HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09A_SD-19-22_635 Community Dr_SunCap_2019-08-20_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-19-22_635 Community Dr_SunCap_2019-08-20.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 9, 2019
Plans received: June 20, 2019
635 Community Drive
Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-19-22
Meeting date: August 20, 2019
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-19-22
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD-19-22 of SunCap Property Group to resubdivide five (5) lots
(#8B, 9, 10, 11 & 12) and one easement into four (4) lots of 6.9 acres (Lot 8B), 43.8 acres (Lot 9), 6.7 acres
(Lot 11), and 6.6 acres (Lot 12), and eliminate the previously approved City street Community Way, for
the purpose of constructing an approximately 144,000 square foot warehousing and distribution center,
635 Community Drive.
CONTEXT
The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on July 16, 2019. 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.
The applicant has concurrently applied for site plan review of a project to construct a building on the site
under application #SP-19-28.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 7/20/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Mixed Industrial
Commercial Zoning
District
Required Proposed Lot
8B
Proposed Lot
9
Proposed Lot
11
Proposed Lot
12
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 6.9 ac. 43.8 ac. 6.74 ac. 9.70 ac
Max. Building Coverage 40%
No
development
is proposed
on this lot at
this time
Information
pertaining to
development
is contained
in site plan
application
#SP-19-28
No
development
is proposed
on this lot at
this time
No
development
is proposed
on this lot at
this time
Max. Overall Coverage 70%
Min. Front Setback 30 ft.
Max Front Setback
Coverage
30%
Min. Side Setback 10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.
Building Height (flat
roof)
35 ft.
Zoning district requirements are addressed in the concurrent site plan application #SP-19-28.
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
(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-19-22
3
1. The applicant has submitted applications for preliminary water and wastewater allocations.
Those allocations have not yet been granted. Staff anticipates they will have an update for
the Board at the time of the hearing.
(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-19-28.
(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.
13.01F. Access Management Requirements. All commercial lots (retail, restaurant,
office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and industrial uses) located
adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent
commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for that
connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when
circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located
where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
The proposed plat provides a 50-foot access easement between Lot 9 and Lot 11. As no
development is proposed on Lots 11 or 12 at this time, Staff considers no easements are
necessary between those two lots. Lot 9 and Lot 8B are separated by Muddy Brook and its
associated wetland buffer. Staff considers that the protection of this natural resource area
supersedes the requirement for a driveway connection.
2. The applicant has provided a draft shared access agreement to formalize the connection
between Lot 9 and Lot 11, but in the draft agreement has provided the proposed occupant
(FedEx) with the right to deny any such connection. Staff considers that the draft agreement
does not meet the requirements of Section 13.01F and recommends the Board require the
applicant to amend the agreement to remove the ability of FedEx or its successor to deny the
connection. Staff considers it would be acceptable for FedEx or its successor to reserve the right
to be involved in the design of any such connection.
Traffic is discussed below.
(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
#SD-19-22
4
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.
The subdivision itself does not impact wetlands, streams or wildlife habitat. The applicant is
proposing to locate the boundary between Lots 8B and 9 along the centerline of Muddy
Brook. Staff supports this configuration. Compliance with Article 12 standards are addressed
in the staff comments on application #SP-19-28.
(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 configuration of the property compatible
with the existing and planned development patterns of the area. Detailed discussion of the
aesthetics of the building itself is provided under concurrent site plan application #SP-19-28.
(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 has configured Lot 9 to include the existing wetland areas. The centerline of
Muddy Brook forms the western boundary of Lot 9. While this results in Lots 8B and 9 each
including a portion of the Muddy Brook 100-ft stream buffer, Staff is generally supportive of
the proposed lot configuration.
(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 Inspector reviewed the plans on July 25, 2019, and offers the following comments.
1. Gates and traffic signals should be equipped with an Opticom system.
2. Fire hydrants should be located between the driveway and the building.
3. Staff recommends the Board incorporate the first comment as a condition of approval.
The applicant has already addressed the Fire Inspector’s comment regarding the hydrant
location.
(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.
The subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion. Compliance of the proposed
development project is discussed in the staff comments for #SP-19-28.
#SD-19-22
5
(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 is proposed to support a development which the applicant estimates will
generate 230 vehicle trips per PM peak hour, and which will reduce the level of service (LOS)
below the acceptable threshold at the eastern intersection of Community Drive and Kimball
Avenue. Staff notes the applicant’s traffic study estimates the 230 trips will consist, on
average, of 174 automobiles, 49 vans and 7 trucks in two sizes. The applicant has therefore
proposed mitigation at this intersection to address both the volume of traffic and the turning
movements needed for the trucks. The 2016 Comprehensive Plan identified this intersection
as a site for future improvement via signalization or a roundabout. It is proximate to the
temporary Muddy Brook culvert which is planned to be reconstructed with a permanent
culvert with off-road shared use path in the year 2021. This will also be an important
intersection in creating east west connections at such time as the vehicular connection
between Tilley Drive and Community Drive is made. Accordingly, Staff has studied this
intersection and developed a design for a roundabout which includes utilities, sidewalks and
recreation paths consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
The preliminary roundabout configuration is included in the packet for the Board. Staff has
reviewed the possible roundabout design and found it to be both a viable option for
construction & operation. With comparatively lesser annual operating costs versus a signal,
greater overall capacity, and significant off-peak vehicle delay improvements, Staff considers
the roundabout to be a preferred alternative in this location over a signal.
The applicant has requested City Council approve a credit of traffic impact fees if the applicant
constructs the required intersection improvements. City Council is reviewing this request on
August 19.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to construct a roundabout. Staff considers
that in order to close the hearing, the City and the applicant must agree on a total right of way
required for the roundabout, and that the DRB should receive guidance from City Council on
the mechanism for funding the intersection improvements.
5. Design for the intersection is ongoing. Staff recommends that the Board direct staff and the
applicant to continue to work on developing a more design and report findings back to the
Board prior to closing the hearing. The Board can at that time determine what level of design
details can be conditioned upon approval of the Director of Public Works.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A discussion of warehousing within the Comprehensive Plan is included in the staff
comments for #SP-19-28. 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.
#SD-19-22
6
(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-19-28.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff notes for application #SP-19-28.
OTHER
Staff has evaluated the proposed building location and determined the address of the building must be
635 Community Drive for compliance with State E9-1-1 addressing standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. Staff
recommends the Board not close this hearing until the related hearing for #SP-19-28 is also ready to be closed,
as issues affecting the site plan may also affect this decision and the Board may not accept new information
once this hearing is closed.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner