HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SD-19-22_635 Community Dr_SunCap_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‐19‐22, SP‐19‐28, CU‐19‐06 635 Community Drive
DATE: October 1, 2019 Development Review Board meeting
SunCap Property Group has submitted subdivision application #SP‐19‐22, site plan application #SP‐18‐28 and
conditional use application #CU‐19‐06 related to the construction of an approximately 144,000 square foot
warehousing and distribution center at 635 Community Drive.
At the September 17, 2019 hearing the Board continued these applications without being heard at the applicant’s
request. The applicant has responded to some of the comments in the September 17 packet, specifically those
pertaining to lighting. Packet materials are unchanged from the September 17, 2019 packet, with updates since
that time noted in the memo below.
13.07 Exterior Lighting
Staff comments from September 17, 2019 excerpts the LDR standards pertaining to lighting. Questions
enumerated in the staff comments included concerns about whether the proposed fixtures met the shielding
and glare requirements of the LDR. The applicant proactively authorized an Independent Technical Review of
the lighting plan, which Staff received from LN Consulting on September 17 and sent to the Board on that date.
Recommendations in the technical review included the following.
1. Evaluate the layout of wall‐mounted fixtures to see if the number can be reduced by spreading them
further apart
2. Replace some fixtures to reduce high lighting levels around the building
3. Consider average levels on each side of the building rather than using the lower levels on the west to
lower the overall average
4. Aim the flood fixtures at less than 60° from grade level.
5. Look into trimming the output of fixtures around the building to bring lighting more in line with the 3 foot‐
candle average and light levels recommended by Illuminating Engineering Society
6. Provide fixtures with lower “B.U.G.” ratings or provide lower wattage fixtures.
7. Provide an analysis of the impact of the flood lights on glare, and investigate replacing the flood lights
with different wall‐mount fixtures
8. Provide motion sensing to dim fixtures
9. Meet VT Commercial Building Energy Standards
On September 24, the applicant provided a memo and supporting documents responding to the technical review,
which are appended to the end of the packet materials for application #SP‐19‐28. Significant changes included
specifying that the flood fixtures will be shielded at 50 degrees from vertical and reducing their output, replacing
#SD‐19‐22, SP‐19‐28 & CU‐19‐06
2
some flood fixtures with wall mount fixtures, and reducing the output of fixtures at the loading docks.
Staff sent the revised materials to LN Consulting, the independent technical reviewer, whose response is
paraphrased below.
The revised plan reflects some modifications based on recommendations of LN Consulting.
The applicant has provided an "elevation" drawing showing how the flood lights would shine out
towards highway. It appears the light hits the berm (which appears to be on their property) and does
not extend to I89.
Regarding dimming for the floods and building mounted lighting, the applicant indicated the area
around the building will be operational 24/7. Apparently much of the work that goes on at this building
will occur at night. They are putting dimming controls at parking lot though so that should help.
Since the building is far from I89 the impacts on highway will be minimal.
Based on the functions and planned operations of the facility, additional opportunities to
reduce direct and indirect glare are limited
1. The Board should formally invoke Independent Technical Review of Lighting which, as noted above, was
pre‐authorized by the applicant
Public Comment
One additional public comment has been provided, which is appended to the end of the packet materials for
application #SP‐19‐28.
2. Other staff comments from September 17, 2019 remain unchanged.