HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_SD-21-26_433 Community Dr_OnLogic_FPCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-21-26_433 Community Dr_OnLogic_FP_2021-12-07
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: December 1, 2021
Plans received: November 10, 2021
443 Community Drive
Final Plat Application #SD-21-26
Meeting date: December 7, 2021
Owner
Technology Park Partners
88 Technology Park Way
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
Greenfield Capital, LLC
35 Thompson Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0436-00055.11B, 0436-00055.12B & 0436-
00055.13B
Mixed Industrial Commercial (IC) District
Engineer/Architect
Wiemann Lamphere Architects
525 Hercules Drive, Suite #2
Colchester, VT 05446
Location Map
#SD-21-26
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD-21-26 of Greenfield Capital, LLC to consolidate three lots of 6.77 ac (Lot 11),
6.62 ac (Lot 12) and 6.42 ac (Lot 13) into one lot for the purpose of constructing a 130,790 sf building on
a single 19.81 ac lot. The application for development is being reviewed under separate site plan
application, 443 Community Dr.
CONTEXT
The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on October 5, 2021. The Project is located in
the Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District. It is also located in the Transit Overlay District, a
portion of the property is located in the Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A, and a portion is located in
the Interstate Highway Overlay District. There are areas of class II and class III wetlands and wetland
buffers located within the project area.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 11/10/2021 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Mixed Industrial
Commercial Zoning
District
Required Proposed Lot
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 19.84 ac.
Max. Building Coverage 40%
Development
on this lot is
being heard
as a separate
application
Max. Overall Coverage 70%
Min. Front Setback 30 ft.
Max Front Setback
Coverage
30%
Min. Side Setback 10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.
Building Height (flat
roof)
35 ft.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the subdivision plat to not show any
proposed development. This subdivision approval does not include any development of land.
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
(1) 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.
The applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocations. Staff considers this
criterion met.
#SD-21-26
3
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
No construction is being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Compliance of the
site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on application #SP-21-046.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any
technical review by City staff or consultants.
As indicated in the staff comments on application #SP-21-046, Section 13.01F states that all
commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection
to any adjacent commercial lot.
13.01F. Access Management Requirements. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant,
office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located
adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent
commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that
connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when
circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located
where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
The adjacent lot to the east has been designed to accommodate a future connection
between the two properties, and includes a cross-lot easement to the subject property. At
this time there is no relationship between the two properties, therefore Staff considers that
the Board may allow the applicant to provide a reciprocal 50-ft wide cross-lot easement to
align with the easement on the adjacent lot instead of providing a driveway connection.
Since the lot to the west is largely encumbered by wetlands, Staff considers no access
easement to that lot to be necessary at this time.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an easement and draft shared
access agreement to formalize the connection between the subject lot (Lot 12) and the lot to the
east (Lot 9).
Traffic is discussed below.
(4) 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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the
Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The subdivision itself does not further bifurcate wetlands, streams or wildlife habitat. Staff
supports this configuration. Compliance with Article 12 standards are addressed in the staff
comments on application #SP-21-046.
(5) 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.
#SD-21-26
4
On an overall basis, Staff considers the proposed configuration of the property compatible
with the existing and planned development patterns of the area. Detailed discussion of the
aesthetics of the building itself is provided under concurrent site plan application #SP-21-046.
(6) 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.
Staff considers the subdivision does not detract from the ability of the land to be developed
such that open space areas are contiguous.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by
municipal water.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on November 16, 2021, and offers the following comments.
SBFD FMO met with the design team on 10/12/21 to review access utility and fire
protection support elements. They are proposing essentially a conjoined
storage/manufacturing facility sharing a common fire wall with a three story business
occupancy. The occupancies are fully fire protected with sprinkler, standpipe and fire
alarm systems. In reviewing the submittal it appears that all elements of NFPA 1 Chapter
18 have been addressed. The final plans have not been submitted for permitting at this
time.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(8) 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 properties.
The subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion. Compliance of the proposed
development project is discussed in the staff comments for #SP-21-046.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
The subdivision is proposed to support a development which the applicant estimates will
generate 196 vehicle trips per PM peak hour. As discussed in conjunction with #SP-21-046,
no offsite improvements are needed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant address allowing
opportunities for employers in need of larger amounts of space, and providing a balance of
open spaces. Staff considers this criterion met for the proposed subdivision.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less
#SD-21-26
5
runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater
as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
Staff considers the proposed subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion.
Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on
application #SP-21-046.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff notes for application #SP-21-046.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Staff
recommends the Board not close this hearing until the related hearing for #SP-21-046 is also ready to be
closed, as issues affecting the site plan may also affect this decision and the Board may not accept new
information once this hearing is closed.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner