HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-20-02_10 Mansfield View Ln_CEA_PP FP_memo
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐20‐02 10 Mansfield View Ln – Preliminary and Final Plat Application
DATE: April 21, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
Civil Engineering Associates, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary and final plat
approval to construct two (2) two‐story office buildings of 7,200 square feet each on an existing 3.1 acre lot
currently developed with a 7,200 square foot office building and 1,000 square foot storage building at 10
Mansfield View Lane. At the March 4, 2020 hearing, the Board heard the applicant and continued the hearing
to April 21 for the purposes discussed below. The applicant later requested continuation to September 1 to
address these same issues. Staff notes they have not received any revised materials from the applicant since
the previous hearing.
The applicant has indicated their intent to submit a written request that the hearing be continued to October
20. Staff considers that while it does not appear the applicant’s intent is to retain the applicability of a certain
set of standards, it is important that projects move forward or be re‐warned. If the request is submitted prior to
the hearing, and if the Board opts to accept the continuation request, Staff recommends it be stated that no
additional requests will be accepted.
Zoning District and Dimensional Standards
1. The applicant initially submitted an application for one 7,200 sf building and a 4,070 sf veterinary
hospital. They subsequently revised their application to be for two 7,200 sf office buildings, which
required a modified public notice. The applicant satisfied the public noticing requirements, submitting
a certificate of service on 4/1/2020. Staff has not as of this writing received any public comments on
the revised notice and considers this defect has been addressed.
2. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval for a rooftop structure 2.8 feet above the
maximum average roof height limit in the zoning district for both proposed structures. As a conditional
use, the Board must evaluate this request in terms of its impacts to adjoining properties. The applicant
indicated they had spoken to abutters about their proposal. Given the proximity to the view protection
overlay district, the Board requested written feedback from abutters if possible. As of this writing, the
applicant has not submitted any supplemental information.
Staff recommends the Board consider whether they need written confirmation to consider this
conditional use as having no adverse impacts on adjoining properties.
Subdivision Standards
3. Water supply and wastewater disposal capacity: The applicant indicated they received preliminary
wastewater allocation in 2007. Staff advised that wastewater allocations are considered valid for only
#SP‐20‐02
2
ten (10) years and the applicant agreed to solicit preliminary water and wastewater allocation for the
proposed use prior to the continued hearing. As of this writing, the applicant has not done so.
Staff recommends the Board require this criterion to be met in order to approve the project.
4. Fire Protection: The Fire Inspector requested on January 28, 2020 demonstration that a WB‐40 1990
template can navigate the site, and that the hydrant be moved towards the center of the island. At the
last hearing, the applicant indicated they would provide such a plan. As of this writing, the applicant
has not done so.
Staff recommends the Board require a turning movement plan and the Fire Chief or Fire Inspector to
indicate satisfaction with the provided materials in order to approve the project.
5. Runoff Control: The Stormwater section provided extensive comments on the plans on February 3,
2020. Comments which were not satisfied at the March 4, 2020 hearing follow.
1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed which is now classified as a warm
water stream. Additionally, precipitation for Water Quality Volume is now measured as 1” per 24‐
hour instead of 0.9”. Has the applicant discussed these changes with VT DEC Stormwater team to
determine the potential impacts to the modeling?
2. The amount of impervious surface proposed appears to be greater than that referenced in the
associated 4290‐INDS.1 permit for Lot 1A which refers to a Phase 2 buildout of 0.70 acres. Please
provide clarification.
3. Has the applicant completed a downstream analysis for the 25‐year storm event in accordance with
§12.03.E(3) of the City’s Land Development Regulations?
4. The project plans reference the creation of a rain garden adjacent to the Proposed Office Building C.
Does the applicant have plans available for this proposal?
5. It is recommended that DRB request an Operations and Maintenance Plan for all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Staff recommends the Board require these comments to be addressed in order to approve the project.
6. Landscaping and screening: The City Arborist requested tree planting details in specifications as part
of their January 28, 2020 review, which the applicant agreed to provide prior to the continued hearing.
As of this writing, the applicant has not done so.
Staff recommends the Board require this request to be addressed and the City Arborist to indicate
satisfaction with the provided materials in order to approve the project.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to address the issues identified herein prior to concluding
the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner