Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Development Review Board - 11/06/2018DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 6 November 2018 The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 6 November 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, F. Kochman, M. Behr, M. Cota ALSO PRESENT: D. Hall, Administrative Officer; M. Keene, Assistant Administrative Officer; D. Saladino, K. Darr, J. Illick, P.Cross, B. DeLaBruero, D Woolridge, C. Frank, A. Chalnick, R. Rushford 1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room: Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures. 2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items: No changes were made to the Agenda. 3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements: There were no announcements. 5. Continued Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-26 of Gardner Construction, Inc., to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 5.8 acres and developed with one single-family dwelling into approximately six lots for the purpose of a 23-uit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 17 detached single family homes, six units in two-family dwellings and one existing single-family home, 1398 Hinesburg Road: No one was present to represent the applicant. Based on the staff notes, Board members chose not to proceed. 6. Continued sketch plan application #SD-18-16 of R. L. Vallee, Inc., to demolish an existing hotel and a portion of an existing service station and create a planned unit development consisting of an expanded service station with four additional fueling positions for a total of twelve, and associated 9000 sq. ft. retail sales building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road: No one was present to represent the applicant. Based on the applicant’s request, the Board chose not to proceed. 7. Sketch plan application #SD-18-30 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into three lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9) and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), eliminate the proposed City Street Community Way, and construct an approximately 144,000 sq. ft. warehousing and distribution center, 45 Community Drive: Mr. Illick said the project is smaller than at the previous sketch hearing; otherwise it is the same. The property was originally subdivided in 1996. Community Dr. is proposed to be removed because it was originally intended to provide access to Lot #9 which is no longer needed. Lot 8B is not a building lot. The driveway to the proposed building will be where Community Drive was originally proposed to be. Mr. Illick said the majority of the building will be a distribution facility with a small office. It will serve FedEx Ground (which is different from FedEx Air). Vehicles will not be coming from the Airport. Large tractor-trailers will be delivering in off-peak or overnight hours, and packages will be sorted and loaded onto vans for delivery. Since the site slopes from southwest to northeast, the south side of the building will be cut into the slope to accommodate the height of the tractor-trailers. Mr. Illick stressed that there would be no reason for the public to come to this facility. The proposed walking path will be retained and slightly realigned. Mr. Illick identified the location of a wetland. Only the center of the site will be impacted. VHB has done a wetland delineation which is being reviewed by the State and ACE. The total infringement on the Class 2 and Class 3 wetlands is less than an acre. Mr. Illick noted that FedEx is amenable to having their traffic study reviewed. They do not yet know the total number of employees. The parking lot has been sized to accommodate two overlapping shifts. The parking requirement is 70; 299 spaces are being provided. Mr. Kochman asked how many parking spaces are there at the current facility. Ms. Keene said just over 100. Mr. Illick also noted that the applicant is willing to do a noise study. He reiterated that the large trucks will be entering the site only in off-peak/night hours; during the day it will be vans and employees. There will be no underground tanks/fueling on the site. Mr. Illick said that for those driving north on Rt. I-89, the building will be almost invisible. It will be more visible going south. The building will be brick precast with metal paneling. Architecture will be consistent with 30 Community Drive. There will also be 8 to 10-foot berms for “aesthetic reasons.” The Whales Tail will remain. Mr. Illick said they would like to combine preliminary and final plats. Staff notes were then addressed as follows: 1. The applicant will correct the dimensional calculation. 2. They are OK with technical review. They have no preference regarding a signal or roundabout, whichever works. 3. Regarding shared curb cuts on lots 11 & 12, the applicant doesn’t want to do that now because they don’t know who the user will be. There are existing curb cuts opposite Lots 11 & 12. They are OK with providing an easement as long as they can keep the curb cuts. 4. They will submit the wetlands report. 5. The applicant does not want a requirement that would allow public use of the walking path. They feel the DRB should not be able to mandate future use of private property. Mr. Cota said the Board would like to provide input on the path realignment. Mr. Illick was OK with this. Mr. Miller did not feel the Board can make a requirement for public use of the path. Mr. Behr said the path has been shown on all plans; he was not concerned with making it public. 6. Regarding outdoor space for employees, Mr. Darr, representing the applicant, said there could be picnic tables near the office area. Staff can use the patio area. 7. They will comply with State stormwater standards. 8. Parking is what is required by FedEx, and they will not build without it. Mr. Kochman was concerned with the aesthetics. The applicant agreed to bring in a line-of-sight drawing(s). 9. Mr. Behr asked if they would consider a transitional lighting plan such as they have in Williston. Mr. Illick said they will meet the regulations and will not have light spilling off the property. They need the lighting for safety. They will look into automatic lighting. 10. Mr. Kochman expressed concern with the project meeting performance standards (noise, lighting, etc.). He asked that these be addressed in subsequent applications. 11. Regarding trailer parking, the applicant does not want interior landscaping or shading. The will see if they can include some of the trailer parking area as equipment storage and some van parking as “parking” to make the front parking 25% or less in order to meet interior landscaping/shading requirements. 12. Mr. Kochman asked if there is a barrier between trailer storage and the wetland. Mr. Illick said the loading docks have to be on the downhill side. They won’t be “too visible.” He said the I-C Zoning District is where these things should be. Mr. Miller asked that the view from the north/south leg of Community Drive be included in the drawings. 13. Regarding the easement on Lot 11, Mr. Illick didn’t think there will ever be a reason for collaboration between properties. They will sell the FedEx property when it is developed. They will never share parking. Board members seemed OK with this. 14. The applicant is OK with showing the location of interior long-term parking. Public comment was then heard as follows: 1. The Energy Committee would like the applicant to consider solar on the roof. 2. Ms. Frank of the Bike/Ped Committee said the Committee would like to weigh in on the signal vs. roundabout decision. Staff will share the traffic study with them. Regarding combining preliminary and final plats, Mr. Miller said this is up to the applicant. Mr. Kochman said the Board can’t approve anything until all the external permits are in hand and he questioned whether the applicant should make a major investment before preliminary approval. 8. Minutes of 16 October 2018: Mr. Kochman moved to approve the Minutes of 16 October as written. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 5-0. 9. Other Business: No other business was presented. As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by common consent at 8:25 p.m. Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. 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:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SD‐18‐26 1398 Hinesburg Road – Gardner Construction Inc Sketch    DATE:    November 6, 2018 Development Review Board meeting    Gardner Construction, Inc. has submitted an application for sketch plan review, consisting of subdividing two  existing parcels totaling 5.8 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately six (6) lots  for the purpose of a 23 unit residential planned unit development.  The planned unit development is to consist  of 17 detached single family homes, six units in two‐family dwellings and one existing single family home at  1398 Hinesburg Road.  The application was continued from August 21, 2018 to allow the applicant time to  determine whether the Planning Commission would consider revising the Hinesburg Road North View  Protection District to eliminate the portion of the district that overlaps the subject property.  The Board and the  applicant considered that without this change, the portion of the property within the view protection district  was undevelopable.    At the August 21 hearing, the Board reviewed and provided feedback on other elements of the project  including but not limited to density, lot layout, affordability, roadway layout, and common land configuration.    The Planning Commission heard the applicant’s request regarding the view protection district on October 9,  and indicated they will take up the request at the next time they review view protection districts in general.   The applicant has requested that the Board continue the application to the furthest date they feel comfortable  with (see email, attached).  The Planning Commission has not made any decision as to when they will review  view protection districts, other than to indicate it is a lower priority than executing the studies directed by City  Council in the interim bylaws warned for public hearing on November 13, 2018.    In addition, it appears  possible this Project may be subject to the revised PUD regulations.  Therefore the current proposal may need  to be re‐noticed prior to being taken up by the Board again.  Given this, and the unspecified timeline for the  Planning Commission’s review of the view protection district, Staff recommends the Board conclude the  hearing at this time.  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:   Marla Keene, Development Review Planner    SUBJECT:   SP‐18‐16 793 & 907 Shelburne Road    DATE:    November 6, 2018   Development Review Board meeting      R.L. Vallee, Inc. has submitted sketch plan application #SD‐18‐16 to demolish an existing hotel and a portion of  an existing service station and create a planned unit development consisting of an expanded service station  with four additional fueling positions for a total of twelve and associated 9,000 square foot retail sales building  at 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.    The Board reviewed the application at the June 5, July 17 and September 4, 2018 Development Review Board  meetings.  At the September 4 hearing the Applicant requested continuance to evaluate whether they could  prepare a revised plan addressing the Board’s concerns without triggering the need for the meeting to be re‐ warned.  On November 1, Staff received a message from the Applicant indicating that they wish to close the  meeting and submit a new sketch plan application when the new plan is available.  Therefore, therefore Staff  recommends that the Board conclude the meeting.  #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 1 1 of 9  CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  SD‐18‐30_45 Community Drive_35 Community Dr  LLC_SK_2018‐11‐04.docx  DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING   Report preparation date: November 2, 2018  Plans received: October 11, 2018  45 Community Drive  Sketch Plan Application #SD‐18‐30  Meeting date: November 6, 2018  Owner  55 Community Drive LLC  30 Community Drive  South Burlington, VT 05403  Applicant  SunCap Property Group  6101 Carnegie Boulevard, Suite 180  Charlotte, NC 28209  Property Information  Tax Parcel 0438‐00055  Mixed Industrial Commercial (IC) District  57.14 acres   Engineer  Cross Consulting Engineers, P.C  103 Fairfax Road  St. Albans, VT 05478  Location Map    #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 2 2 of 9    PROJECT DESCRIPTION    Sketch plan application #SD‐18‐30 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five (5) lots (#8B, 9, 10, 11 &  12) and one easement into three (3) lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), and 6.6 acres (Lot 12),  eliminate the proposed City street Community Way, and construct an approximately 144,000 square  foot warehousing and distribution center, 45 Community Drive.    PERMIT HISTORY    The Project is located in the Mixed Industrial Commercial Zoning District.  It is also located in the Transit  Overlay District, a portion of the property is located in the Flood Plain Overlay District Zone A, and a  portion is located in the Interstate Highway Overlay District.  There are areas of class II and class III  wetlands and wetland buffers located within the project area.  In April 2016, the Board reviewed a  sketch plan application for a similar project in the same location.  The current proposal is for an  approximately 20% smaller building, otherwise the proposal is similar to the application reviewed in  2016.    COMMENTS    Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter  referred  to  as  Staff,  have  reviewed  the  plans  submitted  by  the applicant  and  offer  the  following  comments.  Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.    CONTEXT    The project will be subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, conditional use standards,  Interstate Highway Overlay District (IHO) Standards, and wetland protection standards.    ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS    Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions       IC Zoning District Required Proposed  Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF  43.8 ac.  Max. Building Height 35 ft. (flat), 40 ft. (pitched)  35 ft. 1  Max. Building Coverage 40%  8%  Max. Overall Coverage 70%  28%  Max. Front Setback Coverage  30%  Unknown 2  Min. Front Setback  30 ft.  500 ft.  Min. Side Setback 10 ft.  230 ft.  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.  N/A 3    Zoning compliance  1. Applicant indicated 36 feet to height of RTUs.  Certain rooftop apparatus are not considered when  calculating the height of a building.  Non‐exempt rooftop apparatus that exceed the allowable  height may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use.  Conditional use standards are discussed  below.  2. The applicant has calculated the impervious coverage of the front yard.  The requirement in Section  3.06H is for no more than 30% of the area of the required front setback to be used for driveways and  #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 3 3 of 9  parking.  Staff considers that it appears this standard is met, but the applicant should correct their  calculation for subsequent applications.  3. The property does not have a rear yard as it abuts the interstate.  The IHO district requires a  building setback of 150 ft.    SUBDIVISION STANDARDS    A. Access, circulation and traffic management    The applicant has provided a traffic impact study which evaluated the effects of the proposed project on a  number of adjacent signalized and unsignalized intersections.  The study estimates that the project will  generate 230 trips during the PM peak hour based on data specific to the proposed tenant, FedEx.  It  concludes that traffic impacts will be such that a full traffic signal is warranted at the easterly intersection of  Community Drive and Kimball Avenue.  Additionally, the study concludes that the same intersection would  need to be widened and the stop bars relocated in order to accommodate the proposed truck movements.    The applicant has indicated that they would like to apply the cost of the required intersection improvements  against the required traffic impact fee for the Project.  The Board does not have the authority to authorize  such a substitution where no such project is identified in the Impact Fee Ordinance, and further the Board  has historically required applicants to construct improvements necessary to offset the impacts of their  projects.    1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to authorize independent technical review. The Board  may formally require such a review beginning at the Preliminary Plat stage, but Staff offers that  making it as a request at this stage would expedite the review process overall. The Comprehensive  plan  contemplates  the  possibility  of  a  roundabout  or  traffic  signal  at  this  intersection.    Staff  recommends  that,  in  addition  to  general  review,  the  independent  review  consider  whether  a  roundabout should be studied and confirm the appropriateness of the scope of the study.    The proposed subdivision results in a shift in the location of Lot 11 and a reduction in the size of Lot 12.  Under  the revised configuration, if each of Lots 11 and 12 had their own driveways they may create traffic circulation  issues due to their proximity to one another and to the driveway for the proposed Project.     2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to include a requirement the reconfigured lots include  a shared access easement between Lots 11 and 12 to reduce the number of curb cuts on Community  Drive.    B. Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Habitat Protection    The applicant is proposing to impact several areas of Class III wetlands and wetland buffers as part of the  proposed project.  The wetland areas are located in the center of the Project site and it appears impacts are  unavoidable with a development of this scale. The project also includes areas of class II and class III wetlands  that would not be directly impacted.    1. Staff recommends the Board should ask the applicant to submit field delineations and wetlands  report, as well documentation from the State Wetlands Program supporting the delineation, as part  of preliminary plat and as described in Section 12.02D in order to substantiate compliance with the  wetland protection standards of Section 12.02E.    #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 4 4 of 9  C. Open Space    The project is proposed to impact a segment of existing walking path along the south edge of the property  line and along the north edge of the proposed parking area.  The south leg of the existing path is proposed to  be rerouted from its current alignment to directly abut the southern property line.  The existing location of  the walking path will be used as a soil stockpile location with roughly the same height as the base of the  adjoining  “Reverence”  (Whale’s  Tails)  sculpture.    The  provided landscape  plan  includes  two  types  of  deciduous shrubs on top of the soil stockpile.      2. Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to ensure the walking path remains an attractive  destination.    3. Staff recommends the Board include in future approvals a condition requiring the paths to remain  open to the public.    4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they are providing outdoor spaces for  employee use.    D. Compatibility with Comprehensive Plan    The project is located in an area planned for medium to higher intensity principally non‐residential use.  The  specific objectives in this quadrant pertain to employers in need of larger amounts of space and to providing  recreation and resource conservation.  Staff considers these objectives further substantiate the need for  thoughtful recreation path design.    E. Stormwater    The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the plans on October 30, 2018 and offers the following  comments.    The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Proposed FedEx Facility” sketch plan prepared by  Cross Consulting Engineers, dated 10/1/2018. We would like to offer the following comments:  1. The proposed project will discharge to Muddy Brook.   2. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb  greater than 1 acre of land.  It will therefore require an operational stormwater permit  and construction permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division.   3. The project proposes to impact wetlands and their buffer. Have the Class 2 and Class 3  wetland classifications been confirmed by the Vermont DEC Wetlands Division?   a. The outfall location of the proposed gravel wetland is not shown on the plans.  This may amount to additional impacts to Class 2 wetlands.   4. As the project proposes to create more than one‐half acre or more of impervious surface,  the project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs.   5. The applicant should provide a written narrative that requirements in Section 12.03(C) of  the City’s Land Development Regulations (LDRs) are met.  a. The Water Quality Volume must infiltrated using Low Impact Development (LID).  If infiltration is not feasible, the applicant should provide written justification, in  accordance with §12.03(D)(1)(d) of the LDRs.   #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 5 5 of 9  b. Provide any soil borings or test pits to confirm soil types and groundwater  elevation on site.  c. Provide a plan that shows drainage areas for each treatment practice.    d. Provide a maintenance plan with specific language relative to the gravel wetland  systems.  e. Please provide HydroCAD model for review.    6. Adequate maintenance access should be provided to each stormwater treatment  practice, allowing for access of any pretreatment and outlet structure for maintenance  purposes.   7. A swale is shown around the perimeter of the parking lot to convey runoff to the  proposed gravel wetland. A chain link fence is also shown at or near the bottom of the  swale in some locations. The applicant should give consideration to the placement of the  swale and fence posts to ensure that runoff in the swale does not erode the ground  around footings of fence posts.   8. Provide a sheet showing the gravel wetland details.  9. Provide EPSC plans for review.   10. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all  stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.  5. Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant understands the comments of the Stormwater  Section.  Staff considers the comments of the Stormwater Section should be addressed as part of the  preliminary plat application for the Project.    SITE PLAN STANDARDS    A. Transitions between structure and site, adequacy of planting, parking, and pedestrians    Staff  considers  that  application  does  not  contain  sufficient  information  to  evaluate  the  adequacy  of  pedestrian movement.  Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide information on the building  entrances at preliminary plat.    B. Parking    The plans show parking for 299 standard vehicles, plus an additional 177 spaces for commercial vehicles  related to the onsite business.  For the proposed 143,713 sf. building, 72 spaces are required at a rate of 0.5  spaces/1,000 sf.       6. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to substantiate the need for their proposed parking  spaces by submitting the following information.    An evaluation of the feasibility of off‐site parking   Number of employees   Phase‐in plan for the new facility   Frequency of peak demand   What transit options/shuttle options are available?   Number of spaces at the current facility    7. Staff recommends the Board use this information to evaluate whether to require the parking be  constructed in phases, with the parking construction in each phase restricted to the minimum needed  #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 6 6 of 9  as the proposed facility phases in to operating at full capacity.      Staff considers the correct initial number of parking spaces needed for this facility may be equivalent to the  number of parking spaces at the existing facility.    Section 14.06B(2)(vii) and 14.06B(2)(d) govern parking in the front and parking location for through lots.  100  of the proposed spaces, including 8 commercial vehicle and 92 standard spaces, are located to the front of  the building facing Community Drive.  The applicant approximates 20% of their parking is located to the front  of the building, which is allowed when the standards from Section  14.06B(2)(b)(vii)(II)  are  met.    This  calculation includes the trailer parking as parking spaces.  If the applicant desires to include the trailer parking  area in their parking calculations, Staff considers that the trailer parking area must meet all other parking lot  standards including interior landscaping and shade trees.  If the applicant desires instead to count the trailer  parking as “equipment storage area,” Staff estimates they have approximately 30% of the parking spaces in  the front, which does not meet the maximum 25% requirement.      8. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant their intent to meet all parking lot layout  requirements for the trailer parking areas.    For the Board to approve up to 25% of parking located to the front, the following additional standards apply.    2. Parking shall be predominantly screened from the roadway with landscaping features, and  separated from the roadway’s sidewalks or multi‐use paths by one or more of the following  Qualifying Open Spaces (as defined in Appendix F, except for the location standards which  are superseded by this subsection): Pocket/Mini Park; Wooded area; Community Garden;  Enhanced Rain Garden; or Streetfront Open Space. The size of this Open Space shall be  sufficient to (1) create or extend a pleasant pedestrian experience on the adjacent public  sidewalk or recreation path, (2) largely screen parking from the street right‐of‐way, and (3)  provide for additional usable open space on the parcel. The open space shall represent a  minimum of 35% of the total square footage of the parking spaces (not including circulation  infrastructure) proposed to be located in front of the building.   3. The minimum required landscaping budget established by the Development Review Board  pursuant to Section 13.06 shall increase by a percentage that is equivalent to the percentage  of  the  total  parking  that  is  proposed  to  be  located  between  a  public  street  and  the  building(s) on a lot.  Of this total increased landscaping budget, the percentage that must  be dedicated to installation of landscaping in the front yard shall be equivalent to the  percentage of the total parking that is proposed to be located between a public street and  the building(s) (e.g., if the minimum required landscaping budget before any increase was  $100,000, and if 10% of the total parking for the lot is proposed to be located between a  public street and the building(s), then the minimum required landscaping budget shall  increase by 10%, for a new total landscaping budget of $110,000, and no less than 10% of  the  new  total  landscaping  budget,  or  $11,000,  must  be  dedicated  to  installation  of  landscaping in the front yard).  4. The  applicant  shall  construct  a safe,  paved  pedestrian  access  from  the  street  to  the  building’s main entrance.   5. The parking layout and circulation shall not interfere with safe pedestrian access from the  street to the building’s main entrance.    Staff considers that the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with these standards with the submitted  #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 7 7 of 9  materials, but it may be possible to meet these standards by enhancing the proposed front yard area.       9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their plans for meeting the open space  requirements in order to allow parking in the front.    C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area    The applicant has submitted elevations showing that the building will be faced primarily in brick with some  areas of pre‐finished metal panels and precast concrete.  Staff considers that the materials are consistent  with adjoining development, though there are significantly fewer windows proposed than exist on adjoining  buildings.     10. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to request the applicant adjust the building so the  north elevation is the side with the small number of loading docks and the large number of loading  docks instead face the interstate, which is proposed to be more fully screened, or whether to request  the applicant enhance the screening to shield the loading docks from view of the sidewalk and  recreation path between the building and Community Drive.      D. Access to Abutting Properties    This criterion requires the reservation of land when access is deemed necessary to, amongst other things,  improve general access and circulation in the area.  Staff considers the proposed employee parking area has  a driveway segment well aligned for future connection to the adjoining Lot 11 to the west.     11. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to instruct the applicant to not build the berm between  the driveway and to include construction of the driveway to the adjacent Lot 11.  At minimum, Staff  considers the Board should, as part of the future decision on the project, require an easement on the  development parcel for a future connection to Lot 11.    E. Landscaping and Screening Requirements    Section 13.06 discusses landscaping of parking areas.  Staff considers that the provided landscape plan does  not adequately address the requirement that parking areas be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot,  and that additional information is needed to evaluate compliance with the required interior landscape island  percentage, curbing, and snow storage.    (1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,  shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow  for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the  parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade  and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance  purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual  access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.  (2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in  parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior  of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such  requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground parking.  (3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as  a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.06(B)(5)(c)  #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 8 8 of 9  below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side,  and  shall  have  a  minimum  square  footage  of  sixty  (60)  square  feet.  Large  islands  are  encouraged.    In addition, Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations requires one major deciduous shade tree  located within or near the parking perimeter for every five parking spaces.  Trees must have a caliper of 2 ½  inches or more.  For the proposed 476 parking spaces, 96 deciduous shade trees would be required.  The  applicant has proposed only 58 shade trees.      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 are proposed to be Shademaster Honey  Locust.     12. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant they understand the requirements of Section  13.06  of  the  LDRs,  which  would  require  an  additional  29  deciduous  shade  trees.    Staff  further  recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the lack of shade trees in the commercial vehicle  parking areas.     The City Arborist reviewed the plans on October 17, 2018 and offers the following comments.  1. Recommend reducing the number of Honeylocust and adding one or two species to diversify  plantings in the parking lot islands.  2. Specify parking lot islands be filled with quality planting soil to a depth of 2‐3 ft. to provide  adequate soil volume to support tree growth  3. Should reconsider the use of Maples as they are an overplanted genus in South Burlington    13. Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant understands the comments of the City Arborist.   Staff considers the comments of the City Arborist should be addressed as part of the preliminary plat  application for the Project.    The applicant has not at this time provided an estimated cost of the building, nor have they provided a  landscape budget.  Staff considers it likely that the provided plantings do not meet the minimum landscape  budget, and that additional landscape budget is therefore available to address the parking lot planting  requirements and the front yard open space requirements.    F. Modifications of Standards    At this time, Staff is not aware of any standards will need to be modified for the proposed project.    CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS    The definition of height includes the following statement:  Height calculation of a building shall not include minor rooftop apparatus such as solar collectors,  chimneys, elevator and mechanical penthouses, air conditioning equipment, satellite dishes, and  similar apparatus that project from the roof. For other rooftop apparatus such as spires, towners,  water tanks, radio and television antennas, see Section 3.07 of these Regulations.     Staff recommends the Board discuss with the application what the proposed RTUs consist of and make a  determination  on  whether  Section  3.07  applies.    If  Section  3.07 applies, the Board must evaluate the  #SD‐18‐30  Staff Comments 9 9 of 9  compliance of the RTUs with conditional use criteria.  Staff considers the rooftop apparatus will not have an  undue adverse effect on the areas addressed in the conditional use standards.    INTERSTATE HIGHWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT (IHO)    Standards in the IHO district prohibit buildings within 150 feet of the Interstate 89 right of way.  Recreation  paths are permitted.  Staff has no concerns with the Project’s compliance with these criteria.    OTHER    A. Bicycle Parking    14. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to submit materials demonstrating compliance with  both short and long term bicycle storage as part of their preliminary plat application.    B. Signage  The applicant may not show proposed signs on the plans for Board approval.    C. Fencing    The fence type shall not be barbed wire, nor may it be greater than 8‐feet high.    D. Exterior Lighting    Staff  considers  the  applicant  must  provide  their  exterior  lighting  plan  in  subsequent  applications  to  demonstration compliance with Section 13.07.    E. 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    Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and close the hearing.     Respectfully submitted,  ____________________________________ Marla Keene, Development Review Planner  SunCap Property Group September 2018 Distribution Facility, Sketch Plan Application Revised 2018-10-23 South Burlington, VT Project 15011 Page 1 Narrative Description of Project Lots 9, 10, and a portion of lots 8B and 11 are proposed to be merged into a lot of approximately 43.4 acres. The applicant requests to terminate the offer of dedication of Community Way, as this area is required for development. The cul- de-sac no longer serves its original purpose of providing access to Lots 9 and 10. A boundary line adjustment between lots 11 and 12 is also proposed to result in two similar sized lots. A building of approximately 144,000 square feet will be constructed for use as a warehousing and distribution center. The existing FedEx Ground facility is located on the Williston side of Muddy Brook. FedEx Ground plans to relocate to this proposed facility. Based on the requirements provided by the proposed tenant, 209 parking spaces around the building are required for the numerous trailers, delivery vans, dollys, and tractors that are used in their operations. An employee and visitor parking lot is also proposed and will contain 299 spaces. The existing recreation path will remain with minor adjustments to its location to allow for the development of the lots. Earlier this year, VHB delineated several wetland areas on the property, and verified the delineation with the State of Vermont. The State determined that the wetlands were Class 3 wetlands, except for the wetlands along Muddy Brook, which are Class 2 wetlands. The layout of the project has been revised and adjusted to minimize the impacts to wetlands, while allowing for the development of the lots. VHB also prepared a traffic impact study of the proposed development and determined that a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection of Kimball Avenue and Community Drive. Additionally, the radii on Community Drive would need to be enlarged to allow tractor-trailers to move through the intersection. This will require boundary line adjustments on the two southern lots at the intersection. The Division for Historic Preservation at the State of Vermont has requested that a complete archaeology study be performed of the lots. UVM was contracted to survey and remove artifacts. The field work has been completed and their final report is being prepared. The stormwater management system will consist of sheet flow to catch basins, conveyance by storm drain pipes to a gravel wetland, which would SunCap Property Group September 2018 Distribution Facility, Sketch Plan Application Revised 2018-10-23 South Burlington, VT Project 15011 Page 2 discharge into Muddy Brook at the northeast corner of the property. The existing soil is classified as HSG ‘D’ and has poor infiltration capacity as well as a high seasonal ground water table. The soil prevents the use of infiltration practices such as bioretention and infiltration trenches. Utility companies, including Fairpoint, Vermont Gas, and Green Mountain Power were contacted for their ability to serve the project. Their positive confirmation letters are included in this application. The City of South Burlington has also stated that adequate capacity exists in the municipal water and sewer systems to serve the project. Applicable Standards Floodplain Overlay District: No development is proposed within the overlay district. Interstate Highway Overlay District: Buildings, parking areas, and access drives are located outside of the overlay district. The existing recreation path within the district will be relocated to accommodate landscaping berms, but will remain within the district. Transit Overlay District: While a portion of the existing lots are located within the district, no portion of the building falls within the district, and therefore, the project is not subject to its requirements. However, the project does propose pedestrian connections to the public right-of-way from the building. Surface Water Protection Standards: The project will obtain a Stormwater Permit to Discharge (3-9015) from the State of Vermont, as well as a 404 Permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Article 13 – Supplemental Regulations and Article 14 – Site Plan Review • Section 3.06.H: The impervious coverage in the front yard is 30%. • Section 3.15.C: The building will comply with the Commercial Building Energy Standards Stretch Code Guideline. • Section 6.05.C(2) Parking is to be located to the side or rear of buildings (except per Article 14). This parking complies with the exemptions within Article 14. • Section 10.04.C (1) No building or structure including parking areas may be located within the Interstate Highway Overlay district (150 feet from Interstate right-of-way). • Section 10.05.D The project provides sidewalks from the public right-of-way to the main entrance of the building. SunCap Property Group September 2018 Distribution Facility, Sketch Plan Application Revised 2018-10-23 South Burlington, VT Project 15011 Page 3 • Section 13.01.B, Table 13–2: Required parking is about 72 spaces based on warehousing. FedEx Ground requires about 300 spaces to meet their peak parking demand, based on other facilities around the country. • Section 13.01.G (4) Separate pedestrian facilities (crosswalks, sidewalks, etc.) are provide within the parking areas. • Section 13.01.G (5) At least 1 bicycle parking or storage facility is provided. • Section 13.06.B(1) Landscaping around parking areas are setback from pavement to allow for snow removal. • Section 13.06.B(2) Interior, landscaped islands are provided to meet the requirements listed. • Section 13.06.B(4)(b) The landscape plan shows the proposed location of trees. • Section 13.14.C, Table 10: 1 per 20k SF (2 min.); About 7 short-term bicycle parking spaces are required, and an area near the employee entrance has been provided. Two long-term bicycle storage lockers are also required and will be incorporated into the building design. • Section 13.14.C, Table 11: For 2 long-term storage lockers, only 1 clothes locker is required. The building design will include this locker. • Section 13.17.B(4) A fence over 4 feet in height requires a zoning permit. The proposed fence is to be 8 feet high. • Section 13.17.C(1) Barbed wire fences are prohibited, and is not proposed. • Section 14.06.B(2)(b)(vii) allows for parking to be in the front setback within the mixed Industrial-Commercial district, but only up to 25% of the total parking. The parking within the front yard must also be screened, and a pedestrian access is required. The total number of spaces within the project is 508; the front yard contains 100 spaces, or 20%. • Appendix C, Table C–2 provides the dimensional requirements. Maximum coverage is 70%. The maximum building coverage is 28%. \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018- 10-01.docx 40 IDX Drive Building 100, Suite 200 South Burlington, VT 05403-7771 P 802.497.6100 To: Mr. Peter Cross Cross Consulting Engineers 103 Fairfax Road St Albans City, VT 05478 Date: October 1, 2018 Project #: 57831.03 From: David Saladino, P.E., AICP Jenny Austin, P.E. Re: Proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center Traffic Impact Study Technology Park, South Burlington, VT VHB has prepared a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for a proposed FedEx Ground Distribution Center to be located between I-89 and Community Drive in Technology Park in South Burlington, Vermont. The site has access onto Community Drive opposite the southeasterly 30 Community Drive access driveway. The proposed development program consists of constructing a new 143,713 square foot FedEx Ground distribution center. This TIS includes the following sections: • A description of the existing roadway network in the vicinity of the site; • A review of the VTrans High Crash Location (HCL) Report and summary of HCLs along the project area; • A description of the proposed development program; • A trip generation summary for the proposed development program; • A description of the traffic network; • An evaluation of traffic operations within the study area for 2019 and 2024 weekday morning and evening peak hours; • A traffic signal warrant analysis for the Kimball Avenue / Gregory Drive / Community Drive (east) and Kimball Avenue / Community Drive (west) intersections for the No Build and Build scenarios; • Identified roadway and intersection geometric and traffic control modifications required to accommodate the Build condition; • A summary of anticipated City of South Burlington and VTrans Traffic Impact Fees; and • Conclusions and recommendations to support the project. As part of this study, a total of seven intersections were evaluated and summarized in regard to level of service (LOS), average delay, and volume-to-capacity ratio in order to estimate how the proposed project impacts the local street network. Additional reviews and evaluations are contained within this report which summarize the existing and proposed project area as it relates to traffic and safety impacts. The general project area and traffic study intersections are shown below in Figure 1Error! Reference source not found.. Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 2 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx Figure 1: Project Location and Study Area Intersections EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located between the southeastern corner of Community Drive and I-89 in Technology Park in South Burlington, Vermont. The existing full access site driveway is located opposite the existing southeasterly driveway for the businesses at 30 Community Drive. Adjacent Roadway Characteristics Kimball Avenue is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) that provides an east-west connection between Kennedy Drive to the west and Marshall Avenue to the east. The posted speed limit along Kimball Avenue, adjacent to Community Drive, is 40 miles per hour (mph). A 10-foot wide multi-use path is provided along the south side of Kimball Avenue in the vicinity of Community Drive (from a point approximately 550 feet west of Community Drive (west) to a point approximately 250 feet east of Community Drive (east) / Gregory Drive). A sidewalk is provided along the northern side of Kimball Avenue from Comcast Drive to a point approximately 300 feet east of Community Drive Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 3 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx (east) / Gregory Drive. No crosswalks are currently provided on Kimball Avenue in the vicinity of Community Drive. Land uses along Kimball Avenue are primarily commercial and light industrial. Airport Drive and Kennedy Drive intersect US 2 from the north and south respectively to form a 4-way signalized intersection. US 2 provides a left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right lane in both the eastbound and westbound directions. Airport Drive and Kennedy Drive both provide a left-turn lane, a through lane, and a right-turn lane. The traffic signal provides an exclusive pedestrian phase. Kimball Avenue and Bayberry Lane intersect Kennedy Drive from the east and west respectively to form a 4-way signalized intersection approximately 1,000 feet south of US 2. Kennedy Drive provides a left-turn lane, two through lanes and a right-turn lane in the northbound direction and a left-turn lane, a through lane, and a shared through/right lane in the southbound direction. Kimball Avenue provides a left-turn lane and a shared through/right lane in the westbound direction while Bayberry Lane provides a single multiuse lane in the eastbound direction. Pedestrians are accommodated by an exclusive pedestrian phase at the signal. Community Drive intersects Kimball Avenue at two locations. The western terminus of Community Drive intersects Kimball Avenue to form a 3-way unsignalized intersection, with Comcast Drive intersecting Kimball Avenue from the north approximately 160-feet to the east of Community Drive. Kimball Avenue provides a shared through/right lane in the eastbound direction and a left-turn lane and a through lane in the westbound direction. Community Drive provides a left-turn lane and a right-turn lane and operates under stop control. The second Community Drive intersection with Kimball Avenue is located approximately 1,500 feet to the east of the 3-way intersection. The eastern Community Drive intersection with Kimball Avenue and Gregory Drive is a 4-way stop-controlled intersection. Kimball Avenue provides a left-turn lane and a shared through/right lane in the east and westbound directions. Gregory Drive provides a single multiuse lane in the southbound direction while Community Drive provides a left-turn lane and a shared through/right lane in the northbound direction. To the east in Williston, South Brownell Road intersects Marshall Avenue to form a 4-way signalized intersection. Both the eastbound and westbound approaches on Marshall Avenue provide a single multiuse lane. The northbound approach on South Brownell Road provides a shared left/through lane and a right-turn lane while the southbound approach provides a multiuse lane. Pedestrians are accommodated by an exclusive pedestrian phase at the signal. Further east, Marshall Avenue terminates at the signalized intersection of VT 2A with Maple Tree Place. Marshall Avenue provides a left-turn lane, a through lane and a right-turn lane in the eastbound direction. Maple Tree Place provides two left-turn lanes and a shared through/right lane in the in the westbound direction. VT 2A provides a left-turn lane, a through lane and a shared through/right lane in the southbound direction and a left-turn lane, a through lane, and a right-turn lane in the northbound direction. The traffic signal provides an exclusive pedestrian phase. Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 4 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx CRASH SUMMARY A review of VTrans’ most recent High Crash Location (HCL) Report1 revealed that there is one study area intersection classified as an HCL (VT 2A at Marshall Avenue and Maple Tree Place) and one roadway segment at a study area intersection that is classified as a HCL (US 2 between milemarker 1.658 and 1.958). Table 1 summarizes the two HCL locations at study area intersections. In addition, the VTrans Public Crash Data Query Tool2 was reviewed to investigate project area HCLs for the most recent five-year data (2013-2017). The resulting findings are shown in Table 2. Additional detail of HCL crashes within the project area are included in the Appendix. Table 1: High Crash Locations at Study Area Intersections Table 2: Summary of 5-Year Mapped Crash Data for Project Area HCLs 1 High Crash Location Report: Sections and Intersections. 2012-2016. VTrans Office of Highway Safety Division. 2 VTrans Transportation Data Management System. http://vtrans.ms2soft.com. Queried 04/20/2018. Rank HCL Type Route Town Mileage AADT Crashes Injuries*Ratio Actual/ Critical 42 intersection VT 2A - Marshall Ave.Williston 3.320 - 3.340 31,000 61 5 1.427 444 section US 2 South Burlington 1.658 - 1.958 16,190 75 14 1.298 * No fatalities at HCLs listed High Crash Location VT 2A & Marshall Avenue US 2 segment, mm 1.658 - 1.958 type intersection segment Number of 5 year mapped crashes (2013-2017)55 60 Property Damage Only 93%80% Injury 7%20% Rear End (65%)Rear End (35%) Same Direction Sideswipe (13%)Same Direction Sideswipe (23%) Left Turn and Thru (5%)Left Turn and Thru (15%) Head On (5%)Thru moves only (10%) Rain or Freezing Precipitation 5%7% Wet, Snow, Slush, Ice 9%23% Surface Condition Weather Crash Type Top Four Collision Types Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 5 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The site is located in Technology Park on the southeastern portion of Community Drive adjacent to I-89. The proposed development program consists of constructing a new 143,713 square foot FedEx Ground distribution center with full access and egress at the existing Community Drive driveway, located opposite the southeasterly driveway to the 30 Community Drive businesses. The proposed site layout is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 6 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates were obtained from FedEx for this facility based internal logistics planning and represent full operations during peak seasonal operating conditions (i.e. Christmas holiday). The trip generation figures provided by FedEx and used in this traffic study are approximately 30% higher than ITE trip generation estimates for Land Use 155 – High-Cube Fulfillment Center Warehouse. Table 3 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the proposed development program. Approximately 90% of the daily trip generation from the site is anticipated to be comprised of automobiles and vans. Table 3: Trip Generation Summary Additional hourly trip generation estimates for the project are provided in the Appendix. Period Total Peak Hour Site Generated Trips Weekday Morning Peak Hour Enter 114 Exit 118 Total 232 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Enter 128 Exit 102 Total 230 Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 7 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx TRIP DISTRIBUTION The site-generated trips were distributed onto the adjacent street network based on a combination of anticipated vehicle trip routing and existing travel patterns within the project study area. Trips were distributed to the roadway network as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Site Generated Trip Distribution TRAFFIC NETWORK The weekday morning and evening peak periods were selected for analysis purposes as they represent the peak conditions for the site-generated traffic and the adjacent street system. Turning movement traffic counts collected by VTrans and VHB during the weekday morning and evening peak periods were used as the basis for the capacity analyses. To evaluate the impact of the proposed development within the study area, the peak hour traffic volumes were projected to the opening year (2019) of the development and a 5-year forecast horizon (2024). Seasonal Variation Since it is impractical to design for the highest volume encountered during the year, VTrans guidelines recommend a compromise between capacity and cost. Design Hourly Volume (DHV) criteria allow roads to be designed for the 30th Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 8 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx highest hourly volume of the year. Data obtained on the VTrans Transportation Data Management System3 was used to establish appropriate DHV adjustment factors. DHV adjustment factors for the study area intersections range from 1.00 to 1.16 and can be found in the Appendix. Background Growth Background traffic growth is a function of expected land development in the region. To predict a rate at which traffic can be expected to grow during the forecast period, historical traffic growth was examined. The regression analysis chart in the 2016 VTrans Redbook4 suggests a background growth rate of 1.03 for projecting traffic volumes from 2019 to 2024. No Build and Build Traffic Networks The 2024 No Build traffic volumes were developed by applying the growth factors from the VTrans regression analysis chart to DHV-adjusted peak hour traffic volumes. Based on the expected trip distribution, the site-generated trips were added to the 2019 and 2024 No Build peak hour traffic volumes to establish the 2019 and 2024 Build networks. It should be noted that no reduction of traffic was taken for the removal of the existing FedEx Ground facility on Marshall Avenue in Williston to provide a conservative evaluation for the Build condition. The 2019 and 2024 No Build and Build weekday morning and evening DHVs are provided in the Appendix. TRAFFIC ANALYSES Intersection Capacity Analyses Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the study area intersections. Levels of service (LOS) were calculated based on the criteria published in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual5. Level of service is the term that defines the conditions that may occur on a given roadway or at an intersection when accommodating various traffic volume loads. Levels of service range from A to F with LOS A representing free-flowing operating conditions and LOS F representing highly-congested conditions. Copies of the LOS calculations have been provided in the Appendix. As described previously, the traffic evaluation is based on the FedEx Full Phase traffic flow projections, which are expected to represent peak operational conditions such as the holiday shipping period. Additionally, no reduction was taken for the removal of the existing FedEx Ground facility that will be vacated upon opening the proposed facility on Community Drive. Therefore, the traffic operations reported herein represent peak conditions for the full build out of the FedEx facility. Lower traffic volume demands and better traffic operations are expected during the majority of the year and prior to the full build out of the facility. Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the operational analysis at the signalized and unsignalized study area intersections, respectively. Signalized intersections are summarized by overall traffic operations of the intersection, and unsignalized intersections are summarized by approach traffic operations. 3 VTrans Transportation Data Management System. http://vtrans.ms2soft.com. Queried 04/26/18. 4 Continuous Traffic Counter Report (The Redbook), Based on 2016 Traffic Data. Vermont Agency of Transportation, August 2017. 5 Highway Capacity Manual, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 9 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx Table 4: Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection / Movement Weekday Peak Hour v/c*Delay**LOS***v/c Delay LOS 1. US 2 at Kennedy Dr /Morning 0.55 28 C 0.58 29 C Airport Dr Evening 0.63 38 D 0.64 38 D 2. Kennedy Dr at Morning 0.53 29 C 0.57 30 C Kimball Ave / Bayberry Ln Evening 0.61 34 C 0.65 39 D 5. Marshall Ave at Morning 0.44 12 B 0.48 12 B S. Brownell Rd Evening 0.7 14 B 0.72 15 B 6. VT 2A at Marshall Ave / Morning 0.77 97 F 0.79 98 F Maple Tree Pl Evening 0.89 114 F 0.91 123 F Intersection / Movement Weekday Peak Hour v/c*Delay**LOS***v/c Delay LOS 1. US 2 at Kennedy Dr /Morning 0.57 29 C 0.60 30 C Airport Dr Evening 0.65 38 D 0.67 38 D 2. Kennedy Dr at Morning 0.55 30 C 0.59 30 C Kimball Ave / Bayberry Ln Evening 0.63 36 D 0.67 40 D 5. Marshall Ave at Morning 0.45 12 B 0.49 13 B S. Brownell Rd Evening 0.71 15 B 0.74 16 B 6. VT 2A at Marshall Ave / Morning 0.79 92 F 0.82 93 F Maple Tree Pl Evening 0.91 125 F 0.94 126 F * volume to capacity ratio ** delay per vehicle, in seconds *** level of service 2024 Build2024 No Build 2019 No Build 2019 Build Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 10 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx Table 5: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection / Movement Weekday Peak Hour v/c*Delay**LOS***v/c Delay LOS 3. Kimball Ave at Community Dr (West) EB from Kimball Ave Morning 0.33 0 A 0.37 0 A WB left from Kimball Ave 0.02 9 0.03 9 WB through from Kimball Ave 0.26 0 0.26 0 NB left from Community Dr 0.03 19 0.27 25 NB right from Community Dr 0 0 0 12 EB from Kimball Ave Evening 0.27 0 A 0.31 0 A WB left from Kimball Ave 0 8 0.01 9 WB through from Kimball Ave 0.41 0 0.41 0 NB left from Community Dr 0.32 29 0.58 45 NB right from Community Dr 0.03 11 0.04 11 4. Kimball Ave at Community Dr (East) EB left from Kimball Ave Morning 0.09 9 0.10 9 EB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.59 16 0.63 18 WB left from Kimball Ave 0.15 9 0.23 11 WB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.62 17 0.66 19 NB left from Community Dr 0.08 10 0.09 11 NB right from Community Dr 0.04 9 0.15 10 SB from Gregory Dr 0.30 12 B 0.33 13 B EB left from Kimball Ave Evening 0.11 10 0.11 11 EB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.77 28 0.82 34 WB left from Kimball Ave 0.05 10 0.15 11 WB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.79 30 0.83 35 NB left from Community Dr 0.29 13 0.31 14 NB right from Community Dr 0.24 11 0.34 13 SB from Gregory Dr 0.29 14 B 0.34 15 B 7. Community Dr at Site driveway EB from Community Dr Morning 0.01 4 A 0.01 2 A WB from Community Dr 0 0 A 0.04 4 A NB from Site 0 0 A 0.15 10 B SB left from PF driveway 0.01 9 0.01 11 SB through/right from PF driveway 0 9 0 9 EB from Community Dr Evening 0.01 1 A 0.01 1 A WB from Community Dr 0 0 A 0.04 5 A NB from Site 0 0 A 0.13 10 B SB left from PF driveway 0.02 9 0.03 11 SB through/right from PF driveway 0.01 9 0.01 9 * volume to capacity ratio ** delay per vehicle, in seconds *** level of service A B B A A B B D D D D A 2019 No Build B C C C 2019 Build AA A A C C EC Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 11 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx Table 5 Continued: Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Summary Intersection / Movement Weekday Peak Hour v/c*Delay**LOS***v/c Delay LOS 3. Kimball Ave at Community Dr (West) EB from Kimball Ave Morning 0.34 0 A 0.38 0 A WB left from Kimball Ave 0.02 9 0.03 9 WB through from Kimball Ave 0.26 0 0.26 0 NB left from Community Dr 0.03 20 0.28 26 NB right from Community Dr 0 0 0.01 12 EB from Kimball Ave Evening 0.28 0 A 0.32 0 A WB left from Kimball Ave 0 8 0.01 9 WB through from Kimball Ave 0.42 0 0.42 0 NB left from Community Dr 0.34 31 0.62 50 NB right from Community Dr 0.04 11 0.04 12 4. Kimball Ave at Community Dr (East) EB left from Kimball Ave Morning 0.10 9 0.10 10 EB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.61 17 0.66 20 WB left from Kimball Ave 0.16 9 0.24 11 WB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.65 18 0.69 21 NB left from Community Dr 0.08 10 0.09 11 NB right from Community Dr 0.05 9 0.15 10 SB from Gregory Dr 0.31 13 B 0.35 14 B EB left from Kimball Ave Evening 0.11 10 0.12 11 EB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.81 32 0.86 39 WB left from Kimball Ave 0.05 10 0.15 11 WB through/right from Kimball Ave 0.83 34 0.87 40 NB left from Community Dr 0.31 14 0.32 14 NB right from Community Dr 0.25 12 0.36 13 SB from Gregory Dr 0.31 14 B 0.35 15 C 7. Community Dr at Site driveway EB from Community Dr Morning 0.01 4 A 0.01 2 A WB from Community Dr 0 0 A 0.04 4 A NB from Site 0 0 A 0.15 10 B SB left from PF driveway 0.01 9 0.01 11 SB through/right from PF driveway 0 9 0 9 EB from Community Dr Evening 0.01 1 A 0.01 1 A WB from Community Dr 0 0 A 0.04 5 A NB from Site 0 0 A 0.13 10 B SB left from PF driveway 0.02 9 0.04 11 SB through/right from PF driveway 0.01 9 0.01 9 * volume to capacity ratio ** delay per vehicle, in seconds *** level of service A A B C D E B B A A A A D D E C C A B C C D E 2024 No Build A 2024 Build Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 12 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx SIGNAL WARRANTS Signal warrant evaluations were conducted for the two Community Drive intersections with Kimball Avenue to determine if a traffic signal may be warranted under the No Build and/or Build scenarios utilizing the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 6, chapter 4C: Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies methodology. Twelve-hour traffic counts conducted at both intersections on Wednesday, April 25, 2018 were used as the basis for signal warrant evaluations. The following summarizes the signal warrant analysis results: • Kimball Avenue/Community Drive (west): o No signals warrants are met for either No Build or Build scenarios. • Kimball Avenue/Community Drive (east)/Gregory Drive: o Warrant 1B (8-hour) met for 80% volumes for all 2019 and 2024 No Build and Build scenarios. o Warrant 3 (peak hour) met for all 2019 and 2024 No Build and Build scenarios. In addition to the above, Warrant 4 (Pedestrian Volumes) and Warrant 7 (Crash Experience) were evaluated and are included in the Appendix. The remainder of the Warrants were not applicable for the given intersections and were therefore not evaluated. PROPOSED TRAFFIC MITIGATION The Kimball Avenue/Community Drive (east)/Gregory Drive intersection eastbound and westbound approaches are projected to operate at LOS E conditions for the 2024 Build scenario during the evening peak hour. As noted in the previous section, traffic signal warrant analyses suggest that both the eight-hour and peak-hour signal warrants are met at this intersection under all No Build and Build scenarios. With a fully-actuated traffic signal in place, the intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS B during peak hours. Based on these results it is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at this intersection. Also, to fully accommodate truck turning movements at this intersection, curb radii will be expanded in the southwest and southeast quadrants of the intersection and stop bars will be relocated on several approaches, as shown in Figure 4 on the following page. Additionally, traffic signal timing optimization at the US 2A/Marshall Avenue intersection was estimated to improve conditions at this intersection, with LOS improving from a LOS F to LOS E during 2024 peak hour conditions. This optimization generally occurs during routine VTrans traffic signal maintenance operations. 6 MUTCD - 2009 Edition. Federal Highway Administration. 2009 with revision numbers 1 and 2 incorporated, dated May 2012. Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 13 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx Figure 4: Proposed Intersection Geometric Modifications - Kimball Ave/Gregory Drive/Community Drive Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 14 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES The City of South Burlington’s Impact Fee Ordinance7 was reviewed to estimate transportation impact fees associated with this project. The South Burlington impact fee is calculated based on the weekday evening peak hour vehicle trip ends, based on the conservative FedEx full phase expected trip generation, is shown in Table 6 below. The Applicant and the City should discuss how much of this Traffic Impact Fee can be applied towards the intersection upgrades at the Kimball Avenue/Community Drive/Gregory Drive intersection. Table 6: Anticipated South Burlington Transportation Impact Fees During the Act 250 permitting phase, VTrans may choose to apply traffic impact fees per Act 145 legislation for state-programmed projects that would see some of the trips generated by proposed development. A summary of anticipated transportation impact fees due to Act 145 is shown in Table 7. Projects listed and project impact fee rates were determined using the VTrans Act 145 Projects and Fees map8. Table 7: Anticipated VTrans Act 145 Transportation Impact Fees 7 City of South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. City of South Burlington, Vermont, amended May 19, 2014. 8 Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee Map. Vermont Agency of Transportation. http://vtrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.htm (queried 05/21/2018). PM Peak Hour Peak Hour Trips 230 Impact Fee Rate, per new peak hour trip $999.86 Project Impact Fee $229,968 New traffic signal at US 2 / Trader Lane Improvements to I-89 Exit 12 & VT2A intersections VT 2A / Industrial Ave / Mountain View Dr. intersection VT 2A safety Improvements (River Cove Rd to Eastview Circle) STPG 5500(14)NH 5500(18)STP 5500(17)STP HES 5500(12) $210 $243 $252 $189 7 58 23 23 $1,470 $14,094 $5,796 $4,347 Total Act 145 Transportation Impact Fee:$25,707 VTrans Project Number Associated Transportation Impact Fee Project Impact Fee (per PM peak hour trip) PM Peak site generated trips at project location Ref: 57831.01 October 1, 2018 Page 15 \\vhb\gbl\proj\SBurlington\57831.00 Cross Technology Park\docs\memos\Traffic Impact Study\Fed Ex Tech Park TIS - 2018-10-01.docx CONCLUSIONS The proposed development program consists of constructing a new 143,713 square foot FedEx Ground distribution center in the southeast corner of Community Drive in Technology Park in South Burlington, Vermont. The trip generation estimates provided by FedEx indicate that the proposed development will generate approximately 232 trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 230 trips during the weekday evening peak hour during peak operational periods of the year. Typical operations during non-peak shipping periods are expected to generate far less traffic. Additionally, it should be noted that to be conservative the operational analysis assumes no reduction of volumes due to the relocation of the existing FedEx Ground facility located on Marshall Avenue in Williston. Access and egress to and from the site will be provided via a full access driveway located on Community Drive opposite the southeasterly driveway to 30 Community Drive. Sight lines at the proposed site driveway exceed AASHTO’s recommended guidelines. Following a capacity analysis at seven study area intersections under 2019 and 2024 No Build and Build scenarios during the morning and evening peak hours, and completion of traffic signal warrants at the two Kimball Avenue/Community Drive intersections, we recommend that a fully-actuated traffic signal be installed at the Kimball Avenue/Community Drive/Gregory Drive intersection to maintain optimal traffic operating conditions in the study area. In summary, with the proposed traffic mitigation improvement listed above, the proposed development is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on traffic operations or safety on the adjacent roadway network. Remainder of Traffific Impact Study, containing the Technical Appendices, is included with the electronic submission, and not printed. Please refer to the PDF included with the submission.     DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD                16 OCTOBER 2018    The South Burlington Development Review Board held a regular meeting on Tuesday, 16  October 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.    MEMBERS PRESENT: B. Miller, Chair; J Smith, J. Wilking, F. Kochman, M. Behr, M. Cota, B.  Sullivan    ALSO PRESENT: M. Keene, Development Review Planner; P. O’Leary, B. Currier, K. Cubino, J. &  S. Jewett, J. & B. Doucevicz, L. & J. Nadeau, D Penar      1. Directions on emergency evacuation procedures from conference room:    Mr. Miller provided directions on emergency evacuation procedures.    2. Additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items:    No changes were made to the Agenda.    3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the Agenda:    No issues were raised.    4. Announcements:    There were no announcements.    5. Reorganization:    Ms. Keene presided over the election of Development Review Board Officers.  She opened the  floor for nominations.    Mr. Wilking nominated a slate of Mr. Miller for Chair, Mr. Cota for Vice Chair, and Mr. Sullivan  for Clerk.  Mr. Kochman seconded.      There were no further nominations.  In the vote that followed the nominated slate of officers  was approved 7‐0.    Mr. Miller then presided over the remainder of the meeting.      DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  16 OCTOBER 2018  PAGE 2    Mr. Cota moved that the Board continue to meet on the first and third Tuesdays of the month  at 7:00 p.m. with the exception of 1 August 2019.  Mr. Kochman seconded.  Motion passed  unanimously.    Ms. Keene noted that the first meeting in January would fall on New Year’s Day and suggested  that since there is a fifth Tuesday in January, the Board consider meeting on the 15th and 29th of  that month.  Members agreed to take this suggestion up again closer to the date.    6. Continued Final Plat Application SD‐18‐28 of JJJ South Burlington LLC to amend a  previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two phases.  The  amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill) of the project and consists of increasing the  number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units in Phase II and 291 overall, and  conservation of 21.7 acres of land through the purchase of 26 Transfer Development  Rights.  The 142 units are proposed to consist of 66 single family lots, 46 unites in two‐ family dwellings, and 30 single family units on shared lots, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699  Hinesburg Road:    Mr. Sullivan recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.    The applicant was represented by Brian Currier and Paul O’Leary.    The applicant addressed the staff comments as follows:      #1 Inclusion of roads for impervious coverage:    Mr. Currier said there was a misunderstanding on their part.  They have submitted revised  coverages for the NR District shared lot.  The VR numbers were still valid.  Ms. Keene said staff  is OK with that.      #2 Issues regarding preconstruction grade:    Mr. Currier said they were given instructions to provide preconstruction grades.  The 2‐foot  difference between the indicated lots is because of the road grade/steepness.  Homes will be  consistent with those across the street.    Mr. Kochman asked about runoff due to the 2‐foot difference.  Mr. Currier said everything is  graded toward the rear of the lots.  He stressed that one house will not stick up more than the  next. He also said the downhill owner will not suffer from runoff.      #3 Update of open space management plan:  DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  16 OCTOBER 2018  PAGE 3      Mr. Currier said they meet the standard with 4 separate areas in the development.  These can  be mowed or brushhogged.  Staff recommends they should be mowed regularly.  That will be  done.    Mr. O’Leary explained the payment of $1000 per unit toward the future construction of Cider  Mill Road.  Mr. Behr said he felt that was a fair contribution.  Mr. Cota noted when the project  was initially reviewed, the Board was told the road was not to be completed until the lots to the  north of the solar farm is developed.      #4 Accurately reflect easements on sheet PL3:    Mr. Currier said they have done that.  He showed sheet PL3 and indicated the 50‐foot right‐of‐ way to be offered to the city.  Mr. O’Leary said all grading will be on property they own or  control.      #5 Remove boulders between lot 34 and the stormwater pond.    Mr. O’Leary said would do that.  The Board felt the boulders were necessary for safety and for  visual demarcation.  Members felt that since the ponds are cleaned out only every 5‐8 years,  the boulders should remain.  Mr. Cota suggested removing the first 2 boulders and providing  access to the ponds.  The Board instructed the applicant to retain the boulders except the north  most two.      #6 The boulders between lot #109 and the open space are on a storm drain:    Mr. Behr suggested the DPW remove them for maintenance and then replace them.  Some  members want the boulders in between the 2 pipes in the center of the easement.  Mr. O’Leary  said they could use “do not enter” signs instead of boulders, but the fear is that people will  extend their lawns into the natural areas.  Mr. Wilking suggested the HOA documents  specifically speak to not placing landscaping in the stormwater easements.  Mr. O’Leary said  they will make sure maintenance people have access.      #7 Street naming:    The state coordinator for E911 noted there are 2 other “…crest Drives” in the city which could  cause E911 confusion.  The applicant will suggest “Nadeau Drive” to the Planning Commission.    Public comment was then solicited as follows:    DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD  16 OCTOBER 2018  PAGE 4    Ms. Cubino:  Noted that more people favor than oppose the extension of Cider Mill Drive.   She also felt the developer should be contributing more toward its completion because some of  the properties staff used to calculate the fair fee are nearer to Kennedy Drive than to the  Project.    Mr. Nadeau:  Was concerned with the future of their adjacent property and that people might  consider it is ‘open land’ for their use.  The applicant agreed to put up fencing along the west  property line of Mr. Nadeau, retain the hedge along the south property line, and boulders along  the north property line.  These measures are in addition to the already proposed street trees.   They will also place “private property” signs along all 3 boundaries.    Mr. Nadeau was OK with  that.    Ms. Penar:  Opposes the extension of the road and feels it will result in more traffic.  She felt  it would be OK once the lot above the solar farm is developed.  To do it now would be  detrimental.    Ms. Cubino:  Noted that technical review supported the extension of the road now and relief  from traffic on side roads is needed now.    Mr. Cota then moved to close SD‐18‐28.  Mr. Wilking seconded.  Motion passed 6‐0.    Mr. Sullivan rejoined the Board.    7. Minutes of 2 October 2018:    Mr. Cota moved to approve the Minutes of 2 October 2018 as written.  Mr. Wilking seconded.   Motion passed unanimously.    8. Other Business:    No other business was presented.    As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned by  common consent at 8:07 p.m.          _____________________________________       Clerk