HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-21-28_3070 Williston Road_BETA_opt
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-21-28, BETA Air, LLC Preliminary and Final Plat Application
DATE: January 18, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD-21-28 of Beta Air, LLC to consolidate five existing lots ranging
from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into one lot of 747.92 acres and to construct the first phase of a new
concurrent application for a master plan, to include a 344,000 sf manufacturing and office building,
improving approximately 2,400 ft of private road, and constructing associated site improvements, 3070
Williston Road.
CONTEXT
The Board held a hearing on this application on December 21, 2021. The Board continued that hearing
for the purpose of addressing a number of issues identified on that date, summarized herein, and
completing review of the remaining items not yet reviewed. The applicant submitted revised materials
on January 4, 2022. This is the “Blue Phase” of the Master Plan being reviewed concurrently by the DRB.
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
COMMENTS
UPDATES TO COMMENTS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD ON 12/21/21
Each initial Staff Comment 1-27 was discussed at the December 21, 2021 meeting. Comments which Staff
considers to have been addressed are excluded.
SC 1 re: Dimensional Standards
The applicant has provided updated dimensional standards, including the 2.83 acre geothermal well
field discussed in the staff report for MP-21-02. The 2.83 geothermal well field is proposed to be
included in this first preliminary/final plat phase. Depending on the Board’s decision relative to
inclusion of the well field into the Master Plan, Staff considers the applicant may need to update their
coverage computations. Dimensional standards including the geothermal well field for the master plan
area including only this first preliminary and final plat phase are provided below.
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 28.9 40,000 sf 11.53
Max. Building Coverage 30 % 19.8% 40.0% 3.4%
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 30.6% 70% 48.6%
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. Existing to
remain
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% 13.0%
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested.
1. The reported lot sizes represent the portion of the involved 37.6 acres + 2.38 acre geothermal
well field located within each zoning district. The total lot size is 747.9 ac.
SC 2 re: AIR-I District Standards
These standards pertain to compliance of the project with the standards of applicable federal and state
regulations pertaining to airports. The applicant stated they have submitted their application to FAA
and it is currently under review.
Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide a copy of their application to FAA for
recordkeeping purposes.
SC 3 re: Parking Location
The applicant is proposing to the front of the building. The Board agreed to deliberate on whether they
would allow parking to the front of the building based on a modification of site plan standards, based on
a phased approval, or deny it entirely.
Staff recommends the Board consider whether there are any findings specific to this preliminary and final
plat application that need discussion as distinct matters from the concurrent master plan discussion.
SC 4 re: Access to Abutting Properties
It has come to Staff’s attention that the applicant is proposing a cross-lot connection between the
proposed project and Valley Road. This connection is not shown clearly on the submitted plans.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the connection in terms of its 1) location 2)
purpose 3) duration and 4) impact to traffic patterns. Staff then recommends the Board consider
whether this connection is appropriate as proposed.
SC 5 re: Utility Services
This comment focused on potential conflict between existing overhead utilities and proposed water
lines. The applicant has modified the proposed water line configuration, but it is generally in line with
the existing overhead utility line.
Staff has requested South Burlington Water Department review of the proposed water line layout and
anticipates having an update at the hearing. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant to
demonstrate they’ve coordinated with VELCO or GMP as appropriate prior to closing the hearing to
eschew the need for permit amendment due to utility feature redesign.
As noted in the staff report for MP-21-02, the applicant has not yet received preliminary water or
wastewater allocation for the project. This is a requirement of PUD approval.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain preliminary allocations prior to approval,
particularly as this project represents a significant development in an area of the City that has not seen
significant development in recent years.
SC 6 re: Disposal of Wastes
The applicant has provided a rendering showing how the dumpsters will be screened. Staff considers
this criterion met.
SC 7-16 re: Landscaping and Screening
The applicant’s revised landscaping plan shows that there are a handful of large diameter trees
proposed for removal in areas that are not currently proposed for development, or areas that are
proposed for an off-road sidewalk. In particular, there are a 26-inch and a 40-inch spruce tree between
the street and the proposed parking area that are proposed to be removed and replaced by a row of
arborvitae. There are 8 to 34-inch maple trees along and within the proposed recreation path to the
Airfield Viewing Area that are proposed to be removed.
Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to preserve existing trees. If the applicant believes
these trees have a low chance of survival regardless of the project, Staff recommends the applicant
provide this information to the City Arborist for review.
SC8 re interior parking lot landscaping: The applicant has provided an exhibit demonstrating interior
parking lot landscaping exceeds the required 10% minimum. Staff considers this criterion to be met.
SC 9 re arborist comments: The City Arborist reviewed the applicant’s responses to their requests and
considers their concerns to have been addressed.
SC 10 re parking lot shading: The applicant has provided an exhibit demonstrating there is one shade
tree for every five parking spaces. Staff considers this criterion to be met.
SC 11 re snow storage: The applicant has revised their snow storage plan, and has included snow
storage on landscaping and site plans to demonstrate that conflicts have been addressed. Staff
considers this criterion to be met.
SC 12 re screening: the applicant has modified their landscaping plan to provide screening of the
identified utility cabinet. Staff has not identified any other aboveground elements for which screening is
required but not provided. In recognition of the scale of this project, Staff recommends the Board
include a condition mirroring the language of 13.06C(1) requiring screening of “outdoor storage areas,
refuse, recycling, and compost collection (excluding on-site composting) areas, and utility improvements
such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment.” This would support the applicant’s
master plan request to allow some of these features be installed by site plan approval only.
There is a large utility enclosure on the front side of the building within the “sculpture park” area. This
enclosure is proposed to be clad in similar siding materials to the building. Staff has no concerns about
screening of this enclosure.
SC 13 through 16 re landscaping value:
The applicant estimates the building cost to be $111,500,000. The required minimum landscape
value is therefore $1,122,500. The applicant is proposing $1,486,690 in landscaping features.
The applicant has requested the following elements be allowed as contributing towards the
minimum required landscaping value.
Concrete pavers - $0. The applicant previously requested the value of concrete pavers be
included but it was determined to be unnecessary and they have been removed from the
budget (but not from the plans)
Built-in Site Furniture - $402,440. This includes tiered amphitheater seating and concrete seat
walls. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to show the location of and discuss the
function of this area.
Soil cells - $136,000. The Board on December 21 indicated they were inclined to allow the cost
of soil cells supporting the proposed landscaping to count towards the minimum required
landscaping value.
Public art - $50,000. Staff recommended this element be included, and the applicant was
interested. Staff recommends the Board allow this element to contribute towards the minimum
required landscaping value.
Trees and shrubs - $781,000. These elements are allowed by right. The City Arborist expressed
that the value of some of the larger plantings should be justified. The applicant has provided
the following response
“If the DRB remains concerned regarding the pricing, Applicant has proposed sharing
subcontractor quotes for the work if required as a permit condition.”
Staff recommends the Board consider this request. There is an inherent risk in this request that
the values are incorrect and the landscaping plan would need to be revised.
Perennials and grasses - $117,250. These elements represent approximately 10% of the
required minimum landscaping budget. Though Staff remains concerns that perennials are
difficult to administer in perpetuity, Staff appreciates that they provide a supporting context for
the required trees and shrubs, and recommends the Board allow these elements to contribute
towards the minimum required landscaping value.
SC 17 re: Stormwater
The City Stormwater Section has been in coordination with the applicant. As of the time of this writing,
the applicant is changing the type of the stormwater treatment system from infiltration to bioretention.
Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing until the City Stormwater Section’s comments have
been satisfied.
SC 18 re: Roadways, Parking and Circulation
Staff notes the applicant is currently working on responses to VTrans comments on this proposed
development as part of the Act 250 review process. VTrans has posed a number of questions about the
proposed improvements to Williston Road. If the results of that review result in significant modification
of the project, the applicant may be required to modify this preliminary and final plat approval.
SC 19 re: Wetland Encroachment
This comment requested enumeration of the areas of wetland impacts. The applicant is proposing the
following
913 sf Class III buffer impacts for grading and restoration
1,878 sf Class III buffer impacts for removal of gravel road, grading, and restoration
5,748 sf Class III buffer impacts for removal of gravel road and restoration
Staff recommends the Board include the standard condition prohibiting that wetland areas be
maintained as lawn and instead limiting their maintenance to bi-annual mowing.
SC 20 re: Fire Protection
The applicant met with the SBFD on November 30 and provided minutes from that meeting. None of
the comments of the SBFD are relevant to Land Development Regulation criteria. Staff considers this
criterion to be met.
SC 23 re: Lighting
LDR A.9 requires that the maximum illumination at ground level not be in excess of an average of three
(3) footcandles. The applicant calculates that the average illumination in the Loading Dock area is 10.15
footcandles and in the Entry Canopy area is 6.65 footcandles.
In the loading dock area, the applicant has proposed the following.
As discussed at the hearing, the Loading Dock lighting will be revised to accommodate both the
LDR and operational 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%.
See sheet “EA-001 Luminaire Schedule and Lighting Legend” for more information.
The applicants photometric drawing appears to show illumination levels at the reduced output. Staff
recommends the Board request a supplemental photometric drawing to allow review of whether there
are “hotspots”, but otherwise consider this comment to have been addressed.
SC 24 re: Minimizing Site Disturbance / Low Impact Development
As discussed above, Staff recommends the Board not conclude the hearing until a positive
determination from the Stormwater Section is made.
SC 25 re: Bicycle Parking and Storage
The applicant is required to provide the following bicycle accommodations.
Required Provided
Short Term Spaces 35 26
Long Term Spaces 12 40
Unisex Changing Facilities 2 unknown
Unisex Showers 2 17
Clothes Lockers 5 496
Long term bicycle parking may be substituted for up to 50% of the required minimum short term bicycle
parking. As indicated in the staff report for 12/21, Staff has been unable to locate the interior elements
on the plans. Staff continues to recommend 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.
Staff also recommended the Board direct the applicant to provide a different type of bicycle rack because
of Staff’s experience that the proposed type was not durable. They have proposed a corten steel rack.
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will accept the applicant’s proposed corten racks,
taking into consideration the aesthetics of the proposed campus and the potential for bicycles to be
damaged by being locked to a rough surface.
SC 26 re: Bus Shelters
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. The applicant indicated they have met with GMT,
who requested that the bus stop allow the bus to remain in the lane. Staff recommends the Board
waive the relevant provision of 13.09 in deference to the request of GMT.
The applicant is proposing to use a glass bus stop shelter similar to those that exist on Shelburne Road
north of I-189 (exhibit included in the packet for the Board). The applicant on December 21 indicated
they were considering different architecture. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant for an
update, and determine whether the proposed structure is harmonious with the project and with adjacent
properties.
SC 27 re: Phasing
The applicant has proposed to construct the project proposed in this preliminary and final plat
application in two phases, and has provided a supplemental overall site plan and an overall landscaping
plan depicting the first phase (the remainder of the plans depict full build of this phase). The first phase
consists of the northern half of the building and the majority of site features with the exception of the
recreation path and eighteen (18) parking spaces. The second phase consists of the entry area of the
building, the recreation path and the remaining parking spaces. The applicant has indicated their
intention in creating phasing is to allow a certificate of occupancy to be issued for the manufacturing
portion of the building prior to the office portion of the building. Since the majority of the aesthetic
elements of the building are proposed in the second phase, Staff recommends the Board impose a strict
timeline for issuance of a zoning permit of the second phase, and consider requiring the applicant to
establish a surety to improve the second phase should it not be constructed in the required timeline.
The second phase includes the “great lawn” and recreation path.
Staff recommends the Board establish a timeline of 2 years after issuance of the first zoning permit for
issuance of the second zoning permit, and ask the applicant to propose a surety mechanism for ensuring
that the site is attractive should the second phase not be constructed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner