Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-21-28_Response to Staff CommentsBETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 1 of 18 A) CONTEXT • Note: Staff considers the board should require the applicant in all cases to meet the standards of the LDR within the master plan area. B) ZONING DISTRCIT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions 1. (a) Staff recommends the Board require the applicate to provide an analysis of dimensional standards for the project area by zoning district basis; (b) Staff also recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a front setback coverage computation, though it appears to be below the minimum. Requested setbacks, coverages, and lot dimensions are summarized below: AIR-I Zoning District Req’t AIR-I Zoning District Proposed AIR-I Zoning District Proposed ** I/C Zoning District Req’t I/C Zoning District Proposed Min. Lot Size 3 ac 747.9 ac 26.07 40,000 sf 747.9 ac Max. Building Coverage 30% <35.1% * 22.0% 40.0% 3.4% Max. Overall Coverage 50% 35.1% 33.9% 70.0% 48.6% @ Max. Height (Flat Roof) 35 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. None Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% N/A N/A 30% 13% * The total % coverage is just over 30% for total impervious for a site that mostly consists of paved taxiways, aprons, runways and parking lots. This provides reasonable justification for the site staying under the 30% max building coverage requirement, so the building coverage calculation for the AIR-I district has been omitted at this time. ** As defined by the Master Plan PUD 6.03 Supplemental District Standards 2. (a) Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate they have submitted an application to the appropriate regulatory agencies prior to closing the hearing, and (b) require applicant to demonstrate they have received approval prior to issuance of a zoning permit. FAA 7460-1 applications were submitted for the proposed building on May 18th with an amended submittal on November 11th. FAA determinations are expected before the end of the year and will be forwarded to SBUL P&Z once received. C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Review Standards 3. The applicant is proposing to locate the parking to the front of the building. LDR 15.02A(4) prohibits the DRB from waiving compliance with this standard, therefore Staff considers the Board may not grant this approval without the Board finding a path to approving the proposed project phasing as part of concurrent master plan application #MP-21-02. Staff recommends the Board discuss this criterion in light of their discussion of #MP-21-02. The project as proposed provides for a future commercial building consistent with both the current comprehensive plan and Land Development Regulations. The landowner and applicant request that the DRB review this application with the following in mind: BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 2 of 18 a) Building 3060 Williston Road. This building provides much needed entry level rents to support business that are not able to afford Class A space rent rates. One or more existing tenants have multi-year binding leases in effect that preclude involuntary relocation of such tenants and demolition of the building in the near term. Should the proposed commercial building be constructed, and the 3060 Williston Road building be demolished, these tenants may need to relocate out of South Burlington. b) LDR Paragraph 14.07€ – Modification of Standards. While the standards set forth in LDR 14.06(B)(2) must be met by this PUD, those parking-related standards expressly incorporate, and are modified by, the waiver provision set forth at LDR 14.07(E). This provision enables the DRB to consider and modify regulations “where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety, or welfare …” The site for the proposed project creates such a hardship as the “back” of the building is inside FAA controlled space and is not available for public/employee parking. For a manufacturing project (a permitted use) to be viable in the AIR-I district and be compliant with FAA mandates (aviation-related purpose), direct access to the FAA controlled apron and taxiway is required eliminating the ability to park cars in the “rear” of the building, creating an “unusual hardship”. With exception to the parking requirement, the applicant has met or exceeded the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations in creating a project that seeks to be socially, environmentally, and financially sustainable. The project has protected land to allow a commercial building to be constructed in the future consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. Therefore, since the applicant meets the stringent waiver requirements of LDR 14.07(E), the DRB has the authority to allow the parking location proposed by the applicant due to FAA access requirements that preclude parking to the rear of the building. While this application stands on its own, the DRB has recognized the unusual hardship created by this provision in this general location through its past permitting of projects in the AIR-I zoning district with similar unusual hardships. D) SPECIFIC REVIEW STANDARDS 14.07A Access to Abutting Properties 4. Staff recommends that the findings on this criterion reflect the findings pertaining to access between properties on concurrent master plan application #MP-21-02. Staff has not identified the need for any cross-lot connections beyond those which are proposed. The masterplan has been developed to eliminate the need for cross-lot connections. The proposed new drive provides for inter-site connectivity. 14.07B Utility Services 5. Existing overhead utilities serve the “South Hangar/Mansfield Heliflight Hangar” north of the proposed building. It appears there is a conflict between the existing overhead utilities and the proposed water line. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address this conflict prior to closing the hearing. The waterline conflicting with the existing utility pole is an existing waterline. An underground utility locate was performed and the location of that existing water line has been corrected. BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 3 of 18 Waterline design has been modified to incorporate comments and coordination with Champlain Water District and the South Burlington Water Department, as shown below. Figure 1 - Relocated Water Line Snippet (Stantec) 14.07C Disposal of Waste 6. No information has been provided about the proposed dumpsters, which are located on the northwest façade near the loading docks. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with both the enclosure and the screening elements of this criterion. Two trash compactors will be installed in the lower loading dock area. This area is depressed by 4’ with walls on either side. From the nearby private drive, the trash compactors will generally be screened by the proposed building as shown below. Figure 3 - Compactor Location Plan Figure 2 - Compactor Location Plan (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 4 of 18 14.07D Landscaping and Screening Requirements 7. The applicant has proposed a large amount of site area to be planted with standard ground covering grass rather than landscaping. Staff considers it incumbent upon the Board to determine whether the objectives of the landscaping requirements are met in order to determine if credit may be granted for site improvements other than trees and shrubs. Specific comments pertaining to landscaping follow. Due to the large nature of the site, the applicant has concentrated the majority of landscaping to areas that will improve the visitors and employee experience on a day-to-day basis in addition to screening neighboring properties and the parking areas. In these areas the project is providing 304 trees, 978 shrubs, 1,541 Perennials & 2,335 ornamental grasses. In addition to meeting the landscape requirement, applicant is striving to meet the FAA guidelines for minimizing Hazardous Wildlife Attractants that could provide habitat for deer or large birds which constitute the largest animal threat to aviation. Landscape features to avoid according to the FAA guidelines are excessive lawn areas, woodlands, open water, or wetlands. For this reason, a large part of the site has been proposed to be conservation grass mix which will not attract geese or other large birds and can be mowed periodically to prevent re-forestation in close proximity to the airfields. Figure 3 - View of Compactor from Proposed Drive (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 5 of 18 8. Staff considers it appears this criterion is met but recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a computation of interior parking lot landscaping accompanied by a figure demonstrating how the computation was performed to support review of future amendments. Early on in the site design process the applicant decided to provide major landscaped islands to divide the parking bays to minimize the total amount of asphalt, provide a more pleasant experience as employees and guests walked to and from the building entrances, and provide an opportunity for an integrated stormwater management approach. In total, interior islands account for 36% of the parking area. Figure 4 - Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Computation (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 6 of 18 9. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Arborist. Tree Protection. The Applicant will remove any reference to crown pruning. Deciduous Planting Detail. Applicant will modify the planting detail to change the pruning method. Landscape Plan L-200. Applicant will include soil cells for any trees planted within pavement, providing a minimum of 1,000 CF of soil for these trees. Figure 5 - Silva Cell Location Plan (WHLA) Figure 6 - Silva Cell Installation Detail (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 7 of 18 10. Staff considers all proposed tree species will function as shading when mature. Given the size of the project, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an exhibit demonstrating this criterion is met. See diagram below that demonstrates compliance with trees quantities adjacent to parking lots. Applicant has spaced the trees with varying spacing to compliment the more organic nature of the parking lot design. Figure 7 - Trees Adjacent to Parking (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 8 of 18 11. Limited snow storage areas are shown on the plans near the front of the site. Staff considers snow storage may be challenging with the stormwater system and provided landscaping and recommends the Board discuss planned snow removal operations with the applicant. The City Arborist recommends plantings be set back at least 10-ft from the edge of pavement if snow storage is planned. Applicant has met with the airport maintenance staff to review preferred locations for snow storage and incorporated the City Arborist recommendations and made the following modifications to the landscaping plan: Figure 8 - Snow Storage Areas (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 9 of 18 12. There is a large electric cabinet along the proposed access drive. Not only is screening not proposed, it appears the site drawings and landscaping drawings conflict in this area. Due to the size of the project, Staff has not performed an exhaustive review of utility and landscaping conflicts, but recommends the Board require the applicant to so and make necessary modifications to the plan prior to closing the hearing. Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that above-ground elements of the proposed utility system are adequately screened by showing those features on a plan or exhibit. Applicant has proposed to screen the electrical cabinet as shown below. Additionally, the site and landscape drawings have been updated to align with the proposed design. Figure 9 - Electrical Cabinet Screening (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 10 of 18 Figure 10 - Transformer Enclosure Location Plan & View from Southwest Entry Area (WHLA) Figure 11 - View of Proposed Transformer Screening from Southeast Entry Area (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 11 of 18 13. As this is an extremely high proportion of the required landscaping, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide robust demonstration that the concrete pavers enhance the value of the project as compared to standard concrete construction. Staff recommends that the Board consider requiring the applicant to replace some of the concrete pavers (or the landscaping value associated with the pavers) with commissioned artwork, as recommended in the next staff comment. The concrete pavers referenced are intended to be permeable pavers due to the sandy nature of soils at the airport which make this project unusually well-suited to permeable pavement. Permeable pavers are much more costly to install and maintain than regular pavers or regular concrete. For this reason and due to the added environmental benefits of permeable pavers the applicant feels that inclusion of the permeable pavers in the landscape calculation is warranted. As well, the applicant is also open to commissioned artwork to be included as proposed by Staff. 14. Landscaping features are required to be maintained for the duration of the use. (a) Staff recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request to include the proposed site furniture, as it is moveable and non-permanent. Staff considers the applicant may instead propose custom built-in elements that could function as art or as furniture, and that those materials would count towards the requirement. (b) Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to meet with the Public Art Selection Committee for assistance developing a customized hardscape for the portion of the project which will be open to the public. Staff considers if the Board makes this recommendation, it should provide specific direction on objectives to the applicant and to the Committee. o (c) This number includes the proposed bicycle racks. Staff has observed that the proposed type of bicycle rack is not durable and recommends the Board require the applicant to propose an alternative. (a) Applicant is proposing multiple built-in seating elements and will remove moveable furniture from the calculation and include fixed elements – seat walls that form a large informal seating area; see attached renderings. Figure 12 - Site-Built Seating Plan (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 12 of 18 (b) Applicant is open to and welcomes the opportunity to meet with the Public Art Selection Committee to identify opportunities to incorporate public art into the project. (c) The bike rack proposed is a loop made of stainless steel, but applicant is open to changing the bike racks to the Corten Steel loops that were approved recently at the BETA North Hangar – North Addition project recently approved by the DRB. Figure 13 - View of Site-Built Seating from Dining Terrace (WHLA) Figure 14 - Submitted Bike Rack & Proposed Alternate Bike Rack (WHLA) BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 13 of 18 15. The applicant is proposing trees that range in size from 2.5 to 6” at planting. Given that the cost estimates for the 2.5” – 3” caliper trees are significantly (40%) higher than staff typically see for similar size and species trees on other projects, Staff asked the City Arborist for review. The City Arborist reports that deciduous tree prices are consistent with recent increases but questions the listed estimates for the evergreen trees. He notes that “Horsford’s lists wholesale price for a 7ft T. occidentalis ‘nigra’ at $175. Planted cost is generally calculated at 3-4 times wholesale. Even at 4 times wholesale the price listed on the plan is $200 more.” Further, the City Arborists recommends the Board ask for documentation of the listed prices for the large caliper trees. Much like other construction materials, in the past year the applicant has seen increasing prices for all types of plant material. Applicant is willing to provide subcontractor quotes for the large caliper trees and the evergreens in question. 16. Staff also notes that the City Arborist recommends the use of soil cells to provide adequate soil for tree growth. Staff considers the Board may wish to allow the value of those cells to contribute towards the required minimum landscaping budget. As noted in Comment 9 above, Applicant will provide the Arborist recommended soil cells for trees in pavement and requests, consistent with Staff comments, that the soil cell value contribute toward the required minimum landscaping budget. See Appendix A for a current proposed landscape budget. Applicant will provide a surety required for the amount of the plantings, consistent with LDR 15.15. 17. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Stormwater section prior to closing the hearing. Applicant has reviewed the plans and comments with the City Stormwater Department and has provided the requested information and clarifications. Applicant would like to clarify that the existing impervious on site is 448,026 SF and the total proposed is 648,943 SF for a net increase of 200,917 SF. 18. The applicant is also proposing a recreation path from Williston Road heading north along the side access road and then east of the building. This path terminates in a label that says “Nature Walk Trail.” Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe this path, including who will be able to use it, responsibility for maintenance, and property access rights at the terminal of the paved portion of the path. This path was introduced to provide access in the future for the daycare to the natural areas of the Muddy Brook / Allen Brook basin; provide access for the public to the viewing field adjacent to the airfield and to provide a dedicated link for any future recreation paths from Williston Road to areas adjacent to the airport. Applicant is prepared to maintain this path and provide access to the public through the property. E) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 15.18A General Standards (1) Staff recommends “the Board continue the hearing until the applicant has received preliminary water and wastewater allocation and require the applicant to obtain final water and wastewater allocation and connection permits prior to issuance of a zoning permit.” BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 14 of 18 (2) Staff recommends for stormwater, “the Board may rely on issuance of this permit as demonstration that this criterion is met.” Applicant has met with Jay Nadeau, South Burlington Water Department and Justin Rabidoux, South Burlington Public Works, to review the project ahead of submitting allocation applications. Plans have been adjusted per these discussions and will be submitted with the project’s allocation application. (4) Temporary wetland buffer impacts. 19. The applicant has not enumerated the area of proposed encroachment. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to do so for recordkeeping purposes. In coordination with the ANR District wetland coordinator, the sidewalk alignment and grading were modified to reduce wetland impacts. 12.02E Standards for Wetland Protection (2) Encroachment into Class II Wetlands. Staff recommends “the Board require DEC approval prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the project.” Applicant met with Tina Heath, District Ecologist, to review the proposed project, wetland delineations, and potential related impacts. Plans have been revised to reduce buffer impacts per those conversations. A General Wetland Permit application will be submitted to the State for review. (3) Wetland Field Delineation. Staff considers “DEC, Staff considers the Board may rely upon issuance of a wetland permit from the DEC as demonstration that this criterion is met.” (7) Review of PUD Subdivision Layout by Fire Chief 20. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the meeting minutes for the Board’s review prior to closing the hearing as referenced by the fire chief since they pertain to elements of the project within the jurisdiction of the DRB. Requested meeting minutes from the meeting with the South Burlington Fire Department are provided in Appendix B. Figure 15a - Wetland Buffer Impact #1 Figure 15b - Wetland Buffer Impact #2 BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 15 of 18 (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. 21. The applicant is proposing up lighting on some of their landscaping features. These fixtures are prohibited and must be removed. Applicant will remove proposed up-lighting from the project. 22. The applicant is also proposing wall-mounted fixtures at 40-ft high. The maximum height for wall mounted fixtures is 30-ft or the height of the structure, whichever is less. These fixtures must be lowered. The lighting condition noted by Staff occurs in two locations … 1) at the Loading Dock and 2) at the Airside Hangar Door. The wall-mounted fixtures located at the loading dock will be lowered to below 30’-0” AFG. For the airside hangar door, the mounting height is dictated by the height of the hangar door (36’ high), which is dictated by the assembly process and height of proposed aircraft. To meet this requirement, the airside wall-mounted fixtures require a 42’ mounting height. Placing lighting poles airside in this location would create conflicts with the aircraft leaving the assembly facility as well as general airport operations. 23. In the loading dock area, Staff considers it would be acceptable for illumination levels to exceed 3 footcandles where the loading dock is fully screened from the roadway by the building, but not where the loading dock area is exposed to view from the roadway. Staff considers illumination under the canopy may exceed 3-footcandles but should not exceed 3 footcandles outside of the canopy. It is unclear what area the applicant has considered in their computation of “Entry Canopy” area. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to adjust the illumination levels to more closely adhere to this criterion. The loading dock area will have reduced average footcandles to support local jurisdictional requirements. Average footcandles will be lowered from ~10fc to ~6fc, the level required to safely conduct nighttime loading dock activities. To achieve the desired 3fc maximum, applicant proposes to reduce the luminaire outputs to ~40% when not occupied, utilizing occupancy sensors. When occupancy is detected, luminaire output would increase to 100% Figure 16 - Elevation of Airside Hangar Door BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 16 of 18 (9) Williston Road Modifications. Staff recommends “the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the Deputy Director of Operations as a condition of approval.” Applicant will comply with the comments as noted, once received. (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. 24. As discussed above, Staff recommends the Board not conclude the hearing until a positive determination from the Stormwater Section is made. Applicant has coordinated with Stormwater Department, see Comment 17. F) OTHER 13.14B & 13.14C Bicycle Parking and Storage 25. Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to provide an additional six (6) bicycle parking spaces, either long or short term. Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to show where the long-term parking spaces, changing facilities, showers, and clothes lockers are provided in order to evaluate whether they meet the minimum location and dimensional standards. To support BETA’s extensive group of bicyclists, and those that may visit by bicycle, the table and location plan provide an overview of the number of short- and long-term spaces, changing facilities, showers, and lockers. Included in the bicycle support services will be a service/air station. Note that the changing facilities, showers, and lockers are sized for the anticipated assembly employee population and not just for bicyclists. Figure 17 - Short- & Long-term Bicycle Storage Location Plan BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 17 of 18 13.09 Bus Shelters 26. 13.09 requires that bus shelters be located within street rights-of-way and must permit ample room for the bus to conveniently leave the traveled roadway to pick up or discharge passengers. It also requires the design be harmonious with adjacent properties. Staff considers the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with either of these provisions and recommends the Board require the applicant to do so prior to closing the hearing. Applicant is coordinating with VTrans and will be coordinating with Green Mountain Transit (GMT) to the proposed bus shelter location and type. GMT has historically preferred to stay in rather than exiting the travelled way when dropping off or picking up passengers. Exiting the travelled way increases the challenges when entering back into the traffic flow. This is consistent with other bus shelters and stops along Williston Road. Below is an image of the anticipated GMT bus shelter design. 15.08F(2) Action on Final Plat. The Development Review Board may establish phasing schedules for construction of structures and may also require certain streets and other improvements to be completed prior to or during specified phases of construction. 27. Staff recommends the Board confirm this approach. If the applicant desires a phased Board approval, they must present phasing plans showing clearly what is proposed to be completed for each phase. Applicant proposes the project be constructed in two phases as shown below. Phase I includes constructing and occupying the Northwest portion of the building, along with construction of the new drive, and associated infrastructure as shown below in blue. Phase II includes the balance of the assembly facility as shown below in orange. This phasing has been reviewed with the Fire Marshall. Figure 18 - Current GMT Bus Shelter Standard BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments Page 18 of 18 Figure 19 - BETA BTV Campus Plan Phasing Diagram BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments APPENDIX A LANDSCAPE BUDGET SUMMARY Beta Technologies BTV Manufacturing Plant Estimate of Probable Construction Costs / City Landscape Budget 12/20/2021 TOTAL - NEW BUDGET REQUIRED BY CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON $1,122,500.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Unit Total Sub-total HARDSCAPE Concrete Units Pavers - Unilock Smooth, Series, and Umbriano 22,715 SF $23.00 $522,445.00 Includes cost of unit paver minus cost of standard concrete sidewalk Hardscape Subtotal $522,445.00 BUILT-IN SITE FURNITURE Concrete Seatwalls 228 LF $230.00 $52,440.00 Tiered Seating at Amphitheater 1 LS $350,000.00 $350,000.00 Built-in Site Furniture Subtotal $402,440.00 SOIL CELLS Soil Cells (1,000 CF at each tree in paving)8 EA $17,000.00 $136,000.00 Soil cells Subtotal $136,000.00 PUBLIC ART ALLOWANCE Public Art 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Public Art Subtotal $50,000.00 PLANTING Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 2.5"-3" Cal.6 EA $950.00 $5,700.00 Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 9 EA $1,500.00 $13,500.00 Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 4.5"-5" Cal.20 EA $4,000.00 $80,000.00 Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 5.5"-6" Cal. 5 EA $6,000.00 $30,000.00 Acer x freemanii 'Armstrong'; 2.5"-3" Cal. 1 EA $950.00 $950.00 Amelanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance'; 3"-4" Cal. 11 EA $1,500.00 $16,500.00 Betula nigra 'Heritage' (single stem); 3"-3.5" Cal. 16 EA $1,500.00 $24,000.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 2.5"-3" Cal. 5 EA $950.00 $4,750.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 23 EA $1,500.00 $34,500.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 4.5"-5" Cal. 10 EA $4,000.00 $40,000.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 5.5"-6" Cal. 6 EA $6,000.00 $36,000.00 Nyssa sylvatica; 3.5"-4" Cal. 5 EA $1,500.00 $7,500.00 Quercus bicolor; 4"-4.5" Cal. 2 EA $4,000.00 $8,000.00 Quercus rubra; 2.5"-3" Cal. 9 EA $950.00 $8,550.00 Quercus rubra; 3.5"-4" Cal. 7 EA $1,500.00 $10,500.00 Quercus rubra; 5.5"-6" Cal. 1 EA $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 2.5"-3" Cal. 9 EA $950.00 $8,550.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 11 EA $1,500.00 $16,500.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 4.5"-5" Cal. 6 EA $4,000.00 $24,000.00 Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase'; 2.5"-3" Cal. 8 EA $950.00 $7,600.00 Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase'; 3"-3.5" Cal. 10 EA $1,500.00 $15,000.00 Picea glauca 'Montrose Spire'; 6-7' B&B 24 EA $900.00 $21,600.00 Pinus strobus; 6'-7' B&B 6 EA $900.00 $5,400.00 Pinus strobus; 8'-10' B&B 6 EA $900.00 $5,400.00 Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra'; 6'-7' B&B 56 EA $900.00 $50,400.00 Taxus x media 'Tauntoni'; 15-18" B&B 32 EA $50.00 $1,600.00 Viburnum dentatum; 4'-5' B&B 21 EA $124.00 $2,604.00 5 Gal. Shrubs 616 EA $100.00 $61,600.00 3 Gal. Shrubs 341 EA $75.00 $25,575.00 2 Gal. Perennial 64 EA $35.00 $2,240.00 1 Gal. Perennial 1477 EA $20.00 $29,540.00 1 Gal. Ornamental Grasses 1636 EA $35.00 $57,260.00 2 Gal. Ornamental Grasses 699 EA $45.00 $31,455.00 Planting Subtotal $631,310.00 Subtotal $1,742,195.00 TOTAL $1,742,195.00 Wagner Hodgson Landscape Architecture 1 12/21/2021 BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments APPENDIX B BETA-AHJ Meeting Minutes from 30NOV21 Meeting Notes gm \\us0297- ppfss01\shared_projects\218421340\c_coordination\95_meetings\03_meeting_notes\ahj\20211130_ahj_mtg\218421340_20211130_beta_ahj_mtg_notes.do cx AHJ Review Meeting #2 Beta Technologies – B3 Manufacturing Facility / 218421340 Date/Time: November 30, 2021 / 2:00 PM Place: BETA Attendees: T. Francis and E. Spooner (S. Burlington F.D.); A. Klugo and M. Dalpra (BETA), E. LaPlante (PC Construction); M. Seaboldt and J. Ierardi (AKF), J. Page (Scott & Partners); C. Gendron, M. Grant, and B. Powers (Stantec) Absentees: Absentees Distribution: Attendees, G. Masefield (Studio III); E. Wong, J. Decheck, B. Mace, G. Halkias, S. Hasson, C. Arria, L. Khalvati, D. Lunny, C. Moyer, A. Webb (Stantec) Item: Action: 1. Status Update – A-Build Scope and Phased Construction A. Klugo reviewed phased approach to construction. “A-Build” (column line A through F) will be constructed as Phase 1. Phase 2 (fabrication and office / support space east of column line F) will be built in a subsequent phase. Timing of Phase 2 (Full-Build) construction is not yet determined. T. Francis and E. Spooner noted that for permitting, a building of this size and complexity will warrant a concurrent review with State building officials. Record 2. Building Compliance M. Seaboldt reviewed basic building metrics for A-Build (Phase 1). - Construction Type: A-Build: Type IIB; Full Build: IIIB. To comply with Type IIIB requirements of the Full Build, exterior load-bearing columns and braces of A-Build construction will be encased in applied fireproofing to provide a two- hour fire-resistance rating. - Sprinkler Status: Sprinklered throughout per NFPA-13 - Occupancy Classifications: Use Groups A-2 Assembly (café) (accessory), A-3 Assembly (meeting collaboration space) (accessory); B Business (offices, assembly-type spaces less than 750 sf or 50 people) F-1 Ordinary Hazard Industrial (manufacturing space); S-1 Moderate Hazard Storage (combustible storage); S-2 Low Hazard Storage (noncombustible storage and utilities). A one-hour fire-resistance rated separation will be provided between Assembly (A-2 and A-3) and F-1 Industrial use groups Record November 30, 2021 AHJ Review Meeting #2 Page 2 of 4 gm \\us0297- ppfss01\shared_projects\218421340\c_coordination\95_meetings\03_meeting_notes\ahj\20211130_ahj_mtg\218421340_20211130_beta_ahj_mtg_notes.do cx Item: Action: 3. Site and Fire Department Access C. Gendron reviewed Fire Department access, building access, and hydrant locations. T. Francis and E. Spooner noted that access to airport side of building is restricted. A fire department connection, beacon, Knox box, and annunciator will therefore be necessary at both the air-side entry (adjacent to Stair 2 at the northwest side of A-Build) and proposed primary entrance at south facade of the building between column lines D and C.6. For Phase 2, E. Sooner and T. Francis recommend that identical provisions be made at the proposed southeast building entrance. The FDC need not to protrude through the building façade. This may be situated at grade adjacent to the fire department entry location. Record 3. Equipment Located in the Sixty-Foot Side Yard M. Seaboldt reviewed the sixty-foot side yard that surrounds and adjoins an unlimited area building in accordance with IBC 507.4. Allowances exist in the IBC for location of equipment within the side yard. M. Seabolt reviewed a diagram depicting the sixty-foot side yard and proposed equipment locations for purposes of discussion. In the diagram, equipment in the form of transformers and emergency back-up batteries are sited in an area situated twenty feet beyond the face of existing hangar and proposed buildings in order to maintain fire department access to each structure. T. Francis and E. Spooner recommended that the equipment, batteries in particular, be located adjacent to the building, at a set distance from the building (ten feet), with a fire suppression system provided for the battery enclosure. E. Spooner recommended a misting sprinkler system can be used to keep the batteries array cool in the event of thermal runaway. Stantec and AKF to review options for fire suppression for the battery system further. E. Spooner and T. Francis recommended that subsequent plans consider fire department access and the weight of airport firefighting equipment if the batteries are to remain twenty feet from each adjacent building. E. Spooner and T. Francis noted that if the batteries are located closer to the BETA facility as noted above, dedicated fire department access through the west side yard isn’t necessary. Stantec/AKF 4. Posted Occupancy: Calculated versus Anticipated Occupancy at Manufacturing Area. November 30, 2021 AHJ Review Meeting #2 Page 3 of 4 gm \\us0297- ppfss01\shared_projects\218421340\c_coordination\95_meetings\03_meeting_notes\ahj\20211130_ahj_mtg\218421340_20211130_beta_ahj_mtg_notes.do cx Item: Action: M. Seaboldt reviewed calculated versus anticipated occupancy, noting that the IBC permits a specified occupant load to be used in lieu of the calculated occupant load determined using factors in Table 1004.1.2 with the approval of the Authority Having Jurisdiction. M. Seaboldt discussed a lack of a similar allowance in NFPA 101 except for existing buildings. M. Seaboldt noted that NFPA 101 contains general provisions for equivalencies that could be used to allow a specified occupant load. E. Spooner noted that NFPA is in the process of reviewing the accuracy of the current occupant load factors for industrial occupancies. E. Spooner and T. Francis will review related memo prepared by AKF and respond. 5. Exit Access Travel Distance M. Seabolt reviewed allowances for Exit Access Travel Distance as established by the IBC under 412.7 (400 feet) and NFPA-101 (250 feet). NFPA-101 allows for extension of the Exit Access Travel Distance via a performance-based analysis. M. Seaboldt reviewed two performance-based precedents that prompted revisions in the 2015 IBC (Section 412.7 and 1017.2.2) to extended travel distances in aircraft manufacturing facilities and in S-1 or F-1 Use Groups based on size of the facility and ceiling height. E. Spooner and T. Francis will review related memo prepared by AKF and respond. 6. Fire Pump and Emergency Standby Power M. Seabolt reviewed code requirements related to standby power for the fire pump in light of the Owner’s preference to avoid use of fossil fuels. M. Seaboldt reviewed the design team’s desire to use an electric fire pump connected to the normal power grid since the normal power grid is understood to be very reliable (NFPA 20 Section 9.3.2 requires a back-up power source for electric fire pumps where the power is not reliable). T. Francis and E. Spooner grant that an electric fire pump can be used without a backup power source based on the reliability of the power grid. Electric fire pumps have been approved in the past based on this reliability. Both cautioned that the Owner’s insurance agency may have final say concerning backup power. BETA should confirm with its insurance carrier BETA The meeting adjourned at 3:00 PM November 30, 2021 AHJ Review Meeting #2 Page 4 of 4 gm \\us0297- ppfss01\shared_projects\218421340\c_coordination\95_meetings\03_meeting_notes\ahj\20211130_ahj_mtg\218421340_20211130_beta_ahj_mtg_notes.do cx The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. Stantec Architecture, Inc. Brendan Powers Phone: 617-646-9973 Attachment: Attachment c. Cc List BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Responses to Staff Comments APPENDIX C Stantec-SBURL Stormwater Coordination Meeting Minutes from 30NOV21 BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 Stormwater Coordination Meeting – 12/17/21 Summary of Discussion Page 1 of 2 1. The project is located near the watershed boundary between Muddy Brook and Potash Brook. The applicant should provide documentation confirming which watershed this project is located in. Action: Confirmed that the wetland is located within muddy brook watershed. Applicant to provide 2005 study commissioned to make this determination along with updated maps documenting the updated watershed delineation. 2. The project proposes to create an additional 648,943 square feet of impervious area on the parcel. The project will require a stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. Action: The applicant will submit an Operational Stormwater Permit application. The applicant would like to clarify that the existing impervious on site is 448,026 SF and the total proposed is 648,943 SF for a net increase of 200,917 SF. 3. The project will require a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire this permit before starting construction. Action: The applicant will submit a Construction Stormwater Permit application. 4. Work in the City Right Of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A “Permit to Open Streets or Right-Of-Way” can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road. Action: None required; the project does not impact the City Right of Way. Williston Road is a State Highway. 5. The applicant should provide a pre-development HydroCAD model for review. Action: City Stormwater staff only required the existing hyrdoCAD model to confirm the 25-year storm wouldn’t have impacts to the City’s Potash Brook infrastructure. Since the project site will be discharging stormwater runoff to muddy brook and the 1-year 24-hour storm is being completely infiltrated, the existing hydrocad model is not required to assess pre-post conditions. 6. The applicant should provide material verifying conveyance of 25-yr storm in accordance with Section 12.03.E(2) of the City’s LDRs. Please provide information confirming that the downstream infrastructure has adequate capacity to convey the 25-year, 24-hour storm event in accordance with Section 12.03.E(3) of the City’s LDRs. Action: Since the project site discharges to a sizable wetland and contains and overflow to muddy brook and not potash, the stormwater department doesn’t require a downstream analysis. 7. The applicant should provide additional details on the EPSC plans, in accordance with the Vermont Standards and Specifications for Erosion Prevention & Sediment Control. Line types for silt fence and other symbology should be decipherable. BETA TECHNOLOGIES December 21, 2021 S40 Stormwater Coordination Meeting – 12/17/21 Summary of Discussion Page 2 of 2 Action: The applicant will submit the documents for the Construction Stormwater Permit Application, to provide the information requested. The EPSC plans will also be modified to adjust line types and symbology. 8. The applicant should include a pre-treatment structure on sheet C-012 for basin 6. Action: Basin #6 is be pre-treated via a grass filter strip. 9. The applicant should include test pit and infiltration data for each proposed basin. Action: The applicant is currently performing the field works and will submit and review the results of that analysis with the Stormwater department. 10. The applicant should include confirmation that utility conflicts have been checked for all water, storm, and sewing crossings. Action: Storm, sewer and waterline profiles are being checked against conflicting utilities determined via an underground utility locate service commissioned by the applicant. 11. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the site plan. Action: The applicant will show snow storage on the grading and drainage plan. No snow storage will be allowed within proposed stormwater treatment practices. 12. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. Action: Applicant takes no issue with this requirement. Stormwater maintenance plans have been developed as part of the State’s Operational Stormwater permit application. As part of the airport TS4 permit, the landowner is required to inspect and maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance systems. This system will be added to the TS4 and be subject to those same requirements.