staff recommends the ultimate finding on this criterion
establish a general finding of sufficiency but leave detailed review of the water distribution and
wastewater collection systems for individual final plat applications.
(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.
Staff recommends the Board consider compliance with this criterion on a phase by phase basis.
(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.
The project proposes to reconfigure an existing driveway on Williston Road which is offset from adjoining
roadways and driveways. The nearest adjoining intersections are Shunpike Road/Valley Road to the west
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
6
and Palmer Court/Gregory Drive to the east. Minor roadways at both adjoining intersections have long
queuing times. The applicant is proposing to eliminate Valley Road, but retain a secondary access to the
site via Aviation Ave and Eagle Drive from the west/north. The applicant has prepared a detailed Traffic
Impact Study associated with the concurrent preliminary and final plat application for the
manufacturing/office building, which concludes a signal is warranted at the proposed Williston Road
driveway. The TIS does not, however, take into consideration the 526 trips generated by the master plan
and instead only considers the 175 PM peak hour trips generated by the office/manufacturing building.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to prepare a TIS addendum taking into
consideration the entirety of the master plan development, or whether they will allow this criterion to
be evaluated for each final plat application. Preparing a traffic study addendum will require additional
investment prior to final design of the project, and the traffic study would likely need minor updates
as each final plat is developed, but it would be beneficial to the applicant to have some certainty that
the project will not be prohibited based on anticipated traffic volumes, and establishing the maximum
PM peak hour trips do not result in unreasonable congestion of adjacent roadways one of the five
principal parameters of master plan review.
Pedestrian circulation within the development is proposed via a network of sidewalks and recreation
paths, most of which are proposed for construction with the first final plat application. Staff considers
the provision of sidewalks as supportive of multimodal connectivity within the scope of this project.
8. A sidewalk along Williston Road is proposed in concurrent final plat application #SD-21-28 but is not
shown on the master plans. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to include the proposed
sidewalk on the master plan documents.
Staff considers the proposal to construct much of the vehicular and pedestrian infrastructure as part of
the first final plat supports compliance with this criterion and recommends the Board ensure the roads
and sidewalks in the “blue” phase proceed first by including it as a condition of approval.
(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.
Staff considers the applicant has minimized wetland and stream impacts through their site layout. As
discussed in the staff notes for concurrent preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28, the
proposed wetland buffer impacts will require DEC review. The Draft Land Development Regulations
(warned November 10, 2021) include a habitat block nearly coincident with the delineated wetland.
Staff is not aware of other natural features on or in immediate proximity to the site. Staff considers this
criterion generally met for the master plan as a whole, though additional comments on the specific
proposed impacts are included in #SD-21-28.
Staff recommends the Board find this condition to be met on an overall basis, and that each individual
phase / plat will be required to be meet natural resources standards in effect at the time of application.
(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.
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
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
7
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.
The purpose of the AIR-I zoning district is to provide sufficient land area for the Vermont Air National Guard
and Airport-related uses, support facilities, and commercial activities that may be incompatible with
general residential or commercial uses. The standards and regulations for the Airport Industrial District
recognize the importance of these facilities and uses to the operation of the City and regional economies
while providing appropriate setbacks and buffering to offset their impacts on adjacent land uses.
The purpose of the IC zoning district is to encourage general industrial and commercial activity in areas of
the City served by major arterial roadways and with ready access to Burlington International Airport. The
Mixed Industrial- Commercial district encourages development of a wide range of commercial, industrial
and office uses that will generate employment and trade in keeping with the City’s economic development
policies. These uses are encouraged in locations that are compatible with industrial activity and its
associated land use impacts.
Staff considers that the proposed master plan compatible with the comprehensive plan and zoning districts.
The applicant, importantly, has not requested any setback waivers, which supports the objectives of buffering
between airport and industrial uses and adjoining uses. Staff considers this criterion met for the proposed
master plan but recommends the Board require review of each phases continued compliance with this
criterion.
(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.
Establishment of open spaces is discussed above. Staff considers the proposed “Great Lawn” area
establishes a valuable transition and connection to the Muddy Brook and adjoining conserved areas and
considers this criterion met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that
adequate fire protection can be provided.
Staff recommends the Board consider compliance with this criterion on a phase by phase basis.
(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.
As discussed pertaining to access and circulation above, Staff considers the general layout to be
compatible with the extension of services and infrastructure, but recommends details of this criterion be
considered on a phase by phase basis.
(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.
As noted above pertaining to access and circulation, Staff considers the proposal to construct
connections to City rights-of-way as part of the first final plat supports compliance with this criterion
and recommends the Board ensure the roads and sidewalks in the “blue” phase proceed first by
including it as a condition of approval. Staff considers concurrent approval of preliminary and final plat
application #SD-21-28 will result in this criterion being met for the overall master plan.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
8
district(s).
The Goals of the comprehensive plan are
1. Affordable & community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our
residents and visitors.
2. Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
3. Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long-term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington.
4. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community.
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 this criterion met.
(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.
The applicant has prepared a detailed stormwater management plan for the first preliminary and final
plat application #SD-21-28. Staff recommends the Board consider compliance with this criterion on a
phase by phase basis.
E) REQUESTED WAIVERS AND FINDINGS
1. 15.07D(2) In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level of review and process
required for subsequent applications pursuant to the approved Master Plan provided such
procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations. The DRB may, for example, specify that
final site plan only shall be required for specified portions of a project subject to a master plan, or
that a section of a PUD shall be able to be amended with a final plat amendment action.
9. The applicant has not made a specific request regarding this criterion. Staff recommends the Board
include a finding that the applicant may proceed directly to site plan of the application which are
consistent with the plans presented at master plan and does not involve subdivision of land. Sketch
plan is required should the applicant wish to deviate from the approval (see Section C of this report
above).
2. 15.07D(4) Any application for amendment of the master plan that does not reduce the total area
or alter the location of proposed permanent open spaces, and which does not meet any of the
criteria in (3) above, and any application for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan that is found
to be consistent with the findings of fact for the master plan, shall not require sketch plan review.
The DRB may, at its discretion, allow applicants for preliminary plat or preliminary site plan review
pursuant to a master plan to combine preliminary and final review into one application and
approval action.
If the Board chooses not to allow the applicant to proceed directly to site plan as recommended under
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
9
D(2) above, Staff considers this standard applies and the applicant may proceed directly to preliminary
plat.
3. 15.07D(5) The DRB may in its findings of fact on the master plan, or its approval of a site plan or
preliminary plat pursuant thereto, specify certain minor land development activities (such as but
not limited to the addition of decks or porches to dwelling units) that will not require DRB action,
and may be undertaken pursuant to issuance of a Zoning Permit.
10. The applicant has not made a specific request regarding this criterion. Staff recommends the Board
discuss with the applicant whether there are any elements of the project, such as installation of solar
equipment, that may be approved by a zoning permit only.
4. Phasing
As previously noted herein, Staff recommends the Board ensure the roads and sidewalks in the “blue”
phase proceed first by requiring it as a condition of approval.
11. Staff recommends the Board include a requirement that the applicant submit complete site plan or
preliminary plat applications for each of the remaining three phases within 5 years from the date of
approval of this master plan. Staff recommends the Board discuss the feasibility of this timeline with
the applicant.
a. Parking
14.06B(2)(a) requires parking to be located to the rear or sides of buildings. 14.06B(2)(c) requires for
lots with multiple structures that the width of parking at the side of the building be no greater than ½
the total width of buildings.
For the master plan as a whole, these requirements are met. However, by advancing the “blue” phase
prior to the “red” phase, the applicant creates a situation where parking is located to the front of a
building. The “red” has is the only phase which results in this criterion being met. The applicant has
requested a waiver to allow the parking to be in front of the buildings until the “red” phase is built.
The applicant has located the parking a sufficient distance from the street to allow a building to be
constructed, and has proposed to screen the parking with an arborvitae hedge. Both of these
measures are consistent with what would be allowed in the Form Based Code zoning district for
parking that is not to the side or rear of a building.
12. 15.02A(4)(c) prohibits the Board for granting waivers for parking not in compliance with 14.06B(2).
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow the applicant’s proposal to phase the
parking so that it does not meet 14.06B(2) in the short term but will meet when the master plan is fully
constructed. Staff considers a surety is not an appropriate failsafe in this case since the City would not
be likely to construct a building between the parking and the street. Staff recommends the Board ask
the applicant how they would propose to guarantee the building is built. What condition would they
propose that would require it to exist, and within what timeframe, that gave the City an actionable
enforcement?
5. Dimensional Standard Waivers
The requested height waiver is noted above. The applicant has indicated their intent is to use the height
waiver on the purple phase. Development in the airport-industrial district is eligible for height beyond 35-
feet as follows.
(a) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the
#MP-21-02
Staff Comments
10
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.
Since no elevations or design of the building in the purple phase has yet been provided, Staff recommends
the Board decline the height waiver request as part of the master plan but allow the applicant to make
the request on a phase by phase basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner