HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-06-54 - Decision - 0030 Community Drive#SD-06-54
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
TECHNOLOGY PARK ASSOCIATES, INC. -16 LOT SUBDIVISION
3 0 COMMUNITY DRIVE
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-06-54
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
John Illick, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting preliminary plat review of
a planned unit development to subdivide a 177.2 acre parcel into sixteen (16) lots
ranging in size from 3.98 acres to 29.46 acres,,a0 Community Drive. The Development
Review Board held public hearings on July 18, 2006, August 1, 2006, August 15, 2006,
September 5, 2006, October 17, 2006, November 7, 2006, November 21, 2006,
December 5, 2006, December 19, 2006, and January 2, 2007.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearings and the 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 requesting preliminary plat review of a planned unit development to
subdivide a 177.2 acre parcel into sixteen (16) lots ranging in size from 3.98 acres to
29.46 acres, 30 Community Drive. The Development Review Board held public hearings
on July 18, 2006, August 1, 2006, August 15, 2006, September 5, 2006, October 17,
2006, November 7, 2006, November 21, 2006, December 5, 2006, December 19, 2006,
and January 2, 2007.
2. The owners of record of the subject property are Technology Park Associates, Inc.,
and PMF Energy.
3. The subject property is located in the Mixed Industrial & Commercial (Mixed IC)
Zoning District.
4. The plans submitted consist of an 18 page set of plans, page one (1) entitled,
"Technology Park Kimball Avenue So. Burlington, VT Site Plan", prepared by Trudell
Consulting Engineers, dated 6/23/06, last revised on 11/3/06.
- 1 -
CI
#SD-06-54
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements Lots #2-13
1C Zoning District
Required
Pro osed
Min. Lot Size
40,000 SF
3.98 acres
Max. Building Coverage
40%
21.4*
Max. Overall Coverage
70%
55.7*
Min. Front Setback
30 ft.
n/a
Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
n/a
Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
n/a
�l zoning compliance
• coverage information provided is for the existing building and
related parking on lot 8a of the proposed subdivision
SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations,
subdivisions should comply with the following standards and conditions:
Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the
needs of the project.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
existing public water system should be extended so as to provide the necessary quantity of
water, at acceptable pressure.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
subdivider or developer should connect to the public sewer system or provide a community
wastewater system approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot
wastewater is proposed.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided comments in memos dated
February 16, 2006 and July 13, 2006 (memos attached).
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.
Although no buildings are proposed as part of this application, the applicant should submit
grading and erosion control plans for the construction of Community Way, the widening of
Community Drive, and any utility improvements which will disturb soil. The applicant has
submitted grading and erosion control plans.
The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
-2-
#SD-06-54
With the exception of Lots 2 & 3, the lots in the proposed subdivision will be accessible via
the existing road, Community Drive, or the proposed road, Community Way. The applicant
proposes to access lots 2 and 3 via a shared access from Kimball Avenue. The Board
strongly opposes this additional curbcut on Kimball Avenue. The Development Review
Board, at sketch plan hearing on May 16, 2006 announced unanimously that they would
not approve any plans showing this curbcut and directed the applicant to remove the
curbcut and find an alternative access to those lots. Still, the applicant continues to show
this curbcut.
Kimball Avenue is designated a `collector road' under the City's Comprehensive Plan and is
a very heavily traveled road. It is the City's goal to reduce curbcuts onto such collector
roads whenever possible. One of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan which
supports this position is under Chapter 12, Transportation, Section H(8)(a) as follows:
"Access management- the City should continue to require during site plan
and subdivision review the provision of access management techniques
(e.g. limit curb cuts, service roads, etc.) along high volume arterial and
collector roadways. Such techniques should be implemented in the design
of new roads and improvements to existing roads."
Furthermore, both the Director of Public Works and the Board believe that this curbcut
would increase traffic on Shunpike Road, a residential area. The City's consistent policy
has been to reduce curbcuts whenever possible. It is indeed possible in this case. The two
curbcuts that already exist for Community Drive are sufficient. The Director of Public
Works, in an email dated March 17, 2006 (email attached), concurs with the Board.
Additional curbcuts often disrupt the efficiency of traffic flow and lead to increases in motor
vehicle accidents. The Board also invoked a technical traffic review for the proposed
subdivision. The City consulted with Resource Systems Group to conduct this review. Joe
Segale of RSG provided comments in a report dated May 5, 2006 stating that the sight
distance to the east of the proposed intersection "does not satisfy AASHTO guidelines"
(report attached). In summary, the consulting firm found that the methodologies used in the
applicant's traffic study were consistent with accepted practices in traffic engineering. Mr.
Segale also provided specific comments indicating that the traffic study should be revised
to include the following:
a) increase the study area to include the intersections of Kennedy Drive/Kimball
Avenue;
b) nearby permitted developments in the no -build and build scenarios
c) an analysis of crash data along Kimball Avenue using updated crash data;
The applicant provided the additional information requested by the City's traffic consultant
on August 4, 2006 (copy attached). The City's consultant responded to the DRB after
reviewing the additional information on August 10, 2006 (copy attached).
The applicant has provided a simple statement saying that their project will "not effect the
existing [traffic] situation" with respect to crash data along Shunpike Road. The traffic
consultant has asked for an analysis of crash data on Kimball Avenue, not Shunpike Road.
This data was submitted on December 28, 2006. Mr. Segale reviewed the crash data and
submitted a report dated February 1, 2007.
-3-
#SD-06-54
Mr. Segale also notes that there are reasons, substantiated by the applicant and the
technical review, to not install a traffic signal at this time. Mr. Segale adds further that the
existing width of Community Drive is sufficient to handle the existing and projected traffic
volumes.
The existing roadway, Community Drive, is 24' wide in a 60' wide right-of-way and
Community Way is proposed to be 30 feet in width. Table 15-1 of the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations requires that local commercial or industrial streets be a
minimum of 32 feet of pavement. This requirement is not met. The applicant previously
asked for a waiver from this requirement, specifically an exemption from curbing the road.
The Board voted in favor of widening the road. The plans submitted under this application
propose no curbs or sidewalks along Community Drive.
Community Drive will see significant traffic when the lots are developed. As such, the
Development Review Board requires sidewalks along the entire length of Community Drive.
Given the amount of traffic, particularly the probability for tractor trailer traffic, pedestrians
should not be forced into the roadway to walk. The Director of Public Works also
recommends sidewalks unless they will be wholly available interior to the project. The
Board voted strongly in favor of sidewalks at the sketch plan review.
The applicant did state that sidewalks are proposed on Community Drive. However, the
plans submitted do not show any sidewalks on Community Drive. Sidewalks are required to
be provided per Section 15.12(M)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations.
The sidewalk should follow ALL of Community Drive and should be concrete, five feet wide,
and one (1) foot from the street R.O.W. line.
The applicant states in the application that he will provide curbs on Community Drive.
However, no curbs are proposed. Curbs are required pursuant to Table 15-1 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations unless waived by the Development Review
Board. The applicant has not provided the Development Review Board with any information
to substantiate the request to waive this requirement
The City Engineer is opposed to any waivers of the street standards for this property. His
comments in the memo dated February 16, 2006 (copy attached) note that the street
should be upgraded to city standards, including curbs and sidewalks. He also states that
some sections may have to be rebuilt.
Section 15.12(D)(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations requires that a
roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property be completed to the property line
or contribute to the cost of completing the roadway connection. The applicant is not
proposing to construct or contribute to the proposed road connection to the west.
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.
The plans that the applicant submitted depict a significant amount of wetlands on the
subject property. No wetland or wetland buffer impacts are proposed as part of this
application.
-4-
#SD-06-54
The plans note that there are Class II wetlands on the property. In accordance with Section
12.02(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, encroachment into Class
II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use
Determination by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive
findings by the Development Review Board pursuant to the criteria found in Section
12.02(E)(3).
Additionally, the 100 year floodplain overlay does impact several parcels in this subdivision.
Any development in the floodplain overlay district shall be subject to all of the conditions
and limitations of Section 10.01 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
The subject property abuts both the Potash and Muddy Brooks. These brooks have a
buffer width of 100' in which no new development shall take place. These stream buffers
shall be subject to all conditions and limitations as stated in Article 12.01(C) of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations.
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 project is in keeping with the planned development patterns of the IC Zoning
District.
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.
As buildings and other associated development are not being proposed as part of this
application, this criteria in not applicable at this time. However, it is noted that Lot 8c is
listed as undevelopable. This creates an appropriate stream buffer and open space
between the subject site and the O'Brien property to the west.
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.
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.
At this time there is a 20 foot recreation path easement to the City of South Burlington that
runs along the eastern edge of the property. The Recreation Path Committee reviewed the
most recent plans for this property on February 14, 2006. They suggest an unpaved path
from the cul-de-sac at the end of Tilley Drive to the walking path around Technology Park.
This walking path is currently not in easement to the City. Utilizing the existing walking path
as a recreation path is impractical because development would likely take place on these
parcels. However, the Board suggests that the applicant work with the Recreation Path
Committee to find a mutually acceptable location for a recreation path that will ultimately
serve to connect Tilley Drive to Kimball Avenue. Furthermore, it would be ideal if a path
was available to access the 'Whale's Tails' sculptures on the south side of the property.
-5-
C
#SD-06-54
The applicant met with the Recreation Path Committee on May 1, 2006 to review the
master plan for the property. The Committee was pleased that the applicant is proposing a
paved path; however they recommend the proposed path provides a full interconnected
loop and that the path be built in its entirety at one time rather than as the various buildings
are constructed. The Committee would prefer to see the path completed in a more
predictable manner.
The Board also strongly suggests a 10' recreation path to run along the northern boundary
of the property, along Kimball Avenue. The owner of the lot to the west of this property, the
O'Brien parcel, has already agreed to install a paved recreation path along Kimball Avenue.
The Technology Park parcel should extend this paved recreation path and facilitate
continuous pedestrian movement along Kimball Avenue. It is currently shown across most
of the lots, but should also extend along the northern boundary of Lot 8C.
Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner
that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
See above comments regarding the location and implementation of sidewalks and
recreation paths.
See above comments regarding the need to upgrade the roadways to a manner consistent
with City roadway plans and maintenance standards. Again, the applicant shall upgrade
Community Drive to City standards prior to a date to be determined.
The Director of Public Works has communicated with staff that the existing street lighting on
Community Drive is out of date and needs replacement.
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
for the affected district(s).
With the exception of the proposed curb cut on Kimball Avenue opposite Shunpike Road,
the proposed subdivision of this property is in conformance with the South Burlington
Comprehensive Plan.
Lot Layout.
According to Section 15.10 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, a
minimum width to length ratio of one to five (1:5) should be used as a guideline by the
Development Review Board in evaluating lot proportions. Square or roughly square lots
should not be approved.
The sixteen (16) proposed lots meet the goals of this requirement.
Landscaping
As there are no buildings proposed as part of this application, there is no minimum
landscaping budget. However, given that roads are planned as part of this proposal,
street trees shall be planted in accordance with Section 13.06(F) of the South Burlington
Land Development Regulations. The applicant has provided a proposed value for the
I
#SD-06-54
trees, but at this time there is no street tree planting plan for Community Drive.
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.
It has already been stated that the South Burlington Water Department shall review the
plans prior to final plat approval.
(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.
It has already been stated that 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.
(c) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
Access and circulation issues as part of the Subdivision review criteria have already
been addressed.
Traffic has changed significantly since the first building and roads in this subdivision
were constructed. A traffic impact study for the proposed development has been
submitted. Of particular interest is the impact on the Kimball/Kennedy, Kimball/Shunpike,
and Kimball/ Gregory Drive intersections. These have been completed and submitted.
However, the applicant's traffic study has noted deficiencies and follow-up information
has been requested by the Board in order to make appropriate findings with respect to
this condition.
For more detail, see above comments regarding traffic impacts resulting from the
proposal.
Traffic generation and related impact fees will be handled when building development is
proposed for the subject lots.
-7-
#SD-06-54
(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.
No wetland or wetland buffer impacts are proposed. However, the widening of the
roadway along Community Drive might create wetland impacts, but since they are not
shown, there is insufficient information to evaluate this criterion with respect to a
widened roadway.
(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 Mixed
Industrial/ Commercial Zoning District.
(17 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.
This criterion has already been addressed.
(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.
This criterion has already been addressed.
(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.
This criterion has already been addressed.
(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.
This criterion has already been addressed.
U) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
for the affected district(s).
See above comments for more detailed information.
#SD-06-54
Other
A portion of the property is located within the Airport Approach Cone. Therefore, the
property shall be subject to the regulations found in Section 13.03 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations.
Lots 8b and 8c will be undevelopable due to wetland and floodplain restrictions. The
applicant should record a "Notice of Condition" which clearly states that lots #8b and 8c
are undevelopable. If the applicant wishes to develop lot # 8C, he should submit a new
"Notice of Conditions."
There are numerous notes on the plans that should be removed and or/ revised. For
example, sheet PP3 contains a note that says `temporary.' It is unclear what is
temporary. Sheet PP4 contains notes that '24" and 30" storm drain not shown in profile."
This is not sufficient. The City Engineer and Director of Public Works have stated that
anything proposed shall be shown on the plans. Several sheets refer to an "Approved
Lot 4" or "Approved Lot 3." No such lots have been approved. These notes should be
removed from the plans.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 15.18(A)(10) of the Land Development Regulations requires that all
PUD's and subdivisions be consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. Section H(8)(a) of Chapter 12 of the City's Comprehensive
Plan recommends that curb cuts be limited along high volume arterial and
collector roadways during subdivision review. The applicant's proposal to
construct a new curb cut on Kimball Avenue (a collector roadway) opposite
Shunpike Road goes against this recommendation. Additionally, the sight
distance to the east of this proposed intersection "does not satisfy AASHTO
guidelines". The Board therefore concludes that the proposed intersection will
create unsafe conditions and would go against the recommendations of the City
Comprehensive Plan to limit curb cuts along high volume collector roadways.
2. Section 15.12(E)(2) of the Land Development Regulations requires that all public
roadways be built to the specifications in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1 unless
specifically authorized otherwise by the Development Review Board. The City
Engineer and the Director of Public Works do not recommend any waivers to
these requirements. The applicant's proposal for Community Drive, which does
not include an increase in pavement width to 32 feet, curbs or sidewalk, and for
Community Way, which does not include an increase in pavement width to 32
feet, is not in compliance with the roadway standards. The Board therefore
concludes that the requirements of Section 15.12(E)(2) of the Land Development
Regulations are not met.
3. Section 13.06(F)(3) of the Land Development Regulations requires that new
subdivisions include a street tree planting plan. The applicant has neither
submitted a street tree planting plan nor proposed street trees along Community
Drive. The Board therefore concludes that the requirements of Section
13.06(F)(3) of the Land Development Regulations are not met.
SIM
#SD-06-54
4. Section 15.12(D)(4) of the Land Development Regulations requires either a
roadway extension or connection to an adjacent property be completed to the
property line or a contribution to the cost of completing the roadway connection.
The applicant's proposal includes a proposed right-of-way from Community Drive
to the property to the west. The applicant is neither proposing to construct the
roadway connection nor proposing to contribute to the cost of completing the
roadway connection. The Board therefore concludes that the requirement of
Section 15.12(D)(4) of the Land Development Regulations is not met.
5. Section 15.18(A)(9) of the Land Development Regulations requires street lighting
to be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans. The
existing street lights are old, in disrepair and inadequate for this City street. The
Board therefore concludes that Section 15.18(A)(9) of the Land Development
Regulations has not been met.
DECISION
The South Burlington Development Review Board denies preliminary plat application
#SD-06-54 of Technology Park Associates, Inc., for a planned unit development to
subdivide a 177.2 acre parcel into 16 lots ranging in size from 3.98 acres to 29.46 acres,
Community Drive, based on the following reasons:
The proposed subdivision includes a proposed intersection on Kimball Avenue
which does not comply with the AASHTO guidelines because the new curb cut is
proposed with inadequate sight distance to the east resulting in unsafe
conditions. In addition, the proposed intersection would not be in compliance
with Section 15.18(A)(10) of the Land Development Regulations which requires
consistency with the goals and objectives of Section H(8)(a) of Chapter 12 of the
City's Comprehensive Plan limiting curb cuts along high volume collector
roadways.
2. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 15.12(E)(2) of the Land
Development Regulations which requires that public roadways serving the
proposed subdivision be built to the specifications in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1
which requires 32 feet of pavement width, curbs and sidewalks.
3. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 13.06(F)(3) of the Land
Development Regulations because a street tree planting plan for Community
Drive is required and none was provided.
4. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 15.12(D)(4) of the Land
Development Regulations because the applicant is neither proposing to construct
the roadway connection nor proposing to contribute to the coast of completing
the roadway construction to the property to the west.
-10-
#SD-06-54
5. The proposed subdivision does not comply with Section 15.(A)(9) of the Land
Development Regulations because the applicant is not proposing to replace the
outdated and inadequate street lights.
Motion by G X4 L7--- �4 t 0 b � , seconded by D&,�—� �- ��c--,/r ,
to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-06-54 of Technology Park Associates, Inc.
Mark Behr —yea/nay/abstain of presen
Matthew Birmingha(na
n /a s ain/not present
John Dinklage — yebstain/not present
Roger Farley — yeastain/not present
Eric Knudsen —yeabstain/not present
Peter Plumeau — yeabstain/not present
Gayle Quimby — yebstain/not present
Motion FAILED by a vote of 0 - �e - O
Signed this day of 2006, by
John Drfiklage, 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).
- 11 -