The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 09A_SD-19-12 SP-19-07_284 Meadowland DR_SBRC_FP_memo 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‐19‐12, SP‐19‐07 284 Meadowland Dr DATE: July 2, 2019 Development Review Board meeting SBRC Properties, LLC has submitted final plat application #SD‐19‐12 to subdivide a 27.8 acre parcel into two lots of 6.2 acres and 21.2 acres and #SP‐19‐07 to construct a 25,560 sf, 31 ft high warehouse building, paved parking area, and associated site improvements on a proposed 6.2 acre lot, 284 Meadowland Drive. At the June 18, 2019 hearing the Board elected to review both applications together. At that hearing, the Board indicated that there were several topics that needed additional attention. A summary of the status of each of these topics is as follows. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Review Standards B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site. (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The purpose of the Industrial‐Open Space District is as follows. To provide suitable locations for high‐quality, large‐lot office, light industrial and research uses in areas of the City with access to major arterial routes and Burlington International Airport. The IO District regulations and standards are intended to allow high‐quality planned developments that preserve the generally 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 location and architectural design of buildings in a manner that preserves these qualities is strongly encouraged. C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area. (1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (2) 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. SD‐19‐12 & SP‐19‐07 2 At the previous hearing, the Board had a lengthy conversation with the applicant about these criteria. The Board asked the applicant to make aesthetic improvements to the proposed building, and provided suggestions on ways to accomplish this, including the following: 1. Modification to windows such that there were additional windows on the mezzanine 2. Adding landscaping to the front 3. Providing a mural 4. Adding a canopy over the front entrance 5. Making the building two‐tone. The Board encouraged the applicant to consider aesthetic enhancements that would also improve the functionality of the building. In response to these comments, the Applicant has changed the color of the lower 1/3 of the street‐facing façade of the building, and the entire façade in the vicinity of the entrance doors, to blue. Staff recommends the Board review the above excerpted standards, in particular the purpose statement of the IO district, which twice specifically reference high quality development. Staff considers the applicant’s proposed modifications do not provide the aesthetic improvement requested by the Board. In following up on the applicant’s presentation, Staff has reviewed the buildings constructed in the area in the past decade, including the Neagley & Chase building and homeland security buildings on Beaudoin Street, the Logic Supply building on Meadowland Drive, the Blackrock Construction building on Randall Street, and the Vermont Eye Laser, Civil Engineering Associates, and medical office buildings on Hinesburg Road. All employ multiple building breaks, changes in materials, evenly‐spaced windows, and high quality materials. 14.07 Specific Review Standards D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. At the previous hearing, the applicant had not yet updated their schedule of landscape values to reflect the currently proposed landscaping plan. The applicant has provided this information and the provided landscaping exceeds the minimum required landscape value of $28,000 by $2,025. 13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas All off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers as approved by the Development Review Board. (1) 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. The applicant is proposing 31 standard parking spaces and 22 parking spaces for commercial vehicles. There is only one proposed loading dock so it appears the commercial vehicle spaces are intended for parking and not for operational purposes. The purpose of interior landscaping is to provide shade, reduce heat islands and glare. The landscape islands should SD‐19‐12 & SP‐19‐07 3 be configured to meet these purposes. The applicant submitted a figure showing a calculation of interior landscaping. Staff considers the applicant has incorrectly calculated both the interior landscaping area by including landscape areas along the access road, and the total parking area by excluding the area for parking large trucks and therefore the minimum required interior landscaping standard is not met. As a stand‐alone site plan, the Board does not have the authority to grant relief from the standard requiring 10% minimum interior landscaping in parking areas (2) 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) 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. The applicant has indicated on plan sheet C2.1 where they are proposing to place curb and where they are proposing no curbing. The applicant has not proposed any curbing along the south or western edges of pavement. These areas are adjacent to a stormwater conveyance swale. While the above standard does not require curbing in these locations because of its utility for stormwater conveyance, Staff considers proposed trees to be located along these boundaries should be at least 10‐feet from the edge of pavement or protected with landscape boulders to protect them from damage from vehicle bumpers, particularly trucks which the applicant has indicated will be backing into the parking spaces adjacent to the trees, and from snow plows. F Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12. At the previous hearing, there were outstanding comments of the Stormwater Section. On June 26, 2019, the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent indicated the comments had been addressed. OTHER A.3 Noise Performance Standards At the previous hearing, the Applicant indicated they would modify the proposed berm to the residential zoning district in order to meet the noise standards at the residential property line. The applicant has made this modification and updated the noise study which shows that the noise standard at the residential property lines is met. Staff notes that the 60 dB standard is still exceeded at the commercial property line to the east but that the applicant has testified that they have provided mitigation at that boundary and the Board did not express any particular concerns at the previous hearing. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.