Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-21-28_3070 Williston Road_Beta_PP FP 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 3070 Williston Road Beta – Preliminary and Final Plat Application DATE: February 15, 2022 Development Review Board meeting The Board held a hearing on this application on December 21, 2021 and January 18, 2022. Staff has prepared a draft decision, but there are number of topics for which Staff does not believe the Board has arrived at a final conclusion. The draft decision includes those topics as red numbered items, similar to staff comments. The Board should affirm they have the information they need to reach a conclusion on these and any other items members feel to be outstanding prior to closing the hearing. The Board has up to 45 days after a hearing is closed to issue a decision. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, P.E. Development Review Planner #SD-21-28 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING BETA AIR, LLC – 3070 WILLISTON ROAD PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION WORKING DOCUMENT KEY RED = THINGS THAT THE BOARD DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ON [UNNUMBERED RED ITEMS WILL BE RESOLVED BY ADDRESSING NUMBERED RED ITEMS] 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. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on November 11, 2021 and January 18, 2022. The applicant was represented by Art Klugo, Chris Gendron, and Jeff Hodgson. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant, Beta Air, LLC seeks preliminary and final plat approval 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. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the City of Burlington. 3. The Project is located in the airport industrial (AIR-I) and mixed industrial commercial (IC) zoning districts, traffic overlay, transit overlay and airport approach cone overlay districts. The project consists of five existing lots: the main airport parcel, and four outparcels along Williston Road. The four outparcels are located within the Mixed Industrial/Commercial Zoning district, while the portion within the main airport parcel is within the Airport Industrial Zoning District. The portion of the property that fronts on Williston Road lies in the Traffic Overlay District – Zone 3 Balance of Restricted Roads, which restricts the trip generation to 45 vehicle trips per 40,000 of land area without supplemental mitigation. 4. Both proposed uses are allowed in both zoning districts. 5. The applicant is proposing to consolidate the five involved parcels into one 747.9 acre lot. The applicant concurrently submitted an application for Master Plan Approval for the project, #MP-21- 01. The master plan includes 40.43 acres of the consolidated airport parcel. The creation of this master plan area would result in this 40.43 acre area being reviewed as a PUD independent of the overall airport PUD. This decision reflect only the master plan area. #SD-21-28 2 6. The applicant has submitted an application for combined preliminary and final plat review of the first, or “blue” phase of the master plan area. Dimensional standards and other review criteria discussed herein only reflect the “blue” phase. 7. The Project is located in the Airport district. Development within this district must be reviewed pursuant to site plan provisions of Article 14, unless it otherwise triggers PUD or subdivision standards. 8. The Development Review Board held a public meeting to review a sketch plan for this project on June 15, 2021. 9. The application was received on November 9, 2021. 10. The plans submitted consist of: Sheet No: Sheet Title: Prepared By: Last Revised Date: Title Sheet Stantec 01/31/2022 C-002 Location Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-005 Existing Conditions Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-006 Removals Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-010 Overall Site Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-011 Site Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-012 Site Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-020 - C-023 Grading & Drainage Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 C-025 & C-026 Access Road Plan & Profile Stantec 01/31/2022 CW-300 Water & Sewer Utility Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 CW-301 & CW- 302 Water Main Plan & Profile Stantec 01/31/2022 CW-303 – CW-305 Force Main Plan & Profile Stantec 01/31/2022 CW-501 Water & Sewer Details Stantec 01/31/2022 C-036 Water & Sewer Details Stantec 01/31/2022 C-050 - C-056 Civil Details Stantec 01/31/2022 C-070 & C-071 Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 L000 Landscape Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 L-004 Tree Protection Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 L-200 – L-202 Landscape Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 EA-000 Luminaire Schedule & Lighting Legend Stantec 01/31/2022 EA-101 Site Lighting Area A Stantec 01/31/2022 EA-102 Site Lighting Area B Stantec 01/31/2022 EA-103 Site Lighting Area C Stantec 01/31/2022 EA-104 Site Lighting Area D Stantec 01/31/2022 A-101 Floor Plan Level 1 Stantec 01/31/2022 A-101M Floor Plan Mezzanine Stantec 01/31/2022 A-102 Floor Plan Level 2 Stantec 01/31/2022 A-103 Roof Drainage Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 A-104 Roof Plan Stantec 01/31/2022 A-200 Building Perspectives Stantec 01/31/2022 A-201 Building Elevations Stantec 01/31/2022 #SD-21-28 3 A-202 & A-203 Rendered Elevations Stantec 01/31/2022 A-211 & A-212 Building Sections Stantec 01/31/2022 Title Sheet (A-Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 C‐200A Overall Site Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 C‐201A Site Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 C‐202A Site Plan(A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 C‐203A Grading And Drainage Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 C‐204A Grading And Drainage Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 L‐000A Overall Landscape Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 L‐004A Tree Protection Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 L‐200A Landscape Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 L‐201A Landscape Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 L‐202A Plant Schedule (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 EA‐000A Luminaire Schedule and Lighting Legend Stantec 01/31/2022 EA‐101A Site Lighting Area A Stantec 01/31/2022 EA‐102A Site Lighting Area B Stantec 01/31/2022 EA‐103A Site Lighting Area C Stantec 01/31/2022 EA‐104A Site Lighting Area D Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐101A Floor Plan ‐ Level 1 (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐101MA Floor Plan ‐ Mezzanine (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐102A Floor Plan ‐ Level 2 (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐103A Roof Drainage Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐103A Roof Plan (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐200A Building Perspectives (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐201A Building Elevations (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐202A Rendered Elevations (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 A‐203A Rendered Elevations (A‐Build) Stantec 01/31/2022 SP-001 Plat Revision Lot Consolidation With Airport PDU Stantec 11/22/2022 SP-002 Final Plat Revision Lot Consolidation with Airport PDU Stantec 11/22/2022 A) PHASING The applicant has proposed to construct the project proposed in this “Blue” phase preliminary and final plat application in two sub-phases, and has provided supplemental plans depicting the first sub-phase (the remainder of the plans depict full build of this phase). The first sub-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 sub-phase consists of the entry area of the building, the “great lawn” and recreation path, and the remaining parking spaces. The applicant has indicated their intention in creating sub-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. 1. The interior of the building in the first sub-phase will consist of 163,000 sf of an unknown quantity of manufacturing and office spaces. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a breakdown of the area of each use. #SD-21-28 4 B) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions 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 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. 40 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. * The reported lot sizes represent the portion of the involved 40.43 acre master plan located within each zoning district. The total lot size is 747.9 ac. The applicant has requested an increase of the maximum height from 35-feet to 40-feet. The applicant has explained their belief that the 35-ft limit was intended to allow three-story buildings, but buildings are now being constructed with taller stories, and therefore the height limit in the LDR is outdated. Development in the airport-industrial district is eligible for height beyond 35-feet as follows. (a) The Development Review Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the limitations set forth in Table C-2. For each foot of additional height, all front and rear setbacks shall be increased by one (1) foot and all side setbacks shall be increased by one half (1/2) foot. (b) For structures proposed to exceed the maximum height for structures specified in Table C-2 as part of a planned unit development or master plan, the Development Review Board may waive the requirements of this section as long as the general objectives of the applicable zoning district are met. A request for approval of a taller structure shall include the submittal of a plan(s) showing the elevations and architectural design of the structure, pre-construction grade, post-construction grade, and height of the structure. Such plan shall demonstrate that the proposed building will not detract from scenic views from adjacent public roadways and other public rights-of-way. (c) Rooftop Apparatus. Rooftop apparatus, as defined under Heights in these Regulations, that are taller than normal height limitations established in Table C-2 may be approved by the Development Review Board as a conditional use subject to the provisions of Article 14, #SD-21-28 5 Conditional Uses. Such structures do not need to comply with the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) above. The project is already being reviewed as a PUD. Additional setbacks are provided. The Board approves the proposed height. 6.03 Supplemental District Standards All applications within the AIR-I District shall be subject to the supplemental standards in Section 6.05 and the following additional standards: (1) No use shall be permitted which will produce electrical interference with radio communications or radar operations at the Airport. (2) No lights or glare shall be permitted which could interfere with vision or cause confusion with airport lights. (3) No use shall be permitted which could obstruct the aerial approaches to the Airport. (4) All uses shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any other federal or state regulations pertaining to airports. The applicant received a final determination of approval from the FAA on January 5, 2022. The Board finds these criteria met. 6.05 Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts A. Site Plan or PUD review required The application is being reviewed as a PUD. The Board finds this criterion met. B. Multiple structures and uses permitted. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area and frontage requirements may be met by the consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street may serve as the minimum frontage requirements. Where multiple structures are proposed, maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable districts. The applicant is only proposing one structure for final plat approval. The Board finds this criterion met. C. [Reserved] D. Buffer Strip. Properties in the Airport, Mixed Industrial Commercial, Industrial Open Space and Airport Industrial districts that abut residential districts shall provide a screen or buffer along the abutting line, as per Section 3.06(I) (buffers). Section 3.06(I) pertains to non-residential uses whose side or rear boundaries are within fifty feet of the boundary of a residential district. The Project is not proposed to be within fifty feet of any residential district. The Board finds this criterion not applicable. C) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.6 General Review Standards Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: #SD-21-28 6 A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The project is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant. The Board finds that the proposed use is compatible with the airport. The site is not located in the south end of the quadrant. The land use policy for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non-residential. The Board finds this criterion met and notes that as the applicant is seeking concurrent approval for a Master Plan (MP-21-02). Conformance with this standard is typically issued at that level. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. See also 14.06B(3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) for relevant applicable standards. As discussed in the findings for concurrent master plan application MP-21-02, this preliminary and final plat application represents the first phase of a four-phase master plan, each phase containing a single building. This phase is the largest and includes improvements to the airport internal roadway network as well as parking to serve three of the four master plan phases. As the first phase, the Board finds this project establishes the character of the project area. The applicant is proposing insulated metal panel wall cladding for the majority of the building, with corten steel fins near the principal entrance area. The principal entrance area has an irregularly shaped large awning that extends for most of the southeast façade. The facades which will be most visible from the street are the southwest and southeast. The northwest façade will be partially screened by existing hangar buildings and by the airport perimeter fence. The northeast façade will be fully within the airport security fence and face away from the public realm. 1. The first sub-phase includes the manufacturing portion of the building, the majority of site infrastructure, required minimum landscaping for the value of the manufacturing portion of the building, and the “recreational amenity,” but omits the “great lawn” and recreation path open spaces. The portion of the building which would be constructed contains no windows facing Williston Road and no windows or doors for the first 200 feet of building facing the site roadway. The first door, a small solid door, occurs 203 ft from the corner of the building, and the first transparent glazing 13 ft after that. The façade will be clad in insulated metal panels with 3-inch accent fins. This portion of the building is 35-ft tall. Though as noted above, this project establishes the character of the area, the character of the form and landscaping of the grounds is of relatively high aesthetic quality, with which a 200-ft x 35-ft blank expanse is inconsistent. The applicant has indicated they do not yet know the programming of the second sub-phase (the remainder of the preliminary and final plat), therefore they do not want to commit to constructing that phase at this time. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the first sub-phase meets this and criteria of 14.06B(3) and 14.06C(1) and (2) below. If the Board finds it does not, Staff recommends the Board consider one of the following solutions. • Require the applicant to revised the architectural plans to provide a higher aesthetic quality of the first sub-phase, consistent with the proposal presented at master plan. #SD-21-28 7 • Issue an approval that allows a zoning permit for infrastructure and site work, but require an amendment to revise the architectural plans for the first sub-phase to provide a higher aesthetic quality. • Require the hardscape value of the second sub-phase to be applied towards building-mounted artwork on the first sub-phase if the second sub-phase does not obtain a zoning permit within 12-months of the zoning permit for the first sub-phase. If the Board pursues this option, Staff recommends the Board require a surety for the hardscape value of the second sub-phase. If the Board considers the first sub-phase meets the criterion above as presented, Staff recommends the Board not allow the landscaping value beyond the required minimum to be applied as credit towards future phases. Staff recommends the Board include a finding that the first sub-phase is inconsistent with the character established at master plan, but that this preliminary and final plat meets when both phases are constructed. Adequacy of planting is discussed under site plan review standard 14.07D below. The applicant has provided a pedestrian network, discussed under site plan standard 14.07G below. For the 344,000 sf building, containing 230,000 sf manufacturing area and a 114,000 sf office area, the applicant is proposing 317 parking spaces, representing the majority of the parking spaces in the proposed master plan. The total building square footage in the master plan area is 509,000 sf. The Board finds the number of parking spaces to be adequate. For the proposed first sub-phase (the manufacturing building), the applicant is proposing 299 parking spaces for 163,000 sf of manufacturing and office building. The Board finds this criterion met. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. LDR 15.12D requires roadways serving one or more non-residential lots to be built to public roadway standards, but does not require the road be a public road. The public street in this case is therefore Williston Road. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation The master plan provides sufficient setback for a building to be built between the parking and the street. The Board finds that the applicant must maintain the proposed recreational amenity as open to the public for the duration of its existence, and provide landscaping surety for the landscaping contained therein in conformance with the provisions of 15.15B(1). The recreational amenity shall be constructed as part of the first sub-phase. The applicant may not obtain landscaping credit for the recreational amenity because it is temporary. (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. #SD-21-28 8 The applicant’s requested height waiver is discussed above under zoning district standards. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. See discussion under 14.06B(1) and (3) above. 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: A. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. The connection to the parcel to the east, presently occupied by Pete’s RV, is proposed to be terminated. For this phase of the related master plan, the applicant is proposing to retain the connection to Valley Road where the north-south segment hits the north-most arch of the parking area. The Board finds this connection shall be one-way in to the project area. This connection shall be made one way by reducing the pavement width of the approximately 50-ft one-way section to 12-ft, and by adding one way and do not enter signs. Since the pavement width in the final condition will be 24-feet, the Board finds the applicant may omit curbing in this area to reduce cost of temporary installations. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met. Wire served utilities for the new building are proposed to be accessed via Williston Road and proposed to be underground. Screening of the aboveground portions of the utilities is addressed under 14.07D below. Existing overhead utilities serve the “Continental Hangar” north of the proposed building. The applicant testified they’ve coordinated with the appropriate electric utility company to eschew the need for permit amendment due to utility feature redesign. As noted in the findings for MP-21-02, the applicant has received preliminary water and wastewater allocation for the project. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. The applicant has provided a rendering showing how the dumpsters will be screened. The Board finds this criterion met. #SD-21-28 9 D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. In evaluating landscaping, screening, and street tree plan requirements, the Board shall promote the retention of existing trees while encouraging the use of recommended plant species. 13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas: All off-street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers as approved by the Development Review Board. (1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas. The Board finds this criterion met. For the proposed first sub-phase (the manufacturing building), the applicant is proposing to install the perimeter plantings around the parking bays associated with that subphase. When the area of the existing building to remain is redeveloped as proposed in the master plan, additional screening and landscaping may be required. (2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking. The applicant has proposed to meet this criterion by providing large contiguous landscape islands between parking aisles. The applicant has provided an exhibit demonstrating interior parking lot landscaping exceeds the required 10% minimum. The Board finds this criterion to be met. For the proposed first sub-phase (the manufacturing building), this criterion is met. (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged. Parking areas are curbed. The Board finds this criterion met. (4) Landscaping Requirements (a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant. The City arborist offered written comments on the proposed planting plans on 12/7/2021, #SD-21-28 10 which the applicant has addressed. The Board finds this criterion met. (b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. It appears all proposed tree species will function as shading when mature. The applicant has provided an exhibit demonstrating there is one shade tree for every five parking spaces. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball. The applicant is proposing trees with a size at planting between 2.5” and 6”. Larger trees are more difficult to establish. The Board finds this criterion met. The larger size at installation makes the required landscaping bonding of particular importance. (6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters. Snow storage areas are provided which do not conflict with landscaping and are not in the location of stormwater treatment systems. The Board finds this criterion to be met. 13.06C Screening or Buffering (1) All off-street parking areas, off-street loading areas, 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 shall be effectively screened. There is a loading dock area located northwest of the proposed building. Screening of the loading dock is proposed to consist of relatively widely spaced evergreen trees. In acknowledgement of the fact that the roadway is intended to remain private, the Board finds the loading dock screening to be adequate. The electrical cabinet along the proposed access drive is proposed to be screened. The Board has not identified any other aboveground elements for which screening is required but not provided. In recognition of the scale of this project, the Board finds 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, current or future, is required in accordance with the bylaws applicable at the time of its proposal. 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. The Board finds the screening of this enclosure to be adequate. (2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence. The Board finds this criterion to be met for the aforementioned project elements. (3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The #SD-21-28 11 landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the approved plan for the use of the lot. (4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review Board, may be substituted for the required planting. (5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development Review Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or increasing the requirements. The top of the building is approximately level with the high point of the topography on the southeast side of the property, though the building will be partially visible from adjoining properties. The Board finds these standards are not intended to require development to be completely invisible from adjoining properties, but rather to screen dissimilar uses and activities. When topography is taken into consideration, the Board finds the overall placement and density of screening satisfies these criteria. 13.06D Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses. In the case of non-residential and multi-family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and collector streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration are encouraged. The applicant has proposed an arborvitae hedge between the parking area and the street. They have also proposed a “recreational amenity” within the front setback and a meadow area between the front setback and the parking area. The Board notes this area is proposed in the master plan for a building, which will have its own required landscaping. The Board finds this criterion met. 13.06G Landscaping Standards. (1) The Development Review Board shall require compliance with any Tree Ordinance or Landscaping Design Standards enacted by the City of South Burlington, subsequent to the effective date of these regulations. (2) Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan. (3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-9 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The minimum landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant estimates the building cost to be $111,500,000. The required minimum landscape value is therefore $1,122,500, as follows. Total Bldg Cons. Cost % of Total Cons Cost Value $0 - $250K 3% $ 7,500.00 $250K - $500K 2% $ 5,000.00 #SD-21-28 12 Additional over $500K 1% $ 1,110,000.00 Required landscaping budget $ 1,122,500.00 The applicant has requested the following elements be allowed as contributing towards the minimum required landscaping value. • Built-in Site Furniture - $402,440. This includes tiered amphitheater seating and concrete seat walls. • Soil cells - $136,000. The Board finds the cost of soil cells supporting the proposed landscaping shall count towards the minimum required landscaping value. • Public art - $50,000. The Board finds the applicant shall 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. The objective of the art shall be to attract visitors to the portions of the project open to the public who might otherwise not visit the site. • 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 requested to not be required to provide this information because they are providing more than the required minimum landscaping value. 2. The Board agreed to deliberate on this question. If the applicant wishes to use the excess landscaping value towards future master plan phases, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide documentation of the excess landscaping cost. • Perennials and grasses - $117,250. These elements represent approximately 10% of the required minimum landscaping budget. Though perennials are difficult to administer in perpetuity, they provide a supporting context for the required trees and shrubs, and the Board therefore finds these elements shall be allowed to contribute towards the minimum required landscaping value. The applicant is proposing to “front-load” the project’s landscaping by exceeding the minimum required for the first sub-phase of the building (the manufacturing building), as shown below. Project Sub-Phase Estimated Construction Cost Minimum Required Landscaping Proposed Landscaping Sub-Phase 1 (manufacturing portion of building) $65,000,000 $657,500 $787,580 Sub-Phase 2 (remaining portion of building) $46,500,000 $472,500 $781,940 Total: $111,500,000 $1,122,500 $1,569,520 The Board finds this acceptable; however, no Certificate of Occupancy for the second phase may be granted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase. 3. 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 32-inch and a 34-inch maple tree along the proposed recreation path to the Airfield Viewing Area, and three 14 to 22-inch locust trees along Williston Road that are proposed to be removed. The applicant is proposing to retain the 32-inch maple “if possible” and are proposing to remove the 34- #SD-21-28 13 inch maple because the proposed grade is 1.75 ft above the existing grade in that location. No justification is provided for removal of the three locust trees. Staff asked the City Arborist to review these trees. The City Arborist indicated the three honeylocusts are in better condition but would be adversely impacted by the proposed sidewalk location. He also indicated that if the applicant is removing the 34-inch maple, they should be required to retain the 32-inch maple. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the grading or add small retaining walls to preserve both the 32-inch and 34-inch maple, and discuss whether advanced sidewalk construction methods should be enlisted to retain the three locust trees. The value of mature trees is far greater than the value of new landscaping. E. 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 applicant is requesting height waivers, discussed above. F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. The City stormwater section reviewed the proposed plans on 12/10/2021 and again on 2/9/2022 and provided the following written comment. Grading on this landscaping plan does not appear to match the grading shown on the overall site plan or final grading and drainage plan sheets. Please confirm these landscaping features will not interfere with the swale called out on the westside of the Williston Road driveway. 4. Staff considers the swale will need to be regraded but should be possible without substantive modifications to the proposed amenity area if the Board accepts storm flow over the surface of the proposed path. Staff recommends the Board include the comment of the Stormwater Section as a condition of approval. G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met. 15.12A Street Layout: The arrangement of streets in the subdivision shall provide for the continuation of arterial, collector and local streets of adjoining subdivisions and for proper projection of arterial, collector and local streets through adjoining properties that are not yet subdivided, in order to make possible necessary fire protection, movement of traffic and construction or extension, presently or when later required, of needed utilities and public services such as recreation paths, sewers, water and drainage facilities. Where, in the opinion of the Development Review Board, topographic or other conditions make such continuance undesirable or #SD-21-28 14 impracticable, the above conditions may be modified. In no case shall gates of any kind be permitted across public or private roads, or driveways serving more than one dwelling unit. As discussed below under 15.12D(2), the internal roadway is required to meet public roadway standards, though at this time it is not in the City’s interest to accept the roadway as a public road. The Board finds this criterion met. 15.12B. Relationship to Traffic Overlay District. In all PUDs and subdivisions in which the provisions of the Traffic Overlay District in Section 10.02 of these Regulations apply and in which the Traffic Overlay District provisions conflict with those of this section, the more restrictive provisions shall apply. The project is located in Traffic Overlay District Zone 3, which limits vehicle trips to 45 trips per PM peak hour per 40,000 sf of project area. The phase of the project proposed for final plat approval proposes to generate 175 PM peak hour trips and involves a 40.43 acre project area. The Board finds the project meets the requirements of the traffic overlay district. 15.12D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways (2) Public roadway required. The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1, Figure 15-1, and the Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies: (a) The proposed roadway will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining property. (b) The right-of-way or proposed alignment of the proposed roadway is consistent with the right-of-way for a proposed City street shown on the Official Map; the City Council shall have the authority to determine if a proposed right-of-way with a similar location and/or alignment to a right-of-way on the Official Map must be required to be a public roadway. (c) The Development Review Board determines that the proposed length of a roadway or the significance of the roadway within the City’s street network warrants public ownership. (d) The proposed roadway serves one (1) or more lots occupied by and/or proposed for non- residential or mixed-use development. As a commercial development, the roadway must be built to City standards. Table 15-1 requires local roadways to have a 50-ft right-of-way. The applicant has not proposed a ROW for the roadway. As noted above, the Board is unaware of any reason the City would accept this roadway as currently proposed. The Board finds this scenario to be sufficiently unlikely that it would be appropriate to forgo creation of a ROW at this time. If the applicant later desires for cause for the City to take over the roadway, they may seek an amendment. Table 15-1 requires the road width to be 32-ft since it serves commercial and industrial uses, though the DRB may reduce the required width. The applicant is proposing 28-ft. The Board supports the proposed road width for the following reasons. • The road will serve a single user • There do not appear to be problems with truck movements • There is a wetland buffer which the applicant’s proposal manages to avoid permanently impacting (though there are temporary impacts associated with grading) • LDR 14.07F prioritizes reduction of runoff from impervious surfaces. #SD-21-28 15 (3) Private roadways allowed. The DRB may at its discretion approve a roadway or roadways within a subdivision or PUD to be private if one or more of the following situations applies: (a) The proposed roadway functions as a private frontage or service road to serve more than one (1) commercial lot, and the Development Review Board determines such a road would be consistent with the standards for PUDs in this Article. (b) The proposed roadway functions as a private service or access road within a commercial subdivision or PUD, and the Development Review Board determines such a road would be consistent with the standards for PUDs in this Article. The difference between this section (3) and section (2) above is that this section allows the road to be private, but section (2) requires it to be constructed to public roadway standards. (4) Connections to adjacent parcels. (a) If the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the roadway to the property line or contribute the cost of completing the roadway connection. (b) In determining whether a connection to an adjacent property may or could occur, and the location and configuration of such connection, the DRB may consider: (i) The existence of planned roadways or recreation paths in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Official Map, or these Regulations; (ii) The requirements of the Zoning District in which the adjacent property is located and whether these Regulations allow additional development or development density on the adjacent parcel; (iii) The context of the proposed development’s setting in relation to the adjacent property; (iv) The presence of physical obstacles to such a connection, such as wetlands, water bodies, or steep slopes; (v) The presence of legal restrictions to development or use on the adjacent property; and/or; (vi) Any other information it deems necessary to make its determination. The Board has reviewed the potential connections between the project area and adjacent parcels and between the project area and other parts of the airport parcel and finds no additional connections to be necessary. 15.12F Entrances This section requires that the nearest signalized intersection shall have a level of service “D” at the peak hour including the anticipated impact of the fully developed PUD. The LOS shall also be D for through- movements at the major roadway (Williston Road). Entrances to PUDs shall generally be separated by 400 ft, and signalized intersections shall be separated by between 300 ft and 500 ft, depending on traffic volume. These criteria are proposed to be met. The applicant has prepared a detailed traffic study evaluating the impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system. The evaluation takes into consideration major permitted developments in #SD-21-28 16 the project vicinity. It evaluates traffic safety, sight distance, and intersection capacity. It ultimately concludes that a traffic signal is recommended at the new driveway into the site, which has been incorporated into the project design. The signal is proposed to be constructed with the first sub-phase (the manufacturing building). 6. Staff has requested an independent technical review of the updated traffic impact study and anticipates having an update for the Board at the time of the hearing. The applicant has not provided a full set of plans for the proposed traffic signal. The Board finds that operational functions of the traffic signal are subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works and by Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) as evidenced by issuance of an Act 250 permit prior to issuance of a zoning permit for installation of the signal. 15.12K Street Names The Board finds the applicant must receive approval for a street name from the Planning Commission for the proposed access road prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the project. A locatable address is required prior to construction of any combustible elements of the project. 15.12M Sidewalks and Recreation Paths. (1) Unless otherwise provided in the specific regulations in Article 9 (SEQ) or in the City Center Form Based Codes District, sidewalks and/or recreation paths shall be installed along both sides of arterial streets, along both sides of collector streets in commercial areas, along one side of collector streets in noncommercial areas, and along one side of local streets. The specific location of sidewalks and/or recreation paths shall be determined by the DRB. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk or recreation path along one side of the access road from Williston Road to Eagle Drive. The Board finds this proposed pedestrian route as supportive of Comprehensive Plan objectives and strongly supports the applicant’s proposal. The Board finds this criterion met. 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 an “airfield viewing area.” The Board supports this as privately-maintained site amenity. The concurrent master plan requires this to be maintained and open to the public. The proposed first sub-phase (the manufacturing building) includes entirety of the sidewalks for this preliminary and final plat. (2) Sidewalk and/or path to curb distance shall be at least five (5) feet or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer (see street details in Figure 15-1) or required by the applicable City Center FBC District Transect Zone. Sidewalk to edge of pavement is generally at least five (5) feet except where in proximity to the wetland buffer. The Board accepts the applicant’s proposed configuration. (3) Sidewalks shall be laid out so as to maximize southern exposure. The Board finds this criterion met. D) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Section 15.18A of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general #SD-21-28 17 standards for all PUDs. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The applicant has received preliminary water or wastewater allocation for the proposed project. 7. The South Burlington Water Department provided comments on the plans on January 3, 2022. The applicant revised the plans, provided to Staff on 2/1/2022. Staff has provided the revised plans to the water department and anticipates having an update at the time of the hearing. Since the applicant has not provided a breakdown of water and wastewater demand, the Board finds the applicant shall obtain final water allocation for 25,900 gpd and final wastewater allocation for 25,900 gpd prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the first sub-phase. (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. As noted by the City Stormwater Section under criterion 14.07F above, the applicant will be required to obtain a construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The Board finds that issuance of this permit will demonstrate that this criterion is met. (3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants. Traffic impacts of the proposed project are discussed under 14.07G above. (4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources. The project temporarily impacts a portion of a Class II wetland buffer. The applicant indicates the purpose of the encroachment is to install a stormwater outfall, remove an existing gravel road, and temporary grading associated with the new road and sidewalk. Areas impacted will be revegetated. The applicant is proposing the following • 913 sf Class II buffer impacts for grading and restoration • 1,878 sf Class II buffer impacts for removal of gravel road, grading, and restoration • 5,748 sf Class II buffer impacts for removal of gravel road and restoration There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non-organic fertilizers, within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. #SD-21-28 18 12.02E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. The applicant must demonstrate approval of the proposed wetland impacts by Vermont DEC prior to issuance of a zoning permit. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; The purpose of the encroachment is to allow discharge of an infiltration basin, to remove existing impervious surfaces, and temporary grading. The Board finds the limited size of the encroachment relative to the size of the impacted wetland, combined with the purpose of the impact, to be adequately protective of flood storage and conveyance capacity. The Board finds this criterion met. (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; The Board interprets this criterion to mean that the encroachment shall not adversely impact the erosion of sediment. The Board finds that since the stormwater system is designed to improve water quality, this criterion is met. (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The applicant has not provided a field delineation/wetland report/wetland classification letter therefore the Board is unable to evaluate how the impacts on the functions and values of the wetland are minimized or offset. However, since this impact will be subject to review and approval of the DEC, the Board finds that issuance of a wetland permit from the DEC will suffice as demonstration that this criterion is met. (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. See discussion of visual compatibility and transitions above under site plan review standards 14.06(A) and 14.06B. The Board finds the use consistent with the comprehensive plan and purpose of the zoning district. (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas. #SD-21-28 19 Open spaces are established in the concurrent master plan. This application does not conflict with those findings. (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 12/1/2021 and offers the following comments. SBFD FMO has had several lengthy meetings with the design team over the past few months. We are currently working with the group to address access, water supply, fire protection features for the Phase 1 – 113,000 SF, one story, type 2, fully protected, mixed use facility (S & F-1) production building. We have asked the design team to submitted the mtg minutes (once approved by FMO) as part of the public record and comment on the project. While this is a unique and complex project we have found the design team and owners committed to constructing a project that meets or exceeds the State and local building fire and life safety codes and standards. 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. The Board finds this criterion to be met. (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed wall-mounted fixtures at the hangar door to be 40-ft high. These fixtures are within the airfield and are not subject to local review. Other wall mounted fixtures are proposed to be 30-ft, which is the maximum height allowed in the LDR. 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 5.1 footcandles and in the Entry Canopy area is 6.65 footcandles. In order to meet the average of three footcandles in the loading dock area, the applicant is proposing to reduce the luminaire outputs to ~40% when not occupied, utilizing occupancy sensors. At the reduced level, the average illumination in the Loading Dock area is 2.5 footcandles. The Board finds it to be acceptable for illumination levels to exceed 3 footcandles under the entry canopy. The applicant is proposing overhead lighting along the recreation path where it diverges from the roadway, and bollard lighting along the recreation path along the southeast side of the building. It is unusual to provide independent lighting for a recreation path in South Burlington, but as the roadway is proposed to remain private, the Board finds it acceptable. Other elements are discussed elsewhere in this document. The Board finds this criterion met. (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. The applicant is proposing modifications to Williston Road. The Deputy Director of Operations #SD-21-28 20 reviewed the plans on 12/15/2021 and offers the following comments. All the crosswalks should be inlaid into the asphalt and poly-urea be used in the place of road paint. It holds up significantly better to traffic. If the City is going to be responsible for the crosswalk at the intersection of Williston Road and the new road I would ask it be done in that manner. Other relevant elements of this criterion are discussed elsewhere in this document. The Board finds the applicant must comply with the comments of the Deputy Director of Operations as a condition of approval. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected district(s). A discussion of consistency with Comprehensive Plan is provided under site plan review standards above. (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. See discussion under 14.07F above. E) OTHER Energy Standards All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. 13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage For the 344,000 sf building, containing 230,000 sf manufacturing area and a 114,000 sf office area, 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 4 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. The Board finds this criterion met. 8. For the proposed first sub-phase (the manufacturing building), 100% of the proposed long-term bicycle parking spaces are provided, but no short term spaces are provided. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to clarify the breakdown of manufacturing and office space so that the required number of short-term bicycle parking spaces can be calculated, and then require the applicant to provide that number on the plans. #SD-21-28 21 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. The Board waives the relevant provision of 13.09 in deference to the request of GMT. Should the applicant later desire to construct a different style bus stop shelter, it shall be subject to review and approval of the Board or administrative officer as allowed by the LDR. DECISION Motion by __, seconded by __, to approve preliminary & final plat application #SD-21-28 subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. a. Modify the connection to the remaining segment of Valley Road to be one-way by reducing the pavement width of the approximately 50-ft one-way section to 12-ft, and by adding one way and do not enter signs. Curbing may be omitted in this area. b. Modify the grading or add small retaining walls to maintain existing grade within the dripline of both the 32-inch and 34-inch maple along the proposed recreation path, modify the landscaping plan notes and EPSC plans to provide protection, and require retention of both trees. c. Include a detail, subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works, for sidewalk construction to protect the root zones of existing trees. Indicate on the plans that this detail shall be used in proximity to the three existing honeylocust along Williston Road. d. Modify the swale within the “recreation amenity” on the west side of the private road to continue to provide adequate conveyance of flows from contributing areas, subject to review and approval of the City Stormwater Section. e. Placeholder for findings related to short term bike parking in first sub-phase f. The applicant shall modify the plat to provide an easement in any locations where the proposed sidewalk is outside of the existing ROW g. The plat shall be revised to include the signature of the land surveyor 4. A digital PDF version of the full set of approved final plans as amended must be delivered to the Administrative Officer before recording the mylar. #SD-21-28 22 5. The final plat plan (SP-002) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. 6. A digital file consisting of an ArcGIS or AutoCAD formatted file of the proposed subdivision, including property lines, easements, and rights of way, either georeferenced or shown in relation to four easily identifiable fixed points such as manholes, utility poles or hydrants, must be provided to the Administrative Officer before recording the final plat plan. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator. 7. The mylar must be recorded prior to zoning permit issuance. 8. The zoning permit for the first sub-phase must be obtained within six (6) months of approval. The zoning permit for the second sub-phase must be obtained within twelve (12) months of approval. The applicant may request a single one (1) year extension. 9. Since the applicant has not provided a breakdown of water and wastewater demand, the applicant shall obtain final water allocation for 25,900 gpd and final wastewater allocation for 25,900 gpd prior to issuance of the zoning permit for the first sub-phase. 10. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first sub-phase, the applicant must post a landscaping bond or surety for $787,580 in plantings in accordance with the methodology in LDR 15.15B. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the second sub-phase, the applicant must post a landscaping bond or surety for $981,080 in plantings in accordance with the methodology in LDR 15.15B. These sureties shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 11. Placeholder for conditions related to appearance of the first half of the building 12. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for installation of the signal, operational functions of the traffic signal shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. 13. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first sub-phase, the applicant must receive approval for a street name from the Planning Commission for the proposed access road. 14. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the phase including the artwork, the applicant shall 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. 15. The applicant must demonstrate approval of the proposed wetland impacts by Vermont DEC prior to issuance of a zoning permit. 16. 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, current or future, is required in accordance with the bylaws applicable at the time of its proposal. 17. The applicant shall maintain and plow the sidewalk along the Williston Road frontage until such time as it is connected to the City of South Burlington’s sidewalk network. 18. There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non-organic fertilizers, within the wetlands or associated 50 foot buffers. There shall be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush-hogging shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. 19. The crosswalk at Williston Road shall be inlaid into the asphalt and poly-urea be used in the place of road paint. #SD-21-28 23 20. The applicant must maintain the proposed recreational amenity as open to the public for the duration of its existence, and provide landscaping surety for the landscaping contained therein in conformance with the provisions of 15.15B(1). Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present James Langan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of _ - _ - _. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2022, by _____________________________________ Dawn Philibert, Chair PLEASE NOTE: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail with the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal also must be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802- 951-1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 1 of 10 A) UPDATES TO COMMENTS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD ON 12/21/21 SC 1 re: Dimensional Standards Depending on the Board’s decision relative to inclusion of the geothermal well field into the Master Plan, Staff considers the applicant may need to update their coverage computations. • Applicant will respond as required to align with Board’s decision from the MP-21-02 hearing. SC 2 re: AIR-I District Standards Staff recommends the Board request the applicant provide a copy of their application to FAA for recordkeeping purposes. • FAA 7460 is attached as Exhibit A. SC 3 re: Parking Location 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. • No action currently required by Applicant. SC 4 re: Access to Abutting Properties 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. • Applicant has requested clarification from Staff as there are no cross-lot connections proposed. • Campus circulation occurs within a single lot. Figure 1: Proposed Single Lot Plan Legend: Red Line = Property Line Blue Line = Setbacks Orange Line = Zoning District Line 1 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 2 of 10 SC 5 re: Utility Service 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. • Water line has been coordinated with underground and overhead utilities as shown in the snippet below, which was taken from CW-300 – Water & Sewer Utility Plan. 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. • Preliminary application signoffs are provided as Exhibit B1 – Water Allocation and Exhibit B2 – Wastewater Allocation. SC 7-16 re: Landscaping and Screening 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. • Applicant has reviewed the status of the trees noted by Staff and offers the following: o (2) 26” and 40” spruce trees [purple] must be removed to accommodate re-grading for parking area – substantial filling to occur. o (5) trees [blue] to be removed at proposed recreation path are existing stumps as recorded by survey – not listed in table of trees to remain or be removed. o (2) 37” and 15” Ash trees [orange] at proposed recreation path to be removed as basic mitigation strategy to help prevent the spread of Emerald Ash Borer. o (2) 7” and 8” multi-stem maple trees [green] at proposed recreation path likely volunteer species and/or previously damaged. Figure 2: CW-300 - Water & Sewer Utility Plan Snippet 2 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 3 of 10 o (1) 34” maple tree [pink] must be removed to accommodate re-grading – substantial filling to occur. o (1) 32” maple tree [yellow] found in course of reviewing comments to be retained if possible – minimal change in surrounding elevation to occur, despite being located within re-grading limits. SC 12 re: Screening 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. • Applicant supports Staff’s recommendation. SC 13 through 16 re: Landscaping Value 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. Figure 3: Tree Removal Plan 3 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 4 of 10 • The “general purpose meeting area” is intended to function as a large gathering area for Applicant team members, as well as the Public during non-working hours. • Applicant anticipates this space will be seasonally programmed. 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. • Project landscaping design is 30% above the LDR required budget. 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. • VTrans questions have been resolved and VTrans has issued a Letter of Intent to issue a permit; see Exhibit C1. • The revised Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis, Exhibit C2, notes: “Given the relatively high side-street delay projected for the BETA site driveway in an unsignalized condition, the ability to meet all three volume-based signal warrants assuming a single-lane minor-street approach, and the anticipated future build-out of the BETA campus, we feel that the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection along with Phase 1 of BETA’s campus development program would be a prudent solution.” SC 23 re: Lighting 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. • Exhibit D – Supplemental Photometrics have been provided showing lighting levels at the loading dock area at full output for review. • The Loading Dock area is lit to an average of 5.3-footcandles at full output and isolated to the Loading Dock area. Maximum footcandles in this area does not exceed 6.9-footcandles during full output. • While the lighting levels are greater than the surrounding areas, this is intentional to meet IES standards for a loading dock during occupancy. 4 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 5 of 10 SC 25 re: Bicycle Parking and Storage 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 12/21/21, 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. • Long-term bicycle parking spaces, changing facilities, showers, and clothes lockers are located as shown below. Figure 4: Bicycle Storage, Locker & Shower Location Diagram 5 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 6 of 10 • Entrance A – Lower + Upper Levels Figure 5: Entrance A – Lower Level Plan Figure 6: Entrance A – Lower Level Enlarged Locker & Shower Plan 6 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 7 of 10 Figure 8: Entrance A – Upper Level Enlarged Plan Long-Term Bike Storage Figure 7: Entrance A – Upper Level Floor Plan 7 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 8 of 10 • Entrance B – Intermediate/Mezzanine Level Figure 9: Entrance B - Intermediate/Mezzanine Level Plan Figure 10: Entrance B - Enlarged Mezzanine Storage, Locker, & Shower Plan 8 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 9 of 10 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. • Proposed bike racks comply with durability standards as outlined in the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP) “Essentials of Bike Parking”. • Proposed bike racks are the same as those approved and installed for the North Hangar North Addition project. 9 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments Page 10 of 10 SC 26 re: Bus Shelters 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, 2021 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. • Glass bus shelter as previously discussed will be the baseline design. • Bus shelter architecture design will be evaluated at a future date. SC 27 re: Phasing 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. • Applicant requests the timeline be established as 5-years from substantial completion. • If Phase 2 is not constructed Applicant will cause to be constructed the public path and viewing area. 10 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments EXHIBIT A FAA FINAL DETERMINATION 11 of 43 Federal Aviation Administration January 05, 2022 TO: BETA Technologies Attn: Nick Warren 1150 Airport Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 nick@beta.team CC: Stantec Attn: Christopher Gendron 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 christopher.gendron@stantec.com Page 1 of 3 RE: (See attached Table 1 for referenced case(s)) **FINAL DETERMINATION** Table 1 - Letter Referenced Case(s) ASN Prior ASN Location Latitude (NAD83) Longitude (NAD83) AGL (Feet) AMSL (Feet) 2021-ANE-1423-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-43.58N 73-08-26.70W 56 376 2021-ANE-1424-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-42.64N 73-08-25.33W 58 378 2021-ANE-1425-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-41.22N 73-08-23.03W 58 378 2021-ANE-1426-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-41.00N 73-08-21.80W 50 370 2021-ANE-1427-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-40.45N 73-08-21.12W 50 370 2021-ANE-1428-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-40.14N 73-08-21.93W 58 378 2021-ANE-1429-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-39.75N 73-08-21.23W 38 358 2021-ANE-1430-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-38.62N 73-08-23.01W 38 358 2021-ANE-1431-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-37.66N 73-08-24.48W 50 370 2021-ANE-1432-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-37.31N 73-08-25.50W 58 378 2021-ANE-1433-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-36.40N 73-08-25.51W 50 370 2021-ANE-1434-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-37.33N 73-08-27.02W 50 370 2021-ANE-1435-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-37.93N 73-08-27.00W 58 378 2021-ANE-1436-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-39.35N 73-08-29.29W 58 378 2021-ANE-1437-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-40.12N 73-08-30.94W 56 376 2021-ANE-1438-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-40.59N 73-08-31.49W 38 358 2021-ANE-1439-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-41.16N 73-08-30.81W 38 358 2021-ANE-1440-NRA 2021-ANE-827-NRA BURLINGTON,VT 44-27-41.56N 73-08-29.65W 38 358 If FDC NOTAMS ARE REQUIRED, the following Airport Operations Contact(s) (AOC) are approved to handle FDC NOTAM coordination. The AOC must create and/or log into their OE/AAA account and select “Search Archives”. The aeronautical study number (ASN) associated with the proposed obstruction is to be entered (see FAA determination letter for ASN). The NOTAM can be extended or cancelled through the AOC’s account. If the AOC is having difficulty using the tool, please contact the OE/AAA support desk at 202-580-7500 or refer to the online instructions. Name Email Phone Nic Longo nlongo@btv.aero (802) 863-2874 Larry Lackey llackey@btv.aero (802) 863-2874 Description: Project being proposed is an Electrical Vertical Takeoff and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft manufacturing building for BETA Technologies. The building is proposed in the Southern Portion of the Airport Property at the southern end of Taxiway 'G' and accessed by vehicle from Valley Drive in South 12 of 43 Page 2 of 3 Burlington, VT. The Maximum Building height proposed, including any appurtenances or objects on top of building, is approximately 59'. Equipment on the roof includes a solar array and skylights. The FF is set at 320. The building footprint and data is attached. A glint and glare study has been undertaken for the PV panels atop the proposed building, and no glare was found for the ATCT, also attached. We do not object with conditions to the construction described in this proposal provided: You comply with the requirements set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-2, "Operational Safety on Airports During Construction." 2021-ANE-1425-NRA: AT AMSL 378 Burlington Intl (BTV) Airport, Burlington, VT AC 4D Obstacle penetrates RWY 15 Initial Climb Area (ICA) 7.7 feet. It is a low, close-in penetration, requiring TAKE- OFF MINIMUM AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, NOTE: RWY 15, BUILDINGS - Construction 1428.12 feet from departure end of runway, -841.94 feet RIGHT (-) of centerline, 58 AGL / 378 AMSL, NEH 370.303 AMSL. 2021-ANE-1428-NRA: AT AMSL 378 Burlington Intl (BTV) Airport, Burlington, VT AC 4D Obstacle penetrates RWY 15 Initial Climb Area (ICA) 4.4 feet. It is a low, close-in penetration, requiring TAKE- OFF MINIMUM AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES, NOTE: RWY 15, BUILDINGS - Construction 1559.99 feet from departure end of runway,-872.57 feet RIGHT (-) of centerline, 58 AGL / 378 AMSL, NEH 373.59975 AMSL. FDC NOTAMS ARE REQUIRED. All requests for FDC NOTAM action must be made utilizing the users OE/ AAA account. The Sponsor (or Sponsor's representative) is to log into their OE/AAA account and go to "Search Archives". The aeronautical study number (ASN) associated with the proposed obstruction is to be entered (see FAA determination letter for ASN). If the Sponsor (or Sponsor's representative) is having difficulty using the tool, please contact the OE/AAA support desk at 202-580-7500 or refer to the online instructions. Request must be initiated a minimum of 5 business days prior to conducting operations/construction to allow for processing and issuance of NOTAMS. The Sponsor (or Sponsor's representative) is responsible to verify NOTAMS are active prior to beginning operations. As a condition to this Determination, the structure is marked and/or lighted in accordance with (Buildings, Structures, Antennas, etc.) Chapters 4 and 5 of Advisory Circular 70/7460-1M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. This determination does not constitute FAA approval or disapproval of the physical development involved in the proposal. It is a determination with respect to the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and with respect to the safety of persons and property on the ground. In making this determination, the FAA has considered matters such as the effects the proposal would have on existing or planned traffic patterns of neighboring airports, the effects it would have on the existing airspace structure and projected programs of the FAA, the effects it would have on the safety of persons and property on the ground, and the effects that existing or proposed manmade objects (on file with the FAA), and known natural objects within the affected area would have on the airport proposal. 13 of 43 Page 3 of 3 This determination expires on July 5, 2023 unless: (a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office. (b) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for the completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: Request for extension of the effective period of this determination must be obtained at least 15 days prior to expiration date specified in this letter. If you have any questions concerning this determination contact Tracey Mcinnis tracey.mcinnis@faa.gov. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021-ANE-1440- NRA. Tracey Mcinnis Specialist Signature Control No: 499144232-506753951 14 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments EXHIBIT B1 SBWD WATER ALLOCATION 15 of 43 16 of 43 17 of 43 18 of 43 19 of 43 20 of 43 21 of 43 22 of 43 23 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments EXHIBIT B2 WASTEWATER ALLOCATION 24 of 43 25 of 43 *Flow Calculations (You may substitute an engineer’s calculation or letter for the information requested below) For residential projects, list number of bedrooms and units requested: Number of Bedrooms Number of Units X Gallons per day per unit = Total Flows 1 140 2 or more 210 TOTAL Notes: ___________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ For commercial and industrial projects, list existing and proposed tenants, uses and flows: Tenant/ Type of use Number of Flows per Other Total Business seats, SF, etc X unit Adjustments Flow TOTAL *Total development wastewater flow requested: _____gallons per day Flow characteristics (for commercial and industrial projects) Volume: ____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Flow rate: ____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Strength: ____________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ 575 Employees @ 20 gpdpp w/ showers = 11,500 gpd 40 Visitors (Patron or Client, Non-Employee) at 4 gpd = 160 gpd Cafeteria at 261 seats @ 40 gpd/seat = 10,440 gpdCafeteria at 261 seats reduced meal offering, 3d shift@ 13.5 gpd/seat = 3,524 gpd Drains at Interior Truck Off Load Area = 2 bays @ 100 gal/bay = 200 gpd Total Phase 1 & Phase 2 Flows = 25,824 gpd Allocation Request Total Water Flow (ADF) = 25,900 gpd No industrial wastewater will be generated. 26 of 43 Please do not write below this line Application & Recording Fee received: _____________ ________ Name Date Receiving Plant: ______Airport Pkwy _____Bartlett Bay City Center District: ____Yes _____No Approved by Water Pollution Control Department (Commercial and Industrial Projects) ______________________ _____________ Director of Water Pollution Control Date Preliminary allocation issued: (payment of fee is not required) _______________________ _____________ Director of Planning and Zoning Date Final allocation issued: (payment of fee is required, either in full or pro-rated for projects with multiple zoning permits involved) _______________________ _____________ Director of Planning and Zoning Date Final allocation expires _________________with permit #____-____-____ (Date) Zoning permit issued___________________with permit#____-____-____ (Date) Associated WW connection permit (if applicable) #____-____-____ For extensions of Final Allocation Only EXTENSION GRANTED ____________to______________ (Date) (Date of Expiration) 50% EXTENSION FEE PAID _________ $___________ (Date) (Amount) 27 of 43 Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Flow Report Project: Calculated By: Date: Revised: Project Location: BETA Technologies, Inc. BTV Assembly Plant, South 40 Development Bernard Gagnon, P.E. December 14, 2021 Valley Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 Project Description: BETA proposes to construct a contemporary assembly facility as part of an expanded aviation research and development campus. The main facility will be constructed in two phases, each approximately 450’ by 230’. These spaces will each be sustained by their own 30,000 SF two-story office and support services space. The proposed assembly facility is projected to include the following employees: 125 employees in assembly during the 1st shift 100 employees in assembly during the 2nd shift 100 employees in assembly during the 3rd shift 250 employees as office staff in the East Office area Total estimated employee count is 575 employees. It is projected that the facility will host approximately 40 visitors/day. The facility will include a cafeteria with seating for 261 employees. The cafeteria will serve three meals per day including breakfast, lunch, and dinner. BETA also proposes to have the cafeteria serve a reduced meal at midnight for 3rd shift employees. The reduced meal will consist of food cart fare requiring less intensive food preparation and cleanup. Additional ancillary flows include an interior, two bay materials delivery space with floor drains. Potable water supply will be provided by cutting-in a new 12” x 12” DI tee with three 12” gate valves into an existing 12" DI water main located along Valley Road. The 12" DI building water service will include a 12" DI service for fire protection and a 6" DI water service for domestic water. One - 12" x 8" tee will branch off from the 12" DI building water service piping to feed two (2) proposed new on-site fire hydrants. An additional fire hydrant will be supplied via a 12" x 8" wet tap off from the existing 12" DI water main located along Valley Road. Wastewater from the facility will be conveyed to a new duplex pump station located near the southwest corner of the manufacturing facility. An in-line grease interceptor will be provided on the effluent piping from the cafeteria and an in-line oil/water separator will be installed on the floor drain piping from the interior, two bay materials delivery space. An existing 10” AC sanitary sewer main is located along Williston Road. Discharge from the proposed pump station will be conveyed via a new 4" force main to an existing sanitary sewer manhole located at the intersection of Williston Road and Valley Road. Sewage discharge will then be conveyed via an existing 10" AC gravity sewer main extending westerly along Williston Road to the Williston Road Pump Station. Discharge from the existing pump station is currently directed via a 10" force main to South Burlington’s Airport Parkway WWTF for biological treatment. \\us0261-ppfss01\workgroup\1794\active\179450350\transportation\permitting\S Burl W & WW Allocations\December 2021\BETA Manufacturing - Wastewater-Water Allocation Calculation 12-14-2021.xlsx Page 1 of 228 of 43 BETA Technologies Flow Derivation: Projected Number of Employees:575 Date: December 14, 2021 Estimated Average Daily Flow Wastewater/Water Calculations Building Classification:Office, Factory, Welcome Center, and Place of Employment (per table 8-3 of the wastewater and potable water supplies rules Details of Use:with showers unit:employee per shift GPD/Unit:20 Average Daily Flow = 575 Employees @ 20 gpdpp w/ showers = 11,500 gpd Ancilliary Flows:40 Visitors (Patron or Client, Non-Employee) at 4 gpd = 160 gpd Cafeteria serving 3 meals per day at 261 seats @ 40 gpd/seat = 10,440 gpd Cafeteria serving 1 reduced meal offering for 3rd shift employees per day at 261 seats @ 13.5 gpd/seat = 3,524 gpd - Unit flow based on 27 gpd/ seat for 2 meals per day / 2 = 13.5 gpd/seat Floor Drains at Interior Truck Off Load Area = 2 bays @ 100 gal/bay = 200 gpd Total Average Daily Flow (ADF) = 25,824 GPD Therefore, Use 25,900 GPD for allocation purposes. Peak Daily and Hourly Flow for the proposed Manufacturing Facility 1. For flows > 10,000 gpd and < 100,000 gpd, the Peaking Factor 4.2 2. Peak Daily Flow = 25824 GPD x 4.2 (Peaking Factor)108,461 GPD 3. Peak Hourly Flow = 108460.8 gpd / 1,440 minutes/day =75.32 GPM (0.168 cfs) 4. Average Daily Flow = 25824 gpd / 1,440 minutes/day =17.93 GPM (0.04 cfs) 5. Maximum Day Demand = 25,824 gpd / 720 min/day = 35.87 gpm (Water Supply Only)35.87 GPM (0.08 cfs) 6.Building Sewer Pipe: 6” SDR 35 PVC at Slope =0.0208 ft/ft 7.Pipe Velocity Review: Velocity at Pipe Full =5.36 ft/s >2.0 ft/s Q = 472 GPM Therefore ok Velocity at Peak Hourly Flow =4.04 ft/s Q = 75.32 GPM Velocity at Average Daily Flow =2.65 ft/s Q = 17.93 GPM Note: Design Flows are from Table 8-3 of the Wastewater Systems and Potable Water Supply Rules, Effecitve April 12, 2019 \\us0261-ppfss01\workgroup\1794\active\179450350\transportation\permitting\S Burl W & WW Allocations\December 2021\BETA Manufacturing - Wastewater-Water Allocation Calculation 12-14-2021.xlsx Page 2 of 229 of 43 Informational Attachment - A Build Calculations Only 30 of 43 Wastewater System and Potable Water Supply Flow Report - A Build Only Project: Calculated By: Date: Revised: Project Location: BETA Technologies, Inc. BTV Assembly Plant, South 40 Development - A Build Bernard Gagnon, P.E. December 14, 2021 Valley Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 Project Description: BETA proposes to construct a contemporary assembly facility as part of an expanded aviation research and development campus. The main facility will be constructed in two phases, each approximately 450’ by 230’. These spaces will each be sustained by their own 30,000 SF two-story office and support services space. This analysis is for the A-Build portion only. This calculation forms a part of the overall building allocation and is not in addition to the overall allocation that will be requested. The proposed A-Build facility is projected to include the following employees: - 110 employees in assembly during the 1st shift - 90 employees in assembly during the 2nd shift - 0 employees in assembly during the 3rd shift - 0 employees as office staff in the East Office area - 30 employees as office staff in the Mezzanine area The A-Build facility calculations do not include cafeteria seating. Potable water supply will be provided by cutting-in a new 12” x 12” DI tee with three 12” gate valves into an existing 12" DI water main located along Valley Road. The 12" DI building water service will include a 12" DI service for fire protection and a 6" DI water service for domestic water. One - 12" x 8" tee will branch off from the 12" DI building water service piping to feed two (2) proposed new on-site fire hydrants. An additional fire hydrant will be supplied via a 12" x 8" wet tap off from the existing 12" DI water main located along Valley Road. Wastewater from the facility will be conveyed to a new duplex pump station located near the southwest corner of the manufacturing facility. An in-line grease interceptor will be provided on the effluent piping from the cafeteria and an in-line oil/water separator will be installed on the floor drain piping from the interior, two bay materials delivery space. \\us0261-ppfss01\workgroup\1794\active\179450350\transportation\permitting\S Burl W & WW Allocations\December 2021\BETA Manufacturing - Wastewater-Water Allocation Calculation 12-14-2021 - A Build Only.xlsx Page 1 of 231 of 43 BETA Technologies Flow Derivation: Projected Number of Employees:230 Date: December 14, 2021 Estimated Average Daily Flow Wastewater/Water Calculations Building Classification:Office, Factory, Welcome Center, and Place of Employment (per table 8-3 of the wastewater and potable water supplies rules Details of Use:with showers unit:employee per shift GPD/Unit:20 Average Daily Flow = 230 Employees @ 20 gpdpp w/ showers = 4,600 gpd Ancilliary Flows:20 Visitors (Patron or Client, Non-Employee) at 4 gpd = 80 gpd Cafeteria serving 0 meals per day at 0 seats @ 40 gpd/seat = 0 gpd Cafeteria serving 0 reduced meal offering for 3rd shift employees per day at 0 seats @ 13.5 gpd/seat = 0 gpd - Unit flow based on 27 gpd/ seat for 2 meals per day / 2 = 13.5 gpd/seat Floor Drains at Interior Truck Off Load Area = 2 bays @ 100 gal/bay = 200 gpd Total Average Daily Flow (ADF) = 4,880 GPD Therefore, Use 4,900 GPD for allocation purposes. Peak Daily and Hourly Flow for the proposed Manufacturing Facility 1. For flows < 10,000 gpd, the Peaking Factor (Table 10-1)5 2. Peak Daily Flow = 4880 GPD x 5 (Peaking Factor)24,400 GPD 3. Peak Hourly Flow = 24400 gpd / 1,440 minutes/day =16.94 GPM (0.038 cfs) 4. Average Daily Flow = 4880 gpd / 1,440 minutes/day =3.39 GPM (0.008 cfs) 5. Maximum Day Demand = 4880 gpd / 720 min/day = 8.44 gpm (Water Supply Only)6.78 GPM (0.016 cfs) 6.Building Sewer Pipe: 6” SDR 35 PVC at Slope = 0.0208 ft/ft 7.Pipe Velocity Review: Velocity at Pipe Full =5.36 ft/s >2.0 ft/s Q = 472 GPM Therefore ok Velocity at Peak Hourly Flow =4.04 ft/s Q = 16.95 GPM Velocity at Average Daily Flow =2.65 ft/s Q = 3.39 GPM Note: Design Flows are from Table 8-3 of the Wastewater Systems and Potable Water Supply Rules, Effecitve April 12, 2019 An existing 10” AC sanitary sewer main is located along Williston Road. Discharge from the proposed pump station will be conveyed via a new 4" force main to an existing sanitary sewer manhole located at the intersection of Williston Road and Valley Road. Sewage discharge will then be conveyed via an existing 10" AC gravity sewer main extending westerly along Williston Road to the Williston Road Pump Station. Discharge from the existing pump station is currently directed via a 10" force main to South Burlington’s Airport Parkway WWTF for biological treatment. \\us0261-ppfss01\workgroup\1794\active\179450350\transportation\permitting\S Burl W & WW Allocations\December 2021\BETA Manufacturing - Wastewater-Water Allocation Calculation 12-14-2021 - A Build Only.xlsx Page 2 of 232 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments EXHIBIT C1 VTRANS SECTION 1111 LETTER OF INTENT 33 of 43 From:Pierce, Ed To:Maynard, Israel Subject:RE: BETA Section 1111 Date:Monday, January 3, 2022 8:40:19 AM Attachments:BETA ACCESS PHASE 1.pdf BETA ACCESS PHASE FULL BUILD.pdf Hi Israel, The Agency intends to approve your access location with turn lanes, improvements to Valley Road and construction of a sidewalk essentially as shown on your attached plan “BETA Access Phase 1” dated 12/23/2021, subject to addressing the design comments listed below and other design issues which may arise later in the process. Please consider this email as a letter of intent to issue a permit. Given that none of the MUTCD traffic signal warrants are satisfied for Phase 1, VTrans will not approve of a traffic signal at the proposed access at this time. The forecasted traffic volumes will likely be different because Valley Road will remain open during Phase 1, some site traffic may use Aviation Drive, and due to uncertainties associated with trip generation estimates. Therefore, VTrans will consider approving the installation of a traffic signal by the applicant after the MUTCD warrants are satisfied based on monitoring by the applicant of actual traffic volumes or if adequately justified in traffic impact studies prepared for future development phases. Approval of the traffic signal will also depend on showing there is adequate stopping sight distance on westbound US 2. The TIS shows there is adequate stopping sight distance on US 2 westbound to vehicles stacking at the proposed traffic signal to the end of 50th and 95th queues. However, sight distance may be limited by the crest of the hill if vehicles are staked between the 50th and 95th percentile queues. Design Issues: 1. The TIS assumes that all truck traffic will use Aviation Drive which already has adequate turning radii. How will trucks be prevented from entering or exiting at the proposed access? And will the intersection geometry at the proposed entrance be designed to accommodate the stray truck that enters or exits there? 2. Please verify that there is adequate deceleration lane length for the eastbound left turn lane into the proposed access. The taper length appears to be short. 3. How was the length of the lane shift determined for the north offset of the WB lane? With the understanding that a traffic signal is not warranted at this time (but it is a good possibility it would be warranted in the future with additional phases), it may behoove BETA to install underground conduit and signal wiring while they are doing the construction work at the intersection for the left turn lane. The conduit and wiring is not terribly expensive and it could then terminate at pull boxes for future use. That could save them extra construction work and time (and intersection interruption/delay for us) should it meet traffic signal warrants in the future. At this time, you should proceed with submitting an application for a 19 V.S.A. §1111 Access and 34 of 43 Work Permit. The owner of the property (City of Burlington) should be the applicant, and BETA the co-applicant. The City of South Burlington should also sign as an additional co-applicant as they will be responsible for maintenance of the sidewalk within the US2 right of way. The signed application should be mailed to my attention to our Barre mailing address below with the permit fee. The fee is $2,500. The check should be made payable to “State of Vermont”. Please also email a scanned copy of the application form to me. Thank you, Ed Pierce | Permit Coordinator Vermont Agency of Transportation 219 N. Main St. | Barre, VT 05641 802-498-8946 | ed.pierce@vermont.gov vtrans.vermont.gov/planning/permitting 35 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 17, 2002 VTrans Coordination Response to VTrans Comments Page 1 of 1 1. The TIS assumes that all truck traffic will use Aviation Drive which already has adequate turning radii. How will trucks be prevented from entering or exiting at the proposed access? And will the intersection geometry at the proposed entrance be designed to accommodate the stray truck that enters or exits there? Curb radii at primary entrance is not designed for large track traffic and will be uncomfortable and challenging for trucks to enter at this location. Additionally, signage and wayfinding will be provided directing trucks to the appropriate entry. 2. Please verify that there is adequate deceleration lane length for the eastbound left turn lane into the proposed access. The taper length appears to be short. Taper length was calculated using 2018 AASHTO Green Book Table 9-22 and as shown below exceeds the required taper length. DECLERATION LENGTH DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH SPEED REDUCTION ALLOWED WEST OF TURN LANE = 10 MPH AASHTO TABLE 9-22 MIN. DECEL = 160’ @ 30 MPH WITH 170’ PROVIDED (OK) 3. How was the length of the lane shift determined for the north offset of the WB lane? Minimum Lane shift length was calculated using equations derived from the MUTCD Table 6C-3 and 6C- 4 and as shown below exceeds the required lane shift length. In addition, this is greater then the 180’ minimum require by VTrans Standard E-192. WESTBOUND LANE SHIFT DESIGN SPEED = 40 MPH MINIMUM LANE SHIFT TAPER = WS2/60/2 MINIMUM LANE SHIFT TAPER = (12x40)2/60/2 MINIMUM LANE SHIFT TAPER = 160’ WITH 200’ PROVIDED (OK) 36 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments EXHIBIT C2 REVISED TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS 37 of 43 To: Chris Gendron, Project Manager Stantec Date: December 27, 2021 Project #: 58590.00 From: David Saladino, PE Karen Sentoff, EI Re: BETA – Revised Traffic Signal Warrant Analyses This memorandum presents revised traffic signal warrant analyses results for the US 2/BETA Site Driveway intersection in South Burlington, Vermont. The analyses summarized in this memo incorporates the following revised assumptions: • Trip Generation o ITE Trip Generation (11th Edition) used to estimate BETA Phase 1 site-generated trips o 2022 Build Year (Phase 1) Site-Generated Volumes: ▪ Office (LU 710) – 250 employees: 162 AM Peak Hour Trips, 145 PM peak hour trips ▪ Manufacturing (LU 140) – 225 employees: 83 AM Peak Hour Trips, 81 PM peak hour trips o Peak hour site-generated trips distributed across 24-hours based on hourly distributions published in the Trip Generation Manual for the office and manufacturing land use codes. o 24-hour volumes on Williston Road based on counts collected at VTrans Automated Traffic Recorder station D036, located on US 2 between Gregory Drive and Industrial Avenue and adjusted to 2022 conditions. • Valley Road o Assumed to remain open o Existing Valley Road trips assumed to continue to use Valley Road (i.e. no shift to signalized site driveway) Figure 1 on the following page shows the proposed US 2/BETA Site Driveway intersection geometry with single through lanes on US 2, a 160’ eastbound left-turn lane on US 2, and a southbound left- and right--turn lane on the BETA site driveway approach. The figure also shows the total number of estimated AM and PM peak hour site- generated trips exiting via the site driveway. 38 of 43 Figure 1: Site Driveway Proposed Geometry and Peak Hour BETA Phase 1 Exiting Volumes Given that the intersection has a two-lane minor street approach with a high percentage of right-turning movements, three separate warrant analysis scenarios were conducted to evaluate the implications of adjusting the number of minor street lanes and approaching volumes. These scenarios were evaluated based on the following guidance from the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Section 4C.01: 08 The study should consider the effects of the right-turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turn traffic is subtracted from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2. 09 Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, the total traffic volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles. 10 Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn lane plus a right-turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street should be 39 of 43 considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered. Figure 2 below summarizes the three traffic-volume based traffic signal warrants for the following three scenarios: • Scenario 1 – Two-Lane Minor-Street Approach: This scenario includes all exiting traffic and assumes that the minor street approach has two lanes. Only the peak hour warrant is met in this scenario. However, the 4th hour of the 4-hour warrant is missed by only 15 vehicles. • Scenario 2 – Single-Lane Minor-Street Approach: This scenario includes all exiting traffic and assumes that the minor street approach has one lane. All three warrants are met in this scenario. • Scenario 3 – Single-Lane Minor-Street Approach with 2/3 Right-Turning Traffic Removed: This scenario removes 2/3 of the right-turning exiting traffic (based on estimates from traffic simulation observations of right-turning vehicles departing either as a right-turn on red or during the eastbound left-turn overlap phase) and assumes that the minor street approach has one lane. None of the three volume warrants are met in this scenario. Figure 2: Signal Warrant Analyses Summary - US 2/BETA Site Drive Intersection Scenario 1: Two-Lane Minor Street Approach Number of Hours Met Warrant Met? Warrant 1: 8-Hour Condition B - 5 hours NO Warrant 2: 4-Hour 3 hours NO < 15 cars away from meeting 4th hour Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 hours YES Scenario 2: Single-Lane Minor Street Approach Number of Hours Met Warrant Met? Warrant 1: 8-Hour Condition B - 8 hours YES Warrant 2: 4-Hour 7 hours YES Warrant 3: Peak Hour 3 hours YES Number of Hours Met Warrant Met? Warrant 1: 8-Hour Condition B - 3 hours NO Warrant 2: 4-Hour 3 hours NO Warrant 3: Peak Hour 0 hours NO Scenario 3: Single-Lane Minor Street Approach, Remove 2/3 of Southbound Right-Turning Volume 40 of 43 Unsignalized Site Driveway Analysis Figure 3 below shows the results of an unsignalized capacity analysis for the US 2/BETA Site Driveway intersection during the 2022 Build condition. As shown in the figure, the left-turn lane on the site driveway is anticipated to operate at LOS F conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Figure 3: US 2/BETA Site Driveway Unsignalized Level of Service Results (HCM 6) Conclusion Given the relatively high side-street delay projected for the BETA site driveway in an unsignalized condition, the ability to meet all three volume-based signal warrants assuming a single-lane minor-street approach, and the anticipated future build-out of the BETA campus, we feel that the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection along with Phase 1 of BETA’s campus development program would be a prudent solution. Peak Hour v/c+Delay*LOS** US 2, EB Left Turn 0.18 10.6 B Site Drive, SB Left Turn 0.16 72.6 F Site Drive, SB Right Turn 0.08 15.4 C US 2, EB Left Turn 0.05 9.8 A Site Drive, SB Left Turn 0.45 73.6 F Site Drive, SB Right Turn 0.33 19.5 C + Volume to Capacity Ratio* Delay (expressed in seconds per vehicle)** Level of Service US 2 / BETA Site Driveway AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2022 Build 41 of 43 BETA TECHNOLOGIES January 18, 2022 S40 PRELIM + FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-21-28 Hearing No. 2 | Responses to Staff Comments EXHIBIT D LIGHTING PHOTOMETRICS – FULL OUTPUT 42 of 43 BBGV B B E 1 .50.9 2 .6 0 .60.8 0 .80.8 0 .8 1 .0 1 .02.7 1 .1 1 .03.2 1 .0 1 .1 1 .01.01 .11.1 1 .11.1 1 .01.1 1 .01.1 1 .1 0 .91.1 1 .1 3 .1 3 .4 2 .7 3 .1 3 .4 1 .8 2 .3 2 .7 3 .3 4 .0 1 .4 1 .5 1 .7 2 .1 2 .6 3 .0 3 .4 4 .01 .9 1 .6 1 .6 1 .8 1 .9 2 .1 2 .3 2 .6 3 .1 3 .5 1 .5 1 .2 0 .9 1 .8 1 .8 1 .6 1 .7 1 .7 1 .6 1 .6 1 .7 2 .0 2 .3 2 .7 3 .1 1 .5 1 .3 1 .1 1 .1 1 .3 1 .4 1 .6 1 .6 1 .6 1 .7 1 .5 1 .3 1 .2 1 .3 1 .5 1 .7 2 .0 2 .3 2 .6 3 .8 1 .7 1 .7 1 .5 1 .3 1 .51 .6 1 .6 1 .7 1 .8 1 .7 1 .4 1 .2 1 .1 0 .9 0 .9 1 .1 1 .3 1 .4 1 .6 1 .9 2 .8 3 .5 4 .2 1 .8 1 .7 1 .7 1 .7 1 .7 1 .8 1 .8 1 .8 1 .6 1 .3 1.0 0 .8 0 .7 0 .7 0 .7 0 .9 1 .0 1 .1 1 .3 1 .7 2 .2 2 .8 3 .6 4 .4 1 .7 1 .8 1 .7 1 .8 1 .8 1 .7 1 .5 1 .2 0 .9 0 .7 0 .6 0 .5 0 .50 .6 0 .8 0 .8 0 .9 1 .2 1 .6 2 .2 2 .9 3 .7 4 .5 1 .5 1.6 1 .8 1 .81 .7 1 .5 1 .2 0 .9 0 .7 0 .5 0 .5 0 .4 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .2 1 .7 2 .3 2 .9 3 .8 4 .3 1 .4 1 .6 1 .7 1 .7 1 .6 1 .3 1 .0 0 .8 0 .6 0 .5 0 .4 0 .5 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 1 .0 1 .4 1 .9 2 .4 3 .1 3 .53 .6 1 .3 1 .5 1 .7 1 .8 1 .5 1 .2 0 .9 0 .8 0 .6 0 .5 0.5 0 .5 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .2 1 .7 2 .1 2 .5 2 .9 2 .8 1 .5 1 .7 1 .7 1 .7 1 .4 1 .2 1 .0 0 .8 0 .7 0 .6 0 .6 0 .7 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0 1 .3 1 .6 2 .0 2 .2 2 .5 2 .5 2 .3 1 .9 1 .7 1.9 1 .7 1 .4 1 .2 1 .0 0 .8 0 .8 0 .8 0 .9 1 .0 1 .1 1 .3 1 .5 1 .8 1 .9 2 .1 2 .1 2 .1 1 .7 1 .8 1 .8 1 .6 1 .4 1 .10 .9 0 .9 1 .0 1 .1 1.2 1 .4 1 .7 1 .8 1 .7 1 .8 1 .8 1 .8 1 .5 1 .6 1 .8 1 .9 1 .7 1 .3 1 .1 1 .1 1 .2 1 .4 1 .5 1 .7 1.8 1 .7 1 .9 2 .0 1 .5 1 .8 1 .9 1 .9 1 .6 1 .4 1 .3 1 .5 1 .7 1 .8 1 .8 1 .8 1 .7 1 .9 1 .9 1 .9 1 .8 1 .9 1.7 1 .6 1 .81 .9 1 .9 1 .8 1 .6 1 .5 1 .9 1 .7 1 .9 1 .9 1 .9 1 .9 1 .8 1 .8 1 .7 1 .7 1 .5 1 .6 1 .8 1 .8 1 .7 1 .9 1 .9 1 .2 1 .4 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .81.1 1 .1 1 .1 1 .20.8 3 .83.9 4 .14 .44.5 4 .9 5 .3 5 .6 5 .1 5 .8 4 .9 5 .0 6 .1 4 .1 3 .1 6 .0 6 .2 6 .6 3 .7 3 .2 1 .5 3 .5 4 .2 5 .5 6 .1 6 .6 6 .3 3 .5 3 .8 2 .9 3 .74 .6 6 .0 6 .6 6 .9 3 .2 3 .3 3 .2 4 .1 5 .0 6 .4 6 .4 6 .4 2 .9 5 .4 6 .2 6 .1 6 .4 5 .7 6 .3 6 .4 6 .0 5 .9 6 .3 6.2 5 .1 5 .9 5 .9 6 .05.6 4 .9 4 .64.33 .95.3 3 .7 4 .9 4 .3 (TYP.)XL1XP1XP3XP3XP3XP3XW2EXW2EXW1EXW3EXW3E XW1E XW3E XW3EXW3EXW2EXW1ESITE LIGHTING NARRATIVE1. THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND SITE LIGHTING SYSTEMS ARE DESIGNED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 13.07 EXTERIOR LIGHTING AND THE CITY OF BURLINGTON, VT COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, SECTION 5.5.2 OUTDOOR LIGHTING.2. ALL EXTERIOR BUILDING MOUNTED AND SITE LIGHTING SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY CONTROLLED VIA PHOTOCELL AND ASTRONOMICAL TIME CLOCK. LIGHTING SHALL HAVE CAPABILITIES TO BE REDUCED OR TURNED OFF AS DESIRED AFTER BUILDING OPERATING HOURS. 3. ALL SITE LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE DESIGNED TO BE FULL CUTOFF UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SITE AREA LUMINAIRES ARE DESIGNED TO BE ARRANGED SUCH THAT THE RESULTING ILLUMINANCE WILL NOT AFFECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR PASSING MOTORISTS. 4. ANY PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES INSTALLED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SHALL BE ORIENTED IN SUCH A MANNER OR LIMITED IN LUMEN OUTPUT TO PREVENT GLARE AND SHALL NOT EXCEED I.E.S. LIGHTING STANDARDS FOR DISABILITY GLARE. 5. FINAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES OF LIGHTS MAY CHANGE WITH FINAL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS; PHOTOMETRIC LEVELS WILL BE MAINTAINED.6. COORDINATION WITH EXISTING LIGHTING TO REMAIN AND OTHER UTILITIES WILL BE FACTORED INTO THE DESIGN TO VERIFY THAT THERE ARE NO CONFLICTS.7. CALCULATIONS USE A LIGHT LOSS FACTOR OF 0.9. TRUE NORTHPROJECT NORTH© 2018 StantecProject No.ScaleKey PlanIssued/Revision6A54321BCDEConsultantORIGINAL SHEET - ARCH E1 Permit/SealYYYY.MM.DD1/17/2022 2:31:48 PMAs indicated<Pick location in Project Information>Stantec Architecture and Engineering P.C.311 Summer StreetBoston, MA 02210-1723Tel: (617) 234-3100www.stantec.comSITE LIGHTINGLOADING218421340EA-1051 REVISED2022.01.131/16" = 1'-0"EA-1051PLAT SITE LIGHTING PLAN - AREA C - LOADINGPHOTOMETRIC CALCULATION SUMMARYSTATISTICAL AREAAVERAGE FOOTCANDLES (ACTUAL | IES REQ)MAXIMUMFOOTCANDLES (ACTUAL | IES REQ)MAX OR AVG / MINRATIO (ACTUAL | IES REQ)PARKING LOT1.8 | 2.03.9 | N/A5:1 | 15:1 MAXLOADING DOCK5.3 | 6.06.9 | N/A3:1 | 3:1 MAXROADWAY1.69 | 1.03.2 | N/A3:1 | 6:1 AVGBUILDING EGRESS0.99 | 1.01.9 | N/A2:1 | 2:1 AVGENTRY CANOPY6.65 | 4.017.1 | N/A3:1 | 2:1 AVGPEDESTRIAN PATHWAY1.68 | 1.03.9 | N/A3:1 | 4:1 AVG2.5 | 3.04.0 | N/A3:1 | 3:1 MAX*REDUCED LOADING DOCK43 of 43 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive, South Burlington VT 05403-7824 February 1, 2022 File: 218421340 Attention: South Burlington Development Review Board c/o City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Reference: BETA Technologies – A-Build Assembly Facility Supplemental Narrative Dear Members of the Board, As discussed and highlighted during the DRB SD-21-28 hearings on December 21, 2021 and January 18, 2022, BETA Technologies (“BETA”) is proposing to construct its Aircraft Assembly Facility (“Facility”) in two phases. The first phase of the project is known as the “A-Build” phase. This narrative is intended to supplement the previously provided materials and the A-Build plans provided. Below describes how the A-Build phase meets the City’s land development regulations. PROJECT DESCRIPTION BETA proposes to construct a 344,000 gross square foot (gsf) state-of-the-art aircraft assembly facility as part of an expanded aviation training, research and development, and assembly campus. The new building is comprised of a 230,000 gsf manufacturing area supported by 114,000 gsf of two-story office and support spaces with mezzanine. Parking for the facility will be provided onsite and is presented in further detail later in this report. The new facility will be constructed two phases with the first phase of 163,000 gross square feet accommodated in the western portion of the building, an area approximately 450’ by 230’. This first area of occupancy is referred to as “A-Build” phase and will include assembly, office, locker, food service, and other related spaces to support the assembly operations. This proposed phase will include several of the master plan key project environmental and placemaking elements, which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and which will enhance South Burlington’s continued efforts towards sustainable and smart development. • Full multi-modal capability with new sidewalks, paths, indoor bicycle storage facilities, and access to a regular public transportation (bus) route. • Incorporation of stormwater management improvements and utilization of demand management strategies to manage traffic impacts from the project. • Improving safe access to Williston Road through the permanent closure of two separate curb cuts on the arterial road. Green spaces are planned for wide-reaching enjoyment with recreational amenities planned for staff, visitors, and the public. Natural areas on site are respected and impacts minimized. The proposed development also February 1, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board Page 2 of 7 Reference: BETA Technologies – BTV Manufacturing Plant Preliminary/Final Plat Application Narrative incorporates energy efficiency and potable water use reduction measures meeting or exceeding those required or suggested by local regulations. LOT COVERAGE – A-BUILD Air-I Zoning District Requirement Air-I Zoning District Proposed I/C Zoning District Requirement I/C Zoning District Proposed Max. Building Coverage 30% 10.6%* 40.0% 4.0% Max. Overall Coverage 50% 19.3% 70.0% 49.7% Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% N/A 30% 13% HEIGHT WAIVER Applicant requests Staff to confirm their support of the previously requested height waiver. The building has received a 7460 determination, attached, from the FAA approving the building height in this location. BUILDING ARCHITECTURE The A-Build phase of the Beta manufacturing plant is a one- and two-level facility. The southwest elevation provides for entry from the parking area to the second level, with the main assembly area set approximately 20 feet lower. The entry elevation features a dynamic and welcoming canopy and landscaped entry terrace and approach path. The crisp white insulated panels of the of the exterior cladding feature a 9’ tall horizontal grille that is both a functional and aesthetic element which also acts as the screen to fully enclose the transformers at this side of the building. Vertical metal accent fins, part of the insulated metal panel cladding system, cast shadows and provide texture on the public-facing sunlit south elevations of the building. The metal cladding unifies the elevations providing for ease of expansion when the second phase is built. See plan sheets A200A thru A203A for building perspectives and elevations. OPEN SPACE An open space has been included adjacent Williston Road to provide a recreation amenity that provides for installation of a rotating art exhibit, sculptural landforms, seating, and pathways. This amenity will be planted with plantings of same quality and species as provided throughout the project. Seating will be a combination of site benches and reclaimed boulders unearthed during excavation activities. Boulders will also act as an opportunity to actively engage the landscape. The recreation amenity is connected to the broader recreation path and sidewalk network proposed as part of the campus master plan and will remain in place until construction of the proposed commercial building. Figures 1 & 2 below provide an illustrative sketch and detailed sketch of the proposed recreation amenity. Note, these sketches have not been incorporated into the respective civil and landscape drawings submitted alongside this narrative but will be incorporated in whole prior to the DRB hearing on February 15, 2022. February 1, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board Page 3 of 7 Reference: BETA Technologies – BTV Manufacturing Plant Preliminary/Final Plat Application Narrative Figure 1: Recreation Amenity – Illustrative Plan Figure 2: Recreation Amenity - Detail Plan February 1, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board Page 4 of 7 Reference: BETA Technologies – BTV Manufacturing Plant Preliminary/Final Plat Application Narrative LANDSCAPING For proposed landscaping plans and details, see sheets L00A, L004A, L200A, L201A and L202A for landscaping. Conformance with LDR’s: • Over 30% of the interior of the parking lot has landscaped islands planted with trees. • Interior and perimeter plantings are protected by curbing. • An abundance of trees is provided within or near the permitter of the parking area with at least 1 tree for every five (5) parking spaces. • The estimated cost for landscaping for the A-Build phase is calculated below and attached as an exhibit. • Utility cabinets are screened. February 1, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board Page 5 of 7 Reference: BETA Technologies – BTV Manufacturing Plant Preliminary/Final Plat Application Narrative LIGHTING Site lighting will utilize pole-mounted fixtures for both the new driveway and the parking areas, along with pedestrian-scaled bollards at pathways. Building mounted lights are provided at the required footcandle levels to support operations and life safety needs. Refer to sheets EA-102A and EA-103A. Conformance with LDR’s: • Max fixture height 30’ (FAA exemption granted for lights on Airfield side) • Full cut-off lights fixtures proposed • Illumination levels at ground level is less than 3 footcandles • Indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level does not exceed 0.3-footcandles maximum, and 0.1-footcandle average. PARKING Vehicular Parking: The parking lot constructed for the Facility includes 286 parking spaces to support both the A-Build and future phases. Bicycle Parking: Based on the A-Build gross square footage, table below outlines (orange highlighted columns) the required and proposed bicycle parking and related support facilities. By providing additional long term, indoor bike parking, the LDR’s allow for a 50% replacement of short term (outdoor) parking. Two (2) of the required twelve (12) short term bike parking spaces required, will be provided as long-term parking. A-Build Phase Phase 2 Full Build Required Proposed Proposed Proposed Short-term Spaces 12 10 16 26 Long-term Spaces 6 16 24 40 Changing Facilities 1 1 1 2 Lockers 3 156 340 496 Showers 1 5 12 17 For exterior bike parking locations, see sheet L-200A. For indoor bike storage, locker room and shower locations, see sheet A-101MA. VEHICLE ACCESS The proposed access to the site is as proposed in the full-build out documents, consisting of a left turn lane off Williston Road onto the site access drive. The drop-off location has moved towards the A-Build entrance. UTILITIES Water and wastewater systems will be as per sheets CW-300 thru CW-305. These plans have been updated to incorporate comments received from Champlain Water District. Power will be per sheet C-202A. Communications will be per sheet C-202A. February 1, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board Page 6 of 7 Reference: BETA Technologies – BTV Manufacturing Plant Preliminary/Final Plat Application Narrative STORMWATER Stormwater runoff from all new and substantially redeveloped surfaces will be treated via stormwater treatment practices. For A-Build phase, see sheets C-203A and C-204A for stormwater treatment and management strategy. Stormwater treatment details are provided on sheets C-054 thru C-056. Stantec has addressed and incorporated comments received from the City’s stormwater department related to the revised stormwater treatment design. SNOW STORAGE Snow will be stored in locations as indicated on plan sheets C-201A and C-202A. Additional snow storage locations have been added based on feedback from City Staff. WASTE MANAGEMENT Two trash compactors are proposed adjacent the shipping and receiving area and will be screened via site walls and railings. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS The following A-Build plans have been added to our plan set as part of this supplemental narrative: 1) Overall Site Plan C-200A, dated 1/31/2022 2) Site Plan C201A, dated 1/31/2022 3) Site Plan C202A, dated 1/31/2022 4) Grading and Drainage Plan C-203A, dated 1/31/2022 5) Grading and Drainage Plan C-204A, dated 1/31/2022 6) Overall Landscape Plan L-000A, dated 1/31/2022 7) Tree Protection Plan L-004A 8) Landscape Plan L-200A, dated 1/31/2022 9) Landscape Plan L-201A, dated 1/31/2022 10) Landscape Plan L-202A, dated 1/31/2022 11) Plant Schedule L-202A, dated 1/31/2022 12) Luminaire Schedule and Lighting Legend E-100A, dated 1/31/2022 13) Site Lighting Area A E-101A, dated 1/31/2022 14) Site Lighting Area B, E-102A, dated 1/31/2022 15) Site Lighting Area C, E-103A, dated 1/31/2022 16) Site Lighting Area D, E-104A, dated 1/31/2022 17) Floor Plan – Level 1, A-101A, dated 1/31/2022 18) Floor Plan – Mezzanine A-101MA, dated 1/31/2022 19) Floor Plan – Level 2 A-102A, dated 1/31/2022 20) Roof Plan, A-103A, dated 1/31/2022 21) Roof Drainage Plan A-104A, dated 1/31/2022 22) Building Perspectives, dated 1/31/2022 23) Building Elevations, dated 1/31/2022 24) Rendered Elevations A-202A, dated 1/31/2022 25) Rendered Elevations A-203A, dated 1/31/20221 February 1, 2021 South Burlington Development Review Board Page 7 of 7 Reference: BETA Technologies – BTV Manufacturing Plant Preliminary/Final Plat Application Narrative The following exhibits have also been added: 1) A-Build Landscape Cost Estimate, dated 1/31/2022 We have worked hard to bring you the many details required to describe how the A-Build phase of the project will meet the City’s Land Development regulations. We look forward to continuing our coordination with the city to deliver a successful project. Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Christopher Gendron, PE Associate Phone: 802 497 6402 Beta Technologies BTV Manufacturing Plant Estimate of Probable Construction Costs / City Landscape Budget 1/31/2022 TOTAL - NEW BUDGET REQUIRED BY CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON $1,122,500.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Unit Total Sub-total 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'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 17 EA $1,500.00 $25,500.00 Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 4.5"-5" Cal.29 EA $4,000.00 $116,000.00 Amelanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance'; 3"-4" Cal. 10 EA $1,500.00 $15,000.00 Acer x freemanii 'Armstrong'; 2.5"-3" Cal.1 EA $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Betula nigra 'Heritage' (single stem); 3"-3.5" Cal. 23 EA $1,500.00 $34,500.00 Carpinus caroliniana; 3"-3.5" Cal.6 EA $1,500.00 $9,000.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 17 EA $1,500.00 $25,500.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 4.5"-5" Cal. 20 EA $4,000.00 $80,000.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 5.5"-6" Cal. 8 EA $6,000.00 $48,000.00 Nyssa sylvatica; 3.5"-4" Cal. 8 EA $1,500.00 $12,000.00 Quercus bicolor; 4"-4.5" Cal. 14 EA $4,000.00 $56,000.00 Quercus rubra; 3.5"-4" Cal. 14 EA $1,500.00 $21,000.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 17 EA $1,500.00 $25,500.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 4.5"-5" Cal. 22 EA $4,000.00 $88,000.00 Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase'; 3"-3.5" Cal. 18 EA $1,500.00 $27,000.00 Picea glauca 'Montrose Spire'; 6-7' B&B 25 EA $900.00 $22,500.00 Pinus strobus; 6'-7' B&B 2 EA $900.00 $1,800.00 Pinus strobus; 8'-10' B&B 7 EA $900.00 $6,300.00 Tsuga canadensis'; 6'-7' B&B 44 EA $900.00 $39,600.00 Tsuga canadensis'; 8'-10' B&B 6 EA $900.00 $5,400.00 Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra'; 6'-7' B&B 51 EA $900.00 $45,900.00 5 Gal. Shrubs 344 EA $100.00 $34,400.00 3 Gal. Shrubs 575 EA $75.00 $43,125.00 2 Gal. Perennial 443 EA $35.00 $15,505.00 1 Gal. Perennial 2138 EA $20.00 $42,760.00 2 Gal. Ornamental Grasses 685 EA $45.00 $30,825.00 1 Gal. Ornamental Grasses 3099 EA $35.00 $108,465.00 Planting Subtotal $981,080.00 Subtotal $1,569,520.00 TOTAL $1,569,520.00 Wagner Hodgson Landscape Architecture 1 1/31/2022 Beta Technologies BTV Manufacturing Plant : A-Build Estimate of Probable Construction Costs / City Landscape Budget 1/31/2022 TOTAL - NEW BUDGET REQUIRED BY CITY OF SO. BURLINGTON $655,000.00 Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Unit Total Sub-total PLANTING Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 17 EA $1,500.00 $25,500.00 Acer x freemanii 'Autumn Blaze'; 4.5"-5" Cal.26 EA $4,000.00 $104,000.00 Amelanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance'; 3"-4" Cal. 6 EA $1,500.00 $9,000.00 Betula nigra 'Heritage' (single stem); 3"-3.5" Cal. 23 EA $1,500.00 $34,500.00 Carpinus caroliniana; 3"-3.5" Cal.6 EA $1,500.00 $9,000.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 15 EA $1,500.00 $22,500.00 Gleditsia triacanthos f. inermis 'Streetkeeper'; 4.5"-5" Cal. 15 EA $4,000.00 $60,000.00 Nyssa sylvatica; 3.5"-4" Cal. 8 EA $1,500.00 $12,000.00 Quercus bicolor; 4"-4.5" Cal. 14 EA $4,000.00 $56,000.00 Quercus rubra; 3.5"-4" Cal. 15 EA $1,500.00 $22,500.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 3.5"-4" Cal. 17 EA $1,500.00 $25,500.00 Ulmus x 'Accolade'; 4.5"-5" Cal. 22 EA $4,000.00 $88,000.00 Zelkova serrata 'Green Vase'; 3"-3.5" Cal. 18 EA $1,500.00 $27,000.00 Juniperus virginiana'; 6-7' B&B 13 EA $900.00 $11,700.00 Picea glauca 'Montrose Spire'; 6-7' B&B 25 EA $900.00 $22,500.00 Pinus strobus; 6'-7' B&B 7 EA $900.00 $6,300.00 Pinus strobus; 8'-10' B&B 7 EA $900.00 $6,300.00 Tsuga canadensis'; 6'-7' B&B 44 EA $900.00 $39,600.00 Tsuga canadensis'; 8'-10' B&B 6 EA $900.00 $5,400.00 Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra'; 6'-7' B&B 51 EA $900.00 $45,900.00 5 Gal. Shrubs 288 EA $100.00 $28,800.00 3 Gal. Shrubs 219 EA $75.00 $16,425.00 2 Gal. Perennial 379 EA $35.00 $13,265.00 1 Gal. Perennial 1090 EA $20.00 $21,800.00 2 Gal. Ornamental Grasses 262 EA $45.00 $11,790.00 1 Gal. Ornamental Grasses 1780 EA $35.00 $62,300.00 Planting Subtotal $787,580.00 Subtotal $787,580.00 TOTAL $787,580.00 Wagner Hodgson Landscape Architecture 1 1/31/2022 BETA MANUFACTURING | RECREATION AMENITY LANDSCAPE @ WILLISTON ROAD BETA MANUFACTURING | RECREATION AMENITY LANDSCAPE @ WILLISTON ROAD0'345'345'340'340'340' X XXXX X X XXXXXBBBBAE&TAE&TAE&TAE&TATATATATATATATATATAE&T AE&TAE&TAE&TAT AE &GATEGATE30' WIDE SEWER FORCE MAIN EASEMENT30' WIDE SEWER FORCE MAIN EASEMENT(16) DIERVILLA LONICERA, #5(27) SYRINGA MEYERI 'PALIBIN', #5BENCH, TYP.ROTATING ARTPOSSIBLE LOCATION(19) VIBURNUM DENTATUM'BLUE MUFFIN', #5NO-MOW MIX ON LANDFORMS :SEE L200-L202WOODCHIP OR GRAVEL PATHS, TYP.BOULDER SEATING, TYP.LAWN