HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09A_SD-19-12_284 Meadowland Dr_SBRC_FP_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐12_284 Meadowland Dr_SBRC_FP_2019‐05‐07.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 3, 2019
Plans received: April 9, 2019
284 Meadowland Drive
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐12
Meeting date: June 18, 2019
Owner/Applicant
SBRC Properties, LLC
PO Box 2204
South Burlington, VT 05407‐2204
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1155‐00284
Industrial Open Space Zoning District; Hinesburg Road North View Protection District
5.84 acres
Location Map
#SD‐19‐12
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐12 of SBRC Properties, LLC to subdivide a 27.8 acre parcel into two lots of
6.2 acres and 21.2 acres, 284 Meadowland Drive.
CONTEXT
The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on February 19, 2019. The majority of the
property is located within the Hinesburg Road North View Protection District. There are Class 2
wetlands on the west of the property, outside the area proposed for development. There is a 200‐foot
open space buffer along the south side of the property. There was a previous subdivision on the western
end of the lot which established three development lots and Randall Street. There is an existing
stormwater pond on the property which captures runoff from Meadowland Drive.
The applicant has concurrently applied for site plan review of the project under #SP‐19‐07.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 4/9/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Industrial Open Space
Zoning District
Required Existing Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot
1G
Min. Lot Size 3 ac. 27.9 ac. 21.7 ac. 6.2 ac.
Max. Building Coverage 30% 0%
Information pertaining to
development is contained in the
site plan applications for the
relevant properties (SP‐19‐07 for
Lot 1G and SP‐19‐20 for Lot 1)
Max. Overall Coverage 50% 0%
Min. Front Setback 50 ft. N/A
Max Front Setback
Coverage
30% 0%
Min. Side Setback 35 ft. N/A
Min. Rear Setback 50 ft. N/A
Building Height (flat
roof)
35 ft. N/A
Zoning district requirements are addressed in the concurrent site plan application #SP‐19‐07.
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
The involvement of the adjacent parcel on a permanent basis requires the applicant to obtain site plan
approval for the adjacent parcel. The applicant has submitted an application for site plan for the adjacent
parcel which will be reviewed on July 2.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
#SD‐19‐12
3
The applicant has received preliminary water and wastewater allocations. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
No construction is being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Compliance of the
site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on application #SP‐19‐07.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any
technical review by City staff or consultants.
Section 13.01F states that all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots must
provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If an actual connection is not
available, the applicant must at minimum provide an easement to the adjacent lot. The
driveway connection or easement should be located where the vehicular and pedestrian
circulation is most feasible. The proposed driveway provides a driveway apron for the use of
the adjacent lot 1. Staff considers this apron as meeting this criterion.
1. In addition to the front access drive, the applicant has provided a 24‐ft wide location for
future connection to the adjacent undeveloped lot near the rear of the site. They have
provided a draft shared access agreement to formalize this connection but has not shown
an easement on the provided plat plan. Staff notes they have not shown the connection on
all plans and recommends the Board confirm with the applicant whether this connection is
still proposed. Assuming it is, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to show an
easement over the proposed connection location.
Traffic is discussed in the staff comments on application #SP‐19‐07.
(4) 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. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the
Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
There are no wetlands proposed to be impacted by the development. Stormwater impacts
are discussed under criterion #11 below.
Landscaping is discussed under concurrent site plan application #SP‐19‐07.
(5) 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.
On an overall basis, Staff considers the proposed compact configuration of the property
compatible with the existing and planned development patterns of the area. Detailed
#SD‐19‐12
4
discussion of the aesthetics of the building itself is provided under concurrent site plan
application #SP‐19‐07.
(6) 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.
The applicant is proposing to configure the lots to allow consolidation of the proposed
development in the center of the site, sandwiched between an existing storm pond which
provides treatment for runoff from adjoining properties, and an existing earthen berm and
vegetated area which buffers the Meadowland area from the adjacent industrial district. The
earthen berm and vegetated area are located in a 200‐ft open space buffer which contains an
existing recreation path. Staff considers this criterion met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by
municipal water.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on April 16 and May 7, 2019, 2019 and offers the following
comments.
1. The fire hydrant will need to be move to the northwest corner of the green space
along the building. In its current location if the fire department were to utilize it,
it cuts off the road for other apparatus access.
2. They will need full fire protection (fire alarm, sprinkler and standpipe systems);
fire load calculations will determine if they need to include a fire pump. They
may want to get a current hydrant flow test before they go too far down the
road.
The applicant has already addressed the Fire Chief’s comment regarding the hydrant location.
Staff considers the second comment to be a recommendation and considers this criterion
met.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and
lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such
services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Compliance with this standard and Section 15.12 of the LDRs is discussed in the staff
comments for #SP‐19‐07.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
The subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion. Compliance of the proposed
development project is discussed in the staff comments for #SP‐19‐07.
#SD‐19‐12
5
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A discussion of uses within the Comprehensive Plan is included in the staff comments for
#SP‐19‐07. Other objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the Northeast Quadrant address
allowing opportunities for employers in need of larger amounts of space, and providing a
balance of open spaces. Staff considers this criterion met for the proposed subdivision.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less
runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater
as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
Staff considers the proposed subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion.
Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on
application #SP‐19‐07.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff notes for application #SP‐19‐07.
OTHER
Staff has evaluated the proposed building location and determined the address of the building must be
430 Meadowland Drive for compliance with State E9‐1‐1 addressing standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner