HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_MP-21-02_3070 Williston Road_BETA
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: #MP-21-02, BETA Air, LLC Master Plan Application
DATE: January 18, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
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.
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.
The master plan includes 37.6 acres, with the proposed addition of 2.83 acres, discussed under
dimensional standards below. The creation of this master plan area would result in this area being
reviewed as a PUD independent of the overall airport PUD. The applicant in all cases should 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 building with childcare use
• the purple phase which includes a hanger, pilot training and other commercial use building
• the red phase which includes removal of a mixed retail and office building and construction of a
new 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.
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 Comments 1-12 was discussed at the December 21, 2021 meeting. Comments which Staff
considers to have been addressed are excluded.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
SC 1 re: Dimensional Standards
The applicant had provided values for the airport as a whole. Lot coverage and building coverage
requirements must be met on a zoning district by zoning district basis for the area of the master plan,
which does not include the entirety of the airport. The applicant has updated their schedule of
dimensional standards.
The applicant has requested to add a 2.83 acre area to the originally warned project area for the
purposes of constructing a geothermal well field. The geothermal well field is in an area to the east of
the proposed manufacturing building, and east of the apron expansion which is proposed to be
constructed by the airport and not by the applicant.
Without inclusion of the geothermal well field, but with inclusion of the apron expansion to be
constructed by others, the applicant exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage for the Air-I zoning
district. Without the apron expansion or geothermal well field, Staff has calculated the applicant also
also meets allowable lot coverage.
Staff recommends the Board determine whether to allow the applicant to increase the area of the
master plan without re-warning the hearing. The added area is for geothermal production (and lot area)
only and not any new buildings or associated trip generation, however, it is a larger land area than what
was in the original application and notice.
Staff notes that re-warning the hearing would require the applicant to meet the requirements of the
draft LDR warned on 11/10/2021. Alternatively, Staff considers the Board may allow the applicant to
decrease the area of the master plan by excluding both the apron and geothermal well field.
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 % 21.9% 40.0% 5.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 49.1% 70% 43.9%
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
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 Appx 874’
30 ft. I/C
Max. Front Setback
Coverage 30% 13.0%
√ Zoning Compliance
@ Waiver requested. As noted in the Staff report for 12/21, 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.
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.
B) APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT OF MASTER PLAN
15.07D(3) requires Master Plan amendment if any one of five project characteristics are changed from
the initial approval. Therefore this application must establish a baseline for each of the five
characteristics.
• Increase in Floor Area Ratio
• Increase in Total Site Coverage
• Change in Collector Roadways
• Decrease in Open Space
• Increase in PM Peak Hour Trips
SC 2 re: Floor Area Ratio
The applicant must establish a floor area ratio (FAR), equal to the proposition 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. Proposals to increase the approved FAR require an amendment to the master plan.
The applicant’s program represents a FAR of 0.289 based on the project including the 2.83 acre
geothermal area (and 0.364 based on the project area excluding the geothermal and apron areas). The
Board, on December 21, directed the applicant to propose a slightly higher FAR than planned in order to
allow minor future modifications to the development program without requiring master plan
amendment.
The applicant has proposed a FAR of 0.507, including the proposed 2.83 acre geothermal field as
discussed above. Without the geothermal field and runway apron, Staff estimates the applicant’s
proposal would result in a FAR of 0.640. The applicants proposal includes 357,610 sf of unplanned
building area. For reference, the proposed manufacturing and office building is 344,000 sf. The
applicant offers the following description of the unplanned building area.
Note: the applicant has broken down their discussion of FAR by zoning district, though FAR is
considered overall. Staff recommends the Board focus on the explanation of unplanned square
footages, not on the calculated FAR.
IC Zoning District (Unplanned building area requested: 109,224 sf). The proposed FAR of 0.40
(200,724 SF) provides the flexibility to accommodate existing (26,500 SF) and planned (65,000 SF)
needs along with potential future development (109,224 SF). As BETA's workforce and production
needs evolve, so too may the associated parking needs which could require the construction of
structured parking in the future. If structured parking is needed, then the proposed FAR would allow
that parking to be wrapped on two sides with 2- to 3-story commercial structures ... one side along
Williston Road and the other along the existing Valley Road, shielding the parking structure from
view from outside the campus.
AIR-I Zoning District (Unplanned building area requested: 248,386 sf). The proposed FAR of 0.55
(692,386 SF) provides the flexibility to insert a full mezzanine into the assembly area only which may
be required to accommodate future production needs. The DRB proposed FAR of 0.35 would
establish an immediate deficit of 3,391 SF against the planned 444,000 SF (Assembly = 344,000 SF;
Cultural Center/GA Hangar = 100,000 SF). Anything less than a FAR of 0.55 would not accommodate
installation of a full mezzanine.
Staff considers the proposed 357,610 sf of unplanned area to be too high a “cushion” without
accompanying site plans, architectural plans, traffic and municipal capacity analysis, and recommends
the Board deny the applicant’s request. Staff recommends instead the Board approve a more moderate
increase in FAR from the proposed program, and has provided a table of potential values below. Staff
reminds the Board that the purpose of establishing a FAR is to require master plan amendment if the
proposed program differs substantially from that initially approved, including impacts to municipal
services and traffic.
+5% +10% +15%
proposed buildings (sf) 509,000 534,450 559,900 585,350
FAR actual 0.289 0.304 0.318 0.332
FAR w/o apron &
geotherm
0.364 0.383 0.401 0.419
SC 3 re: Total Site Coverage of the property subject to the master plan
Similar to FAR, the Board directed the applicant to propose a slightly higher total site coverage than
planned in order to allow minor future modifications to the development program without requiring
master plan amendment. It does not appear the applicant has performed this computation. The
applicant’s proposed site coverage is 47.62% overall.
As with FAR, Staff recommends the Board include a slight cushion. The maximum allowable site
coverage in the Air-I zoning district is 50%. Incidentally, 50% is also the coverage that would result from
a 5% increase in proposed development. Staff therefore recommends the Board allow up to 50% total
site coverage.
SC 4 re: Open Space
The project is proposing a number of undeveloped spaces. The Board directed the applicant to provide
a proposal on what should be considered permanent open spaces, the reduction of which would require
master plan amendment. The applicant has provided a figure showing the proposed open spaces, to
include
• Recreation path
• Airfield viewing area
• Great lawn
• Employee terrace and amphitheater
• Entry plaza
• Sculpture lawn
The applicant has further indicated the area within 10-ft of the building will be private, while areas more
than 10-ft from the building will be open to the public. Open spaces may be common to the development
or owned by an organization on behalf of the public. 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.
Based on discussion of the Board on December 21, Staff anticipates the Board may wish to exclude the
sculpture lawn and entry plaza from permanently maintained open spaces for the purpose of master
plan approval. The Board may also wish to include a condition that the recreation path be maintained as
open to the public, and that it’s exact alignment may vary slightly from that shown on the approved
plan, though it’s general relationship to other features should be maintained. Staff recommends the
Board discuss.
SC 5 re: PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends
Similarly to FAR and lot coverage, the applicant must amend the master plan if the proposed traffic
generation exceeds that which is approved in this master plan. The applicant provided a table on
December 21 demonstrating how their anticipated 526 master plan trips are generated. The applicant
stated their computations are based on number of employees, rather than square footage, “due to
BETA’s unique use and operating parameters.”
The applicant has indicated they are preparing an updated Traffic Impact Study which will be prepared
after publication of this report. In order to provide a cushion for minor modifications consistent with this
master plan application, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide in their TIS an
evaluation of whether the proposed roadway network can support an increase of 5% in trips, and if so,
the Board approve 552 trips (=526 trips + 5%) as the maximum number of trips which can be supported
without master plan amendment.
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 master plan or the related preliminary and
final plat approvals.
C) CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF MASTER PLANS
SC 6 re: Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity
The applicant is working with Staff to determine whether the municipal infrastructure can support the
proposed water and wastewater flows from the master plan. Staff recommends the Board continue the
hearing until preliminary allocation is received.
SC 7 re: Traffic
On December 21, the applicant indicated that VTrans asked them to update the TIS to incorporate the
full master plan program. As noted above, the applicant has indicated that report will be complete after
publication of this report. Staff recommends the Board continue the hearing until the impacts of the full
build trips are evaluated.
Staff anticipates asking for third-party technical review of the TIS due to the current vacancy in the
Director of Public Works position. The Board invoked technical review at sketch plan; Staff considers
this would be a continuation of that review and only notes it for the Board’s information.
SC 9-10 re: Waivers
The applicant has requested that they be allowed to proceed directly to zoning permit approval for the
following items.
• PV Solar Equipment
• Battery Backup Equipment
• Assembly Process-related Equipment
• Utility Transformers, Pedestals, and associated appurtenances
• Electric Aircraft and Car Chargers
The applicant has indicated they would accept the same conditions that applied to installation of these
types of equipment from BETA’s previous approval at 1151 Airport Drive SP-21-038, which includes:
a) A maximum equipment height of 15-ft.
b) Maximum extent as defined by the limits of concrete pad (only applicable to concrete pad
proposed along Northwest side of building) on which the equipment will be installed.
c) Equipment must fully comply with the performance standards of LDR Appendix A. These
performance standards set numeric standards for vibration, noise, and air pollution amongst
others.
d) Equipment shall be directly related to the approved use of the building to which it is adjacent.
Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant’s intent to limit these items to the paved area
northwest of the manufacturing and office building. It seems that these types of equipment may be
necessary for other buildings, and Staff considers their approval should by allowed more broadly by
zoning permit only where fully screened from Williston Road and Eagle Drive and where set back at least
as far as the nearest adjacent building from the central access drive.
SC 11 re: Phasing
The applicant requested that they be allowed 5-years from the end of each phase to approval for the
next phase. It was not discussed whether this referred to issuance of a site plan, zoning permit, or
certificate of occupancy. The Board agreed to discuss this request in deliberations. Staff will guide the
Board in deliberating on this request. Staff recommends the Board establish:
• A timeline for completion of each phase
• Triggers for the timeline (site plan, zoning permit, or certificate of occupancy)
SC 12 re: Parking
As discussed on December 21, 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.
15.02A(4)(c) (the section of the LDR pertaining to authority of the Board in granting PUDs) prohibits the
Board for granting waivers for parking not in compliance with 14.06B(2). The applicant has argued that
they believe the board has the authority to grant a waiver of the requirements of 14.06B(2) under
14.07(E).
14.07E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District,
where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards
above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the
Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article
14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location
of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB
allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the
applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where
the pre-existing condition exceeds the applicable limit.
The Board agreed to discuss this request in deliberations. Staff will guide the Board in deliberating on
this request.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner
1
Marla Keene
From:Jason Charest <jcharest@ccrpcvt.org>
Sent:Tuesday, December 21, 2021 4:46 PM
To:Ed.Pierce@vermont.gov; Gendron, Christopher; Adam Cate; Paul Conner; Marla Keene;
Art Klugo; mdalpra@beta.team; Bryant, Richard; israel.maynard@stantec.com; Keller,
Craig; Clow, Christopher; randy.snelling@vermont.gov; Lyman, Derek;
eric.eby@vermont.gov; Tietze, Benjamin; Ian.Degutis@vermont.gov; Segale, Joe
Cc:Charles Baker; Eleni Churchill; Regina Mahony; Taylor Newton; amy.bell@vermont.gov
Subject:EXTERNAL: CCRPC Initial Comments on BETA Proposal
This message has originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links, or responding to this email.
Hi All,
Sincerest thanks for inviting us to yesterday’s meeting. It’s rare that we are able to participate in development activities
prior to them reaching Act 250. While we were first introduced to this project in late May, it was with an earlier sketch
and didn’t receive any materials (TIS or updated campus plan) until early this month. With that in mind, we wanted to
put our initial thoughts from a regional perspective on the proposed relocated Valley Road intersection out there for
everyone’s consideration as quickly as we could. In short, we think a main access at the existing Valley/Shunpike
intersection makes the most sense from a long-term, regional planning perspective and offer the below bullets in
support of this. Please reach out with any questions you may have. We’d be happy to discuss further and help in any
way we can.
Thanks for considering these and thanks again for the invite,
Jason
Grid streets – The benefits of grid streets are widely touted in transportation planning. They provide options for
people to make shorter trips and keep arterials from having to be widened, which in turn makes them less
friendly to walking and biking. While the long-term plan consolidates accesses on the northern side of Williston
Road, it breaks apart the existing grid and misses an opportunity to consolidate everything to a four-way
intersection.
Shunpike Road’s future – It was mentioned one of the reasons for moving Valley Road to the east is to minimize
the use of Shunpike as a “cut-through”. It’s an understandable concern if you live on the roadway and a traffic
signal might be installed at Valley/Shunpike. Given yesterday’s revelation that only the peak hour traffic signal
warrant is met for the development, it seems a signal installation could be held off for the time being until
monitoring of employee activity can be completed and additional warrants are met. Moreover, what is in the
best interest of the City for the long term? Will Shunpike Road stay residential, or will it be converted to
commercial over time? If the latter is likely, it’s reasonable to assume redevelopment could necessitate a signal
at Williston Road/Shunpike. This would create the unfortunate situation of two closely spaced signals that can
be avoided should Valley Road stay where it is.
Williston Road/Gregory Drive intersection – This intersection was brought up several times as being
problematic and a reason for realigning Valley Road so that the signal could create gaps in traffic at Gregory Dr.
We agree that a signal is likely to be beneficial to ingress/egress at Gregory Dr. What hasn’t been evaluated
though, is how much of a difference the ~350ft between a signal at Shunpike or a realigned Valley Road makes.
2
Either way, again, thinking long-term, Williston/Gregory could warrant a traffic signal/roundabout at some
point in the future. Left turn lanes have already been built on Williston Road. It was brought up that grades are
an issue, and it’s unclear if this has been looked at in great detail. It’s hard to imagine a signal at a relocated
Valley Road is the best solution to the existing issues at Gregory Dr. If there’s a study we’re unaware of, please
do share, and apologies in advance for raising questions on an issue that’s already been fully vetted.
Jason Charest, PE, PTP (he/him)
Senior Transportation Planning Engineer
Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404
(802) 861-0127
www.ccrpcvt.org