Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0010 Community DriveSOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD In re 10 Community Drive, Applicant. This memorandum is submitted in support of the Applicant's proposal reflected in the site plan for 10 Community Drive, and specifically in support of an interpretation of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDR) that permits, with respect to this particular parcel, the placement of parking between the building and the road. This memorandum is submitted in conjunction with the "Unique Site Conditions" document previously submitted to the Development Review Board. A zoning or land development regulation has the force and effect of a legislative enactment, and in construing such regulations, the general rules applicable to the construction of statutes apply. Kalakowski v. John A. Russell Corp., 137 VT. 219, 223 (1979). In interpreting the South Burlington LDR, as it is in interpreting statutes, ordinances, or other regulations, the primary task is to "consider the whole of the [regulation] and try to give effect to every part." In re Toor & Toor Living Trust NOV, 2012 VT 63, ¶ 16. "A zoning measure will be construed to give its words their ordinary meaning and significance." Kalakowski, supra, at p. 223. Turning to the LDR, the key regulation for purposes of determining the proper placement of parking on the site is found at § 14.06. The primary guidance found in that section is in § 14.06(B)(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. Page 1 of 3 Although there are certainly objective criteria for the DRB to look to in assisting its determination whether a transition is "desirable", planting or parking areas are "adequate", or pedestrians will be "safe", this provision also calls on the DRB to exercise its expertise and discretion in evaluating a particular site. Following that over -arching guidance, § 14.06 sets forth additional rules relating to parking (14.06(B)(2)), the height and scale of buildings (14.06(B)(3)), and the location of utility services (14.06(B)(4)). As it relates to parking, the general rule is stated in § 14.06(B)(2)(a): "[p]arking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings." That provision then goes on to state, in § 14.06(13)(2)(b), five specific exceptions to the general rule. It is clear from the structure of this regulation that, although parking structures to the rear of a building are the preference, the DRB is not at all limited to that option. The specific exceptions, within the context of the overall guidance (desirable transitions, safe and adequate plantings, pedestrian movement, and parking areas), establish that the DRB has the discretion to adapt the general rule to specific site conditions. The particular exception applicable here is found in § 14.06(13)(2)(b)(iii): where "unique conditions" do not allow parking behind a building, the DRB has discretion to approve parking in the front of the building. The text of this exception gives two examples of what may constitute "unique conditions" —the existence of utility easements or unstable soils. However, there is nothing in the grammatical structure of this exception that supports the conclusion that the two examples are intended to be the only "unique conditions" that might justify application of the exception. If the drafters of the LDRs had intended to so limit the exception, it would have been worded in a more constrictive fashion (i.e., "the existence of a utility easement or of unstable soils allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street"). Page 2 of 3 By including the phrase "unique conditions", the exception has been crafted so that the DRB can, in the appropriate case, exercise its discretion to fulfill the over -arching mandate of § 14.06(B), which is to plan a site with desirable transitions between structures, with safe and adequate facilities. This conclusion is supported by the rules of construction outlined above. Particular provisions are not to be viewed in isolation they are to be interpreted so that "every part" of the regulation is given effect, and the regulation is viewed as a whole. In re Toor, supra. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for the DRB to apply the general rule of § 14.06(B)(2)(a) without considering the exceptions to that rule in § 14.06(B)(2)(b), and likewise inappropriate to consider only the two examples cited in the applicable exception (utility easement and unstable soils) without considering the panoply of possible conditions that might fall under the term "unique conditions". Respectfully submitted, 1283737 v1:4829-00039 10 COMMUNITY DRIVE BY: PAUL FRANK + COLLINS P.C. "D By:� . r Robert S. DiPalma 1 Church St., PO Box 1307 Burlington, VT 05402-1307 802-658-2311 rdipalma@pfclaw.com Page 3 of 3 10 Community Drive - MAR 13 20113 C4 of So. Burlington The purpose of this document is to show how the proposed development of 10 Community Drive, and in particular the placement of the building and parking lot, complies with South Burlington's Land Development Regulations (the "Regulations"). The narrative that follows establishes that the placement of the parking lot adjacent to the street is consistent with both the spirit and express requirements of the Regulations. Specifically, we establish below that the unique site conditions found at 10 Community Drive, and the surrounding lots in the Community Drive development justify a finding that parking between the street and the proposed building is authorized under Regulation §14.06(B)(2)(b)(iii). Furthermore, this narrative establishes that requiring the placement of parking to the side or rear of the building would violate specific provisions of the Regulations, including §§ 13.01(E)(1), 14.06(B)(1), and 14.06(C)(2). I. Unique Site Condition # 1: Road Frontage contains development restrictions A unique site condition exists on much of Community Drive loop, including frontage on Kimball Avenue, in that there are a number of restrictions, both natural and man-made, which will not allow an overwhelming majority of the undeveloped parcels to be constructed in a similar, harmonious fashion. Specifically, there are restrictions that influence the placement of building at the front of the lot. The natural feature restrictions include the Potash Brook and adjacent wetlands, both inside the Community Drive loop and West of the western portion of Community Drive. The man-made restrictions include several utility easements, including overhead electric power, telecommunications, gas and sewer (Graphic 1). Additionally, when considering the placement of the proposed buildings relative to the existing developed parcels, a harmonious relationship should include distance from road to front (or side) of building. Specifically, when speaking of the proposed development at 10 Community Drive, the two existing buildings on the inside of the Community Drive loop, both of which would be either adjacent or in close proximity to 10 Community Drive, are set back from Community Drive in excess of 340 feet along the western portion of the drive. Hypothetically, if this development occurred in an area with fewer or no restrictions, say in a previously undeveloped tract of open land, the placement of buildings close to the lot frontage on both sides of the road in a harmonious fashion would be strongly encouraged and promoted. However, because many restrictions do occur along Community Drive, it does not make good planning sense to require this of only a couple of the lots which are entirely or partially restriction free, as this will create a discordant placement of the structures, making structures closer to the road much more prominent thereby weakening their visual relationship. Red = Areas restricted from, T development e � along road -y frontage due to natural feature constraints or utility easements 1 Orange = Areas of existing development Green = Areas where development along road frontage could occur, dependent on specific building dimensions Graphic 1 r Add - 1 MW 11 When reviewing the details of development on specific portions of the Community Drive loop, one can see how this graphic is quantitatively expressed. Segment of Community Drive loop Total frontage length (both sides of road) Unrestricted frontage Unrestricted frontage as percent of segment Western Portion 4,000 feet 260 feet 6.5% Southern Portion 2,600 feet 1,300 feet 50% Eastern Portion 4,000 feet 1,055 feet 26% Kimball Avenue 1,400 feet (one side of road) 0 feet 0% Total Loop 12,000 feet 2,615 feet 22% Western portion of Community Drive loop (from Kimball Ave to the south west curve): Approximately 6.5% or less than 260' of the 4,000' existing street frontage is not restricted at lot frontage, depending on specific building dimensions. A small proportion of the lot containing the proposed building at 10 Community Drive occurs along a portion of unrestricted road frontage while the remainder of the lot frontage is restricted by wetlands. It should be noted that across the street from 10 Community Drive the street is completely restricted due to stream, wetlands and utility easements and development cannot occur along the street frontage. Sothern portion of the loop or the front entrance to 30 Community Drive (from south west curve to the south east curve): Approximately 50% or about 1300' of the 2600' is not restricted at the road frontage, depending on specific building dimensions. It should be noted that these lots back up the interstate. Additionally, across the street from these lots exists the building at 30 Community Drive, which is approximately 300' from the road and contains parking in between the building and the road. Eastern portion of Community Drive loop (from Kimball Ave. to the south east curve): Approximately 26% or 1055' of the 4000' is not restricted at the road frontage. 740' occurs along the inside of the loop between Tech Park Way and the existing parking lot for 30 Community Drive. It should be noted that across the street from this segments exists a surface parking lot for Lot 7 and a power sub -station. An additional 315' of restriction free street frontage exists on the corner lot at the outside of the loop. Kimball Avenue portion of Community Drive loop. 0% of the frontage along Kimball Avenue has unrestricted frontage. Due to a power line easement, the two lots along Kimball Avenue have frontage restrictions. 124 Technology Park Way is built and has a distance of over 400 feet between the building and Kimball Avenue that includes parking. I. At most, 22% of total road frontage on the Community Drive loop could be developed in a manner consistent with Regulation §14.06(B)(2)(a), which puts buildings near the road frontage, depending on specific building dimensions, which may require additional setbacks. The bottom line is that due to constraints on the site, both natural and man-made, and the pattern that has been established by existing buildings, future developments would best fit into and further strengthen the development harmoniously by placing buildings further from the road edge, and by placing parking between the road and the building. II. Unique Site Conditions Particular to 10 Community Drive and Lot 14 Constructing the proposed building on Lot 14 near the road frontage would violate a utility easement for building and access drive. This utility easement would allow parking but not a building to be located across it. This unique site condition requires placement of the building on Lot 14 behind the utility easement (Graphic 2). -1. J a 1' j '>L + i Lot 14 - zli, L_. _ _6 C r i — -- 30 Community Drive jechno� t' �P�rk Wav" a• r re 4 E �M� r C x +M Q1 j ^ t » nTTQ { f � �' : I i T Graphic 2 The ability to construct the proposed building on 10 Community Drive near the road frontage is severely restricted by the existing wetland along Community Drive. Because of the unique site condition of the wetland along the road frontage of Community Drive, the building will need to be placed a minimum of 115' feet from road (Graphic 3). This site condition justifies the application of §14.06(B)(2)(b)(iii). toM cx � s Graphic 3 Because of the unique site condition of the wetland along the road frontage of Community Drive, the building will need to be placed behind the wetland buffer, away from the road (Graphic 3). With no parking allowed adjacent to the street, the setback of the building prevents the use of a major portion of the front of the site and creates negative consequences for the location and use of the building's front door. This could require a 90 degree rotation of the building to promote visible front door access from the parking area, a design change not otherwise dictated by good design practices (Graphic 4). cX zZ Graphic 4 III. Unique Site Condition # 3: Strict Compliance with § 14.06(B)(2)(A) Would Violate Other Provisions of the Regulations A. Section 14.06(C)(2) Development of the proposed building at 10 Community Drive violates the requirements of §14.06(C)(2), which requires a harmonious relationship between proposed and existing structures, because the existing buildings that are in proximity to the proposed building are placed a great distance from the road, with parking between the building and road. See previous discussion for unique conditions which occur on Community Drive as a whole. Even if the placement of the proposed building occurs as close to the lot frontage as possible without infringing on the wetland buffer, it will create a condition which makes the building prominent because of its height and proximity to the road. This violation would be more evident with the development of Lot 14, because the placement of that building would need to occur behind the existing utility easement. B. Section 13.01(E)(1) If parking is placed behind the building at 10 Community Drive, there would be a loss of coordination between existing and proposed parking areas at either or both developments at Lot 14 and 30 Community Drive. This would violate the requirement of § 13.01(E)(1), which favors the coordination of off-street parking between adjoining non-residential sites. Additionally, by placing the parking behind the building, there will be an overall increase in the amount of paved surface required by an estimated 14 %. C. 13.01(E)(1) ,13.01(F), and 13.01(G)(4) If parking is placed behind the building at 10 Community Drive, there is a loss of separation of pedestrian and motor vehicle circulation and there is a greater opportunity for pedestrian and vehicular conflict. This would violate §§ 13.01(E)(1), (F), and (G)(4), each of which favor minimizing traffic and pedestrian conflicts and enhancing pedestrian safety. CONCLUSION If buildings are built behind parking lots, as proposed in the master plan, it will 1) provide a harmonious visual and spatial relationship between proposed and existing buildings; 2) allow for greater utilization of the site with regard to building orientation and parking orientation; 3) would create a large and more coordinated parking area for proposed and existing lots, thereby creating increased access management, decreased impervious surface and improved pedestrian circulation; and 4) allow for a greater level of flexibility for parking to overflow in adjacent lots on an as needed basis; and 5) allow for the creation of a significant — and always planned and proposed — green space for the interior portion of 10 Community Drive and the adjoining lots for pedestrian access and enjoyment. Based on the above evidence, our own analysis and professional opinion, 10 Community Drive would qualify as having a unique site condition such that parking shall be allowed to be located in the area between the public street and the proposed building (Graphic 5). We believe that the preceding information and analysis provides a principled basis for the Development Review Board to approve this proposal based upon good land use and planning strategies and which would conform to the current South Burlington Land Development regulations. -------------- O IT I I j'j EX P PROPOSED U lu PARKING (FUTURE) 30 I I Community Drive �� 1 EXISTING BUILDING 1 � I � Y PROPOSED NEW PARKING �wr rrrce ii r M an southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner 0 RE: Agenda 3, Sketch Plan Application #SD-12-35, 10 Community Drive LLC & Technology Park Campus LLC DATE: March 14, 2013 10 Community Drive, LLC & Technology Park Campus, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking sketch plan review for a planned unit development to construct a 55,676 sq. ft. general office building, 10 Community Drive. The application was reviewed on February 19, 2013. The Board continued the application such that the applicant could have to time to follow up with their attorney, and to meet with Staff to discuss a legal interpretation of the existing South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant submitted a memo to the Board on March 13th, attached. Staff has not had the opportunity to meet with the applicant or to prepare a written response to the memo. City Planner Cathyann LaRose, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have been able to read the memo and will be prepared to address the arguments therein at the hearing on March 191h. It should be noted that, at this time, Staff generally disagrees with the positions presented by the applicant in the memo and find that the interpretation included therein of the land development regulations are loose and very broad. The applicant has not submitted any revised plans. The plan reviewed at the February meeting includes a very basic sketch showing the location of the proposed building, the general size, layout, and location of the proposed parking area, and some proposed amendments to the lot layout and sizes within the subdivision. Staff notes herein are therefore repeated from the February review, and are kept brief in response to the limited information available at the sketch plan review, and are largely focused on a major issue of concern with the proposed layout. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com Chapter 14.06 (B) (2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDRs) states the following: Parking. (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home, (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. The sketch plan includes designs for a large parking area to be located in front of the proposed building, between the proposed building and the roadway (Community Drive). A review of the criteria listed states that parking may not be located to the front of the building. The criteria above (i- y) do not provide for exceptions to this rule for the subject property. The entire parking area is shown to the front and is not necessary to accommodate disabled persons. The proposed office building is not a single or two-family home. There do not appear to be any unique site conditions or soils which would allow for parking adjacent to the public street but not for a building. This is a new building on a vacant lot, and is not to be used for public recreation. The applicant has provided a memo indicating that they believe that unique site conditions exist which would prevent the building from being located to the front of the parking. Staff remains in disagreement. This is not permitted via the Land Development Regulations, and pursuant to Section 15.02(4)(c), is not waivable by the Development Review Board: In no case shall the DRB permit the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (B) (2). Whether or not a requirement to force parking behind a building is sound planning theory is not at question here and is not for the Board or Staff to decide. That issue can only be debated in a warned public forum and determined by the City Council with a recommendation by the Planning Commission. As such, Staff has not weighed in on whether one design is more favorable over another, but rather, whether the plan submitted is in compliance with the existing strict regulations on the location of parking in relations to a building. As the application does not conform to the Land Development Regulations and cannot be considered for waivers by the DRB, staff recommends the applicant revise the building to be in conformance with the LDRs and resubmit the sketch plan for review by the DRB. . LEIVED FEB 19 202 1. History of Technology Park {{�� �� - In 1995 Technology Park Partners purchased the 275,(�squa're3 oo�`�o�rmer Digital Equipment Corp. facility (which has been renamed 30 Community Drive) that had been shuttered, its occupants laid off and its future uncertain. The partnership has since repurposed and filled the existing building with some of Vermont's most prominent businesses and organizations such as Ben & Jerry's, The SymQuest Group, the University of Vermont, Fletcher Allen Health Care, Test America and others. By doing so the property has gone from an empty shell to an employment center that offers local employment for hundreds of area residents. It also offers community amenities such as a low cost 24/7 health club (Planet Fitness) and a deli -style cafeteria that serves locally sourced high quality food (Sugarsnap). The partnership — in keeping with their original plan - also subdivided the property in to 13 additional building lots (14 total across the 177 acre property); two of which have subsequently been built upon: the LEED Certified 73,000 square foot 55 Community Drive, and the LEED Gold Certified 54,000 square foot 124 Technology Park Way. - In addition to the many value added businesses that have chosen 30 Community Drive as a home, Technology Park Partners have been able to attract and retain an outstanding roster of tenants for the two new buildings due to the distinctive and significant architecture, the high quality landscaping and site planning, the convenient location and abundance of existing and improved infrastructure and utilities that make Technology Park such a strategic home to so many successful businesses who currently provide onsite employment for over 1,000 area residents. 2. Technology Park "Master Plan" - Since the late 1990s Technology Park Partners have presented a thoughtful and attractive professionally designed master plan to the Planning Commission, and later upon its formation, the Development Review Board. The plan has seen some minor changes over that time, but has essentially stayed in its original form, particularly in the "North Quad" area which lies between the east and west branches of Community Drive and north of the 30 Community Drive building. The North Quad has always been intended to invoke the attractive setting of a university campus quad -like setting where there is a significant and manicured green space that is inviting not only to the occupants of the surrounding buildings, but also to the general public. Like the rest of Technology Park this quad area is currently utilized year round by the public to fly kites, walk their dogs, play Frisbee, cross country ski, etc. Technology Park Partners' have always encouraged this interaction and use by the public, and we wish to do so in the future with what we believe will be a significant privately funded