HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SP-20-016_362 Meadowland Dr_SBRC_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: SP‐20‐016 430 Meadowland Drive – Site Plan Application
DATE: May 5, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
SBRC Properties, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, has applied to amend a previously approved plan
for a shared driveway. The amendment consists of relocating the driveway, 362 Meadowland Dr.
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 notes the applicant submitted one narrative and planset for both this and SP‐20‐017, the application on
the adjacent lot. Those materials are included in the agenda item for SP‐20‐017 and are not duplicated here.
Staff refers the Board to the packets from April 7, 2020 for a full review of all applicable criterion. Staff has
excluded from this memo criterion 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
#SP‐20‐016
2
C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation
(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.
See discussion under 14.07A below.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.07 Specific Review Standards
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.
With the materials submitted on 4/21/2020, the applicant has revised the proposed principal access to better serve
future development on Lot 1.
1. At the previous hearing, the Board briefly discussed with the applicant the potential for a condition to prohibit
additional curb cuts off Meadowland Drive accessing Lot 1. Staff recommends the Board conclude this
discussion.
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. These comments are included in the staff memo for SP‐20‐017 and are equally applicable to this
application.
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.
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.
#SP‐20‐016
3
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
At the previous hearing, the Board briefly discussed including a condition that this roadway remain private
until such time as it becomes a through‐street. Regardless of the selected roadway width, Staff
recommends the Board conclude this discussion of public vs. private roadway at the 5/5 hearing. The
following staff comments address this determination.
A. 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.
Staff notes this roadway is configured to access the undeveloped portion of Lot 1 east of Potash Brook.
D. Criteria for Public and Private Roadways.
(1) In reviewing PUD, subdivision and master plan applications, the DRB shall have the authority
to require the construction of roadways to City standards and the dedication of roadways to the
City. The DRB also shall have the authority, subject to the limitations in (3) below, to waive this
requirement and to allow private streets, and/or public streets not built to full City standards as
set forth in Table 15‐1 and Figure 15‐1.
3. On 4/7/2020, the applicant testified that they would like to leave the determination of whether
the roadway could become public to the Director of Public Works. Staff notes the following sections
delegate this authority to the DRB, and recommends the DRB make a determination on the status of
the roadway as part of this decision.
(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) N/A
(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.
(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
#SP‐20‐016
4
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.
4. Staff considers the proposed roadway meets both (3)(a) and (3)(b) and therefore the Board may
allow the applicant to be private. It will serve one development and appears unlikely to provide
connectivity to users outside of Meadowland Business Park. Staff recommends the Board
determine the road to be a private road.
5. If the Board instead determines the roadway may potentially become public because of potential
for connection to Randall Street or Hinesburg Road, Staff considers it must meet minimum
dimensional standards for a public roadway (discussed below) and the Board should include a
condition that the roadway shall remain private until such time as it connects to another street.
E. Standards for Construction of Roadways
(1) All streets shall be constructed completely by the applicant
(2) All public roadways shall be built to the specifications in Table 15‐1, Figure 15‐1, and the
Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 unless specifically authorized
otherwise by the DRB in its final approval of the subdivision or PUD.
(3) All private roadways shall be built to the specifications set forth in this section with the
exception of curbing and widths. All private roadways shall be a minimum width of twenty‐six
(26) feet with parking and twenty (20) feet without parking.
The minimum width for public roadways is 28‐feet per Table 15‐1, except for commercial and
industrial streets which are required to be 32‐feet wide. Private roadways are required to have a
minimum width of 26‐ft. The plans show 26‐feet of pavement except at the wetland crossing which
includes 24‐ft of pavement. The provided cross section indicates a 26‐foot roadway with a 2.5‐foot
gravel shoulder on the non‐sidewalk side and a 1‐ft paved shoulder on the sidewalk side outside of the
wetland crossing, which is only 27‐ft of pavement. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed 24‐
foot roadway width at the wetland crossing. However both 26‐feet (shown on plans) and 27‐feet
(shown on cross section) is less than the minimum width for public local roadways.
6. Once the Board determines whether the roadway must remain private or may become public, on the
basis 15.12D(2) and 15.12D(3) above, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the
plans and cross section as necessary to meet geometric standards of the appropriate street type as a
condition of approval. Staff recommends the Board specify the roadway with for clarity.
4. Should the Board allow the applicant to construct to dimensional standards for private roads, Staff
recommends the Board include a condition that the roadway will not be considered for acceptance
as a public street.
M. 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.
#SP‐20‐016
5
(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.
(3) Sidewalks shall be laid out so as to maximize southern exposure.
The applicant has reconfigured the proposed sidewalk. Staff considers these criteria met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner