HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_MP-21-02A_3070 Williston Road_Beta#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MP-21-02A_3070 Williston Road_Beta_2022-02-22
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: February 15, 2023
Application received: January 27, 2023
3070 WILLISTON ROAD
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02
Meeting date: February 22, 2023
Owner
City of Burlington/Burlington International Airport
1200 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
BETA AIR, LLC
1150 Airport Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 2000-0000_C
Airport District
777.84 acres
Engineer
Stantec
193 Tilley Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Remanded master plan application #MP-21-02A of Beta Air, LLC for a planned unit development on five
lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard, and a RV
sales, service, and repair facility. The master plan includes combining the five lots, resulting in one lot of
747.92 acres, and consists of a 344,000 sf manufacturing and office building, a 37,800 sf office and retail
building, a 15,600 commercial building, and a 85,000 sf flight instruction and airport use building on
40.43 acres of the resulting airport lot, 3070 Williston Road.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on January 27, 2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) PERMIT HISTORY
The DRB approved master plan application #MP-21-02 of Beta in March of 2022, with the condition that
Beta not construct the parking between the principal manufacturing building and Williston Road until
the “red phase” (consisting of a mixed retail and office building, parking, and solar field) is constructed,
except for parking which is to the side or rear of the existing building at 3060 Williston Road and which is
less than ½ the total building width along Williston Road. Beta then appealed the Board’s decision to
Environmental Court. The City changed its rules and the Court issued a Stipulated Motion for Stay of
Appeal and Order, which stipulated that Beta “will apply to amend the master plan as soon as
practicable and before it submits any further application(s) for approval of any other aspect or part of
the Project under the LDRs.” The application is being reviewed under the Regulations in effect at the
time of this remand; this includes both the amendment that modifies parking standards as well as
revised Master Plan standards adopted in the time since the initial application was submitted1. The
applicant has expressed that it is their desire to be reviewed under the current LDR, which includes
more robust submission requirements focused on creating a set of parameters that will result in
consistent development within the master plan area.
The applicant has submitted a site plan application for parking located to front of the principal
manufacturing building. The stipulated motion requires application for master plan amendment prior to
other applications.
Under the current LDR 14.06A(2), parking must be located to the rear or sides of buildings, while
14.06B(2)(b)(viii) provides an exemption to this requirement for parking serving buildings “contained
within the Security Identification Display area of a publicly-owned and operated airport.” plan area.
The current master plan standards are reviewed below. The approach in these staff comments is to
generally review all standards as though the Board has not previously seen the project, though Staff has
taken greater latitude in supposing the Board’s interpretation of certain standards that have previously
1 The Environmental Court recently ruled in Washburn v. City of South Burlington [ENV-21-0038] that an
application for which a final ruling has not yet been made (in this case, a remanded application) must be either
considered under the entirety of the LDR in effect at the current time, or the entirety of the LDR in effect at the
time of initial application, but not a combination thereof. Further, the decision determined that the choice of
which set of Regulations to be applied rests with the applicant. The City is applying the procedural conclusions of
that decision to this present application.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
3
been reviewed.
B) OVERVIEW
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.
As part of the previously approved preliminary and final plat application for the first phase, the applicant
has consolidated the five involved parcels into one 747.9 acre lot. The applicant is proposing for the
master plan to include 40.43 acres of the consolidated airport parcel. Staff considers the creation of this
master plan area should result in this 40.43acre area being reviewed as a master plan and PUD
independent of the overall airport PUD; this is consistent with prior interpretations by the Board. These
comments reflect only the master plan area.
The applicant has proposed to construct the master plan in six phases, as follows.
• the blue and orange phases for which they’ve previously received a concurrent preliminary and
final plat application and which includes a manufacturing and office building. The applicant is
currently proposing to amend the site plan approval for that phase to include a parking area for
261 additional cars. The blue phase is currently under construction, and the applicant has five
years from May 27, 2022 to obtain a zoning permit for the orange phase.
• the green phase which includes a childcare use
• the purple phase for which they’ve previously received partial site plan approval and which is
proposed at the master plan level to include a hanger, pilot training and other commercial use
building. The current site plan approval only includes the hangar component.
• the red phase which includes a mixed retail and office building, parking and solar field
Phasing, timing, and order is discussed under 15.B.04 below.
The project involves land within the Airport Industrial zoning district and the Industrial/Commercial Zoning
district.
C) ZONING DISTRICT TABLES
Air-I Zoning
District
Requirement
Air-I Zoning
District
Proposed
I/C Zoning
District
Requirement
I/C Zoning
District
Proposed
Min. Lot Size1 3 ac 28.9 ac 40,000 sf 11.53 ac
Max. Building Coverage 30 % 21.9% 40% 5.5%
Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 49.1% 70% 43.9%
@ Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. 40 ft.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
4
Requirement Proposed
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. Air-I
30 ft. I/C 47’-2” I/C
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. See discussion in Section D below.
1. 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.
D) CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF MASTER PLANS
15.B.02 Applicability
Master plan review and approval by the DRB is required prior to preliminary subdivision review under
Article 15.A, or site plan review under Article 14, as applicable, for:
(1) Any Major Subdivision involving four (4) or more acres, except for any portion of Transect Zone
Subdivision within the City Center Form Based Code District.
(2) Any land subdivision or site development proposed to occur over two (2) or more phases, or three
(3) or more years.
(3) A Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C unless, at applicant request, Master Plan review is
waived by the DRB for a PUD on less than four (4) acres under 15.C.03.
(4) The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for any tract or parcel of land where
there exists clear potential for future growth and development beyond that presented in an
application, as necessary to establish physical and functional connections between areas of
proposed and potential future development.
Staff considers the project to require master plan review under all four criteria. In the version of the
LDR under which MP-21-02 was submitted, Master Plan review was not required but rather undertaken
optionally by the applicant in order to seek flexibility in phasing.
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process
Master plan review requires a pre-application sketch plan review. For the actual master plan, the
applicant may combine the master plan with preliminary subdivision or site plan review for either the
entire project or for a phase of the project. Separate findings of fact must be issued. Submissions for
master plan approval must include, and incorporate the feedback from, a neighborhood meeting, prior
to the public DRB hearing. Since MP-21-02 had already progressed to the public DRB meeting stage of
review prior to remand by the Environmental Court, Staff considers it to be unnecessary to go back to
the pre-application sketch plan review or neighborhood meeting stages.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
5
15.B.05 Review Standards
Staff has located these review standards at the beginning of this document in order to frame out the
Board’s review of the project. However, the review standards are informed by the required submission
components, therefore Staff has largely reserved discussion of compliance with required standards to
the portion of this document pertaining to the submission components.
(A) Findings. For Master Plan approval, the DRB must find that:
(1) The Master Plan includes all the components required under 15.B.04 above, in sufficient detail to
provide the framework and standards for future development under the plan, unless specifically
waived by the DRB as not applicable to the proposed subdivision or development;
1. Staff has provided the below detailed review of submission requirements in order to support this
finding. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their submission as
indicated below so that the submission can be considered a portion of the approved plan for the
project.
(2) The overall type, pattern, and density of development, and allocation of land uses, are consistent
with these Regulations and other City regulations in effect at the time of application, including
relevant subdivision, zoning district or planned unit development standards;
Staff considers this criterion met.
(3) The proposed Development Plan demonstrates the efficient, coordinated, and integrated
development and use of land which:
(a) Considers existing topography and physical site constraints;
(b) Avoids or minimizes and mitigates the impacts of future development on environmental
resources identified for protection, as enumerated in Article 12, and as incorporated into the overall
design;
(c) Defines an overall pattern of development, including proposed streets and blocks, that is
consistent with the zoning district or proposed type of planned unit development;
Staff considers these criteria have been demonstrated to be met through the submitted materials
reviewed below.
(d) Maintains street, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, and contiguous or accessible open space
with the adjoining neighborhood, and within and between each phase of development;
Staff’s recommendations regarding connectivity, and specifically recreation path connectivity, are
included below under the review of required submission materials.
(e) Avoids, or minimizes and mitigates the adverse impacts of development on adjacent properties
and uses, through the designation of transition areas or buffer areas along the project perimeter;
and
Staff considers this criterion met.
(f) Includes adequate standards specific to each type and phase of development, to include
guidance for the functional and aesthetic integration of development with the surrounding
neighborhood, and provisions for buffering or screening incompatible land uses.
2. Staff recommends the Board determine if this criterion is met based on the discussion which
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
6
occurs in response to numbered staff comment #13 below pertaining to building design.
(4) The Buildout Budget sets reasonable development parameters for the entire project, and as
allocated for each phase of development, for reference in subsequent regulatory reviews, as
necessary to identify and limit the cumulative and overall impacts of project development on City
infrastructure, facilities and services.
3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an estimate of traffic impacts by
phase.
(5) Proposed design standards and related guidance are sufficiently detailed to prescribe and direct
coordinated development, consistent with the Master Plan and regulations in effect at the time of
master plan approval, for the duration of the plan.
4. Staff recommends the Board determine if this criterion is met based on the discussion which
occurs in response to numbered staff comment #13 below pertaining to building design.
(6) The Phasing Plan and Schedule:
(a) are consistent with the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program;
(b) ensure that all phases of development will occur in an orderly fashion; and that
(c) infrastructure and facility improvements necessary to support each phase of
development will be provided concurrently with such development, as may be further ensured
through subsequent or separate regulatory review processes and development agreements.
Staff considers these criteria met.
(7) The Management Plan:
(a) defines a management structure for the duration of the Master Plan that supports long-
term project viability through project buildout;
5. Staff has concerns with the assigned responsibility for execution of the master plan, discussed
below.
(b) identifies those principals or entities responsible for securing necessary municipal
permits and approvals for development under the Master Plan; and
(c) clearly identifies proposed ownership and responsibilities for the long-term
management, maintenance and operation of capital and community assets, including any
proposed dedications of land, facilities and infrastructure to the City.
Staff considers these criteria met.
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment
(B) Subsequent Regulatory Review. In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the level
of review and review processes required for subsequent applications filed under the Master Plan,
provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations and the following:
(1) Sketch plan review is not required for any application for preliminary subdivision or site plan review
that complies with the approved Master Plan, and associated conditions of approval.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
7
(2) The DRB may waive preliminary subdivision or site plan review for specified phases or portions of a
project.
(3) The DRB may in its decision specify allowed modifications or changes under the Master Plan which
require only administrative review and approval by the Administrative Officer.
The applicant has requested the Board allow projects within the master plan to proceed directly to site
plan review provided they do not involve subdivision of land and are consistent with the approved master
plan. Staff recommends the Board waive preliminary and final plat for projects not involving subdivision
of land and instead allow site plan review for the described phases with the provision that sketch plan be
required should the site plan be inconsistent with the findings of this master plan approval, including
substantial deviation from the approved plans. Projects involving subdivision of land that do not
constitute a substantial deviation shall be allowed to proceed directly to final plat.
The applicant has requested being allowed to proceed directly to zoning permit approval for the
following items.
• PV Solar Equipment subject to local review
• Battery Backup Equipment
• Assembly Process-related Equipment
• Utility Transformers, Pedestals, and associated appurtenances
• Electric Aircraft and Car Chargers
As was approved in MP-21-02, Staff recommends the Board allow the applicant’s request if they
conform to the following limitations:
a) A maximum equipment height of 15-ft.
b) Located where fully screened from Williston Road and Eagle Drive and where set back at least as
far as the nearest adjacent building from the central access drive.
c) Equipment must fully comply with the performance standards of LDR Appendix A. These
performance standards set numeric standards for vibration, noise, and air pollution amongst
others.
d) Equipment shall be directly related to the approved use of the building to which it is adjacent.
(C) Effect. Once a Master Plan has been approved, all subsequent land subdivision and
development must conform to the Master Plan as approved.
(1) The Development Review Board in issuing a decision shall make specific findings as to which
components of the Master Plan are vested, based on the type, level, and detail of information
provided in the Master Plan, and the amount of time the plan is intended to remain in effect. The
Board may approve components or elements of the Master Plan as applicable to all subsequent
applications; or determine those components or elements of the Master Plan that are vested, or not
vested, for the duration of the plan.
Staff recommends the following aspects of the master plan be vested. Staff intends the term vesting
to mean that subsequent phases of review will use the December 5, 2022 LDR for the identified
elements for the duration of the master plan approval.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
8
• Phase geometry
• Open space areas & civic space areas
• Natural resource impacts
• Renewable energy production areas
• Proposed street layout
• Proposed recreation path, sidewalk, and transit route layout, as may be modified by
the Board’s review of the project. Additional connecting elements to individual
phases may be required.
• Building floor areas. The Board should reserve the right to require master plan review
should building floor areas significantly increase or decrease.
• Building characteristics necessary to meet applicable energy standards
• Max peak hour trip generation
• Conceptual objectives of lighting design and lighting fixture palette
Staff is not recommending vesting of building heights because building heights have not been
proposed. Staff is likewise not recommending vesting of phasing timing because of concerns
addressed below under (D) Duration.
6. Staff recommends the Board revisit this section for concurrence after reviewing the remainder of
this staff report.
(2) Master Plan approval is binding upon the applicant, the owner(s), their agents, and successors in
interest.
(3) Once the Master Plan is approved, the applicant may apply for other permits and approvals
referenced in the conditions of Master Plan approval, as required prior to the start of construction.
(4) Unless the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of Master Plan approval and these
Regulations, the Master Plan as approved shall not be modified, revoked, or otherwise impaired by
any action of the City without the consent of the applicant. For purposes of subsequent regulatory
reviews under the Master Plan, for the duration of the plan the regulations in effect at the time of
Master Plan approval shall apply to vested elements under Subsection(C)(1). For vested elements,
Regulations enacted following master plan approval shall apply only as necessary to address public
health and safety or, at the request of the applicant, to incorporate types or forms of development
allowed under more recently adopted regulations, in conjunction with an application to amend the
Master Plan.
(D) Duration. The duration of the Master Plan, as specified in the conditions of DRB approval, shall
be determined by the DRB in consultation with the Planning Director and City Engineer.
(1) The Master Plan should be approved for a specified period of time, not to exceed six (6) years, for
which the impacts of proposed development can clearly be ascertained from the quality and detail
of the information provided; which allows sufficient time for project planning, financing, permitting,
and development, including required regulatory reviews; and which accommodates full project
buildout in relation to the timing of planned infrastructure and facility improvements.
Staff notes this is a new review, therefore this timeframe will start with issuance of a decision on this
application.
(2) The Master Plan shall remain in effect as approved until the development allowed by the plan has
been completed, the plan expires, or the plan is amended or superseded.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
9
(3) Applicant shall submit a complete preliminary or final subdivision or site plan application (as
applicable) for at least one phase of the project within two (2) years of the date of Master Plan
approval. Concurrent review with Master Plan shall be deemed to have satisfied this requirement.
Failure to submit a complete application within two (2) years of the date of approval shall result in
expiration of the Master Plan.
Given that this is a remanded application, Staff considers that the previously approved preliminary
and final plat #SD-21-28 satisfies this requirement.
(4) The duration of an approved Master Plan may be extended by the DRB for, for cause, if the request
and reasons for the extension are submitted in writing prior to the Master Plan expiration date;
however, in no event shall the duration of an approved Master Plan exceed ten (10) years in total,
to include all authorized extensions or amendments.
The applicant has requested pre-approval for an extension of the master plan. Staff considers this
may not be done until the master plan has been approved and recommends the Board deny the
applicant’s request and instead indicate the applicant when they may apply for the extension. Staff
recommends no sooner than four (4) years from approval.
(5) An expired Master Plan may be extended, renewed, or amended only on submission as a new
Master Plan, subject to full DRB review under 15.B.03 and the Land Development Regulations in
effect at the time of application.
(6) A complete application for a Master Plan may be submitted at any time subject to the rules in effect
at the time of submission.
(7) Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. 4463, any site plan or subdivision plat, and associated conditions of site plan,
subdivision, or Planned Unit Development approval that are recorded in city land records under an
approved Master Plan, shall remain in effect as recorded following Master Plan expiration.
(E) Amendment.
There are specific criteria by which the applicant may amend the master plan, and whether such
application is considered a minor amendment or a substantial amendment. Unlike prior versions of the
LDR, the only quantitative metric differentiating the types of amendments is the involvement of lands
not previously included in the master plan. Staff considers the lands included in this master plan
application to be well defined. Staff recommends the Board make a determination on whether
something is a minor or substantial amendment if the need arises.
15.B.04 Master Plan Components
The applicant has submitted a 31-page narrative which identifies each of the required master
plan submission materials. Staff has performed a review of the submitted materials and provided
an analysis of each required element as follows.
(B) Project Description. A map, narrative, and accompanying table(s) that describe:
• The overall vision for and scope of the proposed development;
• The land area and properties to be included under each phase of development;
• Current property ownership and contact information;
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
10
• Current zoning district designations;
Staff considers the applicant’s submission to sufficiently address these four requirements and
recommends the Board review to refresh their memories on what is proposed. These
requirements are addressed on pages 2 and 3 of the applicant’s narrative and best illustrated
on plan sheets L-003 and MP-003.
• Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) type(s) under Article 15.C, as applicable;
The applicant has stated that the master plan application does not include a PUD. However,
approval #SD-21-28 is specifically for PUD approval. In the current LDR there are significant
differences between a project reviewed as a combination of subdivision and site plan vs a
project reviewed as a planned unit development. At this master plan stage of review, Staff
considers the difference between reviewing the project as a PUD vs. as a series of site plans
to be largely inconsequential. Further discussion of subsequent levels of review are discussed
under 15.B.06(B) below. The only allowable PUD type for this area is the General PUD.
• Project consistency with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations; and
Discussion of consistency with applicable regulations is addressed herein.
• Any requested modifications or waivers, as allowed under the Regulations.
The applicant has requested a number of modifications or waivers, summarized as follows.
Parking: The applicant is requesting that parking be considered under 14.06B(2)(b)(viii), the
exception that allows parking to the front where it serves buildings that make up the airport
security fence. Staff considers this to not be a waiver or modification.
Duration of master plan: The applicant is requesting the Board pre-approve an extension of
the timeline after which this master plan approval will expire. Staff has discussed this request
under 15.B.06(D) below.
Subsequent Regulatory Review: The applicant has requested two process related waivers,
discussed under 15.B.06(B) below.
Building Height: The applicant has requested a height waiver from 35 ft to 40 ft. They argue
that the LDR intends to allow a three-story building, and that the standard story height for
commercial buildings is now such that 35-ft is not adequate for three stories. An important
distinction of the current master plan is that the master plan itself cannot approve
dimensional waivers; the purpose of having the requests listed at this stage is so the Board
is aware at the early stage that this is what is being proposed and can consider that insofar
as the big picture is concerned.
Landscape budget: The applicant has requested that excess landscaping budget beyond the
phase-by-phase minimum required based on the approved building cost be allowed to be
applied in other portions of the approved master plan area. Staff recommends the Board
approve this request with the following language:
“Excess landscaping expenditure from an individual phase may be allowed as credit towards
future phases of the master plan, so long as required landscaping standards are met.”
(C) Context Report. A map and accompanying narrative that describe the area proposed for
subdivision, development, or redevelopment, in relation to the existing and planned pattern and type
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
11
of development in surrounding neighborhood, and to existing and planned City facilities, services, and
infrastructure in the vicinity of the project, to include:
The purpose of establishing a context report is to allow the applicant and the Board to understand how
the project should be laid out to complement community resources.
• Existing parcels, and existing and planned streets and blocks, recreation paths, transit
routes, buildings, land uses, parks, civic spaces, and other open spaces and community
facilities located within ¼ -mile of project boundaries;
The applicant’s submitted materials with respect to this requirement consist of a map (MP-
004 Context Map) of roads and parcels, with one church and one bus route highlighted. The
presence of the bus line should provide guidance to the Board as to where sidewalks should
connect, where the daycare should be located, etcetera.
• Proposed street, recreation path, transit, infrastructure, and open space connections
between existing, planned, and proposed development;
The provided plans indicate that sidewalks are proposed to be extended to the ends of the
master plan area to the south (Williston Road) and to the northwest (Eagle Drive). No
connection to Palmer Court or to Muddy Brook is provided.
7. Staff recommends the Board consider whether connection to Palmer Court be provided. As
is, the applicant is proposing a “dead-end” civic space area, which, without a specific
destination, may not be as successful as a civic space that is connected to other
neighborhoods and opportunities.
• A more detailed Development Context Analysis as required for an Infill or Redevelopment
(IRD) PUD under Article 15.C, as applicable; and
Not applicable
• A description of how concerns raised in the Neighborhood Meeting will be addressed.
Not applicable
(D) Existing Conditions Report. A Site Conditions Map for the entire tract and accompanying
narrative, that depict and describe existing:
• Topographic conditions, including elevation contours, surface waters, wetlands, and other
natural features;
• Natural under Article 12, or as otherwise regulated by the City;
• Existing streets, blocks, and utility corridors, including existing rights-of-way; and
• Existing land uses and structures, including any historic sites or structures listed or eligible
for listing on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places.
The applicant has provided plan sheet MP-002 Existing Conditions showing these features. The
applicant indicates four structures are proposed to be demolished, and there are no historic sites
or structures. As alluded to above, Muddy Brook is to the east of the master plan area, and there
is a large area of Class II wetland west of the master plan area. It is bordered to the north by the
airport and airport appurtenant buildings, and to the south by Williston Road. The uses
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
12
surrounding the master plan area on Williston Road are generally consistent with a commercial
neighborhood, though some of the buildings are of a residential scale and character. The
application intentionally proposed street connections to Williston Road that are separate from
Shunpike Road, which consists of existing housing that is intended to stay per the existing zoning.
One other existing home is located across from the proposed eastern access but is considered a
pre-existing non-conforming use per the LDRs.
(E) Development Plan. One or more maps and an accompanying narrative that depict and describe
the overall pattern, type, and density of development proposed for the entire project, and for each
phase of development, to include:
• Natural resource areas identified for protection, consistent with adopted Environmental
Protection Standards under Article 12;
The applicant has described that natural resource impacts are limited to “removal of an existing
gravel road and slope impacts, both restored with topsoil, seed and mulch.” These impacts were
approved in preliminary and final plat #SD-21-28.
• Any designated Conservation Area or other open space areas,
Conservation areas are not applicable in general PUDs. Boundaries of open spaces for each phase
are shown on Sheet L-001.
• Any land area to be set aside for renewable energy production;
The applicant has indicated a solar field on the west side of the parking area which is proposed to
be installed as part of the red phase. The applicant has indicated a geothermal well field on Sheet
L-003 and indicated it is intended to be constructed as part of the blue phase. The blue phase has
received zoning permit approval #ZP-22-163, which does not include mention of the geothermal
well field.
8. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify the proposed phasing for the
geothermal well field.
• The proposed street and block grid within and connecting each phase of development, including
the location of major streets by Street Type, and any existing rights-of-way, easements or
intersections identified for relocation;
The applicant is only proposing one road which was approved in preliminary and final plat #SD-
21-28 to remain private.
• Proposed recreation paths, transit routes, infrastructure, and utility corridors between and
serving each phase of development;
The applicant has proposed a network of sidewalks but has not included recreation paths between
phases of development. The applicant has included a bus stop to serve the existing bus route on
Williston Road.
9. Given the applicant’s emphasis on non-motor vehicle travel, Staff recommends the Board discuss
whether it would be appropriate to require either the addition of on-road bicycle
accommodations or replacing the approved sidewalk with a recreation path connecting Williston
Road to Eagle Drive (in lieu of the approved sidewalk). The Board should have this conversation
in the context that portions of this approved sidewalk may already be under construction.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
13
• One or more designated Development Areas, to include land use allocation areas by proposed
use type(s), at minimum to include any designated residential areas, nonresidential areas,
mixed use areas, civic space areas, and the location of principal or shared parking areas serving
the development.
Development areas are a characteristic of Conservation and Traditional Neighborhood
Development PUD types and are not applicable to this application.
• Any proposed transition areas along the project perimeter, in which proposed development will
either be integrated with or buffered from adjoining properties and development;
As noted above, the applicant is not proposing any cross-lot connections.
10. Given the proximity to Muddy Brook, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether
opportunities to access this natural resource should be preserved.
• Existing buildings to be incorporated in proposed development or redevelopment; and
The applicant is proposing to remove all existing structures within the master plan area. However,
due to phasing, existing buildings are anticipated to remain for some time.
11. Staff recommends the Board consider retention of existing buildings and compatibility thereof
when discussing phasing of the master plan below.
• Public and private transportation, infrastructure, and utility improvements necessary to
accommodate each phase of development, and the entire project at buildout, to include any
land, facilities, or improvements proposed for public dedication, consistent with the City’s
adopted Official Map.
The applicant has submitted a traffic study dated January 17, 2022. This study is unchanged from
that submitted in conjunction with approval #MP-21-02, of which this application is a remand.
The traffic study recommends a signal at the Williston Road entrance to the project by full build
of the master plan.
An independent third-party technical review of the traffic study, performed by BFJ in February
2022, concludes that the trip generation estimated by Beta may be too high by 50-70 trips, and
the Board accordingly included a condition in #MP-21-02 that the applicant must update the
traffic study with each phase of the master plan after the phase associated with application #SD-
21-28, both to evaluate the signal warrant and the trip generation. Preliminary and final plat
approval #SD-21-28 included installation of a turn lane on Williston Road but no signal. Staff
considers the previous finding should be included in the decision on this application, and further
include that operational functions of the traffic signal, when warranted, 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.
12. The applicant has also indicated that the master plan will require a new electrical substation to
complete the development. Staff considers that an electrical substation could be a major
component of the development program and recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide an approximate size (footprint and height) and a well thought out location for the
substation prior to master plan approval.
(F) Summary Statistics. The following project statistics or metrics, presented in an easy to reference
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
14
tabular format, must be provided for the entire tract or project area, and for each phase of development,
unless waived by the DRB as not relevant or applicable to a particular project:
• Total tract or parcel area, and the area associated with each phase of development, in acres
and square feet; for protection under Article 12, and by resource type (Hazard, Level I, Level II);
and the area, in acres, of any designated Conservation Area(s) or lots, as shown on the Master
Plan;
The applicant has provided his information in tabular format on Page 14 of their application
narrative.
• Total area, in acres, included in existing and planned street rights-of-way; the number and
length in feet of proposed streets by Street Type, and the number of street intersections, as
shown on the Master Plan.
As noted above, the project includes only one private road, which is approximately 2,350 feet
long.
• Total number of existing and planned blocks; and the block perimeter and average block length
for each block, in feet, as shown on the Master Plan.
Block standards are not applicable within the project’s zoning districts. Block standards, where
applicable, generally require rectangular blocks with a maximum average block length of 500 feet.
• Total Buildable Area, in acres and square feet, as allocated by land use or building type, within
each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan, to exclude existing
and planned street rights-of-way, but to include existing and proposed civic space lots and
parking lots.
Buildable area is area which is not otherwise restricted from development by the presence of
natural resources, rights of way, and transmission main corridors and is provided below under
15.B.04(G) Buildout Analysis. The applicant has not provided a computation of what portion of
buildable area is proposed to be built. Staff recommends the Board include a condition of
approval requiring this information be added to the application narrative in order to establish a
summary statistic for use in evaluation of potential future amendments.
• Number of proposed dwelling units by housing or building type within each designated
Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan;
Not applicable.
• Total gross floor area by use or building type for nonresidential and mixed use development
within each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan; and
The applicant has provided the following summary of gross floor areas.
Designated
Development Area
Planned Building(s) Building Area (gsf)
Green Childcare Facility 20,000
Red Commercial Building 45,000
Blue/Orange Assembly Facility 355,000
Purple Cultural Center 100,000
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
15
• Other statistics or data required by the DRB as necessary to determine conformance with
relevant standards under these Regulations.
Staff has noted additional requests for information herein.
(G) Buildout Analysis and Budget. Based on the statistics provided under (F) above, the applicant
must also provide an analysis for each of the following based on total forecasted demand at buildout,
and as allocated for each phase of development, for use in determining the project’s total “Buildout
Budget”:
• Minimum and maximum acreage allocations by land use or building type, as percentages of the
Buildable Area within designated Development Areas;
Land use and building type allocations are a feature of General and Traditional Neighborhood
PUDs but not the General PUD.
• Gross and net (or effective) development densities by land use or building type;
Density is a measure of residential units per acres and is not applicable.
• Minimum number or percentage of affordable housing units required within residential and
mixed-use development areas, as applicable pursuant to Article 18;
Not applicable.
• Minimum percentage, and area in square feet, of required civic space(s) within designated
Development Areas;
Civic Spaces are slightly different from Site Amenities. Civic Spaces are required for any new
subdivision of land, which is not taking place at this time. Nonetheless, Site Amenities are shown
conceptually on the MP on Sheet L-001, and the applicant has provided a table of site amenity
requirement by phase. There is a total of 30,540 sf of civic spaces required for the proposed
programming, with the first blue/orange phase representing the bulk of the requirement at
20,640 sf. Site amenities were not required at the time of master plan approval #MP-21-02 but
will be applicable at the Site Plan level of review for future phases. At this time the applicant
has not demonstrated how required site amenities are proposed to be provided.
• Maximum peak hour trip generation rates, by use type;
As noted above, the applicant submitted a traffic study that estimates 513 trips at peak build-out.
In approval #MP-21-02, the Board allotted an additional 5% trips to represent the maximum
allowable. This is discussed under 15.B.06(E) pertaining to master plan amendment below.
• Maximum water supply and wastewater system demand, by use type;
The applicant has submitted an estimated maximum water and wastewater demand, and
incorrectly states that these demands were approved in #MP-21-02. The estimates are
unchanged from those submitted in #MP-21-02. Both the South Burlington Water Department
and Director of Public Works reserved approval for flows beyond the first phase until such time
as site plan approval for future phases was sought. Staff recommends the Board include a
condition that detailed review of the water distribution and wastewater collection systems be
undertaken on a phase by phase basis.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
16
• Maximum total impervious surface (percentage, total square footage), and volume of
stormwater runoff per designated Development Area; and
The applicant has provided the required information on page 18 of their narrative. The total
impervious cover for the 40.43 acre master plan is 48%. Staff recommends the Board include a
condition that stormwater treatment be evaluated on a phase-by-phase basis.
The City Stormwater Department reviewed the provided plans on February 14, 2023 and offers
the following comment.
The applicant should confirm that it is feasible to route all new or redeveloped impervious
areas to stormwater treatment practices.
Staff considers this to be a comment that can be addressed on a site by site basis.
• Other measures or parameters required by the DRB as necessary to identify and limit the
forecasted impacts of development on municipal facilities, infrastructure and services, and
properties and uses within the vicinity of the project.
Staff, in their review of this application, has not identified additional necessary buildout analysis
or budget information.
(H) Design Standards. The application must include proposed standards, specifications,
illustrations, best management practices, or other forms of guidance for the following, consistent
with City regulations in effect at the time of Master Plan approval, as applicable to all subsequent
development under the Master Plan:
• Protections for natural resources defined and regulated under Article 12, consistent with the
standards and accepted mitigation measures of Article 12.
Natural resource impacts were approved in preliminary and final plat #SD-21-28.
• The mix or allocation of land uses, as specified for each phase of development;
The entirety of the project is proposed to be non-residential and includes, as detailed in the
Phasing Plan, several complimentary commercial uses. Staff considers that since the project
includes a preliminary design for all contemplated phases, this information has been provided.
• Typical street cross-sections by Street Type, as referenced under Article 11.A;
The applicant has provided a street cross section. It is not clear whether this cross section
matches that which was approved in #SD-21-28.
13. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate that the cross section is consistent
with that which was previously approved, or as modified following discussion of non-vehicular
facilities with the Board in Staff Comment #9 above.
• Typical Civic Space and other proposed open space types, as referenced under Article 11.B;
The applicant is not requesting master plan level approval for the required site amenities; the
information provided is limited to general location.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
17
• Typical block and building lot dimensions and configurations, consistent with applicable
subdivision and zoning district regulations, or PUD type, and for designated transition areas as
necessary to complement or match the adjoining pattern of development;
Based on the summary statistics and buildout analysis provided above, it appears the proposed
development program is consistent with applicable regulations.
• Typical building types, as applicable and referenced under Article 11.C, including proposed
housing types, and building elevations;
Building types are only applicable to residential development within a General PUD or Non-PUD
subdivision.
• Building height and setback standards as applicable by zoning district, PUD or building type;
and for designated transition areas, as necessary to complement or match the adjoining
pattern and form of development;
The applicant has requested waiver of building heights from 35 ft to 40 ft. The applicant has
also stated that there will be a maximum height difference between buildings of no more than
one floor for consistency within the master plan. In master plan approval #MP-21-02, the Board
found the applicant could request a height waiver on a phase by phase basis, but declined to
grant the requested waiver overall because no design of buildings was proposed. Under the
current LDR, the master plan does not allow dimensional waivers; height allowances can be
considered at the Site Plan / preliminary plat level of review.
• Parking standards and specifications for off-site, on-street, and on-site parking, including any
charging stations needed to serve proposed development, consistent with City parking
standards under Section 13.01, Article 14, and by Street Type;
Parking has been designed to meet City standards. The applicant is proposing 10% of parking
spaces to meet the requirements for EV charging.
• Setbacks, buffering, screening, or other mitigation measures necessary to separate
incompatible land uses, particularly within designated transition areas;
Staff considers the project to be generally compatible with adjacent land uses.
• Overall lighting plan, including typical fixtures, consistent with relevant lighting requirements
under Section 13.07 and Appendix D;
The applicant has stated that lighting will be used to create an inviting environment. Doors are
proposed to be provided with wall-mounted fixtures. Parking lots and pedestrian areas are
proposed to have pole mounted lights, while pedestrian pathways will be illuminated using
bollard lighting. Lighting will be minimized within the parking area, but used as a site features
around the buildings, including:
• Recessed architectural lighting at canopies
• Architectural accent lighting is provided to emphasize the architectural façade
elements at night
• Recessed downlighting is also provided to illuminate vertical wood slats
• Around the main entries, bench lighting will be incorporated
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
18
The applicant has provided a standard set of lighting fixtures to be used throughout the master
plan area. Staff considers these to be appropriate.
• Landscaping and screening specifications, consistent with relevant landscaping standards under
Section 13.04;
The applicant has not proposed any particular landscaping standards beyond those required by
the LDR, other than sites are to be densely planted with predominantly native species. Given the
limited landscaping specifications provided, Staff recommends the Board provide similarly limited
landscaping findings at the master plan level of review.
• Specifications for the siting and design of new buildings, and the retrofit of existing buildings,
as necessary to meet applicable energy standards under Section 3.18, and to incorporate
renewable energy installations; and
The applicant has provided the following series of measures to support energy standards.
• Orientating buildings between 110 degrees and 270 degrees of true north
• Buildings to have low-slope roofs
• Structural design to support additional roof loads
• Provide pathways for routing conduit or piping from solar-ready zone
• Space will be allocated on the main electrical service panel
• Large trees will be positioned so as if to not block sunlight
• Any additional architectural or design guidance for each type or phase of development, and for
proposed transition areas, that is intended to integrate existing and new forms of development,
and to ensure coordinated and cohesive phased development.
14. As noted above, the applicant has provided a framework for building design starting on page 26
of their narrative. Instead of paraphrasing, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to
present this framework, as it informs the Board’s findings as to which components of the Master
Plan are vested under 15.B.06(C)(1) above.
(I) Phasing Plan. The application must include a narrative or table and map that clearly identify,
describe and depict each phase of development, including properties included, designated development
areas by use type, major streets, supporting infrastructure and facility improvements, civic spaces, and
other public amenities to be provided prior to or in association with each phase; and a schedule for the
timing and sequence of development over the period covered by the Master Plan, consistent with the
City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program and Official Map.
The applicant has provided a map that shows the geographic limit of each phase. It can be assumed that
all elements within a geographic limit are intended to be included in that phase.
In terms of timing, the applicant has indicated they plan to construct the phases at the following times.
Blue/orange phase – 2021 to 2023 for the rear of the building, 2024 – 2025 for the front of the building
and open space areas. It should be noted that the applicant has only obtained a zoning permit for the
blue phase at this time. The current LDR would not allow the blue phase to be constructed without the
orange phase because it does not include the required civic spaces.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
19
Purple phase – 2021 – 2023 for the hangar, 2023 – 2025 for the cultural/training center
Green phase – 2024 – 2025. Since this phase is proposed to include childcare predominantly benefitting
Beta employees, Staff anticipates construction of this phase will be realistically tied to construction of the
above-mentioned phases.
Red phase – 2030 – 2031. The applicant has developed very little detail about this phase other than to
say it will replace the existing building at 3060 Williston Road.
The master plan may only be approved for 6-years, with one possible future extension to 10-years, after
which it will expire and any subsequent development would be subject to rules in effect at the time of re-
application. Staff considers there to be a reasonable likelihood that the building in the red phase will not
be constructed under this master plan, discussed in more detail under phasing below.
(1) An applicant for a Conservation PUD may elect to not provide a schedule, timing, and sequence of
development for phases beyond the first phase by labelling them as Reserved. In rendering its
decision in such an instance, the Board shall clearly indicate that an amendment to the Master Plan,
enumerating the schedule, timing, and sequence of development shall be required in order for
Reserved phases to proceed to the next stage of review.
Not applicable
(2) Each proposed phase of development should account for at least 20 percent of the total project area
or expected buildout in units/square feet; incorporate one or more distinct areas identified for
coordinated development and management; and the infrastructure and facilities necessary to
support that phase of development.
The intent of this standard to have balanced, thoughtful construction phases. In this instance the most
significant two phases represent the focal point of the project, the blue & oranges phases, which
represent approximately 85 percent of the master plan area. Given the nature of the project as a
campus, the front-loading of infrastructure installation (which is intended to stay private) and the fact
that this was project initially conceived of under a prior set of regulations, Staff is comfortable with
first phase as proposed. The purple phase represents 5.8 of the project area, the green phase 2.7
percent, and the red phase 6.4 percent. Staff notes that the traffic study, and the Board’s finding of
acceptable impacts of development on municipal facilities, infrastructure and services, and properties
and uses within the vicinity of the project, is predicated on closure of Valley Road and installation of
a signal at the project driveway when conditions warrant it. These improvements, and in particular
the routing of traffic away from the four-way intersection at Valley Road, will grow in importance to
both the project and the nearby residential neighborhood on Shunpike Road as vehicle trips from the
project increase.
15. Staff recommends the Board require consolidation of the green and red phases into one phase.
This will not require both buildings to be constructed concurrently but will allow the Board to
specify infrastructure improvements which must be constructed as part of the first zoning permit
for that phase, anticipated to be the building in the green phase.
(3) Any temporary or interim structures or uses (e.g., buildings, parking, construction, or staging areas)
intended for conversion or redevelopment in a subsequent phase should also be identified in the
phasing plan.
#MP-21-02A
Staff Comments
20
The applicant has indicated the existing buildings at 3060 Williston Road (containing Mirabelles and
vacuum repair) and at 3062 Williston Road (used as field offices for construction) will continue to exist
until the spaces they occupy are required for approved development.
(J) Management Plan. A narrative description of the proposed management structure responsible
for project development, to include all principals or entities with direct control over and responsibility
for the financing, permitting, construction, and completion of development under the Master Plan; and,
following project completion, for long-term ownership, management, operation, and maintenance of
capital and community assets.
The applicant has indicated that Beta is acting as developer for the blue/orange and purple phases, but
responsibility for future phases is uncertain. Management of the infrastructure and site improvements
will be the responsibility of the airport, while management of the buildings will be the responsibility of
Beta. A portion of the purpose of this required master plan is to establish the entity which will be
responsible for ensuring future development and operations are done in a manner consistent with master
plan approval.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the formal management structure
demonstrating who will be responsible for the executing the commitments made by this mater
plan.
The management plan must also clearly identify any streets, infrastructure, facilities, civic or other open
spaces proposed for public dedication under each phase of development, consistent with the City’s
adopted Official Map and Capital Improvement Plan, for consideration under subsequent DRB reviews
and conditions of approval or under development agreements to be approved by the City Council.
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner