HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-05-79 - Decision - 0080 Midas DriveCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
EIGHTY MIDAS DRIVE, LLC. - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-05-79
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Eighty Midas Drive LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking preliminary plat
approval for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) razing a 2526 sq. ft. general
office building, and 2) construct a 3-story, 8,543 square ft. general office building
including a drive-in bank, 80 Midas Drive. The Development Review Board held a public
hearing on November 15, 2005. Steve Vock represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development
Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for a planned unit development
consisting of: 1) razing a 2526 sq. ft. general office building, and 2) construct a 3-
story, 8,543 square ft. general office building including a drive-in bank, 80 Midas
Drive.
2. The applicant appeared before the Development Review Board for sketch plan
hearing on August 2, 2005 and preliminary plat hearing on October 4, 2005 and
October 18, 2005.
3. The City placed this property in violation of the zoning regulations on April 28,
2005 for having cleared all the trees and vegetation at the rear of the building
without approval from the Development Review Board and without a zoning
permit. This violation continues.
4. The owner of record of the subject property is Eighty Midas Drive, LLC.
5. The subject property is located in the Commercial 1 — Residential 12 (C1-R12)
Zoning District.
6. The plans submitted consist of an 11 page set of plans, page one (1) entitled,
"Proposed Vermont Federal Credit Union 80 Midas Drive South Burlington
Vermont", prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated Sept 2005, last
revised on 11 /8/05.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
C1 Zoning District
Required
Pro osed
+ Min. Lot Size
40,000 S.F.
23,739 S.F
�l Max. Building Coverage
40%
12.7%
�l Max. Overall Coverage
70%
67.2%
Max. Front Yard Coverage
Midas Drive
30%
30%
Max. Front Yard Coverage
(City of South Burlington Easement)
30%
30%
4 Min. Front Setback Midas Drive
30 ft.
30 ft.
� Min. Front Setback (City of South
Burlington Easement
30 ft.
>30 ft.
Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
>10 ft.
♦ Max. Building Height
35 ft.
44.6 ft.
�l zoning compliance
4 pre-existing noncompliance
♦ waiver required
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the Land Development Regulations, the Development Review
Board shall consider the following in its review of subdivision and Planned Unit
Development (PUD) applications:
(a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to
meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and
City requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater
allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(B) (1), municipal water service must be extended to serve the
proposed development.
The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the sketch plan and provided
comments in a letter dated September 29, 2005.
(b) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or
dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties.
The applicant shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan shall
meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
-2-
(c) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management
strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The proposed project will have two different curb cuts. The only ingress point is
proposed via a two-way, 24 ft. curb -cut off of Midas Drive for ingress and egress into the
main parking lot. It is proposed to go around the building and exit through a second curb
cut onto Midas Drive; it is 12 ft. in width and is egress only.
The applicant is proposing two (2) drive -through lanes of banking, 9 feet in width. The
South Burlington Fire Department has reviewed the circulation plan and has noted that
emergency vehicle circulation is potentially a problem. The turning radii must be
appropriate to fit a full-sized fire rescue vehicle. Chief Doug Brent has indicated that he
will work with the applicant to discuss the turning radii around the drive -through area.
Furthermore, according to the ITE Trip Generation Manual, the proposed project will
generate 124.54 vte's during the p.m. peak hour. This is an increase of 82.67 vehicle
trip ends per hour over the existing traffic generation of 41.87 vte's.
(d) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to
wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy,
and any unique natural features on the site.
There are no wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat, or unique natural features on the site.
(e) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned
development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan
and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located.
The proposed development is in keeping with the goals for development within the
Commercial 1 (Cl) Zoning District, as set forth in Section 5.01 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
(t) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize
opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
and/or stream buffer areas.
The subject property is relatively small and cannot provide significant open space. The
non -paved portions of the property are located in an acceptable manner.
(g) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or
(designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided.
It has already been noted that the Fire Chief should further review the plans with the
applicant.
(h) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility
lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the
extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners.
-3-
The plans reflect that the sidewalk along Midas Drive will continue to the southern access.
This is appropriate.
(i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a
manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and
maintenance standards.
The applicant has submitted a site lighting plan and lighting cut sheets. The proposed
lighting is not in compliance with the requirements of Section A.10 of the Performance
Standards pertaining to indirect glare. This section limits illumination beyond the property
line to not exceed a maximum 0.3 footcandles. The plan shows that in some places lighting
beyond the property line will be has high as 0.84 footcandles.
Furthermore, the applicant should assure that the proposed canopy lights are installed so
as to be recessed. The location of lighting is acceptable.
The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided comments in a memorandum dated
September 29, 2005. The City Engineer shall also review subsequent plats.
Q) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan for the affected district(s).
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Per Section 5.01 of the SBLDR, all applications for a drive -through facility shall be
subject to conditional use review and the following restrictions:
(a) Compliance with Traffic Overlay District Provisions, if applicable;
The proposed project falls outside of the traffic overlay district.
(b) Compliance with an approved access management plan, providing for curb
cut consolidation and secondary access;
The access management plan appears sufficient with respect to curb cuts.
(c) Mandatory technical review by a traffic consultant to determine adequate
stacking lane length and aisle width.
The applicant had previously submitted comments from a traffic consultant. At that time,
the proposal was for three lanes and stacking lane length appeared to be adequate.
However, the applicant is now proposing two lanes of drive -through traffic. The
applicant should submit comments from the traffic consultant addressing the stacking of
two lanes of drive -through traffic.
Again, the proposal shall be evaluated for conditional use review:
a. the capacity of municipal or educational facilities
This project will not adversely impact this criterion
b. the planned character of the neighborhood
This project will not adversely impact this criterion
c. traffic on roadways and highways in the vicinity
As previously noted, this proposal is projected to generate a significant
increase in the vte's of the lot.
d. bylaws in effect
This proposal violates several of the bylaws in effect, including the lighting
and landscaping standards. These problems are identified in the memo
and should be addressed at final plat.
e. utilization of renewable energy resources
This project will not adversely impact this criterion
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the
followina aeneral review standards for all site dan aDDlications:
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
(a) 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.
According to Table 13-1 of the SBLDR, a drive -through bank requires 5.8 parking spaces
for every 1,000 SF of gross floor area (GFA) while the general office space requires 3.5
spaces per 1,000 SF GFA. Thus, the proposal will require a total of 36 parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing thirty-one (31) onsite parking spaces. This is a shortfall of 5
spaces, or 13.9%. Staff supports a parking waiver up to 25%.
The plan includes three (3) handicapped spaces which is one (1) more than required. The
handicapped space at the southwest corner of the lot should either be turned into a regular
space or relocated closer to one of the entrances.
The angled parking spaces at the western edge of the property are in compliance with the
standards for parking spaces. Pursuant to Table 13-8 of the SBLDR, the aisle width for
parking spaces angled at 60 degrees shall be 15 ft. Given a nine -foot drive -through
banking lane, the aisle appears to meet this requirement.
Section 13.01(G)(5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for
employees, residents, and visitors to the site. The site plan depicts a bicycle rack in an
appropriate location.
(b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent
practicable.
As this property has frontage on Midas Drive and a potential future road, there is no true
rear of the building. Therefore, the proposed parking spaces appear to be located in an
acceptable manner, provided that the applicant provides extensive landscaping to serve as
- 5 -
a buffer between the proposed parking and the planned city road to the north. The
Director's memo also addresses this concern.
(c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the
height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and
existing or adjoining buildings.
The proposed bank building appears to be of similar scale to existing buildings within the
C1 District in this vicinity. The height of the proposed building is greater than the as -of -right
35 ft height limit for flat -roofed buildings. With the rooftop apparatus included, the height of
the building will be 44.6 ft. The applicant is requesting a height waiver of 9.6 feet. The
Board supports this waiver, especially since this building is adjacent to the Central District
where taller heights are encouraged.
(d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by
exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be
underground.
It has already been noted that any new utility lines shall be underground.
(e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and
architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual
interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different
architectural styles.
The applicant has submitted revised elevations showing all four facades of the building.
These revised plans are a vast improvement over prior submittals. The plans now show
aesthetically pleasing front facades for the north and east elevations, and harmonious
facades for all sides. Attractive and well-defined entrances are shown from each public
roadway. This plan meets this criterion.
(t) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain
and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual
relationship to the proposed structures.
Again, the applicant has submitted revised elevations. These are a vast improvement over
previous plans. The applicant has sufficiently addressed the appearance of the building
from all four sides. The new door on the east side of the building is appropriate for one
facing an existing public road. The entrance that presents on the planned city road is also
well -designed and aesthetically pleasing from the public right of way. The applicant has
also addressed previous concerns regarding the materials and colors used on the western
fagade, above the drive -through lane.
The Board supports all of these visual changes, finds them to be in compliance with the
regulations, and is pleased with the fagade as an entry way to the city center.
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the
following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the proposed Land
Development Regulations:
(a) 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 of collector street, to provide additional access for
emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation
in the area.
No additional reservation of land shall be required for this application.
(b) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall
be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and
to the site.
It has already been indicated that utility lines must be underground.
(c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance
with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and
properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not
escape the enclosure(s).
The plans depict the location of a screened dumpster.
Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan. This plan has not been reviewed
by the City Arborist.
The minimum landscaping requirement, based on building costs, is $22,220.The landscape
budget submitted indicates that the proposal includes $11,255 of site landscaping which
represents a $10,965 shortfall. The final plat plan should be revised to include the minimum
landscaping requirement in addition to the trees to be saved and the two (2) trees to be
planted off -site in the r.o.w. However, as noted at sketch plan review, the applicant is
currently in violation for removing trees from the property without approval. The Board
suggests that the trees proposed off -site still be planted so as to account for the previous
removal of trees.
Significant landscaping is being proposed to screen the parking areas from Midas Drive
and the planned city road. The Director's memo addresses this.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage area
must be specified and located in an area that will minimize the potential for run-off. The
proposed snow storage areas are adequate. The applicant has noted that during larger
snowstorms, snow will be transported off -site.
-7-
The City Arborist has requested that the planting detail be revised so that note #1 reads
"Plant tree so root flare is at or slightly above finished grade (may require removal of
excess soil to expose root flare)".
Other
The applicant is actively working with staff on the phasing of building and demolition on this
site. At this time, and because this is a matter of Administrative Officer approval of
compliance, this is not an issue that the Development Review Board needs to address
further.
Section 13.09(E)(3) of the Land Development Regulations require the posting of a two-
year bond for the cost of removing the existing building.
The survey plat submitted contains information outside the limits of the PUD. The plat
should be revised to remove all information which does not directly relate to the
application.
Section 15.12(F)(1) of the Land Development Regulations requires that "the nearest
signalized intersection or those specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of
service of 'D' or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the
fully developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each
through movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service 'D' or better at full
buildout". The Board at the last meeting requested the applicant provide an LOS
analysis of the Midas Drive/Williston Road intersection to determine compliance with this
standard. Please see the attached memo from the Director on this issue.
DECISION
Motion by LARI V WF,40^� , seconded by W &14
to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-05-79 of Eighty Midas Drive, LLC., subject
to the following conditions:
1) All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended
herein.
2) This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant, and
on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3) The plans shall be revised prior to final plat submittal as follows:
a) The plans shall be revised to comply with the conditions of the South Burlington
Water Department as outlined in a letter dated September 29, 2005.
b) The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the City Engineer as
outlined in his memorandum dated September 29, 2005.
c) The lighting plan shall be revised so as to be in compliance with the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations. Lighting beyond the property line shall
not exceed 0 .3 footcandles.
d) The plans shall be revised to either relocate the handicapped space at the
southwest corner of the property closer to the building entrances or change it to a
regular parking space.
e) The survey plat shall be revised to remove all information not related to the PUD.
f) The landscaping plan shall be revised to show $22,220 of new site landscaping.
g) The landscaping plan note #1 shall be revised to read "Plant tree root so flare is
at or slightly above finished grade (may require removal of excess soil to expose
root flare)".
h) The plans shall be revised to remove the free-standing sign location.
4) The applicant shall comply with the conditions of the South Burlington Water
Department as outlined in a letter dated September 29, 2005.
5) The applicant shall comply with the requests of the City Engineer as outlined in his
memorandum dated September 29, 2005.
6) The applicant shall obtain final water allocation approval from the South Burlington
Water Department prior to final plat approval.
7) The applicant shall obtain preliminary wastewater allocation approval from the Director
of Planning and Zoning, Juli Beth Hinds, prior to final plat approval.
8) The applicant shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03
of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan
shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
9) The applicant shall meet with the South Burlington Fire Chief for review and the site
plan shall be revised to comply with his recommendations prior to final plat submittal.
10) Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations,
any new utility lines shall be underground.
11) The proposed canopy lights shall be installed so as to be recessed.
12) The applicant shall submit comments from a traffic consultant addressing the
stacking lengths of the drive -through traffic prior to final plat submittal.
13) The Development Review Board grants the applicant a 13.9% parking waiver for a total
of 31 spaces.
14) Prior to permit issuance, the applicant shall post a two-year bond for the cost of
demolishing and removing the existing building.
-9-
15) Pursuant to Section 3.07(F)(2) of the Land Development Regulations the Board
grants a 9.6 ft. height waiver, for a total maximum height of the building at 44.6'.
16) For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact
Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the new structure and
associated uses will generate 82.67 additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M.
peak hour.
17) The applicant shall post a $28,720 (includes the minimum requirement plus the trees
to be saved) landscape bond, prior to issuance of a zoning permit. This bond shall
remain effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and
has a good chance of surviving.
18) The applicant shall submit their final plat application within twelve (12) months.
Mark Behr e nay/abstain/not present
Matthew Birmingham _ ea nay/abstain/not present
Chuck Bolton — ye na a stain/not present
John Dinklage ea nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley — ea na /abstain/not present
Larry Kupferman — ea ay/abstain/no resent
Gayle Quimby — yea nay/abstain not presen
Motion carried by a vote of J -J-- C>
Signed this ►,day of , — 2005, by
John Dinklage, Chair
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $225.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy-,
finality).
-10-