The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 07A_SD-19-30_10 Mansfield View Ln_CEA_SK_SC#SD‐19‐30 Staff Comments 1 1 of 4 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD‐19‐30_10 Mansfield View Ln_CEA_SK_2019‐11‐19.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: November 13, 2019 Plans received: October 17, 2019 10 Mansfield View Lane Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐30 Meeting date: November 19, 2019 Owner/Applicant CEA Properties, LLC 10 Mansfield View Ln South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Ln South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1095‐00010 Industrial Open Space Zoning District 3.01 acres Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD‐19‐30 of CEA Properties, LLC to construct a two‐story 7,200 square foot office building and a one‐story 4,070 square foot veterinary hospital on an existing 3.1 acre lot currently #SD‐19‐30 Staff Comments 2 2 of 4 developed with a 7,200 square foot office building and 1,000 square foot storage building, 10 Mansfield View Lane. PERMIT HISTORY The property received PUD approval for a similar project on April 19, 2007 (#SD‐07‐20 and #SD‐07‐21). That approval has expired. The proposed application will be subject to the Land Development Regulations in effect at the time a complete preliminary plat application is submitted. The previous PUD approval, being expired, was not taken into consideration in these staff comments. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 10/17/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The project as presented will be subject to PUD review and site plan review. The property is located in the Industrial Open Space Zoning District. The PUD previously included site plan approval for the existing 7,200 square foot office building, which remains in effect, though the 2007 PUD approval for two proposed buildings is expired. The project is subject to zoning district, PUD, site plan and stormwater management standards. Staff considers there are four main subject areas which warrant discussion at this level. These are vehicular access and circulation, open space, pedestrian access, and visual compatibility. These staff comments are laid out to address each of these subject areas, with relevant LDR sections referenced for each. VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CIRCULATION This property is situated east of VT 116, directly across from the commercial portion of Rye Meadows, and south and west of Meadowland Drive. It is in the industrial open space zoning district. The property is the beneficiary of an access easement which allows it to share a single access onto VT 116 with the property to the north. The adjoining property to the east has an easement which extends to the property line, providing for a shared driveway for the existing Keller Williams building and for a future building located south of the easement. LDR 15.12D(4) requires connections be made to adjacent properties at the time of approval for the property. 1. Staff considers that the Board must require the applicant to construct a driveway connecting to the property to the east and to provide a reciprocal access easement to that property. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant clarify the status of the easement on the adjoining property prior to the next application, and to construct a functional connection if the easement allows. If such a functional connection is not allowed, Staff considers the next approval for the property to the east will require this connection to be completed on the adjoining property. Staff notes there is no required minimum property line setback for roadways, therefore the applicant should be able to move the driveway farther north to better align with the existing drive on the adjacent property. Pavement width for private roadways is required to be 20‐feet, consistent with what the #SD‐19‐30 Staff Comments 3 3 of 4 applicant is proposing. OPEN SPACE The purpose of the IO district includes providing for large lot office, industrial and research areas in a configuration that preserve the open character of the district, minimize impacts on natural resources and water quality, and enhance the visual quality of approaches to the City. The property is not located within a view protection overlay district, but it is directly adjacent to one which was established to protect views of Mt Mansfield. In the currently proposed layout, the project provides a modest sized lawn area between the existing parking lot and the proposed parking lot, with undeveloped areas around the perimeter of the lot. The purpose of requiring PUD’s within the IO district includes the encouragement of innovation of design and layout, and of more efficient use of land for development. Staff considers the proposed use of the lot consistent with the purpose of the industrial open space district, but the configuration of the programming deficient when it comes to efficient use of land. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant reconfiguring the site around a central organizing open space, taking advantage of the potential views. Staff considers the Board should allow waivers of both side (35‐foot) and rear (50‐foot) setbacks in order to achieve this goal. Based on the existing and potential development of adjacent properties, and on the scale of the two proposed buildings (one story for Building “C” and two stories for building “B”), Staff considers the impact of substantial setback waivers will not have adverse effects on other properties. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS Site plan standards emphasize pedestrian movement, both internal to the site and as it relates to movement between sites. The property is located on the east side of VT 116, along which several segments of sidewalk have been constructed to date as properties are developed. Section 9.11(B)(4) indicates that a “public sidewalk or recreation path planned in coordination with the South Burlington Recreation Path Committee shall be incorporated into the setback area ‘of Hinesburg Road]. A path is also indicated on the City’s Official Map. In several prior decisions in the vicinity of this project, the Board has made determinations that a recreation path is to be constructed along the east side of Hinesburg Road:  On this subject parcel, 10 Mansfield View Lane, the original PUD required a 20‐foot recreation path easement be provided to the City (SD‐07‐21). In subsequent years, where feasible, the Board has required such path segments to be constructed  At 1060 Hinesburg Road, two properties to the north, the Board required a recreation path to be constructed upon consultation with the Recreation Path Committee (SD‐11‐10).  At 1100 Hinesburg Road, the Board required a 20‐foot recreation path easement be provided to the City (SD‐06‐106).  Across the street, with the Rye neighborhood, the Board determined that neither was a path required to be constructed nor an easement provided because the determination had been made to place the path on the east side of Hinesburg Road (SD‐14‐15). #SD‐19‐30 Staff Comments 4 4 of 4 3. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant include a sidewalk along the front of the property at this time. 4. Staff further recommends the Board request the applicant provide safe pedestrian connectivity from the front of the site, through the developed area, to the rear portion of the site and across to the connecting property to the east. VISUAL COMPATIBILITY The specific standard relating to visual compatibility reads as follows. 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. 5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the architectural design of the buildings. The existing building is aesthetically interesting with a pitched roof, and Staff considers a layout around a central organizing feature, with complimentary building architecture, would result in a campus feel that meets the purpose of the IO district. Staff notes the maximum allowable height differs depending on whether pitched or flat roofs are proposed, and recommends the Board request the applicant provide this information at the next stage of review. OTHER 6. The applicant has proposed the addition of a second parking area to serve the two proposed building. The applicant has indicated that the preliminary/final plat will likely include phasing the two buildings. Staff recommends that phasing of the building also including a phased parking plan, wherein parking spaces are approved but are constructed commensurate with each phase. That way, paved surfaces that require ongoing stormwater management will only be built if/when a second building is constructed. Staff notes the applicant must meet the standards of 13.06, including the minimum required landscaping value, and interior parking lot landscaping and shade trees, at the next stage of review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner