Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_MP-21-02A_Beta_handoutSNOW STORAGE VIEW 1 VIEW 2 VIEW 3 VIEW 1 VIEW 2 VIEW 3 UNDER CONSTRUCTION CURRENTLY BUILT UNDER CONSTRUCTION CURRENTLY BUILT 7 CARMICHAEL ST. ESSEX, VT 05452 802.879.5153 802.872.2764 SCOTTPARTNERS.COM P: F: BETA Technologies MATERIAL PRECEDENCE 05/28/20 7 CARMICHAEL ST. ESSEX, VT 05452 802.879.5153 802.872.2764 SCOTTPARTNERS.COM P: F: BETA Technologies MATERIAL PRECEDENCE 05/28/20 Exterior Materials - Corten steel solar shades: at office/amenity facade Exterior Materials - Composite rainscreen façade: at office/amenity facade Exterior Materials - Translucent acrylic cladding: at airside façade, big doors Sustainable design elements - Triple glazed curtainwall, PV array, skylights Beta Technologies Burlington, VT 2021.06.09 DESIGN REVIEW Beta Technologies Burlington, VT 2021.06.09 DESIGN REVIEW BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 1 of 8 Below are responses and or clarifications to questions and comments provide in Staff’s Master Plan Application MP-21-02A report issued on February 15, 2023. B) OVERVIEW The applicant has reviewed this section of the staff comments and offers the following modifications: • Notes that the apron expansion and geothermal field have been omitted from the description. • Applicant suggests that the Overview include the project description as submitted in the master plan application narrative. C) ZONING DISTRICT TABLES The applicant has reviewed this section of the staff comments and has no suggested modifications. D) CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF MASTER PLANS 15.B.05 (A) Findings. 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. Noted. 2. Staff recommends the Board determine if this criterion is met based on the discussion which occurs in response to numbered staff comment #13 (#14) below pertaining to building design. As outlined in LDR Section 15.B.04(B), the Project Description section shall address the following items: Criterion: (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. Applicant believes Staff is referring to Staff Comment #14 and not #13; please clarify. 3. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an estimate of traffic impacts by phase. Master Plan Traffic Impact Study dated January 17, 2022, Table 2 on page 15 has been color coded below to correspond to the proposed development phases. BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 2 of 8 4. Staff recommends the Board determine if this criterion is met based on the discussion which occurs in response to numbered staff comment #13 (#14) below pertaining to building design. As outlined in LDR Section 15.B.04(B), the Project Description section shall address the following items: See response to Staff Comment #2. 5. Staff has concerns with the assigned responsibility for execution of the master plan, discussed below. In reading the balance of Staff’s comments, it is unclear what concerns staff is referencing; please clarify. 15.B.06 (C) Effect. 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. While Applicant has not requested specific building heights for the future phases, the Applicant has requested a building height waiver of 5’ to adjusted maximum height of 40’ to reflect current building industry commercial building standards. In review of Staff’s comments regarding (D) Duration, it is unclear what concerns Staff are; please clarify. 6. Staff recommends the Board revisit this section for concurrence after reviewing the remainder of this staff report. Noted. 15.B.06 (D) Duration. 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 BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 3 of 8 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. There is no requirement to be a PUD. Staff to provide guidance to applicant and DRB. 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. Master plan extensions are generally deferred for three reasons … 1) lack of progress, 2) public opposition, and or 3) changes in regulations. The Applicant’s master plan has exhibited neither a lack of progress nor significant public opposition, and has been designed to exceed any foreseeable changes in environmental regulations. Lack of Progress: The Applicant has demonstrated through its ongoing construction of two key components of the master plan, A-Build and the associated infrastructure and the General Aviation Hangar, that it intends to fully build out the master plan within the previously approved 10 years. Public Input: Throughout the nearly two years of permitting reviews and hearings, the proposed master plan has been widely accepted and applauded at the local, regional, and state levels for its first-of-its- kind environmentally sustainable manufacturing campus here in VT. The proposed (and previously approved) master plan re-envisioned how responsible development is conceived and implemented, and will continue to be a model well into the future. Changes in Regulations: By incorporating forward-looking solar generation, geothermal heating and cooling, rainwater harvesting, and stormwater treatment … and … eliminating fossil fuels, the proposed master plan exceeds the City’s recently adopted Climate Action Plan and will continue to set the standard for sustainable development. With the above in mind, the Applicant is requesting the Board include a condition allowing the Applicant to seek an extension no sooner than two (2) years from approval. This condition will provide the Applicant the ability to request the certainty needed to continue to grow here in South Burlington and would demonstrate the City’s commitment to this partnership. 15.B.04 (C) Context Report. 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. The proposed civic space, as depicted on sheet L-001(R) – CAMPUS MASTER PLAN, is considered a unique destination-type civic space, not a “dead-end” space as described in Staff comments. This space was planned collaboratively with Staff’s input and extends public access to portion of the airfield not previously accessible. Beyond the additional consideration being suggested by Staff, this suggestion is challenged by the adjacent geologic features and impacts any connection would have to the natural resources in this area, including a 100’ grade change, large drainage swale and forested area. BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 4 of 8 With the suggested area outside the Applicant’s leased area, if a future connection is desired, then the Applicant would suggest that the City work directly with the surrounding Landowners to establish such a connection. 15.B.04 (E) Development Plan. 8. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify the proposed phasing for the geothermal well field. The applicant is constructing the geothermal field under the blue phase as approved under SD-21- 28 and ZP-22-163. It is called out on sheet C200A - A-BUILD OVERALL SITE PLAN dated 05/04/2022 and the area delineated on sheet C-010 – Overall Site Plan dated 05/26/2022 both provided as part of the zoning permit application. A snippet from C-010 is shown below. 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. Da Vinci Drive has been constructed and paved from … a) Williston Road to the beginning of A-Build and b) from Valley Drive to Eagle Drive as shown in orange in the photo below taken on January 31, 2023. The area shown dashed yellow is under construction with work focused on utility installation. BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 5 of 8 The applicant considered a shared use path during design but due to impacts to the Class II wetland, on-road bike lanes and a sidewalk were determined to be the best solution for multi- modal transportation. This considers that users will be coming from the bike lanes on Williston Road and will consist of experienced commuting cyclists. 10. Given the proximity to Muddy Brook, Staff recommends the Board discuss whether opportunities to access this natural resource should be preserved. Staff’s comment is consistent with the design philosophy established for the campus, though as noted in Staff Comment #7, the suggested area outside the Applicant’s leased area, if preservation of a future access is desired, then the Applicant would suggest that the City work directly with the Landowner. It should be noted that there is a total grade change of over 100’ from the level of the airfield to Muddy Brook itself, and construction of access routes would create disturbance of vegetation and soils within the riparian zone. There are likely additional coordination items that the City and Landowner would need to work through to address any FAA requirements. The Applicant has previously expressed an openness to the idea of accommodating connections to Muddy Brook in the future if the City, State, or other natural-resources-oriented entity such as a land trust were to undertake such a project. 11. Staff recommends the Board consider retention of existing buildings and compatibility thereof when discussing phasing of the master plan below. Noted. 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. The design and location of any future substation, if required, would be the responsibility of the utility company. When the Applicant determines that expansion is required, construction completed, and the building operationalized, the Applicant will measure the electrical demand and work with the utility company to determine how the utility company will provide expanded electrical service, if required. 15.B.04 (F) Summary Statistics. 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. BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 6 of 8 Applicant to add the following table to the application narrative: BUILDABLE AREA SUMMARY Designated Development Area Zoning District Phase Area (Acre) Class I & II Hazard Area (Acre) Easement / ROW Area (Acre) Existing Buildable Area (Acre) Proposed Buildable Area (Acre) Green IC 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.93 Red IC 2.58 0.00 0.45 2.13 1.74 Blue IC/AIR-I 34.40 0.59 0.44 33.37 27.52 Purple AIR-I 2.35 0.00 0.00 2.35 1.78 15.B.04(G) Buildout Analysis and Budget 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. L-001 – CAMPUS PLAN is intended only to show the location of land set aside for the development of Site Amenities with each phase of the project. Where specific designs have been developed, such as for the S40 Assembly Facility project (blue and orange phases) and General Aviation Hangar (purple phase), Site Amenities are shown fully designed, including lawn space for passive recreation and informal seating (Beta Manufacturing) and formal seating and rain garden viewing area (GAH). As Staff noted, as each follow-on phase progresses through the design process, Site Amenity areas for the remaining phases will also be developed in sufficient detail to be constructable, with each design included in the corresponding permit application material. 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. Applicant would like to clarify that estimated allocations for each phase of development were provided for Staff review during the previous master plan application and received no objections. Applicant will seek preliminary and final allocation approval for site plan applications as required under site plan review. BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 7 of 8 15.B.04(H) Design Standards. 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. The Da Vinci Drive cross-section has not changed from the previously approved cross-section. Under the previous master plan approval and as approved under SD-21-28, the cross section for Da Vinci Drive includes two 10’ travel lanes, two 4’ bike lanes, a minimum 5’ wide green strip and a 5’ wide sidewalk. The Applicant notes that Da Vinci Drive has been mostly constructed from Williston Road to Eagle Drive; see response to Staff Comment #9 above. 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. The ongoing construction of A-Build (first phase of the assembly facility) and the General Aviation Hangar establish the foundational palette for the “northern” buildings on the site. The remaining buildings, which will be constructed closest to Williston Road, while key elements of the campus, will respond in a scale, material, and landscaping appropriate to reinforce both the campus architecture and its Williston Road location. Since the timing of construction of the remaining buildings is yet to be determined, and since architecture should be of its time, place, and material, final material selections will be made during the respective design processes. 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. The benefit to the City of consolidating green and red phases into a single phase is unclear. Infrastructure for the campus has been designed to allow for the commercial buildings to be developed by multiple entities, whether the Airport, Applicant, or a 3rd-party, allowing the Applicant to remain flexible in managing its space needs. Consolidating the parcels will place an undue burden on either parcel and limit the potential development partners by requiring the first building to bare the expense/burden of infrastructure costs with no path to recovering those costs other than to increase the cost basis of the first building, which will significantly encumber the asset. 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 master plan management structure is as described in the master plan application and there are currently no plans to amend or change the structure. However, the Applicant cannot commit that the structure will not change over the balance of the master plan to meet either business or market needs. BETA TECHNOLOGIES February 22, 2023 MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-21-02A Hearing No. 1 | Response to Staff Comments 8 of 8 Overall, the permit runs with the land binding the landowner and developer to the approved master plan and any deviation from the approved master plan will require review and approval by the DRB. Similarly, permit terms and conditions will be enforceable at all times.