HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SD-19-25_39 Bowdoin_Neagley & Chase_SK_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐25_39 Bowdoin_Neagley & Chase_SK_2019‐09‐
17.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: September 14, 2019
Plans received: August 5 2019
39 Bowdoin St
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐25
Meeting date: September 17, 2019
Owner
Northeast Territories
20 South Crest Drive
Burlington, VT 05401
Applicant
Neagley & Chase Construction
66 Bowdoin St
PO Box 2204
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0257‐00039
Industrial Open Space Zoning District; Hinesburg Road North View Protection District; Airport Approach Corridor
4.02 acres
Location Map
#SD‐19‐25
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐19‐25 of Neagley & Chase Construction to create a three lot planned unit
development for the purpose of a two‐building commercial/industrial campus, including the
construction of a 21,570 square foot light manufacturing facility, 39 Bowdoin Street.
CONTEXT
The subject property is an undeveloped lot with an approved soil stockpile at the corner of Bowdoin St
and Meadowland Drive. The applicant is proposing a three lot planned unit development with the
existing Logic Supply lot (35 Thompson Street) and the undeveloped lot west of Logic Supply. The
undeveloped lot is significantly encumbered by wetlands, as is the central portion of the subject parcel
at 39 Bowdoin St. No subdivision of land is required for this PUD. The applicant is requesting a PUD to
tie the operations of the existing manufacturing building at 35 Thompson Street together across these
lots. The overwhelming majority of all three parcels is located within the Hinesburg Road North View
Protection District and within the airport approach cones.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 8/5/2019 and offer the following comments.
INDUSTRIAL‐OPEN SPACE DISTRICT (IO)
The parcel proposed for development is proposed to house a 21,570 sq. ft. manufacturing facility.
Overall, the PUD is proposed to be unified as a commercial/industrial campus. All proposed
development within the IO must be reviewed initially as a PUD. This is the first application for the lot at
39 Bowdoin St.
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND AIRPORT DISTRICTS
C(3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number
of curb cuts onto the public roadway.
C(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
Staff notes that the project is proposing two curb cuts, one on each of Bowdoin Street and Meadowland
Drive. While staff doesn’t have any particular concerns about the present of two curb cuts on this roadway
which under current zoning is likely to remain relatively low‐volume, Staff recommends the Board discuss
whether both curb cuts are necessary in light of these standards, particularly because they are specifically
for districts with this particular development pattern.
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The applicants proposed site plan requires waiver of front setback requirements from 50 feet to 35 feet.
The Board may grant setback waivers up to five feet from the property line. At this time it does not
appear that other dimensional waivers will be required. Staff has no concerns with the proposed layout
as it pertains to dimensional requirements.
PUD STANDARDS
All applications within this zoning district are required to be considered as a PUD. The Board is not
#SD‐19‐25
3
obligated to grant relief from dimensional standards but may do so in order to encourage innovation in
design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and redevelopment. The
applicant has provided the following description of how they believe they meet these standards.
The proposed Logic Supply Planned Unit Development has been designed so as to integrate the
expansion goals of Logic Supply with the environmental features associated with Lots 7 (proposed
development lot with this application), Lot 10 (the existing Logic Supply manufacturing facility), and
Lot 12 (undeveloped property to the north of the existing facility).
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how their requested waivers support the
stated purpose of PUDs.
Subdivision standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, traffic and
access, visual compatibility with the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan, and public infrastructure.
Stormwater and Water Resources
The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent reviewed the plans on September 5, 2019 and offers the
following comments.
1. The proposed project is located in the Potash Brook watershed.
2. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than 1
acre of land.
3. 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.
4. The cover letter provided with the application indicates that underground detention chambers are
proposed for stormwater treatment. While the applicant has considered Tier 1 stormwater
treatment practices as infeasible, the applicant is required to consider Tier 2 stormwater
treatment practices, in accordance with the Vermont Stormwater Management Manual, prior to
selecting a Tier 3 practice, such as underground storage.
2. Tier 1 stormwater practices provide filtration and infiltration of a proscribed amount of runoff. Tier
2 practices are high‐functioning stormwater filtration practices, and Tier 3 practices are low‐
functioning stormwater filtration practices. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant
whether they will be required to provide Tier 2 stormwater treatment practices, as Tier 2 practices
will take up significantly more space than the selected Tier 3 practice and require not insignificant
modifications to the proposed site layout.
Staff notes the applicant is proposing a retaining wall with a maximum height of 7.4 feet along the entire
north and western sides of the proposed development area. The northern side faces the existing
Department of Homeland Security building, and the western side faces an existing wetland. Staff notes this
retaining wall is proposed to be immediately adjacent to the wetland buffer, requiring temporary
construction impacts within the wetland buffer.
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant how they could limit the visual impacts of the
#SD‐19‐25
4
proposed retaining wall. From a feasibility perspective, Staff considers the Board should advise the
applicant to review alternatives to the retaining wall prior to the next stage of review, and provide
feedback on what level of site layout changes may be acceptable without requiring a new sketch
plan review.
Fire Department Review
4. The Fire Department reviewed the plans on August 27, 2019, and recommends the Board remind
the applicant that in addition to providing for minimum hydrant spacing on the public roads, the
applicant must coordinate with the fire department to locate hydrants to support the fire
suppression system, and that hydrants should be located on the same side of the driveway as the
building they are to serve.
The fire department considers that once they have entered the site, they should not have to leave the
site to access the other side of the building. Reverse movements are acceptable for leaving the site
after a response is complete.
5. They have requested the applicant provide a turning movement plan to demonstrate that fire
apparatus can navigate the proposed parking lot to both sides of the proposed building without the
need for reversing.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of
structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.
Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features.
Parking
Parking minimums are based on 0.5 spaces per 1000 sf gross floor area plus one space per employee. The
applicant is proposing 63 parking spaces at this time, though the amount may change depending on
modifications need to comply with the above comments. The applicant has stated they anticipate 50
employees, yielding a required 61 spaces. The applicant has stated they anticipate requesting a waiver to
allow only 50 spaces, though they have represented 63 spaces on the provided plan.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant why they anticipate requesting a waiver
when they are providing more than the minimum required parking.
Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area
No elevations or architectural renderings have been provided therefore the relationship of the structure and
site to adjoining area cannot be evaluated at this time.
Waste Disposal
7. The applicant has provided a proposed dumpster enclosure. Staff notes it appears waste collection
vehicles may have a difficult time accessing the proposed dumpster location and recommends the
Board request the applicant provide a truck turning movement plan at the next stage of review to
demonstrate the dumpster location is functional.
Landscaping
Staff notes the applicant has discussed in their cover letter that they are aware of the need to meet the view
protection district standards with the provided landscaping.
#SD‐19‐25
5
8. Proposed landscaping appears as though it may not meet the minimum required landscaping
depending on the cost of the building, and recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the
applicant proposes to provide the minimum landscaping budget while still accommodating
stormwater conveyance. Staff reminds the Board they have the authority to allow some of the
required landscaping budget to be located elsewhere within the PUD if the Board feels the
landscaping would provide greater value elsewhere.
9. Staff notes there is a minimum of 10% of interior landscaping for parking lots with greater than 28
spaces, which also does not appear to be met with the current parking lot configuration.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner