HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-03-63 SD-03-62 - Decision - 1050 Hinesburg RoadCITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT of PLANNING & ZONING
AVALANCHE — PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-63
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-62
FINDINGS of FACT AND DECISION
Avalanche Development, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting
preliminary and final plat plan approval of a Planned Unit Development consisting of an
8,904 sq. ft. medical office (5,304 sq. ft.) and general office (3,600 sq. ft.) building and
associated site development at 1050 Hinesburg Road. The subject property contains
approximately 1.21 acres and is located in the Industrial and Open Space (10) District.
The South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) held a public hearing on
October 21, 2003. Russ Barone represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and
supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the DRB finds,
concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant requesting preliminary and final plat plan approval of a Planned Unit
Development consisting of an 8,904 sq. ft. medical office (5,304 sq. ft.) and general
office (3,600 sq. ft.) building and associated site development at 1050 Hinesburg Road.
2. The owners of record are Linus and Sue Wiles.
3. The subject property contains approximately 1.21 acres and is located in the Industrial
and Open Space (10) District.
4. The plans consist of four (4) sheets entitled "Avalanche Properties — Hinesburg Road —
South Burlington, VT ", prepared by O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates, dated April 14,
2003, last revised on August 21, 2003 and one (1) survey plat entitled "Boundary Plat —
Linus and Sue Wiles — 1050 Hinesburg Road — South Burlington, VT", prepared by
Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated March 11, 2003.
5. The sketch plan of this project was reviewed by the Development Review Board on
June 3, 2003.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
IO Zoning District
Required
Pro osed
Min. Lot Size
3 acres
1.21 acres
A Max. Building Coverage
25%
10.03%
Max. Overall Coverage
40%
39.4%
Min. Front Setback
50 ft.
>40 ft.
4 Min. Side Setback
35 ft.
>15 ft.
Min. Rear Setback
50 ft.
>30 ft.
4 Max. Building Height
40 ft.
36.5 ft.
zoning compliance
A preexisting noncompliance
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the proposed Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall
comply with the following standards and conditions:
(a) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet
the needs of the project.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(B)(1), municipal water service must be extended to serve the
proposed development. The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed and
approved the plans. The applicant has received water allocation from the South Burlington
Water Department.
The applicant has obtained wastewater allocation approval from the Director of Planning
and Zoning, Juli Beth Hoover.
(b) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or
dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties.
The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section
16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan
shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
(c) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
Access to the project is proposed via a 20' wide two-way private driveway off of
Hinesburg Road. The applicant has received permission from the Vermont Agency of
Transportation to construct the proposed access in the State's right-of-way, conditional
upon local approval. As the project conforms with Section 15.12(C)(3) of the Land
Development Regulations, a private driveway is sufficient.
At the sketch plan stage, the Development Review Board asked the applicant to explore
the possibility of obtaining an easement to provide access to the project off of
Meadowland Drive. The applicant attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful.
Circulation is two-way throughout the site and staff believes the circulation plan is
adequate.
ITE estimates that the proposed project will generate 28.5 PM peak hour trip ends. The
general office building will generate 5.4 PM peak hour trip ends and the medical office
will generate 23.1 PM peak hour trip ends.
At this time the Development Review Board does not feel the calculated PM peak hour
trips will require any special traffic management strategies.
(d) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands,
streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any
unique natural features on the site.
The City Wetlands Map indicates that there are wetlands on the southeast section of the
subject property. During the sketch plan stage, the Development Review Board requested
the applicant to submit a clear delineation any wetlands on the site and their associated
buffer, in accordance with Section 12.02 of the Land Development Regulations. The plans
received on September 29, 2003 do not depict any wetlands or associated buffers.
The applicant has stated that Cathy O'Brien Wetland Consulting has surveyed the property
and determined that the wetlands depicted on the City's Wetland Map are actually on the
neighboring property, further to the south. The applicant's wetland consultant has suggested
that the subject property encroaches approximately 5' into the required 50' wetland buffer,
but no development is proposed in this buffer.
(e) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development
patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of
the zoning district(s) in which it is located.
According to Section 6.04 of the Land Development Regulations, the I-O District is formed
to provide suitable locations for high -quality, large -lot office, light industrial, and research
areas in the City with access to major arterial routes and Burlington International Airport.
The I-O District regulations and standards are intended to allow high -quality planned
developments that preserve the general open character of the district, minimize impacts on
natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City
while providing suitable locations for employment and business growth.
The Development Review Board feels the proposed project meets conforms to the stated
purpose of the I-O District.
(f) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize
opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
and/or stream buffer areas.
No streams occur on the subject property. The Development Review Board feels the
proposed project has been designed to provide adequate open space.
(g) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or
(designee) to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided.
Chief Doug Brent has reviewed the plans.
(h) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility
lines and lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the
extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners.
The South Burlington Recreation Path Committee, at its October 7, 2003 meeting, reviewed
the proposed project to identify a potential location for a public recreation path segment to
extend the existing path. They recommended a 20' wide recreation path easement running
to the west of the proposed building, along Hinesburg Road.
(i) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a
manner that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance
standards.
The proposed project is to be served by a driveway off of Hinesburg Road, which complies
with the requirements of Section 15.12(C)(3) of the Land Development Regulations. The
outdoor lighting plan must comply with Section 13.07 of the Land Development
Regulations. The plans show four (4) 100 watt metal halide building -mounted lights at 12'
above ground -level and four (4) 100 watt metal halide pole -mounted lights at 20' above
ground. The proposed exterior lighting complies with Section 13.07 of the Land
Development Regulations. The applicant has submitted detailed lighting cut -sheets.
Pursuant to Appendix A.10 of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant has
indicated that the indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level will not exceed 0.3
foot candles maximum, and 0.1 foot candles average.
The plans do not show a utility cabinet. According to the applicant, a utility cabinet will not
be present on the site because of the property's close proximity to an existing utility pole in
the northwest corner of the lot.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans revised on September 26, 2003.
6) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Plan for the affected district(s).
The Development Review Board feels the proposed project is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall
require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards
for all site flan 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.
The Development Review Board feels the project accomplishes a desirable transition from
structure to site and from structure to structure. The applicant has submitted an adequate
landscaping plan. The South Burlington Recreation Path Committee, at its October 7, 2003
meeting, reviewed the proposed project to identify a potential location for a public
recreation path segment to extend the existing path. They recommended a 20' wide
recreation path easement running to the west of the proposed building, along Hinesburg
Road.
According to Table 13-2 in Section 13.01(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the
proposed project requires a minimum of 39 parking spaces (12.6 for the general office space
and 26.5 for the medical office space), 2 of which must be handicapped -accessible. The
plans show a total of 32 parking spaces, which is a shortfall of 7 total spaces. 4 of these
paces are handicapped -accessible. The applicant has stated that he is requesting a parking
waiver of 7 spaces, or 18%. According to Section 13.01(N) of the Land Development
Regulations, the Development Review Board may grant parking waivers up to 25% if they
feel the land use or structure is adequately served by off-street parking. These parking
spaces conform to the design requirements outlined in Table 13-8 of the Land Development
Regulations.
Section 13.01(G)(5) requires that bicycle parking or storage facilities are provided for
employees, residents, and visitors to the site. A bicycle rack is shown on the plans.
(b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent
practicable.
Most of the parking is located at the rear of the proposed building, so the Development
Review Board feels this requirement is met.
(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.
The scale of the proposed building is compatible with the site and existing buildings in the
area. The height of the proposed building is 31.4' above pre -construction grade, which is
under the 40' height limit for pitched -roofs in the City.
(d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by
exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be
underground.
The Development Review Board has already noted that the utility lines must be
underground.
(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.
The Development Review Board feels the architectural details are sufficient for the
proposed project.
(1) 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.
Again, the Development Review Board feels the architectural details are sufficient for the
proposed project.
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the
following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the 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.
As noted already, the Development Review Board asked the applicant to explore the
possibility of obtaining an easement to provide access to the project off of Meadowland
Drive. The applicant attempted to do so, but was unsuccessful. The Development
Review Board requires the applicant to provide the property owner to the south an access
easement to facilitate access between the two (2) properties.
(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.
The Development Review Board has already indicated that utility lines must be
underground.
(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).
The plans depict a dumpster on the eastern side of the property, adjacent to the parking lot.
Sheet 2 of the plans shows the proposed dumpster screened with 8 Sunkist Arborvitae.
Landscaping
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping
and screening shall be required for all uses subject to site plan and PUD review. Section
13.06(B) requires parking facilities to be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees,
shrubs, and other plants including ground covers. The Development Review Board feels
the landscaping around the parking areas is sufficient to meet this requirement.
According to the applicant, the parking areas were specifically designed without curbing to
allow for treatment of stormwater runoff from the paved parking surface. Section 13.06(B)
of the Land Development Regulations allows the Development Review Board to waive the
curbing requirement to provide for stormwater treatment. The Development Review Board
feels the applicant's stormwater plan justifies this waiver.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the parking areas must
have adequate internal landscaping. The revised plans show adequate internal landscaping
of the proposed parking areas.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(B)(4) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas
must be shown on the plans. The plans depict four (4) separate snow storage areas.
Landscaping budget requirements are to be determined pursuant to Section 13.06(G)(2) of
the Land Development Regulations, and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or
professional landscape designer. Based on the proposed project costs, the minimum
landscape requirement is $10,000. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan and
landscape budget that indicates $12,223 of landscaping is proposed for the site.
The City Arborist reviewed the plans.
DECISION
Motion by Mark Boucher, seconded by Gayle Quimby, to approve Preliminary Plat
Application #SD-03-62 and Final Plat Application #SD-03-63, subject to the following
conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended
herein.
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, as
amended by this decision, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning &
Zoning.
3. Stormwater drainage plans shall comply with the Vermont Stormwater Management
Manual, pursuant to Section 15.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations.
4. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section
16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan
shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
5. The applicant shall comply with the requests of the South Burlington Water Department,
as outlined in the letters from Jay Nadeau, dated September 19, 2003.
6. The applicant shall comply with the requests of the City Engineer, as outlined in the
comments dated September 12, 2003.
7. The applicant shall comply with the requests of the South Burlington Fire Department, as
outlined in the letter from Chief Doug Brent dated October 3, 2003.
8. The applicant shall comply with the request of the City Arborist, as outlined in his letter
dated October 1, 2003.
9. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility
lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground.
10. Prior to recording of the final plat, the applicant shall record a "Notice of Condition",
approved by the City Attorney, stating that the applicant will provide a mutual access
easement to the property owner to the south if and when a) the Development Review
Board approves development on the parcel to the south, and b) the Development Review
Board deems the access necessary or advantageous. If and when this access is provided,
the applicant will not be penalized in terms of lot coverage and other relevant
dimensional standards.
11. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) of the Land Development Regulations, the Development
Review Board approves a waiver to eliminate the curbing from the proposed parking areas.
12. Pursuant to Section 14.07(C) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations,
any dumpsters on the PUD shall be screened with appropriate fencing.
13. The plans shall be revised to indicate that the three (3) red pines in the southwest
corner of the property will be removed during construction, unless they can be salvaged.
14. The applicant shall post a landscape bond for $10,000, prior to the issuance of a
zoning permit. This bond shall remain in effect for three (3) years to assure that the
landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of surviving.
15. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact
Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the general office and
medical office building will generate 28.5 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour.
16. All new exterior lighting shall consist of downcasting shielded fixtures. Any change
in lighting shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning prior to installation.
The pole lights to which residential shields will be attached shall have the shields
installed at 0 degrees.
17. Any changes to the final plat plans shall require approval of the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
18. Sheet 1 of the final plat plans and the survey plat shall be recorded in the land records
within 90 days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board
Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall
submit a copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information
shall require approval of the Director of Planning and Zoning.
Chuck Bolton ye nay/abstain/not present
Mark Boucher - e nay/abstain/not present
John Dinklage - e nay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley e nay/abstain/not present
Michele Kupersmith -(Ze /nay/abstain/not present
Larry Kupferman ye nay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby - e nay/abstain/not present
Motion Carried by a vote of -� - C:� -
Signed this a2 -� day of October, 2003, by
John Dinklage, Chair