Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_MP-21-02_Response to Staff CommentsBETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 1 of 7 B) ZONING DISTRCIT TABLES Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions 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. Requested setbacks, coverages, and lot dimensions are summarized below: AIR-I Zoning District Requirement AIR-I Zoning District Proposed I/C Zoning District Requirement I/C Zoning District Proposed Min. Lot Size 3 ac 747.9 ac 40,000 sf 747.9 ac Max. Building Coverage 30% 24.3% 40.0% 5.5% Max. Overall Coverage 50% 54.5% 70.0% 43.9% @ Max. Height (Flat Roof) 35 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% N/A 30% 13% The master plan project limits as being considered does not include the geothermal field location, which was inadvertently not included. When including this area, which is 2.83 acres, the Max. Overall Coverage would be 49.1%, not the current as calculated 54.5%, meeting the AIR-I zoning district requirement. Figure 1 - AIR-I PUD Max. Overall Coverage Diagram BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 2 of 7 C) APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN (a) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 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 maximum as part of this master plan so as to give some room for modifications. The applicant’s original request was to waive the requirement to calculate FAR for the AIR-I district as it originally included the entire Airport parcel for said calculation. However, with the proposed master plan now sitting separately, the applicant requests the following FAR’s to provide for current and future growth: AIR-I District Parcel 26.07 Acres FAR = 0.75 IC District Parcel 11.52 Acres FAR = 0.75 (b) Site Coverage 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. Calculations corrected to consider the 37.6 acre master plan area. (c) Open Space 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. The figure below provides the location of each of the proposed open spaces. BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 3 of 7 Figure 3 - Open Space Diagram BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 4 of 7 (d) PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends 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. Project Calculated Trip Generation. The table below shows the assumptions and calculations used to estimate the 526 PM peak hours trips generated by the full master plan build-out. Traffic Overlay District Trip Budget Calculation. The Traffic Overlay District trip budget in the Traffic Impact Study assumed a land area of 500,000 square feet based on the size of the parcels fronting Williston Road that are part of the Phase 1 development. This calculation has been updated to include the full planned unit development lot size of 37.6 acres (1,637,856 square feet), which yields a trip budget of 1,843 trips as summarized in the table below. D) CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF MASTER PLANS (1) Water supply and wastewater disposal capacity. 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. Applicant will provide estimated water and wastewater demand for review by the South Burlington and Water Quality Departments. Figure 4 - Trip Generation Calculation Table Maximum Number of Peak Hour Trip Ends per 40,000 SF of Land Area 45 Approximate Total Parcel Area (acres)37.6 Approximate Total Parcel Area (square feet)1,637,856 Maximum PM Peak Hour Trip Budget 1,843 Figure 5 - Traffic Overlay District Trip Budget Calculation BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 5 of 7 E) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Traffic Circulation and Management Strategies 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. Applicant will prepare a TIS addendum for the entirety of the Master Plan Pedestrian Circulation within the Development 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. Sidewalk was inadvertently omitted on drawing MP-003, which has been revised to include the sidewalk. The proposed location is shown correctly on sheet L-002 and below. Figure 6 - Proposed Williston Road Sidewalk - Illustrative (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 6 of 7 E) REQUESTED WAIVERS AND FINDINGS 1. 15.07(D)(2) Level of Review and Process Required for Subsequent Master Plans 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). Applicant supports Staff’s recommendation. Figure 7 - Proposed Williston Road Sidewalk - Landscape Plan (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 CAMPUS MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02 Responses to Staff Comments Page 7 of 7 3. 15.07(D)(5) Minor Land Development Activities that will not require DRB action 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. As recommended by Staff, Applicant requests zoning permit only for installation of the following items: • PV Solar Equipment • Battery Backup Equipment • Assembly Process-related Equipment • Utility Transformers, Pedestals, and associated appurtenances • Electric Aircraft and Car Chargers 4. Phasing 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. While the Applicant anticipates meeting the five (5) years proposed by Staff, to recognize the unforeseen impacts of market dynamics, the Applicant requests no timeline be established. a. Parking 12. 15.02(A)(4)(c) prohibits the Board for granting waivers for parking not in compliance with 14.06(B)(2). Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow the applicant’s proposal to phase the parking so that it does not meet 14.06(B)(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? As noted in the response to SD-21-28 Staff Comment 3, the Applicant believes the DRB does have the authority to waive this requirement under provision 14.07(E) – Modification of Standards due to the “unusual hardship” created by the Land Development Regulations as applied to this specific project.