HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08B_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‐19‐22 635 Community Drive
DATE: September 17, 2019 Development Review Board meeting
SunCap Property Group has submitted subdivision application #SP‐19‐22 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.
At the August 20, 2019 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.
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.
The applicant received preliminary water allocation on August 7 and preliminary wastewater allocation
on September 5, 2019. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
Prior to the previous hearing, the applicant provided a draft shared access agreement to formalize the
#SP‐19‐28
2
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. The Board directed the applicant to revise the
easement to comply with the language of 13.01F. Staff considers the applicant has done so. Staff
recommends the Board conditionally approved the agreement, subject to approval of the City Attorney.
Staff anticipates comments of the City Attorney will not change the substance of the easement but may
include clarifying corrections.
(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.
At the previous hearing, the applicant spoke at length about their preference for a traffic signal over a
roundabout at the intersection of Community Drive and Kimball Avenue as the traffic mitigation for the
proposed 230 project‐generated trips. The Board ultimately agreed that both alternatives warranted
further study.
Since that hearing, Staff provided the applicant with an in‐depth review of City objectives for
intersection design, and the applicant has modified their proposed signal design to address those
priorities. The applicant and Staff have also refined the cost estimates for both alternatives. At this
time, Staff considers that the applicant’s revised signal design generally meets City objectives. Staff
considers the refinements required to conform with DPW standards can be addressed without
substantially modifying the design, and therefore considers the Board may approve the proposed
mitigation project as shown in the provided plan should they wish to do so.
The applicant has requested impact fee credit for the off‐site mitigation. The applicant’s impact fees
will be approximately $230,000. The applicant estimates their proposed mitigation will cost
approximately $625,000.
1. City council has the ultimate authority to determine how much of the impact fee to credit the
applicant, but Staff recommends the Board provides a recommendation on whether an impact fee
credit should be granted. The applicant explained why they felt they should be given an impact fee
credit during the sketch plan meeting related to the project. Staff considers the Board should ask
the applicant to reiterate that discussion as they feel necessary.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.