amenity that the public will have the ability to enjoy, at no charge to the city or taxpayers. - When 124 Technology Park Way's site plan application was approved in 2007 by the Development Review Board this same master plan was provided to the DRB and their decision was as follows: "The Board allows parking to be placed in the front of the building as shown on the plan due to the power line location in the front and the applicant's overall proposal to have a campus style arrangement of future buildings," (Technology Park Site Plan Application #SP-07-67, Findings of Fact and Decision, Oct. 4, 2007). With that decision in hand Technology Park Partners constructed the 54,000 square foot LEED Gold Certified (Core & Shell and Commercial Interiors) building which is now home to the executive offices of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters and which has added hundreds of new high paying jobs to the City of South Burlington. It is also important to note that 124 Technology Park Way is the only developer -designed and constructed building in Vermont that has achieved LEED Gold Certification or hip -her (the only two other commercial LEED Gold buildings in Vermont that are not higher education or institutional are NRG Systems and Vermont Employees Credit Union, both owner occupied and therefore not speculative). One of the reasons that GMCR chose Technology Park was because of the thoughtfulness and significant effort and expense that Technology Park Partners have invested not only in the architecture in which they reside but in the overall environment that has been created at the park and which we have envisioned for the future in our master plan; the same master plan and "campus style arrangement" that the DRB required of Technology Park in their Findings of Fact and Decision in 2007, after the current parking ordinance was in place. We believe that Technology Park is one of, if not the, most highly maintained, thoughtfully planned and well landscaped commercial business parks in the state, and our planned improvements to the North Quad will certainly make it unique not only from our competitors but also for the fact that it is intended to be attractive and engaging for both our onsite tenants and their employees and for the general public. - Furthermore, with the DRB's explicit blessing of the campus style arrangement of future buildings Technology Park has continued to modify and refine what the landscaping and amenities of the North Quad will include. We have engaged a highly respected landscape architecture firm to further develop what we intend to be an arboretum that engages the many onsite employees (currently 1,200+) as well as the general public and encourages people to walk amongst the gardens, trees, various other plantings, and sculpture and to enjoy what will truly be an outstanding amenity. This is exactly the type of site that South Burlington is seeking to create through its current placemaking exercises and vision for City Center and other sites throughout the community: a thoughtful place to linger and enjoy and is unique. E 3. 10 Community Drive Technology Park Partners are proposing to construct a new 58,000 square foot building to the south and west of the existing 124 Technology Park Way, and continue with the "campus style arrangement of future buildings" that the DRB required in the 124 Technology Park Way site plan approval. However, in order to continue with the North Quad concept which will allow for the creation of the arboretum it is necessary to continue with the parking arrangement which has been presented by Technology Park Partners to the Planning Commission and the Development Review Board for well over a decade. That parking would need to be located in front of 10 Community Drive so that the significant green space and recreation area in the middle of the quad can be maintained. The site also has unique existing conditions which makes the proposed parking alignment the most efficient and innovative use of the land. When Technology Park Partners purchased the abandoned Digital Equipment Corp. plant the existing conditions included significant parking lots on either side of the original building, which was logical in that at full capacity there were over approximately 1,000 people working within. Because of the existence of those parking lots (which certainly constitute "unique site conditions") the most logical and efficient way to layout new parking areas would be to align them with the existing parking so as to reduce the number of overall parking spaces needed through shared parking opportunities, efficient internal circulation and a reduced number of necessary curb cuts. All of these reasons are identified in the current Land Development Regulations as reasons why the parking requirements may be modified. Furthermore, the Land Development Regulations specifically state that the location of parking shall be located to the side or rear "if possible", but go on to say that "It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and re- development in the City's Core Area, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan." (South Burlington Land Development Regulations; Article 15; 15.01) 4. Arboretum As previously mentioned it is the intention of Technology Park Partners to continue with the design of the arboretum and then implement that design in the North Quad area where a publicly accessible and significant green space has always been proposed and has not only been presented to the Planning Commission and Development Review Board, but has actually been required of Technology Park Partners by the City in conjunction with the approval of 124 Technology Park Way. The parking plan as proposed which we believe is allowable under the current Land Development Regulations will allow the creation of a significant amenity that will be publicly accessible and will greatly enhance the property and constitutes the highest and best use of the land. If the parking is required to go in the rear of the building (the only other location possible) it will severely detract from the aesthetic grace of the property and will render the arboretum, and campus -quad concept useless as it will end up as one big parking lot in the midst of what could have been something special. In short, Technology Park Partners will not move forward with the design of the arboretum because there will be no reason for doing so, as there will be no benefit to our tenants, nor to anyone, by providing extensive landscaping around what will end up being a large parking area. 5. Summary - It is clear that there are different types of commercial development within the city (retail, commercial office space, industrial, etc.), and yet there is only one parking provision that may make sense for certain uses in certain areas, but does not appropriately fit all areas and uses throughout the city. In the future City Center it may make sense that the development should be prominent to the street in order to engage pedestrians, but in a commercial office environment it makes no sense to have the building's occupants drive to the rear of the building and then either enter through the back of the building or walk around to the main entrance. Conversely, if the main entrance is on the back of the building that does not engage the street or sidewalk. - Technology Park currently features many walking and bike paths, attractive and thoughtful landscaping and other amenities which we offer to our tenants and for use by the general public, but that does not mean that our use is the same as City Center which also may include walking and bike paths and landscaping. Simply put, the occupants of our buildings engage with them in a very different manner than they do with retail and more urban mixed use settings. That is not a bad thing, it is just different. Furthermore, our proposed North Quad Arboretum is an opportunity that will not be feasible with the parking located to the rear of the building, and because Technology Park Partners have an imminent need to construct a new building this is a one time opportunity that will not be available again in the future. We would hate to see what could be a significant, thoughtful and attractive use of this property that is also in line with the city's land use objectives, not be taken advantage of because of shortsightedness. We believe the current Land Development Regulations allow for the approval of our proposed parking layout because of the following points: • The Development Review Board approved (and actually required as a condition) our "campus style arrangement of buildings" as is shown on our current Master Plan in 2007, after the current parking ordinance was already in effect. • "Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the presence of sidewalks or recreation paths....." (6.05, C.) • "Parking shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of curb cuts on to the public roadway." (6.05, C.) • "The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below: iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street." • "It is the purpose of the provisions for subdivision and Planned Unit Development (PUD) review to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and redevelopment...." r W� southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner 0 RE: Agenda 9, Sketch Plan Application #SD-12-35, 10 Community Drive LLC & Technology Park Campus LLC DATE: February 14, 2013 10 Community Drive, LLC & Technology Park Campus, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking sketch plan review for a planned unit development to construct a 55,676 sq. ft. general office building, 10 Community Drive. The plan submitted includes a very basic sketch showing the location of the proposed building, the general size, layout, and location of the proposed parking area, and some proposed amendments to the lot layout and sizes within the subdivision. Staff notes herein are therefore kept brief in response to the limited information available at the sketch plan review, and are largely focused on a major issue of concern with the proposed layout. Chapter 14.06 (B) (2) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDRs) states the following: Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection. (b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection. (d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate. The sketch plan includes designs for a large parking area to be located in front of the proposed building, between the proposed building and the roadway (Community Drive). A review of the criteria listed states that parking may not be located to the front of the building. The criteria above (i- y) do not provide for exceptions to this rule for the subject property. The entire parking area is shown to the front and is not necessary to accommodate disabled persons. The proposed office building is not a single or two-family home. There do not appear to be any unique site conditions or soils which would allow for parking adjacent to the public street but not for a building. This is a new building on a vacant lot, and is not to be used for public recreation. This is not permitted via the Land Development Regulations, and pursuant to Section 15.02(4)(c), is not waivable by the Development Review Board: In no case shall the DRB permit the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (B) (2). As the application does not conform to the Land Development Regulations and cannot be considered for waivers by the DRB, staff recommends the applicant revise the building to be in conformance with the LDRs and resubmit the sketch plan for review by the DRB. ev; y lift 40, ! r 41 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of February, 2013, a copy of the foregoing public notice for Sketch Plan Application #SD-12-35, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the owners of all properties adjoining the subject property to development, without regard to any public right-of- way, and including the description of the property and accompanying information provided by the City of South Burlington. I further certify that this notification was provided to the following parties in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: List of recipients: 120 Kimball Corporation c/o James Foster 159 INDUSTRIAL PKWY. Burlington, Vermont 05401 110 Kimball, LLC c/o Peter M. Doremus 112 LAKE STREET Burlington, Vermont 05402 O'Brien Family Limited Partnership c/o Daniel J. O'Brien 1855 WILLISTON RD South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Pizzagalli Properties, LLC c/o James Pizzagalli 50 JOY DR South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Town of Williston 7900 Williston Road Williston, Vermont 05495 South Burlington Sample Certificate of Service Form. Rev. 1-2012 Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 7th day of February, 2013. Printed Name: Evan LangWt Phone number and email: (802)860- 91 x2 Signature: Date: .. Remit to: City of South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington Sample Certificate of Service Form. Rev. 1-2012 0AIN southburlington PLANNING rl< ZONING A Permit Number SD -- (office use only) APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN REVIEW AI I information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either on this application form or on the plans will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board. For amendments, please provide pertinent information only. 1) OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed, mailing address, phone and fax#) _10 Community Drive, I.LC 2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #)Tech Park Campus acquired lots 1 and 14 in a warranty deed from 30 Community Drive LLC that was recorded in book 898, page 210, conveyed on 10/6/09. 3) APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) T10 Community Drive, LLC and Technology Park Campus, LLC 4) APPLICANT'S LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY (fee simple, option, etc.) _Fee Simple 5) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #) John Illick, 55 Community Drive, Suite 402, South Burlington, VT 05403 (802)598-6948 5a) CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS Jillick@vermonttechnologypark.com 6) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:_10 Community Drive 7) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office)0436-00030.O1A and 0436-00030.14A_ 8) PROJECT DESCRIPTION a) General project description (explain what you want approval for): _55,676 square foot, four (4) story building and associated site work including +/- 200 parking spaces and a lot line adjustment to Lot s1 and 14 tha would reduc the square footage of Lot 14 and add square footage to Lot 1. l At ok l/ iz I S75 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com b) Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use _Undeveloped commercial lot. c) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain) See project description. d) Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain) 58,000 square feet. e) Proposed height of building (if applicable) _+/- 60' and rooftop equipment equaling an addtional +/- 8'. fl Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain) NA g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable 9) LOT COVERAGE - Proposed lot is 8.66 acres or 377,500 square feet. a) Building: Existing 0 b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing_0_ % Proposed < 4 % % Proposed_<30 % c) Front yard (along each street) Existing % Proposed % 10) TYPE OF EXISTING OR PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCES ON PROPERTY (easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc.) —Private sewer easement, landscape/park easement. 11) PROPOSED EXTENSION, RELOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES (sanitary sewer, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc.)_None. Sketch Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 12) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE_12/2017 13) PLANS AND FEE Plat plans shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5) regular size copies, one reduced copy (I V x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the plans must be submitted. The application fee shall be paid toRhe City at the time of submitting the application. See the City fee schedule for details. c Jl NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is accurate to the best of my knowledge. S�iL S� V1 a�— I &AT OFT OF APPLICANT 01 SIGNATU E F PRO--MRPRO--MfZTY OWNER Do not write below this line DATE OF SUBMISSION: I have reviewed this sketch plan application and find it to be: Complete ❑ Incom lete inistrative O icer Date The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Sketch Plan Application Form. Rev. 12-2011 C)/L/�-l41/ M-411 101 .1� southburliu ton PLANNING & ZONING Independent Technical Review Invoice Application #SD-12-35 Applicant: 10 Community Drive, LLC Date: April 4, 2013 John Illick 10 Community Drive, LLC 55 Community Drive, Suite 402 So. Burlington, VT 05403 Pursuant to a decision made by the South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) to invoke Technical Review of information presented as part of the above -listed application and as required by the "Planning and Zoning Fee Schedule" adopted by the South Burlington City Council on April 20, 2011 (as amended), please remit the following amount to be used to pay for the Independent Technical Review: Amount requested: $ 200 No Independent Technical Review shall be authorized by the City without receipt of these funds. The City shall hold these funds and use them only to pay for the required Independent Technical Review. If at any time the amount being held is reduced to $50, the City shall request an additional amount sufficient to cover estimates costs from the applicant prior to authorizing any further expenditures of the Independent Technical Reviewer. Following the issuance of a decision by the DRB, any unused funds shall be returned to the applicant. Further, the applicant retains, at all times, the right to request any unused funds be returned. Upon receipt of any such request, in writing, the city shall inform the Independent Technical Reviewer of this request and require that they cease any further work. Following the payment of any work done to date, the city shall return unused funds and inform the DRB that the Technical Review has been ceased at the request of the applicant. Checks should be made out to the "City of South Burlington" Please remit payments to: Raymond Belair Administrative Officer City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com ro ~ WRALE' TAIL / / / SCUT T/UR SITE 3 STORY BUILDING D 3 m 10� Otis A O O ti� ®. 0 b �IQ`7�000 O,�a C -�•�— sr e a • 0; o eto. c. o e a oe «�.. �OO a000.0.001 0 0 r• • 00 O 1 0 6 CFO Q a: !' 'A G!R C O it PARKIN ��°O° $ 00••O; '• t�OY Oaf 1 rk0 00S STRU U r i I \ SCULPTURE POND `07J vgtKING PA toy SCULPTURE „aJaA SITE � POes�t s00 _�tF. k q 44• �' 11 iai o O C4rQe O O O O O b O; o Cage u p � cv < •° 4 Iy •\ a00 � ; �O 0 � O 0 p 1 COMMUNITY D 1 s, o 1 o OIL 0 O� 0 • ° 00 w0 4 STORV 120,00W SITE k ° „! -eeee..�� ME 9ton A Revised Lot 1 "r ��1ti✓may , 4 STORY 120,000sfJ,r-- `" 10 O,�mU O 54 Storyy�ri�e o , , ' 000 f y 5 `SCULPTURE ®� / �a SITE *sr, Oco ` Q h `0 O ' QVi Co Vz- 00 SCULPTURE SITE 2 STORY 17,300sf 0 7 2012 �. Burlington TECHNOLOGY PARK PARTNERS 000000000000 D D D 0 D 0 0 Revised Lot 1 1 I --------- p0000000000� �I c fisting Ib-arkmg (3 ommunity Driv TECHNOLOGY PARK 0 0 Li OMMUMTY DRIVE 30 _ _ '1 ■ .. • � • '• 0 Oppp '_■_ i �.�■ I I / I Proposed new parkin O ' Tr-) 0 __ 1 —0— —0— =0= - O ---0® 0 11 0 O -- --- - O - 1 0 0 -- / O 0 - 0 0- 0 was 01200 Now PROPOSED ' / ■ FUTURE 1 1 �\ BUILDING I ' 1 ` ........ � .... . j. � . �-- ■ � ■ � � /EXISTING ` I 0 , BUILDING 1 ' ❑ 1 i i 1 % I �F FIAI / r i 1 � i 1 I / 1 � R��aIVED 1 , \ 1 DEC 0 i 2012 SITE PLAN N rrAtv of So Budir SCALE: V = 100' w z a a a m Ye 10 COMMUNITY DRIVE OCTOBER 5, 2012 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT Revised Lot 1 Application for 10 Community Drive s21ARCHITECTURE WN 7 W No Text In rya 0 c e—) L.1 ca 'L m 6 U) 6 v C 0 z w EAST ELEVATION TECHNOLOGY PARK 10 COMMUNITY DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT S21ARCHITECTURE WEST ELEVATION TECHNOLOGY PARK 10 COMMUNITY DRIVE SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT S21ARCHITECTURE /-/, g/ Grid RIA125111 -------------------- ---------------- ----------------------- - ------------------------------------------ ___----------- - _- ____- --- EIS TR I ---- rya_._ LOC HIN TH SE MO ___ _ ___ ___ _ ----__- _ - - TRIAL COMM THE Y OF SOU TM�URLINGON E_INDUS ATEW4T •____ _ __ -_ -------------- NRP E Y ________ v,. I I� I ------------------------------------------------------------ It - � I � / I ! J — — ' I EX 50' WEILANO � 1 �I-- I —ti I — P G ---XX STA C _I PROPOSED PARKING PROPOSED I' i X II no" c11 NEWo- — - (FUTURE) PARKING �' �`; I` —�I I fl i I _ ------------------------------ �.e.. _. _s:_ J _ _ _ 37 y � III ti i i -. - -. __— •: ', '. �. _____.___ _ __._____ /p yj ls.,.N_ i� �• �� I 1 .l �� TEl7M/p.00Y PAIMC WAY I Ui , �I s I I ---- - _ COMMUNITY ------- - ' ------��' DRIVE � �1 I� I 4 f IIIII III — EXISTING 'ENTIRE POPERTY IS LOCATED WTHIN THE INDUSTRI COMERCIA RI — NSF OCTPAW CAMPUS CTEHLBUILDING EXISTING BUILDING rl i t v Owner of Record and Applicant � Irr,,II''IIIII II ��II y L U 1�l �L — J� 10 Community Drive, LLC 'I c 55 Community Drive, Suite 402 III — O } ���ri�TT� South Burlington, VT 05403 o D II$I 0�T I — Z cn ('� m } P" V / I MA IMETL NOATEO 1 li 10' ELECTRIC BUFFER I EASEMENT GMPC I 1U II I I I I ' I � DELINEATED l— 1 WETLAND BY TCE a —�— \ DUNE, 2012 (TVP.)__— h '\ LASS III \ I J WETLAND 27, ]15 S.64 AC. F. 1 Co 'IP - ,I �I II Z C":, OF I Graphic Scale SCALE 1' • 60' Feet 26' EASEMENT TO I I I { X I ``- I III { - s - r•t" o Ace - TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS g.R:�IB U,e .ITI, D 'ng I Unk I the t d mane O,ow ngs t d t _10m rypb 'rp ardnat'nn wth th., d' I' ulTfie, nd/ pp dfrom theregd- --if they t' i d d, scon,truct on dro g t tl a. supM1 2 Orly d' g p f IN 1 d F C M1 t' mended I. b d n lith 1 t pncume i P T' 1" / t t g f dt b d pf wfd'ng bvtn tl t dt th Hf t,T ppf obk. Th iCEfo Taw P boll 16 df I T lay a- C toct w t 1 ey r9 tbMn I naryc ddp.Jtpblef o- T Iwad. 3, These Oraw ngr are.p ( t - P 1 ct and ore not i .ferabb. As rat— t f ce these draw rg. and p es thereof (unified by TCE pre 6 exclu. va propartV Ch nge, tc the drawing, mw only be made by TCE B e dfil- ,ed Mey shall be brought to the afi fi fTCE- dateN 4. By t th U.­ I., con,irudo f the P j t the C t 1M1d they have rev a d, pp d and o t d ih ng, and have met th dl th apu k /d' pflne, to mo,e e pk proPeM Oh other as —1 of th P j t. Th. Owne d '1 f ,ere.,F—bkfor—b Id g aoun d g a measured hue o 13I f t d ow b Id'rg. 5 M,M cartefraud , U q bAty to enure WI copy contdn, Me st RECEIVED -Iel allc 'Iton Technology Park Sheet rHe Site Plan For Revised Lot 1 Application for 10 Community Drive ode. 1112612012 Book. 1 =6o' Project NI°nber. .121-1 O,awn BV BIC PrPlad Eng'neer --_. Approved By: C2-02