HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SP-20-017_430 Meadowland Dr_SBRC
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: SP‐20‐017 430 Meadowland Drive – Site Plan Application
DATE: May 5, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
SBRC Properties, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, to amend a previously approved plan for a
25,560 sf, 31 ft high warehouse. The amendment consists of relocating the previously approved shared
driveway, 430 Meadowland Drive.
CONTEXT
The Board held its initial site plan hearing on April 7, 2020. At the April 7, 2020 hearing, the Board indicated
there were several topics that needed additional attention. The applicant submitted a set of revised materials
on April 21, 2020.A summary of each of outstanding topics is as follows. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
Staff refers the Board to the packets from April 7, 2020 for a full review of all applicable criteria. Staff has
excluded from this memo criteria for which in their opinion the Board has concluded their discussion.
COMMENTS
At the previous hearing the Applicant expressed a reluctance to have the primary access to Lot 1G (the subject
property) be via Randall Street because the most desirable configuration for the undeveloped portion of Lot 1
has not yet been determined. They were concerned that bisecting Lot 1 would dictate the future development
on that site, a step they are reluctant to take at this time. They further presented that eliminating the eastern
proposed curb cut would not be allowed by the State Wetlands Division because it would require wetland impacts
north of the building. The Board was generally accepting of the proposed layout, with the caveat that the
applicant modify their plans such that the western curb cut was designed as a roadway to access Lot 1G (the
subject property) as well as the remainder of Lot 1, and the eastern curb cut be designed to be an exit only. The
applicant has updated their plans to reflect this configuration.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Supplemental Standards for Industrial and Airport Districts
C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation
#SP‐20‐017
2
(3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb
cuts onto the public roadway.
(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
1. Staff recommends the Board review the revised plans, including the truck turning movement plan, discuss
with the applicant the proposed circulation patterns and determine if they consider these criteria met.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
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.
At the April 7 meeting, the Board directed the applicant to reconfigure the sidewalk to provide direct
access to the building entrance. The applicant has updated their plans. Staff considers this criterion
met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
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.
The Board previously approved a landscape island configuration, which is necessarily modified by the
modified driveway. The applicant has provided an interior parking island calculation demonstrating that 10%
interior landscaping continues to be provided. Staff considers this criterion met.
F. Low Impact Development.
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
At the previous hearing, Staff indicated the applicant had responded to the initial comments of the City
Stormwater Section and there were a few additional comments which could be included as conditions of
approval. Those comments are as follows.
The Stormwater Section (City) has reviewed the “Booska Commercial LLC – 410 Meadowland Drive” site plan
prepared by Civil Engineering Associates (CEA), dated 3/21/2019 and last updated on 2/12/2020. We would
like to provide the following comments:
1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed.
2. Sheet C4.3: The 12” Type II Stone should only be shown around risers on the inlet side of each gravel
wetland cell. Providing this around the outlet risers of the cells potentially allows for short circuiting
through the system.
#SP‐20‐017
3
3. Sheet C3.0C should be updated to include silt fence and demarcation fencing to protect the wetland
bounded by the stormwater features and access driveway.
4. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
2. Staff recommends the Board include the comments of the City Stormwater Section as conditions of
approval.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
The standards of Section 15.12 pertain to roadway geometry, pavement thickness and width, design of access
points, and sidewalk configuration. Compliance of the access driveway with many of these standards are
addressed in the staff comments for SP‐20‐016.
15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation
F. Entrances
(1) N/A
(2) Entrances to PUDs and subdivisions generally shall be separated by a minimum distance of
four hundred (400) feet on either side of a public street, in order to ensure safe access and
traffic movement into and out of the PUD or subdivision. However, entrances to PUDs and
subdivisions may be allowed on opposite sides of a public street if substantially aligned with
each other.
(3) N/A
(4) The location and design of project access shall make provisions for improved access
management and traffic safety. Specifically, the design of PUD and subdivision access points
shall:
(a) Maximize the use of secondary streets for access and circulation
(b) Align access points with existing intersections and/or curb cuts
(c) Consolidate existing curb cuts within the PUD property
(d) Provide for safe access to abutting properties
(e) Make provisions for safe access, with provisions for appropriate sight distances and
accommodations for high‐accident locations
(f) Provide deceleration, acceleration and/or turn stacking lanes as appropriate to meet
the standards in (1) above.
(g) Provide adequate curb radii to accommodate the anticipated speeds and types of
vehicles.
At the April 7 hearing, the applicant testified that the eastern driveway is necessary because
circulation around the entire building would require additional wetland impacts. The Board
generally understood this situation. However, an abutter provided testimony expressing
concern about high speeds and the location of the exit driveway on the east side of Lot 1G, and
Staff notes that they have heard and experienced this on other occasions.
#SP‐20‐017
4
Assuming the Board allows the eastern driveway, Staff notes the curb radii for this one‐way
driveway are significantly larger than that allowed in LDR 15.12 for street intersections. Curb
radius are limited to 20‐feet for commercial drives. The applicant has proposed an
approximately 32‐foot radius on the left turn side and an approximately 55‐foot radius on the
right turn side.
3. Staff considers the truck movements should only be to the left, and recommends the Board
require the applicant to minimize turn radius on both sides to no more than the 20‐feet
maximum indicated in Figure 15‐1D for streets.
The Board asked that the applicant provide signage indicating that this driveway would be for
exit only. The applicant has done so by providing signs on both sides of the driveway facing
Meadowland Drive, but has only striped half of the road with a stop bar and provided a stop
sign on the right side, as though it were a two‐way road.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to place stop signs on both sides of the
driveway, and extend the painted stop bar across the entire width.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner