Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Minutes - Development Review Board - 04/19/2016
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES 19 APRIL 2016 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 19 April 2016, at 7:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Acting Chair; J. Smith, D. Parsons, J. Wilking, M. Cota, F. Kochman ALSO PRESENT: R. Belair, Administrative Officer; L. Britt, Planning Department; D. Marshall, T. Chittenden, D. Duell, T. Barden, B. Dousevicz, J. Illick, K. Darr, L. Vera (by phone), M. Mahoney, B. De La Bruere, J. Myers, D. Main, D. Woolridge, M. Janswold, P. Cross 1. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 2. Comments & Questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 3. Announcements: Mr. Miller welcomed new Board member Frank Kochman. 4. Conditional use application #CU-16-02 of Lynn Vera to construct a 267 sq. ft. deck to the rear of a nonconforming single family dwelling, 11 Pavilion Avenue: Ms. Vera, appearing by phone, said she wants to build a small deck, smaller than decks of her neighbors. Mr. Miller noted that Ms. Vera will be removing a portion of a paved driveway to deal with a coverage issue. Ms. Vera said this seems a shame as it cost a lot to put in. No other issues were raised. Mr. Wilking moved to close #CU-16-02. Ms. Smith seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 5. Conditional Use Application #CU-16-01 and Site Plan Review Application #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding two (2) 8’x 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue: Mr. Barden said there are 2 steel walk-in containers in locations near the bleachers and near the refreshment stand. They are used to store athletic equipment and are not connected to land. They have been there since last summer. Mr. Belair said the LDRs consider these to be “buildings” as they have sides, doors, etc. Mr. Miller said they are “unbelievably ugly.” Mr. Wilking noted that in Burlington people were given a time limit to get rid of them, and he would be in favor of a limited time span before they have to be gone. He added he would have a hard time voting for keeping them on a long-term basis. Mr. Belair said a time limit is possible if both parties agree. Mr. Barden said he didn’t know what the school’s plan is. He personally wouldn’t have an issue with a time limit, but Father Bernie is on vacation, and it might depend on the school’s plans. Mr. Miller said he was thinking of having them gone before the start of the September, 2017 school year. Mr. Wilking said that’s longer than he would give. Mr. Duell, a neighbor on Proctor Avenue, noted that Sr. Laura de la Santo will be the new Principal. He said the “buildings” are actually shipping containers and are already rusting. He felt they will soon sink into the soil and the doors won’t be able to be opened. Mr. Duell said there are other things going on at Rice that he knows don’t have permits. He cited huge amounts of landfill brought in to level the ground (he showed the location on a map) and there are 2 dugouts being built that residents have an issue with (he showed the location of these). He said it appears it’s easier to “ask for forgiveness than for permission,” and he felt Rice should be following the rules. Mr. Belair said Rice is in the process of putting together a plan. They will have to add the fill to the plan. Mr. Barden said all the work was done by volunteers, and they assumed someone else was taking care of the permits. He added they have been trying to locate a plan. Mr. Miller suggested someone from Rice come to the Board and discuss long-range plan for the containers. Mr. Wilking then moved to continue #CU-16-01 and #SP-16-11 until 17 May 2016. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-16-14 of G. E. Healthcare to amend a previously approved plan for a 233,133 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate three trees; 2) after-the-fact approval to remove 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two sediment ponds, and 3) expanding a parking area, 40 IDX Drive: Mr. Myers said they were continued for discussion about providing pedestrian pathways. They have now provided 2 boardwalks as well as some striped areas in the parking area. He indicated these on the parking plan. He also noted that the parking lot will be used mostly by people going to and from the northerly building (#200). People going to and from building #100 will mostly park in front of that building. Regarding handicapped spaces, they now meet the requirements, but they will be coming back with another plan for more. Mr. Wilking moved to close #SP-16-14. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-05 of Rye Associates, LLC, to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots 2-5 in to three lots, 2) replacing granite posts with boulders to demarcate the neighborhood park, 3) reviewing the site plan for a new 4,726 sq. ft. general office building, and 4) revising landscaping for the general office building on lot 1, 1075 Hinesburg Road: Mr. Marshall showed the location on the west side of Hinesburg Road, north of Fox Run Lane. He indicated the VC zoning district. They had originally proposed 5 commercial lots with 20,000 sq. ft. of building area; they are now looking to consolidate the 5 lots into 4. In addition, the applicant for lot #1 would like to modify the landscape plan. On lot 2, there will be an office building with shared parking. Mr. Marshall showed an open space area in the middle of the project. The last approval had granite posts to mark the open space area. They want to change these to boulders which were found on the site. Mr. Wilking said he was not in favor of the “loop road.” He understood it may be the lesser of 2 evils, but he didn’t like it. Mr. Kochman asked what would be the distance between curb cuts if they did away with the loop road. Mr. Marshall estimated 140 feet. Mr. Wilking felt this would make it much clearer to people as to how you get into the buildings. Mr. Kochman agreed. Mr. Marshall showed what it would look like with curb cuts instead of the loop road. The landscaping plan for lot #1 is being updated. This will include an area for snow storage. The cost value of the plantings is also being updated. Mr. Miller noted that $16,000.00 was approved, and they had reduced this to $14,000.00. Mr. Marshall said they still comply with the rules. Mr. Doucevicz added this will be a quality plan. Mr. Miller felt a 2’x2’ boulder is too small and won’t be as obvious a demarcation as a hedge or a man‐made object. Ms. Smith noted the granite posts were only to be 30 inches high, which is only 6 inches higher than the boulders. Mr. Doucevicz asked if larger boulders would be OK. The Board asked for a minimum of 3’x 3’. No other issues were raised. 8. Sketch plan application #SD-16-06 of 55 Community Drive, LLC, for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) resubdividing found lots (#8B, 9, 10 and 11) into two lots of 7.4 acres (lot #8B) and 47.1 acre (lot #9), 2) eliminating proposed City street Community Way, and 3) constructing a 182,000 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility, 45 Community Drive: Mr. Illick said the application is for Technology Park and is for a FedEx Ground Distribution Facility, which is a permitted use. The facility is currently in Williston and has outgrown its space there. Mr. Illick noted that a wetland delineation was done in 1995, and this has now changed, requiring them to move the building west to avoid a wetland area. The building will be 182,000 sq. ft. Mr. Illick showed the location of an office within the building that monitors incoming traffic. He also showed a stormwater detention pond and the employee parking lot outside of the “secure lane.” The building will be brick, unlike most of the FedEx buildings around the country. It will be one story, 31 feet high, and will be cut into the bank. The southwest corner of the building will be 8 feet below grade. Mr. Illick said they will provide a landscaped berm at the Interstate side. It will not interfere with the Interstate view of the mountains. Mr. Illick showed two locations for stormwater treatment before water is discharged into the stream. He indicated the location of Muddy Brook which will receive this water. Mr. Kochman asked why the building will have a flat roof. Mr. Illick said with a flat roof, the snow is internally drained when it melts. With a pitched roof, there is the issue of snow falling from the roof around the building. Mr. Illick showed the location of the existing recreation path along the Interstate. It is a private path but they are delighted to have the public use it. At Community Drive, the building is at grade. Mr. Illick showed an area for a mini park which will have benches, landscaping and would look like a city park. They are providing 308 parking spaces. They would prefer 360. This is a 3-shift operation with some overlap of employees. FedEx hasn’t yet signed off on the parking spaces. Mr. Illick stressed they are trying to meet the needs of the business without having more parking than they need. Mr. Belair said the requirement is for 91 spaces. Mr. Illick noted the former Digital building has 1000 spaces and is usually pretty full. This plan proposes less than a third of that. Mr. Wilking said he believes you should build the parking for what you need, as long as your lot coverage is OK. Not have enough parking causes more problems. Mr. Illick said that historically they don’t provide all the parking users ask for; FedEx is asking for 360 or 390; he felt they can manage this. With regard to the location of parking, Mr. Illick showed an arc line that staff says is the front of the building. This means some parking they are indicating is in front. Mr. Illick said he believes they meet the criteria for a waiver, but there is also a potential modification of the LDRs that would allow up to 25% of parking in the front yard. What they now show in the front yard is under 25%. He would like to proceed with that design. Mr. Kochman asked if parking is visible from Community Drive. Mr. Illick said it is not invisible, but there are berms of various heights, and the parking is in no way offensive. It would be handsomely landscaped. He then showed some building renderings including a view from a location on the Interstate where you cannot see the building. Mr. Wilking asked if there is a possibility of using parking at 30 Community Drive at busy times. A representative of FedEx said they won’t agree to that. Mr. Miller asked about growth projections. Mr. Illick said they estimate 10 years. Mr. Miller asked about the interval for light fixtures. Mr. Illick said they just replaced all parking lot lights with LEDs. The old standards don’t apply to LEDs; 0 to2 feet candles is the acceptable standard. The height is similar to all others in Tech Park. Mr. Miller asked about street trees. Mr. Illick said their landscaping exceeds the requirements. They will be pleased to work with the City Arborist. Mr. Illick said they are in the initial stages of a wetland permit. They have done the delineation which has to be confirmed before they can get the permit. Mr. Miller asked about interacting with the Bike/Pedestrian Committee. Mr. Illick said they have a very good relationship with the Committee. He stressed he would like the internal paths not to be “public paths,” and they will continue to allow public use of them. Mr. Wilking said his bigger concern is traffic. Mr. Illick said he would meet with the Bike/Ped Committee. He added that he would be dismayed if the Board wants the path to be public. They are only moving it to accommodate landscaping; they won’t do the landscaping if the path has to be public. Mr. Belair said that decision is up to the Board. Regarding traffic, a FedEx representative said this facility would be served by a hub in Connecticut. He showed where packages would arrive and be placed on conveyors and then loaded on trucks for delivery. Mr. Wilking said he want to see the impact on Kimball Avenue. Mr. Illick said they are updating the traffic study and will pay for a third party review of that study. He noted that FedEx insists that traffic projections be out 10 years. Mr. Belair offered to Mr. Illick that he could choose to have the sketch plan continued. This would allow the Board to provide him guidance, based on a full staff review, of the plan as staff has not had a chance to review it and highlight any major issues. He was then asked if he would be willing to take the risk of not having the Board’s feedback on a full staff review. Mr. Illick indicated to the Board that he understood the risk and was willing to proceed without further review of the sketch plan. There was no public comment. Mr. Kochman moved to invoke technical review of the traffic study. Mr. Wilking seconded. Motion passed 6-0. 9. Minutes of 5 April 2016: No minutes were acted upon. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 9:20 p.m. , Clerk 05/17/2016 , Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. #CU-16-02 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING LYNN VERA—11 PAVILION AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-02 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-02 of Lynn Vera to construct a 267 sq. ft. deck to the rear of a nonconforming single family dwelling, 11 Pavilion Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 19, 2016. The applicant represented herself. Based on the plans and 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, Lynn Vera, seeks conditional use approval to construct a 267 sq. ft. deck to the rear of a nonconforming single family dwelling, 11 Pavilion Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Lynn Vera. 3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District. 4. The application was received on March 14, 2016. 5. The plan submitted consists of a single color page drawing prepared by the applicant. 6. This project is subject to review under the Land Development Regulations covering the Queen City Park zoning district (which itself also requires review under Section 3.11, nonconformities) and Section 14.10 conditional uses. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: QCP Zoning District Required Existing Proposed † Min. Lot Size 7500 S.F. 5,663 SF No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 28.1 % (1,590 SF) No change Max. Overall Coverage 50% 49.7 % (2,814 SF) 50 % (2,831 SF) Min. Front Setback 10 ft. 11 ft. No change Min. Side Setback 5 ft. 6 ft. and unknown No change Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. ~30 ft. No change Max. Building Height 25 ft. 22 ft. No change Zoning compliance † Pre-existing non-conforming #CU-16-02 2 4.08 QUEEN CITY PARK DISTRICT QCP F. Nonconforming Structures. Structures in the Queen City Park District shall be subject to the provisions of Article 3, Section 3.11, nonconformities, and to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Any nonconforming structure may be altered provided such work does not: (a) Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent (35%) for residential properties and twenty-five percent (25%) for nonresidential properties of the fair market value as determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the Administrative Officer; or (b) Involve an increase to the structure's height or footprint, or otherwise involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. (2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's height, footprint or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. (3) The Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed alteration or expansion will not adversely affect: (a) Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed deck will be on the rear of the house. The parcel to the south of the applicant’s property is buffered from the deck by an existing portion of the applicant’s house. The parcel to the north is buffered from the deck by the existing garage on the applicant’s property. There is a stand of trees between the applicant’s property and the property to the west, Red Rocks Park. The Board finds this criterion met. (b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and Since the proposed deck is near ground-level and abutting properties are buffered from its view, the Board finds this criterion met. (c) Adequate on-site parking. A portion of the paved driveway will be removed to prevent the overall coverage permitted at this property from being exceeded. The Board finds this criterion met. G. Additional Standards. (1) Development, construction, and alterations within the QCP District within one hundred (100) linear feet of the center line of Potash Brook shall be subject to the requirements of the Potash Brook Overlay District. (2) Multi-family dwellings shall be subject to site plan review, as per Article 14, and shall be #CU-16-02 3 limited to a maximum of four (4) dwelling units per structure. The distance of this lot to Potash Brook is over 600 feet and this is not a multi-family dwelling. Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. (b) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that the deck constructed will adversely affect any of the above criterion. (d) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The proposed deck represents an increase in overall building coverage and lot coverage, but is within the permitted limits. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed deck will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. Other Maximum building coverage permitted is 40% and maximum lot coverage is 50%. A portion of the paved driveway will be removed to prevent the overall coverage permitted at this property from being exceeded and will result, after the proposed deck is built, in an overall coverage of 49.7%. DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by _____________, to approve conditional use application #CU- 16-02 of Lynn Vera subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within twelve (12) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. #CU-16-02 4 Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. 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. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM DATE: April 15, 2016 TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: #SP-16-11 & #CU-16-01 Rice Memorial High School April 19, 2016 DRB Meeting. Conditional use application #CU-16-01 & site plan review application #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding two (2) 8’ X 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue. Staff has prepared a draft decision for the Board’s consideration. However, as always, this draft decision is just that and the Board should feel free to make any changes to the draft decision. #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING RICE MEMORIAL HIGH SCHOOL—99 PROCTOR AVENUE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-16-01 SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Conditional use application #CU-16-01 & site plan review application #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School for after-the-fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility. The amendment consists of adding two (2) 8’ X 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 19, 2016. The applicant was represented by Tom Barden. Based on the plans and 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, Rice Memorial High School, seeks after-the-fact conditional use and site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 126,875 sq. ft. educational facility by adding two (2) 8’ X 20’ detached accessory buildings, 99 Proctor Avenue. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Inc. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 4. The applications were received on January 21, 2016. 5. The plan submitted consists of one page titled “Rice Memorial H.S. South Burlington, Vermont” updated January 18, 2016 and received January 21, 2016 ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS R4 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 1,553,370 SF No change Max. Building Coverage 30% 4.6% (71,470 SF) 4.6% (71,790 SF) Max. Overall Coverage 60% 12.7% (197,196 SF) 12.7% (197,516 SF) *Min. Front Setback Not allowed N/A N/A *Min. Side Setback 5 ft. Unknown Approx. 10 ft. *Min. Rear Setback 5 ft. Unknown 250 ft. *Max. Building Height 15 ft. N/A 8 ft. In compliance *Standards for accessory structures ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND USES #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 2 3.10 Accessory Structures and Uses A. General Requirements. Customary accessory structures and uses are allowed in all districts, as specifically regulated in that district, under the provisions that follow below. (1) On lots of less than one (1) acre in size, no more than two (2) accessory structures, including a detached private garage, shall be permitted per principal structure. On lots used primarily for agricultural uses and lots that are one (1) acre or greater in size, more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted provided all applicable limitations on coverage and setbacks in these Regulations are met. The site is greater than one (1) acre in size and all applicable limitations on coverage are currently being met. (2) Accessory structures, if detached from a principal structure, shall not be placed in the front yard, and they shall not, if placed in a side yard, be located closer to the street than the required front setback of the principal structure. (3) Accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five (5) feet from all side and rear lot lines. The Board finds that the above criterion have been met. (4) … (5) … (6) … (7) Accessory structures shall comply with front setback requirements for the principal structure to which they are accessory. The Board finds that the above criterion has been met. (8) … (9) The total square footage of all accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the first or ground floor of the principal structures, with the exception of in- ground pools, tennis courts, and other similar structures at grade level, which shall not be counted towards the maximum square footage of accessory structures. (10) The footprint of the accessory structure(s) shall be included in the computation of lot coverage, except for ramps and other structures for use by the disabled, which in the sole discretion of the Administrative Officer are consistent with the purpose of providing such access and do not constitute a de facto expansion of decks, porches, etc. The Board finds the above criterion have been met. CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 3 Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. There is no reason to believe that the detached accessory structures (described by applicant as “storage boxes”) will adversely affect any of the above criterion. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. The property is in compliance with the bylaws in effect, or is existing nonconforming. The proposed detached accessory buildings represent an increase in overall building coverage and lot coverage, but this change is within the permitted limits. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed detached accessory structures will not affect the use of renewable energy resources. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. No changes to pedestrian movement are proposed and the proposed detached accessory structures are next to outbuildings of similar size. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. No changes are proposed that would impact any of the above criterion. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. There is extensive vegetation and trees along the east side of the parcel screening the detached accessory buildings from neighboring parcels. #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 4 (f) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed detached accessory structures are next to outbuildings of similar size, which all relate to the use of that portion of the property for athletics. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. (b) Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements No changes are proposed that would impact any of the above criterion DECISION Motion by _____________, seconded by _____________, to approve conditional use application #CU- 16-01 and #SP-16-11 of Rice Memorial High School subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not changed by this decision, will remain in full effect. 2. This project must be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The applicant must obtain a zoning permit within twelve (12) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 4. The applicant must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of the structures. 5. Any change to the approved plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Matt Cota Yea Nay Abstain Not Present #CU-16-01 & #SP-16-11 5 Bill Miller Yea Nay Abstain Not Present David Parsons Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Jennifer Smith Yea Nay Abstain Not Present John Wilking Yea Nay Abstain Not Present Motion carried by a vote of X– 0 – 0. Signed this ____ day of __________________ 2016, by _____________________________________ Bill Miller, Vice-Chair Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address. 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. Box #1 - Close to thesoccer field scoreboard -See the enlarged aerialview - "Box #1-BesideSoccer Scoreboard"Box #2 - Close to thebleachers - See theenlarged aerial view"Box#2-Beside TheBleachers" 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer SUBJECT: SP-16-14 40 IDX Drive—GE Healthcare DATE: April 19, 2016 Development Review Board meeting Site plan application #SP-16-14 of G.E. Healthcare to amend a previously approved plan for a 233,133 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate three (3) trees, 2) after-the-fact approval to remove 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, and 3) expanding a parking area, 40 IDX Drive. Following the April 5, 2016 meeting the applicant responded to each staff comment that was presented at that meeting and provided additional information to the Stormwater Section. Staff considers all previous concerns, including those related to stormwater, to be resolved except for the following: 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the pedestrian pathways through the new parking lot will adequately prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians in compliance with Section 13.01(G) of the LDRs. During the April 5, 2016 DRB meeting the Board discussed the use of pedestrian pathways through the parking lot and sidewalks around the lot, but did not suggest a preference for one or the other to the applicant. The South Burlington City Arborist provided the following comments in an email to staff dated April 11, 2016: The landscape plan looks good overall. My only suggestion would be to reduce the number of Honeylocust or substitute a different species because Honeylocust is used fairly heavily in other areas of the site. Craig Lambert South Burlington City Arborist 2. Staff recommends the Board support the comments provided by the City Arborist. The staff comments from the last meeting are in the packet for the April 5, 2016 meeting should you wish to refresh your memory regarding the issues. 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP_16_14_40IDXDrive_GEHealthcare_parking_April_5_2016 _mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 1, 2016 Plans received: March 4, 2016 40 IDX Drive SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-16-14 Meeting date: April 5, 2016 Owner IDX Systems Corporation PO Box 4900 Department 201 Scotsdale, AZ 85264 Applicant GE Healthcare 40 IDX Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. 55 Green Mountain Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0915-00040 Commercial 2 Zoning District Location 2 Project Description Site plan application #SP-16-14 of G.E. Healthcare to amend a previously approved plan for a 233,133 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) after-the-fact approval to relocate three (3) trees, 2) after-the-fact approval to remove 240 cubic yards of sediment collected in two (2) sediment ponds, and 3) expanding a parking area, 40 IDX Drive. Comments Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, herein referred to as Staff, have reviewed the submitted plans and have the following comments to offer. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 713,985 sq. ft. No change Max. Building Coverage 40% 11.49% No change Max. Overall Coverage 70% 51.6 % 53.6% Max. Front Yard Coverage (Shelburne Rd.) 30% ? ? Max. Front Yard Coverage (IDX Dr.) 30% ? ? Max. Front Yard Coverage (Green Mountain Dr.) 30% ? ? Min. Front Setback (Shelburne Rd.) 30 ft. ? ? Min. Front Setback (IDX Dr.) 30 ft. ? ? Min. Front Setback (Green Mountain Dr.) 30 ft. ? ? Min. Side Setback 10 ft. ? ? Max. Building Height (pitched) 40 ft. 40 ft. No change Zoning Compliance Site Plan Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The expansion of parking at 40 IDX Drive is the result of the office space within the existing buildings being used at greater intensity than in recent years. This efficient use of already existing office space within the Commercial 2 zoning district supports the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by prioritizing development into the higher intensity areas identified within the Plan. Furthermore, Comprehensive Plan Map 11: Future Land Use identifies areas of the city where differing intensity levels of development should occur and 40 IDX Drive is within an area marked as medium-higher intensity. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. 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. 3 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area are required for general office use, which results in this site requiring 816 parking spaces ((233,133 sq. ft. /1,000 sq. ft.) x 3.5=815.9655 rounded up to the nearest whole number). Currently there are 727 parking spaces. The additional proposed parking will result in a total of 851 parking spaces. On the west side of the parking lot there will be two walkways each with stairs on both ends which will connect the new parking area to an existing lot. 2) 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) … (ii) … (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); (v) … (vi) … (c) … (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… This parcel is bound on three sides by public roads. The parking spaces being added will be located in the southeast corner of the lot which is closest to Green Mountain Drive and the side lot line which borders 40 Green Mountain Drive. While this parking area will occur between a public street and a building, that street—Green Mountain Drive—has a lower traffic volume than Shelburne Road, which this parcel also lies along. Staff finds this parking area meets the criterion listed above to be permitted by the Development Review Board. According to Section 13.01(G) there are certain design requirements for parking lots: 1) Design requirements for off-street parking and loading are provided in Table 13-8 and Figure 13-1 within Section 13.01, Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 13.06, Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, and Section 13.07, Exterior Lighting. All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited. The plans show that all parking spaces will be delimited by four inch white lines and that parking spaces will be 18 feet deep by nine feet wide (curb length). There are three circulation aisles running north/south. One of those is 24 feet wide while the other two are 23.5 feet wide. An aisle that serves two rows of parking that occur at a 90 degree angle is required to be 24 feet wide. 4 1. Staff recommends the Board request the width of the aisles be made conforming to the standard of 24 feet. 2) The location of parking areas and loading docks shall prevent conflicts with entering and exiting traffic onto a public street and prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. The distance between access points and parking areas shall be adequate to minimize blockage and prevent back-ups onto the public street. 3) … 4) … 5) Bicycle parking or storage facility. At least one (1) bicycle parking or storage facility shall be provided for all uses subject to site plan or Planned Unit Development review to serve persons employed or residing on the premises as well as the visiting public. Additional such facilities may be required as deemed necessary by the Development Review Board or as required within the City Center FBC District. The proposed parking area has 127 parking spaces arranged around the outer perimeter and down center aisles. From some areas of the lot a person could travel over 170 feet from their car before arriving at one of the connecting walkways to the next parking lot. 2. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the provision of walkways around the outside perimeter of the lot would help to prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. There are no bicycle parking or storage areas noted on the plans. According to the applicant the site will be serving an additional 400 office employees in the near future. Staff finds this change in the number of people using the site on a regular basis to be relevant when considering the importance and necessity of providing onsite bicycle parking/storage. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the provision of bicycle parking or storage onsite. 6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area. See the discussion below under Landscaping and Screening Requirements and staff recommendations #7 and #8. Handicap accessible spaces and aisles are to be provided for all non-residential uses. Handicap accessible spaces and access aisles are not shown on the plan for the proposed parking area. 4. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant update their plans to show the necessary handicap accessible parking spaces and aisles, which are outlined in Section 13.01(I) of the Land Development Regulations. C. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area 1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g. rhythm, color, texture, form or 5 detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. No new buildings are proposed on the site. There is a large stand of trees along Green Mountain Drive which buffer the site from that road and additional trees are proposed on the borders of the parking area. It is unclear from the plans whether any of the existing trees on Green Mountain Drive will be removed. Parking appears to be shown within the tree line in Drawing No. C-104 of the site plan. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether any existing trees will be removed to make space for the new parking area and if this will impact the buffering and screening provided by the existing trees. Specific Review Standards A. Access to abutting properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. No reservation of land is necessary. B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The plan indicates utilities will be underground. Staff considers this criterion to be met. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. No new dumpsters, recycling, or composting areas are proposed. D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Seventeen deciduous trees are shown planted around the edge of the new parking area, which is delineated by curbing. The City Arborist provided the following comments on March 28, 2016: Tree species and size need to be specified in the plan Tree planting details and specifications need to be included in the plan 6. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant update the site plan with a planting schedule, a budget, and the location of plantings, particularly trees in relation to the Landscaping and Screening Requirements, which reads in part: 6 At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart. Section 13.06(B)(1) requires 10% of the interior of a parking lot with 28 or more contiguous parking spaces to have landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs, and other plants. There are over 28 contiguous parking spaces and islands are shown; however, no landscaping is shown and it is not clear whether the islands account for 10% of the parking lot area. Section 13.01(G)(6) mentioned earlier in these comments states that “stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces are encouraged in the design of any off-street parking or loading area.” 7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their plans for providing landscaped islands within the parking lot that meet the 10% requirement. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether their plans for the landscaped islands will include the preferred stormwater management strategies outlined above, including infiltration and recessed planting islands. E. Modification of Standards No modifications have been requested. Exterior Lighting Section 13.07 of the Land Development Regulations discusses exterior lighting and states that: A. General Requirements. All exterior lighting for all uses in all districts except for one-family and two-family uses shall be of such a type and location and shall have such shielding as will direct the light downward and will prevent the source of light from being visible from any adjacent residential property or street. Light fixtures that are generally acceptable are illustrated in Appendix D. “Source of light” shall be deemed to include any transparent or translucent lighting that is an integral part of the lighting fixture(s). Site illumination for uncovered areas shall be evenly distributed. Where feasible, energy efficient lighting is encouraged. B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: 1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. 2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. 7 3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. 4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. 5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. 6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher than the roof of the structure. The applicant has submitted information about the light fixtures to be used which shows they are shielded to cast light downward, will not be cast light onto adjacent properties, use LED bulbs, and are approved by the International Dark Sky Association. Along the north-south axis the light fixtures are 70 to 80 feet apart from one another, which is less than four times the mounting height (25 ft.). Staff finds this arrangement to be sensible given the size of the parking area. The specifications for the light fixtures show a polyester powder coating that is intended to be durable. 7) Safe pole locations: Breakaway poles shall not be used in parking lots. Poles shall not be erected along the outside of roadway and ramp curves or where vehicles must make sharp turns. Poles should not be located where they might be susceptible to collision strikes. Poles located behind longitudinal traffic barriers should be offset sufficiently to allow for barrier deflection under impact. 8) Pole location in parking lots: Pole locations shall be coordinated with stall and aisle layouts. Where practical, poles should be near the end of parking rows or around the perimeter of the lot. When located at parking stall boundaries, light poles should be mounted on concrete pedestals. Where raised medians or islands are used to separate adjacent stalls, light poles should be placed in these areas unless pedestrian traffic will be inconvenienced. Where light poles are placed between parking rows in the interior of the lot, the poles should be located on the center line of double rows of parking stalls and on the center line of two opposing stalls and should not be placed on the stall line between cars where fender damage might occur. Staff finds these criteria to be met. Stormwater Management Standards The plans were reviewed using the Stormwater Management Standards found in Section 12.03 of the LDRs. The following comments were provided by the Stormwater Section of the Department of Public Works via email on March 29, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “GE Healthcare” site plan prepared by Stantec, dated 2/3/16. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. The proposed project is located in the North Brook watershed and includes the redevelopment of 0.5 acres of impervious surface. 8 2. The property is covered under an existing State Stormwater permit (3347-9010.R). This permit requests that the permittee notify the Department of any planned development or facility expansions or changes that may result in new or increased stormwater discharges. The applicant should confirm that changes on this site are allowed under the terms and conditions of the existing permit. 3. As the site includes more than 0.5 acres of impervious surface, the applicant will need to meet the requirements of §12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations, as approved by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2015. These requirements include, but are not limited to, infiltration of the WQv on site using Low Impact Development (LID) practices and incorporation of LID practices necessary to achieve the maximum allowed post-construction peak runoff rate for the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1 inch) rain event. 4. Please submit modeling results that show the existing and post-development hydrographs for the WQv (0.9-inch) and the one-year, twenty-four hour (2.1-inch) rain event, along with drainage area delineations for all stromwater treatment practices. 5. Please provide a written description of the proposed stormwater treatment and management techniques, a detailed maintenance plan, as well as the results of any soil borings, infiltration testing, or soil compaction testing conducted on the site. 6. In order to confirm compliance with section 12.03.E(3) the applicant is requested to submit modeling for the 25 year storm event to confirm that downstream drainage infrastructure has adequate capacity to convey discharge from the lot during the 25 year storm event. Regards, Dave David P. Wheeler Assistant Stormwater Superintendent 9. Staff recommends the Board support the comments provided by the Stormwater Section and ask the applicant to provide the information requested. The applicant provided the following email dated November 10, 2015 from Jenna Calvi, Stormwater District Manager in the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Watershed Management Division, Stormwater Program: Hi Kaytee, This one is actually easier than I expected. As long as they are building the lot exactly to the original plans, and the permit does not need to be changed or renewed at this time, they do not need to meet the phosphorous procedure. If anything is changing requiring a change to the permit, they would need to meet it. If you have additional questions let me know. --Jenna The contents of the above email from Jenna Calvi were forwarded to David Wheeler, Assistant Stormwater Superintendent, who sent a reply on March 30, 2016: 9 The email provided answers my question in comment 2, but it has no bearing on my other previous comments. Thanks, Dave Traffic Generation Expanding the parking lot does not generate additional traffic. Alteration of Existing Grade A permit is needed to remove land when the amount is equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. When the grade is being altered site plans must show the area to be filled or removed and the existing grade and the proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted the document “Pre & Post Excavation Pond Bottom Elevations” that was part of a previous application, #MS-14-11, for the same type of sediment removal on the site. #MS-14-11 has since expired due to the applicant not obtaining a Zoning Permit within six months. Staff finds this criterion to be met. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_05_1075HinesburgRoad_RyeAssociates_sketch_Apr il19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 15, 2016 Application received: February 24, 2016 1075 Hinesburg Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-05 Meeting Date: April 19, 2016 Owner/Applicant Rye Associates, LLC c/o Dousevicz Construction 21 Carmichael Street, Suite 201 Essex, VT 05452 Contact Brad Dousevicz Dousevicz Construction 21 Carmichael Street, Suite 201 Essex, VT 05452 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 0860-01075 SEQ-NR and SEQ-VC Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_05_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-16-05 of Rye Associates, LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4-unit multi-family dwellings, and a 5,100 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of: 1) resubdividing lots 2 – 5 into three (3) lots, 2) replacing granite posts with boulders to demarcate the neighborhood park, 3) reviewing the site plan of a new 4,726 sq. ft. general office building, and 4) revising landscaping for the general office building on lot 1, 1075 Hinesburg Road. Comments Administrative Officer Ray Belair and Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt have reviewed the plans submitted on February 24, 2016 and offer the following comments. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements The SEQ-VC Zoning District table below represents an analysis of the requirements as applied to Lot 2 (location of the new general office building) only. SEQ-VC Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 24,859 SF* Max. Building Height 50 ft. 28 ft Max. Building Coverage 15% 20.5%* Max. Overall Coverage 30% 53.49%* Min. Front Setback (Rye Circle) 20 ft. >20 ft Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road) 50 ft. + 7 ft. 57 ft Min. Side Setback 20 ft. >20 ft Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A Zoning compliance * Waiver approved in preliminary plat application #SD-13-22 and final plat application #SD-14-15. SEQ-NR Zoning District Required Proposed Note: No dimensional changes from previously approved final plat application #SD-14-15. Planned Unit Development Standards A. Lot Configuration In final plat application #SD-14-15 thirty lots were permitted, including Lot 2 through Lot 5 on the commercially zoned portion of the property (SEQ-VC), with the use of 31 Transfer of Development Rights. Lots 2-5 are proposed to be reduced to three lots (Lots 2-4). CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_05_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 Lot # Previously Approved Proposed Change in Size 2 0.43 acres 0.57 acres 0.14 acres 3 0.60 acres 0.58 acres -0.02 acres 4 0.42 acres 0.97 acres 0.55 acres 5 0.67 acres Eliminated Eliminated The only lot which is decreasing in size is Lot 3, which is losing 0.02 acres. This represents a 3.3% decrease in the size of the lot from what was previously approved. It should be noted that in preliminary plat application #SD-13-22 and final plat application #SD-14-15 Lots 1-2 and Lot 4-5 were granted waivers to permit 54% lot coverage and 21% building coverage and Lot 3 was granted a waiver to permit 63% lot coverage and 26% building coverage. 1. Staff recommends the Board approve the suggested lot reconfiguration as being within the density and coverage limits previously envisioned by the Board. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking The proposed building on commercial Lot 2 will be accessed through an existing permitted curb cut and parking area associated with commercial Lot 1, on which a building is currently being constructed. The Lot 1 parking area will be reconfigured to allow for the driveway to continue onto Lot 2 and serve a new parking area on the south side of that lot. Since Lot 1 and Lot 2 will be connected the applicant has opted to eliminate a curb cut previously permitted by the DRB onto Rye Circle from Lot 2, which will allow the addition of on- street parking spaces. Section 9.10(D)(4) requires three off-street parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of non-residential use and the DRB may allow on-street parking within 500 lineal feet to count towards the requirement. The applicant has provided the following table to explain their parking allotments for commercial Lots 1-3: Lot Bldg. SF (one story) Req’d Parking Off-site Parking Immediate On- Street Parking Total Available Parking Individual Lot Review 1 5,100 15 13 10 23 2 4,726 14 16 10 26 3 6 Reserved for Lot 3 Consolidated Review 1 & 2 9,826 29 29 20 49 6 Reserved for Lot 3 Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations require one major deciduous shade tree located within or near the parking perimeter for every five parking spaces and trees must have a caliper of 2 ½ inches or more. The plans appear to indicate an inadequate number of deciduous shade trees associated with the new parking at the north side of Lot 2 where a commercial building is being proposed and trees are shown as two (2) inch caliper. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_05_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the plan shows the required number of deciduous shade trees. 3. Staff recommends the Board require the caliper of the proposed trees to meet the regulation standard. C. Wetlands Impact There are no changes to wetlands impacts from the previously permitted final plat application #SD-14-15. D. Parks and Open Space Planning According to Section 13.06(B)(6) of the LDRs, plans are required to show where snow will be stored. Those locations are not shown on the submitted plans. Section 13.06(G) requires a planting budget to be submitted with plans, which has not been done. Applicant has indicated the value for the building on Lot 1 has been reduced from initial estimates to $666,979. This results in a landscaping budget requirement of $14,170. Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Remainder over $500,000 ($166,979) 1% $1,670 Total: $14,170 4. Staff recommends the Board request the plans be amended to show where snow will be stored on site. 5. Staff recommends the Board request a Landscape Plan from the applicant that complies with Section 13.06(G) of the LDRs. The applicant has requested to amend the previously approved plan to allow for the use of boulders (approximately 24” x 24”) instead of granite posts (6”-10” in diameter, 30” tall) to demarcate the perimeter of the neighborhood park. Staff considers that the previously approved granite posts will provide an aesthetically pleasing and clear demarcation to the border between private backyards and the park area. Staff is concerned the use of boulders that are 24” x 24” will not sufficiently mark the line between public and private space. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the proposed boulders will sufficiently demarcate the line between public and private space. E. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.10 (D) Design Standards for Non-Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub-District CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_05_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 1. Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal public street on which the building has a façade. Primary building entries must be oriented to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas. 2. Building Facades a. Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest. b. Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30’) in length at the street level. c. Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment. d. All buildings should have a well-defined ‘base’ with richer detail in the pedestrian’s immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings, fenestration patterns) and a recognizable ‘top’ consisting of elements such as cornice treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets. e. Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged. f. Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ “four-sided” design principles intended to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly-used vantage point. The Board has previously indicated that buildings should be oriented toward Rye Circle. Staff considers that the proposed building for commercial Lot 2 complies with the design standards above, for the following reasons. Windows are numerous and no “blank walls” are shown. The building includes doors facing to the south, west (Rye Circle), and north. The building’s roofs comply with the standards. The building employs a “four-sided” design principle and incorporates varied architectural features throughout. F. Stormwater Comments Waiting for comments G. Fire In an email to Staff dated April 11, 2016 Deputy Chief Francis of the South Burlington Fire Department provided the following comments: Regarding changes for 32-34 Rye Circle lots. The applicant needs to show that a WB-40 template can make the turns from 32 to the access lane to 34, and from the access lane into lot 34. The access lane shall be a minimum of 20’ width with not parking allowed along the lane (with signage required) DC Terence Francis, CFI Fire Marshal CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_05_1075HinesburgRd_RyeAssociates_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 6 South Burlington Fire Department 7. Staff recommends the Board support the comments provided by the Fire Department and ask the applicant to provide the information requested. H. Energy Standards 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. I. Other The plans should be updated to correct the E-911 street numbers on Rye Circle. Currently plans show even numbers on both sides of the street. 8. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant coordinate with Department of Planning and Zoning staff to correct E-911 numbering. RECOMMENDATION The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 1" = 40'11202BLA 1FEB. 24, 20161075 Hinesburg Rd.South Burlington, VermontBoundary LineAdjustmentofCommercial Lots 2 - 5- Location Map -Not to ScaleFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.TRCTRCRG/ACERECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF__________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKTo the best of my knowledge and belief this plat,consisting of two sheets, depicts the results of asurvey conducted by me as described in "SurveyNotes" above, based upon our analysis of landrecords and evidence found in the field. Existingboundaries shown are in substantialconformance with the records, except as noted.This plat is in substantial compliance with 27 VSA1403, "Recording of Land Plats". This statementvalid only when accompanied by my originalsignature and seal below. __________________________________________ Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT,ON THE _____ DAY OF ________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF _________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON- Legend -- Survey Notes -4. Iron pipes shown as "found" are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods withoutside diameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods and markersfound are "Good" unless otherwise noted. Corners denoted "Proposed" shalltypically consist of58" diameter X 40" long rebar or by 4" square concrete markers,either type capped with aluminum disks stamped "Civil Engineering Assocs. - VTLS 597", and typically set flush with existing grade.5. Land areas (acreages) shown are calculated to the sidelines of existing orproposed streets as shown.- Reference Plat -A. "Subdivision Plat - Rye Meadows P.U.D."last revised 11/19/2014 by Civil EngineeringAssociates, Inc. Recorded, South BurlingtonLand Records.PROPOSED 10' wide sewer (force main) easement across Commercial Lot 4-5 to serve the Rye Homeowners Association (HOA).PROPOSED 10' wide easement, located along the street R.O.W. across Commercial Lots1 - 5, to serve Green Mountain Power Corp.PROPOSED 10' wide drainage easement crossing Lot 8.COMMERCIAL LOTS 1 - 5MAY be subject to inter-connective reciprocal access easements. Locations to be determined upon individual site plan approvals.EXISTING Easement (10' x 408.5'± ) serving Green Mtn. Power and Adelphia Cable Co., dated December 13, 1994. Volume 371 Page 650.[ SHADED ]PROPOSED drainage easement crossing Lots 1,2,3 and Lot 4-5 to detention basin on Lot 4-5.- Easement Notes -317Proposed Street shown as "Rye Circle". Variable width (from 55' to 61' wide). Land area: 2.25 acres.- Proposed Dedication -108RYE MEADOWP.U.D.1. Purpose of this survey and plat is to depict the adjustment of the boundaries ofCommercial Lots 2, 3, and 4 and to combine the resulting Lot 4 with Lot 5.2. Other (neighboring) property lines and buildings shown may be approximateonly, and are shown for informational purposes only.3. Field survey was conducted during 2012 and consisted of a closed-loop traverseutilizing an electronic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North,Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations on oradjacent to the site.1213P:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202 BLA 2-2016 Commercial Lots.dwg, 2/24/2016 11:31:06 AM, aloiselle SEQ-VCDISTRICT200'CURRENT VCDISTRICTLINEI &I &XXXXRYE CIRCLELANDON RD.HINESBURG RD.34 RYE CIRCLELOT 232 RYE CIRCLELOT 1EXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGSIDEWALKEXISTINGPAVEMENTPROPOSEDCONC. CURBPROPOSEDPAVEMENTPROPOSEDBUILDINGPROPOSED 5' WIDECONC. SIDEWALK W/CURBSETBACKLINE (TYP.)EXISTING LIGHT POLE TOBE RELOCATED (SEELIGHTING PLAN)(3) EXISTINGPARKING SPACESTO BE REMOVED)EXISTING CURBTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING ON-STREETPARKINGPROPOSED ON-STREETPARKING88 RYE CIRCLELOT 390 RYE CIRCLELOT 4PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED STUBFOR FUTURECONNECTIONPROPOSEDBIKE RACK6' WIDECONC.SIDEWALK2' WIDECURB CUT2' WIDECURB CUTPROPOSEDLIGHT POLEPROPOSED DUMPSTERON CONC. PADDSMDSMSAL1" = 30'11202C1.0FEB., 2016LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'PROPOSEDOVERALL SITEPLANACEPROGRESS PLANS2/22/16RYEMEADOWASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.MEADOWLAND DR.RYEMEADOWCOMMERCIALDEVELOPMENT116891. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATEDUPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALLDISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED ORABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THEPROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS ADIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE ANDOPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALSINCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOPDRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS ANDANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE0.1 FEET.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDEREDAS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWNAUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES INACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT ANAPPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ONTHE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAP INFORMATION.THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE.17. IF THE BUILDING IS TO BE SPRINKLERED, BACKFLOW PREVENTION SHALL BE PROVIDED INACCORDANCE WITH AWWA M14. THE SITE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT THE WATER LINE TOTWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. SEE MECHANICAL PLANS FOR RISER DETAIL.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICESINDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FORCOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILEWHERE APPLICABLE.20. THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY AND ALL SAFETY FENCES ORRAILS ABOVE EXISTING AND PROPOSED WALLS. THE OWNER SHALL VERIFY LOCAL, STATE ANDINSURANCE REQUIREMENT GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION AND VERIFY ANY AND ALLPERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.GENERAL NOTESLEGENDFMEGSTSTW100EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERFMGSTSTWPROPOSED CONTOUR100PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED FENCEPROPOSED GRAVELPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED GUARD RAILPROPOSED SWALEPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED FORCEMAINPROPOSED GASPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED TELEPHONEPROPOSED WATERSTREAMEXISTING WELLPROPOSED WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINESPROPOSED SEWER MANHOLEDPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDREBAR SETCONCRETE MONUMENT SETPROPOSED HYDRANTPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED UTILITY POLEPROPOSED LIGHT POLEPROPOSED EDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSPROPOSED SETBACK LINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINECOMMERCIAL LOT 1 & 2 COVERAGES:ZONE: SEQ - VC DISTRCTMAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 54%MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE ALLOWABLE = 21%LOTLOTSIZELOTCOVERAGEBUILDINGCOVERAGELOT 1LOT 226137 SF24859 SF51.99%53.49%21.17%20.50%SEQ-NR DISTRICTSEQ-VC DISTRICTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\Commercial Lots\11202 - Commercial Lot2 - Site.dwg, 2/23/2016 12:02:34 PM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 15'11202C1.6MARCH, 2014LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEPARK / OPENSPACE ACTIVEUSE AREAPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 2/23/2016 11:02:24 AM, aloiselle DSMDSMACL1" = 50'11202C4.2DEC., 2011LOCATION MAP1" = 2000'ACEELECTRICAL& GASPLANFOX RUN LANEHINESBURG RD.89116MEADOWLAND DR.RYEASSOCIATES, INC25 OMEGA DRIVE, SUITE 201WILLISTON, VERMONT 054951075 HINESBURG RD.SOUTH BURLINGTONVERMONTRYEMEADOWPLANNED UNITDEVELOPMENTP:\AutoCADD Projects\2011\11202\1-CADD Files-11202\Dwg\11202K.dwg, 2/23/2016 11:32:32 AM, aloiselle Conceptual Landscape LayoutCopyright 2015Distinctive LandscapingAll rights reserved.Site information based onPlan by Civil Engineering AssociatesNRye MeadowDevelopmentRevisions: 01/28/201612/11/2015Scale: 1" = 20'Date: 11/19/2015Landscape Design- Planting PlanLots 1 & 2Charlie Proutt ASLASarah Stradtner2111 Greenbush RoadCharlotte, VT 05445802.425.2877802.425.2797 faxwww.distinctiveland.comDistinctiveLandscaping Conceptual Landscape LayoutCopyright 2015Distinctive LandscapingAll rights reserved.Site information base onCivil Engineering AssociatesNRye MeadowsDevelopmentRevisions:01/28/2016 12/11/2015Scale: 1" =10'Date: 11/19/2015Landscape DesignLot 1 - 32 Rye Circle1075 Hinesburg RdSouth Bulrington, VTCharlie Proutt ASLASarah StradtnerElizabeth Proutt2111 Greenbush RoadCharlotte, VT 05445802.425.2877802.425.2797 faxwww.distinctiveland.comDistinctiveLandscaping Conceptual Landscape LayoutCopyright 2015Distinctive LandscapingAll rights reserved.Site information base onCivil Engineering AssociatesNRye MeadowsDevelopmentRevisions: 01/28/2016 12/11/2015Scale: 1" =10'Date: 11/19/2015Landscape DesignLot 2 - 34 Rye Circle1075 Hinesburg RdSouth Bulrington, VTCharlie Proutt ASLASarah StradtnerElizabeth Proutt2111 Greenbush RoadCharlotte, VT 05445802.425.2877802.425.2797 faxwww.distinctiveland.comDistinctiveLandscaping 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_ske tch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: April 15, 2016 Application received: March 4, 2016, updated April 8, 2016 45 Community Drive Sketch Plan Application #SD-16-06 Meeting Date: April 19, 2016 Owner/Applicant 55 Community Drive, LLC 55 Community Drive, Suite 402 South Burlington, VT 05403 Contact Dereck Woolridge, PE Cross Consulting Engineers 103 Fairfax Road St. Albans, VT 05478 Engineer Cross Consulting Engineers 103 Fairfax Road St. Albans, VT 05478 Property Information Tax Parcel 0436-00045 Mixed Industrial-Commercial, Transit Overlay, and Interstate Highway Overlay Zoning Districts Location CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 2 Project Description Sketch plan application #SD-16-06 of 55 Community Drive, LLC for a planned unit development consisting of: 1) resubdividing four (4) lots (#8B, 9, 10 & #11) into two (2) lots of 7.4 acres (lot #8B) and 47.1 acres (lot #9), 2) eliminating proposed City street Community Way, and 3) constructing a 182,000 sq. ft. warehouse & distribution facility, 45 Community Drive. Zoning District and Dimensional Requirements IC Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 2,060,388 SF (47.3 acres) Max. Building Height 35 ft. (flat), 40 ft. (pitched) 31 ft. Max. Building Coverage 40% 9% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 23% Max. Front Yard Coverage 30% Unknown Min. Front Setback 30 ft. >325 ft. Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >240 ft. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A Zoning compliance Section 3.06(H) reads in part in “the case of nonresidential uses, not more than thirty percent (30%) of the area of the required front setback shall be used for driveways and parking” (emphasis added) and “a continuous strip fifteen (15) feet in width traversed only by driveways and sidewalks shall be maintained between the street right-of-way line and the balance of the lot.” The applicant appears to have included area outside the front setback in their calculation of front yard coverage, which resulted in a percentage of coverage out of compliance with the Land Development Regulations. 1. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant to provide a calculation of front yard coverage pursuant to Section 3.06(H) Comments The staff notes herein reflect a review of the major land use regulations impacting this development and are, at this stage, intended to provide feedback on the basic concept and site design, as well as to advise the applicant as to any potential problems and concerns relating to those major issues. Staff has narrowed the topics of discussion to the central issues that seem to present themselves at this early stage of the project: lot configuration, access and street configuration, wetlands impact, open space planning, and building orientation and design. Additional items, including but not limited to the specific requirements for recreation paths, landscaping, snow storage, etc., certainly warrant a full review and will be addressed in detail at a later stage. Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt, Administrative Officer Ray Belair, and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, all hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments with respect to these issues: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3 Planned Unit Development Standards A. Lot Configuration Lots are to be laid out in such a way as makes it possible for the lot to be developed in full compliance with the land development regulations and “giving consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions” (Section 15.10). This development proposes to create a 47.1 acre lot (Lot 9) and a 7.4 acre lot (Lot 8B) from four existing lots (8B, 9, 10, and 11). The proposed city street, Community Way, will no longer be necessary with the combined lot layout. The proposed building and parking will be entirely located on Lot 9. Recreation features (walking path) occur in part on Lot 8B. Staff considers that the use of Lot 9 has been designed in consideration to topography, soils, and drainage conditions, in particular by largely avoiding encroachment on Class II wetlands and riparian areas. B. Access, Street Configuration, and Parking Section 15.12(F)(4)(b) of the LDRs states that access points in a PUD shall be aligned “with existing intersections and/or curb cuts.” Plans show the entrance to the site as being directly opposite an existing entrance to a property across the street. The Department of Public Works will review this element in greater detail. The plans show parking for 329 vehicles, including commercial vehicles related to the onsite business. For a building that is 182,000 square feet and engaged in warehousing and distribution 91 parking spaces would be required (Table 13-2 of the LDRs: 0.5 spaces/1,000 SF for Warehousing, processing, storage, and distribution). The parking is located to the front (Community Drive and Interstate 89) and side of the proposed building. Parking in the front is not allowed except under certain conditions (Section 14.06(B)), which staff believes this plan does not meet. The applicant has a taken a different perspective on the interpretation of allowable parking in front of the building and believes the Board has the authority to approve the parking as proposed. The Board should be aware the Planning Commission is considering amendments to the LDRs, including Section 14.06(B) (2) (b), at their April 26, 2016 meeting. If adopted these amendments would allow the parking as proposed when certain conditions, such as landscaping requirements, are met. These amendments, if passed, could be in effect at the time this project reaches the preliminary and/or final plat stage of review. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the amount of and locations of the proposed parking. Section 13.07 of the LDRs lays out the requirements for exterior lighting: B. Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following: (1) The number and spacing of required light pole standards in a parking area or lot shall be determined based on the type of fixture, height of pole, number of fixtures on the pole, and the desired lighting level. Unless the applicant can demonstrate a reasonable CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 4 alternative, lighting shall be considered evenly distributed if the light fixtures are placed at intervals that equal four times the mounting height. The submitted lighting plans appear to indicate that the mounting height will be approximately 25 feet. Lights in the parking area to the west of the proposed building are more than 150 feet apart from one another, which is further than the interval suggested in the LDR. 2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to explain the interval between light fixtures to determine whether the distance suggested by the applicant is a reasonable alternative to the regulation. (2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to drivers on adjacent streets. Excessive spillover of light is avoided with 0.0 to 0.2 foot candles at property lines. (3) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural material, with a decorative surface or finish. (4) Poles in pedestrian areas shall not be greater than 30 feet in height and shall utilize underground wiring. (5) Poles in all other areas shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in height, and shall utilize underground wiring. (6) Light sources on structures shall not exceed thirty (30) feet, or the height of the structure, whichever is less. Exterior lighting for parking garages and structures shall be mounted no higher that the roof of the structure. (7) Safe pole locations: Breakaway poles shall not be used in parking lots. Poles shall not be erected along the outside of roadway and ramp curves or where vehicles must make sharp turns. Poles should not be located where they might be susceptible to collision strikes. Poles located behind longitudinal traffic barriers should be offset sufficiently to allow for barrier deflection under impact. (8) Pole location in parking lots: Pole locations shall be coordinated with stall and aisle layouts. Where practical, poles should be near the end of parking rows or around the perimeter of the lot. When located at parking stall boundaries, light poles should be mounted on concrete pedestals. Where raised medians or islands are used to separate adjacent stalls, light poles should be placed in these areas unless pedestrian traffic will be inconvenienced. Where light poles are placed between parking rows in the interior of the CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 5 lot, the poles should be located on the center line of double rows of parking stalls and on the center line of two opposing stalls and should not be placed on the stall line between cars where fender damage might occur. Staff considers the above criterion to be met. Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations require one major deciduous shade tree located within or near the parking perimeter for every five parking spaces and trees must have a caliper of 2 ½ inches or more. There are 329 parking spaces shown on the plans, which would result in a requirement for 66 shade trees. Thirty-seven deciduous shade trees are shown in and around the parking areas: 35 Honey Locusts planted in and around the parking areas to the west and north of the building and an additional two (2) Honey Locusts planted in the vicinity of the two parking areas which occur on the south side of the building. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they propose to meet the requirements of Section 13.06 of the LDRs, which would require an additional 29 deciduous shade trees. 4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the lack of shade trees in the vicinity of the parking area on the south side of the building. Section 13.06(B)(4)(d) states that when 10 or more trees are planned a mix of species is encouraged. Landscaping plans show that all of the trees within the parking area and around the perimeter are Shademaster Honey Locust. The City Arborist has indicated to staff that he does not have a problem with this number of the Honey Locust being proposed. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their ability to diversify the tree types in and around the parking area. C. Wetlands Impact Section 12.02(E) of the Wetland Protection Standards and Review Procedure reads E. Standards for Wetlands Protection (1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas is generally discouraged. (2) Encroachment into Class II wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below. (3) Encroachment into Class II wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project’s overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 6 (a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store flood waters adequately; (b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards; (c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan (C-2: Sketch Plan) which shows the location on the property of Class II and Class III wetlands. The parking area, proposed building, and snow storage areas encroach on several Class III wetlands and buffer areas. The applicant has stated they have prioritized keeping impacts out of the Class II wetlands, which has necessitated some impacts to Class III wetlands. Class II wetlands are primarily impacted along the route of the proposed walking path as well as in the areas where the earthen berms will be built on the south side of the property. 6. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant their intention to seek a Wetland Permit (formerly known as a Conditional Use Determination) from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. D. Parks and Open Space Planning According to Section 13.06(B)(6) of the LDRs, plans are required to show where snow will be stored. The plans show snow storage in multiple locations adjacent to the various parking areas. Section 13.06(G) requires a planting budget to be submitted with plans. The applicant has listed the building cost as $10,833,800. Total Building Construction or Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/Improvement Cost Cost Up to $250,000 3% $7,500 Next $250,000 2% $5,000 Remainder over $500,000 ($10,333,800) 1% $103,338 Total: $115,838 The City Arborist, Craig Lambert, submitted the following comments in an email to staff dated April 11, 2016: Should specify parking lot islands to be filled to a depth of 2.5-3 ft. with loam/sandy loam planting soil to provide adequate soil volume to support tree growth Suggest the inclusion of some larger trees between building and interstate CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 7 Staff has talked to the applicant about the location of the proposed building along Interstate 89 and preserving the views motorists traveling south on the highway are able to enjoy. Staff has requested that plantings along the to-be-built earthen berms do not grow to obscure these views. 7. Staff recommends the Board support the comment provided by the City Arborist in regards soil volume in the parking lot islands. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the proposed plantings on the earthen berms to determine whether these are appropriate choices for preserving views. Section 15.18(A)(8) states 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. This project preserves the existing pathway to the Whales Tails sculpture, which is located near the southwest corner of the property and is shown as protected by a right-of-way. Additional connections to the path are made on the property, which will encourage access and use of the path. The plans show new pathways on the property connecting to existing sidewalks that continue onto adjacent properties and the use of crosswalks to minimize pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. Plans show a 20 foot wide easement on the western side of the property which is noted as being for a recreation path. This easement is not in the same location as the existing Whale Tails Path and is in the vicinity of Muddy Brook. The South Burlington Comprehensive Plan calls for the preservation of riparian corridors along the Muddy Brook and, in the Northeast Quadrant, a balance of open space with uses that are compatible with the airport. Staff considers that this site works to achieve balance by clustering the proposed building and parking and leaving the remainder of the site as open space which provides a buffer around Muddy Brook, reduces impacts on Class II wetlands, and preserves and enhances the recreation opportunities available along the pathways. 9. Staff considers that it will be useful to discuss this project with and receive feedback from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee as this project moves forward into the next stages of the review process. E. Building Orientation and Design Staff considers the transition from the parking area on the west side of the building to the proposed building to be eased by the majority of the building being setback behind a smaller, shorter, more human-scale portion of the building. This portion of the building provides the main entrance and contains the office space that supports the warehouse and distribution use. The proposed building uses a variety of materials and architectural techniques to create visual interest, including brick, metal panels, parapets, and changes in height. Staff supports this building orientation and design. F. Fence CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 8 The applicant proposes a fence around the perimeter of the building area including the parking areas for commercial vehicles associated with the onsite use and snow storage areas. 10. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that the proposed fence meet the requirements of Section 13.17(C), which contains information regarding prohibited fences and materials. G. Interstate Highway Overlay District A portion of the property along the southern edge is within the IHO District, which does not allow “building of any kind, including any structure or construction such as parking facilities or lots, or tennis courts” except as specifically provided for in Section 10.04 of the LDRs. Relevant to this proposal Section 10.04(C)(2) allows for public recreation paths within the IHO District. Staff considers the purposed earthen berms to be acceptable development within the IHO District. Plans show a path marked as “private walking path” within the IHO. 11. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the status of this walking path to ensure that it will be a public recreation path. H. Airport Approach Cones Section 13.03 restricts certain uses based on the possibility of interference with Burlington International Airport. Staff is not aware of any uses that will occur on the site which would be in violation of the LDRs pertaining to the Airport Approach Cones. I. Transit Overlay District A portion of the property, including the proposed building and parking areas, is located within the TO District; however, no parts of the relevant LDR (Section 10.05) are apply to this application. J. Stormwater Comments Dave Wheeler, Assistant Stormwater Superintendent, provided the following comments in an email to staff dated April 12, 2016: The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “FedEx Ground Distribution Facility” Sketch Plan prepared by Cross Consulting Engineers, dated 3/4/16. At this point in the design process the applicant has not addressed stormwater treatment. In a future submission, the applicant will need to meet all requirements of §12.03 of the City’s Land Development Regulations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Dave K. Fire CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD_16_06_45CommunityDrive_55CommunityDriveLLC_sketch_April19_mtg DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 9 Waiting for comments L. Energy Standards 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 The Board should seek clarification on the issues identified above. Respectfully submitted, ________________________________ Ray Belair, Administrative Officer Scale: 1" = 2000'04 04 ReArch Company55 Community DriveSouth Burlington, VT 05403DESIGN BUILDER:S2 Architecture5224 Shelburne Rd.Shelburne, VT 05482ARCHITECT:Phone:(802)863-8727Phone:(802)985-5595Community DriveSouth Burlington, VTFedEx GroundDistribution FacilityDATE:4.7.16REVISIONSS2 Architecture5224 Shelburne Rd.Shelburne, VT 05482LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:Phone:(802)985-5595Cross Consulting Engineers103 Fairfax Rd.St. Albans, VT 05478CIVIL ENGINEER:Phone:(802)524-2113L-1LANDSCAPEPLANLANDSCAPE PLAN1" = 60'1PROPOSED FEDEX GROUNDDISTRIBUTION FACILITY030'60' 120'180'COMMUNITY DRIVENINTERSTATE HIGHWAY(3)-RS(4)-BC(5)-RS(4)-BC(4)-BC(8)-RS(4)-BC(4)-RS(2)-BC(3)-RS(2)-AR(3)-AR(6)-PS(5)-PG(3)-PS(5)-PG(2)-PS(3)-PG(5)-PS(2)-PG(7)-PS(147)-TO(17)-GT(3)-SR(13)-GT(4)-SR(7)-GT(1)-GT(1)-GT(1)-GTEXEXEXEX(3)-PG(2)-PG(3)-AF(6)-AR(1)-AF(3)-MS(3)-MS(3)-MS(4)-MS(3)-MS(4)-PS1L-2(1)-PGPLANT SCHEDULEKeyBotanical NameCommon Name Qty SizeRemarksEVERGREEN TREESPG Picea glauca White Spruce 21 5' - 6' B&B, FullPS Pinus strobus White Pine 27 7' - 8' B&B, Un-shearedTO Thuja occidentalis 'Nigra" American Arborvitae 147 6' - 7' 6' o.c.DECIDUOUS TREESGT Gleditsia triacanthos Shademaster Honeylocust 40 2 1/2 - 3" Cal. B&B, FullAR Acer rubrum 'red sunset' Red Maple 11 2 1/2 - 3" Cal. B&B, FullSR Syringa reticulata Japanese Tree Lilac 7 2" Cal. B&B, Single StemMS Malus sargentii Sargent Crabapple 16 2" Cal. B&B, FullAF Acer freemanii 'Autumn Blaze' Red / Silver Maple 4 2 1/2 - 3" Cal B&B, FullDECIDUOUS SHRUBSRS Amelanchier alnifolia 'Regent' Regent Serviceberry 23 36" Ht B&BBC Aronia melanocarpa 'Viking' Black Chokeberry 18 36" Ht B&BFRONT YARD ReArch Company55 Community DriveSouth Burlington, VT 05403DESIGN BUILDER:S2 Architecture5224 Shelburne Rd.Shelburne, VT 05482ARCHITECT:Phone:(802)863-8727Phone:(802)985-5595Community DriveSouth Burlington, VTFedEx GroundDistribution FacilityDATE:4.7.16REVISIONSS2 Architecture5224 Shelburne Rd.Shelburne, VT 05482LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:Phone:(802)985-5595Cross Consulting Engineers103 Fairfax Rd.St. Albans, VT 05478CIVIL ENGINEER:Phone:(802)524-2113L-2LANDSCAPE PLAN& DETAILSENLARGED FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE PLAN1" = 30'1015'30' 60'90'NCOMMUNITY DRIVE(7)-PS(147)-TO(17)-GT(3)-SREXEXEXEX(3)-PG(2)-PG(3)-AF(6)-AR(1)-AF(3)-MS(3)-MS(3)-MS(4)-MS(3)-MS(4)-PSBENCHNTS5NEW BENCH (TYP. OF 5)ON STAMPED CONCRETE PADEVERGREEN HEDGEFENCEGATEPEDESTRIAN PATH TOBUILDING ENTRANCEEXISTING TREESPROPOSED FEDEX GROUNDDISTRIBUTION FACILITYSHRUB PLANTING DETAILNTS4EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING DETAILNTS3DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAILNTS2POND(1)-PGFRONT YARD(2)-PGSIDEWALK (TYP.)PATH (TYP.)(1)-GT 55 Community Drive, LLC Project: 16007 55 Community Drive March 4, 2016 So. Burlington, VT Page:1 NARRATIVE OF SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION FEDERAL EXPRESS GROUND PROJECT 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 55 Community Drive LLC is proposing to construct a new 182,000 SF distribution center for Federal Express Ground (FedEx) on Lots 9, 10 and 11 of Technology Park on Community Drive in the City of South Burlington Vermont. The proposed building will replace anexisting FedEx Ground facility located in the Town of Williston,Vermont. The distribution center will receive packages by truck which will be distributed to smaller van type vehicles for delivery throughout northwestern Vermont. The building will contain 44 loading docks for off loading and loading of packages onto tractor trailer trucks. Van type vehicles will drive into the building where they will receive packages from sorting machines for thedesignated routes throughout the area. The building will contain a small amount of office space, distribution and sorting equipment and the site will provide parking for tractor trailers, vans and employees. The facility will be secured inside a proposed fence,and employee parking will be locatedoutside the fence. There will be controlled access for employees through a gate to the main entrance of the building. The building is not expected to see much traffic from the public. On rare occasions, members of the public may come to the building to pick up packages that are damaged. Generally, only employees and contract drivers for FedEx will be at this facility. The proposed facility is designed to access Community Drive at a single new curb cut. The sketch plan information illustrates preliminary grading and landscaping features including trees, shrubs,berms and fencing. Utilities will be provided to connect to the South Burlington Municipal Sewer and Water systems. The site will have its own stormwater collection and treatment system using two detention ponds that will ultimately discharge to Muddy Brook,which is on the easterly boundary of the site. A preliminary wetlands delineation has been completed by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB). Potentially sensitive archeological sites may exist along the westerly bank of Muddy Brook. These were identified in a 1997 archeological survey by the UVM Consulting ArcheologyProgram. There are also overhead power line easements through the property and a proposed easement to provide access to the Whale Tails located adjacent to Interstate 89. 55 Community Drive, LLC Project: 16007 55 Community Drive March 4, 2016 So. Burlington, VT Page:2 2.0 ZONING The property is zoned Industrial-Commercial. A distribution center is a permitted use within this district. The project has been designed to comply with all dimensional requirements inthe South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDR’s). Specific dimensional information is provided on the face of the site plan. The property is also located in the Transit Overlay District. It is not located in a Design Review District. 3.0 LIST OF SUBMISSION ELEMENTS The following items comprise this application for Sketch Plan Review: a.Application form and fee. b.Site plans prepared by Cross Consulting Engineers.c.Landscaping plans and building elevations prepared by S2 Architecture. d.Traffic study prepared by VHB. e.Parking waiver request prepared by Gravel and Shea f.Revised subdivision plat prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers. 4.0 LIST OF WAIVERS The applicant is requesting a Waiver of the front yard parking restriction. Please see the attached request prepared by Gravel and Shea. No other waivers are required or requested. 5.0 CONFORMANCE WITH REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06A Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. This project is consistent with the 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The future Land Use Map, Map 11, designates the Community Drive area as suitable for medium to higher intensity development, principallynonresidential. It is expected that this project will contribute to some of the planned infrastructure improvements described in the Comprehensive Plan, specifically at the intersections of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue. The project will also be consistent with long-term goals by the City of South Burlington for the construction of a connection between Tilley Drive and Community Drive and also the construction of Interstate Exit 12B.The parcel in question does not include primary conservation areas designated in the Municipal Plan but does contain some wetlands and possible archeological areas which will be addressed with appropriate approvals. The proposed project is also located on a CCTA bus route which could benefit employees ofFedEx by providing alternate means of transportation to and from work. Map 2 of the Comprehensive Plan illustrates a proposed maximum build-out analysis. This map illustrates large buildings, greater than 100,000 SF, located on each of Lots 9, 10 and 11. Therefore, the Plan anticipates approximately 300,000 SF or more of construction onthese three lots. The proposed project is less than anticipated at 182,000 SF. 55 Community Drive, LLC Project: 16007 55 Community Drive March 4, 2016 So. Burlington, VT Page:3 14.06B(1) Relationship of Structures to the Site.Technology Park is a preapproved industrial park that contains several large buildings, including the 30 Community Drive building originally constructed for Digital Equipment Corp. The proposed project will include three existing undeveloped lots along Interstate 89. The applicant is extremelysensitive to the aesthetics of this site and the visibility of the proposed building from the Interstate and from Community Drive. The aesthetic information provided within this application will demonstrate that the applicant has made significant efforts to insure that the building will fit properly on the site and be compatible with the architecture of other buildings within Technology Park.The project is also designed to protect views of theGreen Mountains from Interstate 89. (2)Parking Location.The applicant is requesting a waiver from the front yard parking restrictions that would allow a small amount of parking within the front yard.The location of the parking,as currently designed,will be pedestrian friendly by providing parking nearthe employee and main entrance of the building. All employees are directed to this entrance for security reasons. The location of parking lots and sidewalks are designed to promote pedestrian friendly access to the building. Very few pedestrians are expected to access the site from Community Drive since this building is essentially not open to the public, except under rare circumstances. The existing walking path that meanders through Lots 9, 10 and 11 will be maintained by the applicant but will be relocated as necessary to conform to the new site design. The proposed relocation of the walking path is generally illustrated on the attached site plan. (3)Height of Building.The height of the proposed building will be approximately 31 feet above the main floor.The loading docks on the north side of the building will be approximately 4 feet lower than the floor of the building. There are no loading docks proposed for the south side of the building. Overhead doors on that side are for van access into and out of the building. There may be roof top equipment located on top of the roof ofthis structure. (4) Utilities.All utilities serving the proposed building are intended to be underground. The existing overhead power line that bisects the easterly side of the site will remain. Power and communications are expected to be provided underground from existing infrastructure withinCommunityDrive. 14.06(C)Aesthetic Considerations.The proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Facility has been designed to fit into the landscape and relate harmoniously with the surrounding office buildings in Technology Park.The exterior materials will be the same brick, tinted precastconcrete panels, and prefinished aluminum windows as are being used on the three office buildings which have been constructed at Technology Park over the past ten years. The FedEx building has been designed with different roof heights between the office wing and the distribution area to help break down the mass of the building, and the rhythm of the windows and pre-finished metal panels on the facades help relate the building to the architectural styleof the other office buildings within Technology Park. Landscaped berms have been designed 55 Community Drive, LLC Project: 16007 55 Community Drive March 4, 2016 So. Burlington, VT Page:4 to blend the new plantings with the surrounding landscape and partially obscure the building and the parking areas when viewed from the interstate highway or from Community Drive. PARKVIEW AT TICONDEROGA, LLCv. 410 p. 163map slide 489Btax map no. 7-69-51LOT 8Atax map no. 0436-0003030 COMMUNITY DRIVE LLCv. 803 p. 129map slide 51029.44 Ac.60' R.O. W . C O N V E Y E D T O CITY OF S O . B U R LI N G T O N v.424 p. 6 9 3 1.1' DIA. WOOD FENCE POST7.1 Ac. +_26.3 Ac. +_9.20 Ac.9.70 Ac.9.37 Ac.6.52 Ac.N21°56'4 5 " W 1500.45' TIE LINE 413.31'N17°01'06" W 1825'+_ TIE LINE LOT 8BLOT 9LOT 10LOT 12LOT 11LOT 13INTERSTATE 89PIZZAGALLI PROPERTIES, LLCv. 681 p. 736map slide 176tax map no. 0860-RR750RIELEY COHEN PARTNERSHIv. 521 p. 1039SLIDE 216BC. & S. WASHBURNv. 84 p. 284SLIDE 216BLNP, INC.SLIDE 216Bv. 371 p. 815PARKVIEW AT TICONDEROGA, LLCv. 410 p. 163map slide 489Btax map no. 7-85-14 tax map no. 7-85-17.1 tax map no. 7-85-17.2 tax map no. 7-69-51 tax map no. 0860-R1150 GREEN ACRES, INC.BURLINGTON PROPERTIESLTD. PARTNERSHIPv. 273 p. 265tax map no. 0860-01020 v. 48 p. 489NORTH STREET PROP LLCv. 469 p. 686SLIDE 216Btax map no. 7-85-7 STATE OF VERMONTDRIVETOWN OF WILLISTON CITY OFSOUTH BURLI N GT O N CENTERLINEMUDDY BROOK(SEE NOTE 10)L22L23L24L26L28 L53S 79°07'01" E490.02'N 79°07'01" W745.35'S 10°45'30" W849.31'S 10°45'55" W874.71'N 79°24'49" W435.92'N 85°42'22" E226.03'N 76°08'58" W168.50'N 76°08'58" W299.22'N 76°08'58" W191.39'N 60°57'11" W 770.09'N 86°06'12" W238.48'N 07°45'46" W 919.81'C11C8 C19 C28C36C37C38LINE TABLE DATALINE BEARING DISTANCEL10 N 81°26'54" E 123.50'L11 N 75°47'06" W 136.83'L29 N 85°42'22" E 79.54'L31 S 85°09'41" E 21.17'L10L11L29CURVE DATA TABLE CURVE DELTA ANGLE RADIUS ARC LENGTH CHORD LENGTH CHORD BEARINGC9 87°19'42" 75.00' 114.31' 103.56' N 72°39'53" WC10 52°55'32" 239.98' 221.68' 213.88' S 45°59'47" EC13 2°40'53" 3913.70' 183.16' 183.14' N 62°18'15" WC14 123°51'04" 75.00' 162.12' 132.35' N 32°55'30" EC15 12°30'54" 3913.70' 854.86' 853.16' N 69°54'09" WC16 33°50'01" 300.00' 177.15' 174.59' S 68°14'41" EC18 31°57'21" 300.00' 167.32' 165.16' S 35°20'59" EC27 43°27'57" 72.64' 55.11' 53.79' N 85°26'21" EC15C13LOT 7L22 S 79°07'01" E 124.52'L23 N 62°32'11" E 81.92'L26 N 07°45'49" W 63.73'L28 S 62°32'11" W 62.71'L53 N 79°24'49" W 175.46'C11 24°00'36" 472.00' 197.79' 196.35' N 48°03'43" EC17 33°28'33" 472.00' 275.77' 271.87' N 84°08'47" EC19 49°14'01" 377.00' 323.95' 314.08' S 54°30'09" EC22 34°26'41" 377.00' 226.64' 223.24' S 03°31'43" EC28 7°20'29" 472.00' 60.48' 60.44' N 63°44'16" EC37 4°17'25" 927.00' 69.41' 69.40' N 31°33'22" EC38 2°21'21" 927.00' 38.12' 38.11' N 34°52'44" E259.34'N 76°08'57" WC17C41C4159°52'07" 100.00' 104.49' 99.80'S 49°18'20" EL54 S 19°22'16" E 12.73' L54 47.1 Ac. +_NEW LOT 97.4 Ac. +_COMMUNITY4 264.30'S 79°14'23" E78.90'N 85°42'22" E221.77' S 19°22'1 6 " E L5L55L5 DescriptionRevisionsByDateThis plat meets the requirements of 27 VSA 1403._____________________________________________ (Signature)#478 BLAIR PARK ROAD | WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495802 879 6331 | WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERSProject Number:Date:Scale:Drawn By:Project Manager:Crd file:Field Book:Approved By:Sheet:TECHNOLOGY PARK30 Community DriveSouth Burlington, VermontSubdivision Plat0FeetGraphic Scale120 120 240 360 48015°±Grid1° ±TrueMagneticPROJECT LOCATION2 of 42/29/1615-179SDTJMM2752012100NEW103/02/16 SDTRevise Lots 8B, 9-111" = 120'SEE SHEET 4 OF 4 FOR EASEMENTSTHE LOTS ALONG COMMUNITY DRIVE MAY BE SUBJECT TO 10' WIDE EASEMENTS FORPOWER, TELEPHONE AND GAS. SAID EASEMENTS TO RUN ALONG AND ADJACENT TOCOMMUNITY DRIVE.NOTES:1) DEEDS RESEARCHED IN THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON LAND RECORDS.2) A CLOSED FIELD TRAVERSE CONDUCTED WITH A TOTAL STATION. BEARINGS ARE BASEDON VERMONT GRID NORTH.3) REBARS SET ARE NO. 5 REINFORCING BARS WITH ALUMINUM CAPS STAMPED "TRUDELLCONSULTING ENGINEERS, LS 488".4) THESE LOTS ARE A PORTION OF THE LANDS CONVEYED TO 55 COMMUNITY DRIVE LLC INVOLUME 812 PAGE 448 AND SHOWN ON A PLAT ENTITLED "SUBDIVISION PLAT,TECHNOLOGY PARK", WHICH IS RECORDED IN MAP SLIDE 514.5) DISTANCES ARE SHOWN TO THE HUNDREDTH OF A FOOT AND BEARINGS ARE SHOWN TOTHE SECOND FOR MATHEMATICAL CLOSURE PURPOSES ONLY.6) AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO IDENTIFY OR DELINEATE EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY,LEASE LANDS, ENCROACHMENTS, ETC. OBSERVED IN THE FIELD OR READILY FOUND IN THELAND RECORDS. ADDITIONAL ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ONTHIS PLAT.7) UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES SHOWN ARE BASED ON ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES ANDPLANS OF RECORD. ACTUAL LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND LINES MAY VARY.8) KIMBALL AVENUE IS BASED ON PLANS OF THE VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION,PROJECT SOUTH BURLINGTON M 5000 (10)S. A PORTION OF THIS LAND AT THE NORTHEASTCORNER AND SOME PERMANENT RIGHTS ALONG KIMBALL AVENUE WERE CONVEYED TOTHE STATE OF VERMONT IN VOLUME 211 PAGE 80 AND 85, AND FROM THE STATE TO THECITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN VOLUME 211 PAGE 304. A PORTION OF KIMBALL AVENUEWAS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN VOLUME 120 PAGE 428.9) THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR COMMUNITY DRIVE WAS DEEDED TO THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON IN VOLUME 424 PAGE 693. THE EASTERLY PORTION OF COMMUNITY DRIVEWAS CHANGED AS DESCRIBED IN THREE DEEDS RECORDED IN VOLUME 801 PAGES 110, 119AND 122 AND SHOWN ON TWO PLATS BY TRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ONE ENTITLED"BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, TECHNOLOGY PARK ASSOC., CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON", DATED JULY 16, 2007 AND RECORDED IN MAP SLIDE 508, AND THE OTHERENTITLED "BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT PLAT, TECHNOLOGY PARK ASSOC.", DATED JUNE27, 2007 AND RECORDED IN MAP SLIDE 508.10) THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN THE TOWN OF WILLISTON AND THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON, AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THIS SUBDIVISION FOLLOWS THECENTERLINE OF MUDDY BROOK.11) THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A STORM WATER DRAINAGE SERVICE AGREEMENTWAIVER AND EASEMENT AS DESCRIBED IN VOLUME 507 PAGE 431.REBAR (SET)LINE DATA TABLE REFERENCECURVE DATA TABLE REFERENCEC1FENCESTONE MONUMENT ( FOUND )REINFORCING BAR ( FOUND )CONCRETE MONUMENT ( TO BE SET )CONCRETE MONUMENT ( FOUND )REBAR ( TO BE SET )IRON PIPE ( FOUND )IRON PIPE (SET)CALCULATED POINTL1LEGENDCHISELED "X" ON CONCRETE APRONSEE SHEET 1 OF 4SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY CLERK'S OFFICERECEIVED FOR RECORD______________________________________A.D. 201_________at _____________ O'clock ____________ minutes ________ mand recorded in Slide__________________________________Attest: _____________________________________ Town ClerkAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SOUTHBURLINGTON, VT. ON THE ______ DAY OF ________________________ 201___, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS ______ DAY OF ________________________ 201___,BY __________________________________________ CHAIRMAN OR CLERK(EXISTING)(PROPOSED)(PROPOSED)(EXISTING)(EXISTING)STATEOFVERMONT L AN DSURVEYORLICENSEDSCOTTD.TAYLORNo. 488EXISTINGBOUNDARY LINETO BE ELIMINATED(TYPICAL)NEW BOUNDARYLINE(EXISTING) 478 BLAIR PARK ROAD WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 802 879 6331 WWW.TCEVT.COMTRUDELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS