HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-21-23_OnLogic_443 Community Dr_OnLogic_SKCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-23_OnLogic_443 Community Dr_OnLogic_SK_2021-
10-05
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 29, 2021
Plans received: September 10, 2021
Greenfield Capital, LLC – 443 Community Drive
Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-23
Meeting date: October 5, 2021
Owner
55 Community Drive, LLC
88 Technology Park Way, Suite 2
South Burlington, VT 05407-2204
Applicant
Greenfield Capital, LLC
35 Thompson Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0436-00055.11B, 0436-00055.12B, and 0436-
00055.13B
Mixed Industrial & Commercial Zoning District
Engineer
VHB
40 IDX Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
#SD-21-23
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-21-23 of Greenfield Capital, LLC to consolidate three existing lots into one
lot of 19.8 acres for the purpose of construction a 133,777 sf, two to three story office and light
manufacturing building, 419 parking spaces, and associated site improvements, 443 Community Drive.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District. It is also located in the Transit
Overlay District, a portion is located in the Interstate Highway Overlay District, and a portion is located
in an Airport Approach Cone. There are areas of class II wetlands and wetland buffers located within the
project area.
CONTEXT
The applicant is proposing to consolidate three lots, requiring sketch plan (this application), preliminary
plat, and final plat review. The applicant is also proposing a development plan for the site, requiring site
plan review. Since the project is not a planned unit development, these reviews must be undertaken
separately. However, this sketch plan review includes review of the proposed site plan in order to
provide feedback to the applicant before they advance their design.
In addition, the project will be subject to Mixed Industrial/Commercial Standards, Interstate Highway
Overlay District (IHO) Standards, and wetland protection standards.
The applicant has indicated on their plans a “phase 1” and “future” phases. At this time, the applicant is
only asking for review of the phase 1 elements, but has shown the future phases to provide a general
concept of how the site could later be more fully built out.
Adjacent to this property is the planned Tilley Drive to Community Drive connector road. This roadway is
shown on the Official Map and is included in the recently-completed VT 116/Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive
Area Land Use & Transportation Plan. A right-of-way has been established (not shown on the City’s parcel
mapping, but verified and in queue for a parcel map update). While construction of this roadway is
anticipated to be separate from this proposed project (pending traffic study), its presence will affect this site
and is discussed below.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following
comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
#SD-21-23
3
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
IC Zoning District Required Proposed
√Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 43.8 ac.
1. Max. Building Height 35 ft. (flat), 40 ft. (pitched) 46 ft.
√Max. Building Coverage 40% 8%
√Max. Overall Coverage 70% 35%
Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Unknown, < 30%
√Min. Front Setback 30 ft. Met
√Min. Side Setback 10 ft. Met
√Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A
√ Zoning compliance
1. In the Mixed IC zoning district, the Board may approve a structure with a height in excess of the
max allowable height. For each food of additional height, all front and rear setbacks are increased
by 1 foot and all side setbacks are increased by one half (½) foot. it appears as though this
requirement will be met.
1. The Board should provide feedback on whether they will allow the requested height at this sketch
plan level of review. Staff considers the location relative to the interstate, the location in the airport
approach cones, and the requirement for compatibility between planned development patterns to
be factors pertaining to whether the Board should allow the proposed height.
2. The property does not have a rear yard as it abuts the interstate. The IHO district requires a
building setback of 150 ft, which is provided
Zoning District Standards
The applicant has described the project as a “Business and Factory use project,” which is not a use
defined in the Land Development Regulations. The current location of the business at 35 Thompson
Street is defined as “light manufacturing.”
Light manufacturing. The processing and fabrication of certain materials and products where
no process involved will produce noise, vibration, air pollution, fire hazard, or noxious emission
exceeding the City’s performance standards or other regulations therefor. Light manufacturing
includes but is not limited to the production of the following goods: home appliances; electrical
instruments; office machines; precision instruments; electronic devices; timepieces; jewelry;
optical goods, musical instruments; novelties; wood products; printed material; lithographical
plates; type composition; machine tools; dies and gages; ceramics; apparel; lightweight non-
ferrous metal products; plastic goods, pharmaceutical goods; and food products, but not animal
slaughtering, curing, nor rendering of fats.
2. Staff recommends the Board confirm that the proposed location will have the same function as the
existing location and, specifically, will continue to comply with the portion of the definition
pertaining to the City’s performance standards. Staff notes that if this is not the correct fit, other
uses are allowable.
Airport Approach Cones
Standards for airport approach cones generally pertain to interference with airport operations. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant demonstrate submission of a request for approval to the
#SD-21-23
4
appropriate regulating bodies (FAA and others as appropriate) as part of the site plan application, and
require approval by appropriate regulating bodies prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
Interstate Highway Overlay District
The interstate highway overlay district pertains to land within 150-feet of the interstate right-of-way and
prohibits buildings or structures, except those related to public recreation paths, stormwater, and a
handful of other minor exceptions. Staff considers the proposed plan compliant with the IHO district.
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
A. Access, circulation and traffic management
The applicant is proposing two driveways to access this approximately 20-acre site. The western driveway
is located on a curve, very near the location of the planned Tilley-Community connector as shown on the
Official Map and included in the VT 116/Kimball Avenue/Tilley Drive Area Land Use & Transportation Plan
(November 2020). The applicant indicated verbally to Staff that while this location is not ideal, they
believe it is better than the alternatives for a number of reasons. Two possible alternatives include using
a singular driveway located in the center of the site, and shifting the western driveway further east.
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe why the western driveway is located where
it is, and identify potential concerns at this sketch plan level of review.
Staff anticipates the project will generate sufficient traffic to warrant a traffic study. No traffic study has
yet been provided. Therefore no acceptance of the traffic management strategies, including circulation,
should be assumed by the applicant.
With the Tilley Drive connector road located on the Official Map and included as a planned project in the
above-mentioned Land Use & Transportation Plan, Staff recommends the traffic study address the
connector as to how it impacts projected traffic volumes and circulation. Staff also recommends the
traffic study address the location of the driveway
Further, initial investigation of natural resources for the Tilley Drive connector are underway as a separate
project. It is possible that in order to minimize resource impacts, the right-of-way for the connector will
need to be expanded or relocated. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to coordinate with
this work and provide necessary right-of-way adjustments as needed for the Tilley Drive connector as
part of the next stages of review.
Staff recommends the Board authorize independent technical review of the applicant’s traffic impact
study (TIS) so that it can be reviewed prior to the next level of review.
B. Natural Resource Protection
The involved parcels include a small amount of wetlands and their associated buffers. The majority of
the wetlands are located on the parcel to the west. It appears the applicant is proposing to avoid
impacting the wetlands and buffers except for creation of a new stormwater discharge. Staff considers
this to be a reasonable impact, but notes that demonstration of compliance with the wetland protection
standards of 12.02E will be a required element of the application for site plan.
C. Visual Compatibility with Planned Development Patterns
Staff notes no concept of the planned architecture has been provided to demonstrate compliance with
this or other criteria pertaining to building design. Therefore no acceptance of the building, including it’s
footprint, glazing or entrance configuration, should be assumed by the applicant.
#SD-21-23
5
D. Open Space Location
The Interstate Highway Overlay results in a contiguous open space along the interstate side of the site
and adjacent sites. This property is also adjacent to the Tilley Drive PUD to the west, which includes a
large wetland complex on the far east of the PUD. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to
demonstrate how they have designed the site to address this standard pertaining to contiguity of
open space, as opposed to allowing the location of open space be a byproduct of lot coverage.
Additional open spaces are required in order to allow the parking configuration the applicant desires,
discussed below.
SITE PLAN STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of
structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.
Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.
A. Transitions between structure and site, adequacy of planting, parking, and pedestrians
As noted above, the application does not contain sufficient information to evaluate compliance with this
criterion. Therefore no indication of compliance should be assumed by the applicant.
B. Parking
The plans show parking for 419 standard vehicles. The applicant has indicated verbally that this parking
represents the anticipated need for the currently proposed (phase 1) building.
Section 13.01 authorizes the Board to reserve parking for future use:
J. Parking Reserved for Future Use. In order to minimize the construction of unnecessary parking,
the Administrative Officer or Development Review Board may approve a site plan with parking reserved
for construction at a future date. In such granting such approval, the Administrative Officer or DRB shall
specify a timeframe during which said parking may be constructed without receipt of an additional site
plan approval. In no case shall such time frame exceed ten (10) years. Removal of parking reserve areas
shall require site plan amendment.
4. Staff recommends that the Board consider an approach that would approve some of the proposed (phase
1) parking for construction at a later date.
Of the proposed 419 (phase 1) spaces, 74 are located in front of the building. LDR 14.06B(2)(b)(vii) allows the
Board to allow some parking between the street and the building in certain very specific circumstances.
14.06B(2)(d) governs parking location for through lots. For the Board to approve up to 25% of parking located
to the front, the following additional standards apply.
14.06B(2)(b)(vii) The lot is located within the Mixed Industrial-Commercial or Industrial & Open
Space Zoning Districts, and it is clear that the circulation and layout of the lot cannot reasonably be
designed in a manner to avoid conflicts between visitors / employees and the inherent operations
of the use(s) on the lot;
5. Staff recommends the Board as the applicant to substantiate their claim that the use of the lot cannot
accommodate all parking to the sides and rear of the buildings. At this time, based on Staff’s
understanding of the nature of the business, it does not seem there would be conflicts.
#SD-21-23
6
(I) In order to further reduce the likelihood of such conflicts, this exception to the general
requirements for parking is only available when the uses of the lot(s) are limited to:
1. Distribution and related storage
2. Light manufacturing
3. Manufacturing
4. Processing and Storage
5. Warehousing and Distribution
Staff considers this criterion met.
(II) The parking shall be limited as follows:
1. No more than 25% of the total parking on the lot shall be located between a public street
and the building(s);
17.7% of the parking is proposed to be located between the street and the building. Staff
considers this criterion to be met.
2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi-use paths by one or more of the
following Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Appendix F, except for the location
standards which are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area;
Community Garden; Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open
Space shall be sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the
adjacent public sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the street right-
of-way, and (3) provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall
represent a minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including
circulation infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building.
6. No qualifying open space is provided. The square footage of 74 parking spaces is
approximately 12,000 sf, requiring an open space of at least 4,200 sf. The provided plan
does not appear to meet the intention of this and related criterion to provide screening
and create a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent sidewalk or recreation path.
Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to work with their landscape architect to
design a high quality environment as envisioned by these regulations and to present it at
the next stage of review.
3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review
Board pursuant to Section 13.06 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the
percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and
the building(s) on a lot. Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that
must be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the
percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and
the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was
$100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a
public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall
increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000, and no less than 10% of
the new total landscaping budget, or $11,000, must be dedicated to installation of
landscaping in the front yard).
#SD-21-23
7
Staff considers there has been no demonstration that this criterion will be met. However,
when the above criterion pertaining to open space is met, this criterion will be easier to meet.
Staff considers that given the detailed nature of this criterion, it need not be settled at this
sketch plan level of review.
4. The applicant shall construct a safe, paved pedestrian access from the street to the
building’s main entrance.
7. It appears a sidewalk from Community Drive along the proposed driveway is envisioned.
However, given the likely pedestrian circulation in the area, Staff recommends the Board
discuss with the applicant providing a more direct sidewalk that does not follow the
driveway alignment. Staff considers this can be in place of the proposed sidewalk.
5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from
the street to the building’s main entrance.
Staff considers this criterion will be satisfied when the criterion above is satisfied.
14.02B(2)(d) requires lots abutting an interstate to locate parking to the side of the building or to the front
adjacent to the interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the interstate must be screened with sufficient
landscaping to screen the parking from view of the interstate. This criterion should be demonstrated to be
met at the next stage of review.
C. Access to Abutting Properties
This criterion requires the reservation of land when access is deemed necessary to, amongst other things,
improve general access and circulation in the area. The applicant has proposed a future driveway connection
to the adjacent property to the east which is aligned with an existing access easement on the adjacent lot.
Staff’s understanding is that the adjacent property owner is not amenable to construction of a connection at
this time. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide an easement to allow a future driveway
connection to the adjacent lot, aligned with the reciprocal easement on the adjacent lot as shown. Staff notes
this request is not intended to encumber the operation of the proposed facility but is instead to facilitate
future connections should the nature of the proposed use or adjacent use change over time.
D. Disposal of Wastes
No waste disposal facilities are shown on the plan. These are required to be both enclosed and screened.
The applicant must demonstrate compliance with this criterion at the next stage of review.
E. Modifications of Standards
Solar Parking Canopies. Staff discussed with the applicant the possibility of authorizing / approving the
installation of solar canopies over parking areas. In order to approve this, a modification of landscaping
requirements within parking lot areas would be needed.
This section authorizes the Board to modify a site plan standard where it finds that the limitations of a site
may cause unusual hardship in complying with standards. In consideration of the City Council’s adoption
of a resolution in support of the State’s aggressive climate action targets (the “Climate Action Plan”), Staff
recommends the Board discuss this with the applicant and consider application of this standard.
#SD-21-23
8
OTHER
A. Staff notes the applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with bicycle parking standards
and exterior lighting standards at the next stage of review.
B. Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and conclude the
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
RI3URMHFW1XPEHU6KHHW'UDZLQJ1XPEHU'UDZLQJ7LWOH,VVXHGIRU&KHFNHGE\'HVLJQHGE\$SSYG'DWH5HYLVLRQ1R6DYHG7KXUVGD\$XJXVW 30:)5(7:(//3ORWWHG0RQGD\$XJXVW $0:LOOLDP)UHWZHOO??YKEFRP?JEO?SURM?6%XUOLQJWRQ?2Q/RJLF)DFLOLW\?FDG?OG?3ODQVHW?(;GZJYKEFRP'DWH,';'U%XLOGLQJ6XLWH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 2Q/RJLF)DFLOLW\7HFKQRORJ\3DUN/RWV 6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976NHWFK3ODQ6XEPLWWDO1RW$SSURYHGIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ$XJXVW)HHW([LVWLQJ&RQGLWLRQV3ODQ:$)-5=4FQU
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ne-story / highbay area ofwarehouse.Two-storyarea ofwarehouse.OnestoryofficeareaThreestory officebuilding.This is being considered inphase 1 as an "add alternate"
&%&%+'3(&%+'3(&%+'3(&%+'3()(+'3(&%)(+'3(&%&% +'3(&%+'3()(+'3(&%+'3(&%)(+'3(&%&%+'3(&%+'3()(+'3(&%)(+'3('0+&%+'3(&%)(+'3(&%)(+'3('0+
%8,/',1*)22735,17 3+$6( 64)7)8785( 64)7727$/ 64)7)8785(%8,/'287&211(&725)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(%8,/',1*)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(3$5.,1*)8785(3$5.,1*3+$6(3$5.,1*3+$6(3$5.,1*3+$6(3$5.,1*3+$6(3$5.,1*3+$6('2&.$5($3+$6(3$5.,1*3+$6(%8,/',1*)8785(3$5.,1*3+$6(3$5.,1*))( 3+$6(3$5.,1*3$5.,1* 3$5.,1*63$&(66+2:1(;3$16,2163$&(6)8785(*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'))( ))()8785(3$5.,1*)8785(($6(0(17 )('(; 3+$6(%$77(5<6725$*(%8,/',1*::::::66;)505;)505RI3URMHFW1XPEHU6KHHW'UDZLQJ1XPEHU'UDZLQJ7LWOH,VVXHGIRU&KHFNHGE\'HVLJQHGE\$SSYG'DWH5HYLVLRQ1R6DYHG7KXUVGD\$XJXVW 30:)5(7:(//3ORWWHG0RQGD\$XJXVW $0:LOOLDP)UHWZHOO??YKEFRP?JEO?SURM?6%XUOLQJWRQ?2Q/RJLF)DFLOLW\?FDG?OG?3ODQVHW?*'GZJYKEFRP'DWH,';'U%XLOGLQJ6XLWH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 2Q/RJLF)DFLOLW\7HFKQRORJ\3DUN/RWV 6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976NHWFK3ODQ6XEPLWWDO1RW$SSURYHGIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ$XJXVW)HHW*UDGLQJDQG'UDLQDJH3ODQ:$)-5=4FQU
%8,/',1*)22735,17 3+$6( 64)7)8785( 64)7727$/ 64)7)8785(%8,/'287&211(&725)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(%8,/',1*)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(327(17,$/%8,/'287)8785(3$5.,1*)8785(3$5.,1*3+$6(3$5.,1*3+$6(%8,/',1*3+$6(3$5.,1*))( )8785(*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'*5$9(/:(7/$1'))( ))(3+$6(%$77(5<6725$*(%8,/',1*3/$17,1*.(< '(&,'82866+$'(75((6•5HG0DSOHV•6XJDU0DSOHV•/LQGHQ•+RQH\ORFXVW•(OP(9(5*5((175((6•:KLWH6SUXFH•&HGDU3/$17,1*%('6 3ROOLQDWRU)ULHQGO\ •0L[HG2UQDPHQWDO6KUXEV•0L[HG3HUHQQLDOV•0L[HG2UQDPHQWDO*UDVVHV'(&,'8286251$0(17$/75((6•5LYHU%LUFK•6HUYLFHEHUU\RI3URMHFW1XPEHU6KHHW'UDZLQJ1XPEHU'UDZLQJ7LWOH,VVXHGIRU&KHFNHGE\'HVLJQHGE\$SSYG'DWH5HYLVLRQ1R6DYHG)ULGD\$XJXVW $0:)5(7:(//3ORWWHG0RQGD\$XJXVW 30:LOOLDP)UHWZHOO??YKEFRP?JEO?SURM?6%XUOLQJWRQ?2Q/RJLF)DFLOLW\?FDG?OG?3ODQVHW?/$GZJYKEFRP'DWH,';'U%XLOGLQJ6XLWH6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 2Q/RJLF)DFLOLW\7HFKQRORJ\3DUN/RWV 6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ976NHWFK3ODQ6XEPLWWDO1RW$SSURYHGIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ$XJXVW)HHW2YHUDOO3ODQWLQJ3ODQ0:0:4FQU