HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-20-13_510 Shelburne St_Bacon St Prop_SK#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
1
1 of 7
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐13_510 Shelburne St_Bacon St Prop_SK_2020‐04‐
21.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: April 15, 2020
Plans received: March 6, 2020
510 Shelburne Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐20‐13
Meeting date: April 21, 2020
Owner
Champlain Oil Co, LLC & Bacon Street Properties, LLC
c/o Alliance Energy, LLC
15 Northeast Industrial Road
Branford, CT 06405
Applicant
Bacon Street Properties, LLC
c/o Brian Cairns
45 San Remo Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1540‐00510 & Tax Parcel 0090‐00017
Commercial 1‐Residential 15 Zoning District
Traffic Overlay District, Urban Design Overlay District
0.48 acres and 0.2 acres
Engineer
Trudell Consulting Engineers
478 Blair Park Road
Williston, VT 05495
Location Map
#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
2
2 of 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐13 of Bacon Street Properties, LLC, to consolidate an existing 0.48 acre
lot and an existing 0.2 acre lot into one lot and construct a two and a half story building of 12,000 sf, to
be used as bank, restaurant and general office, 510 Shelburne Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Commercial 1‐Residential 15 (C1‐R15) Zoning District. It is also located in
the Transit Overlay District, Traffic Overlay District and the Urban Design Overlay District.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following
comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The project will be subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, Urban Design Overlay
Standards, Traffic Overlay Standards, Transit Overlay Standards.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
C1‐R15 Zoning District Required Existing1 Proposed
Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 29,700 sf 29,700 sf
Max. Building Height 5 stories 1 story 2.5 stories
Max. Building Coverage 40% 6.6% 16.2%
X Max. Overall Coverage 70% 86.7% 75.6%
X Max. Front Setback Coverage, Shelburne St 30% 98.6% 32.2%
X Max. Front Setback Coverage, Bacon St 30% 64.7% 75.6%
Min. Front Setback, Shelburne St2 20 ft. 52 ft. 20 ft.
Min. Front Setback, Bacon St 30 ft. 20 ft. 22 ft.
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 67 ft. 27 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A
1. Existing values were provided for both lots combined.
2. Project is in urban design overlay district which has a minimum front setback of 20 ft. If the project
were not in the urban design overlay district, the standard setback in C1‐R15 would be 30 ft.
Zoning compliance
X does not meet requirement
1. The applicant is proposing to decrease front setback coverage on Shelburne Street, but not to
meet the maximum allowable of 30%. The applicant is proposing to increase the front setback
coverage on Bacon Street where it is already higher than allowed. The applicant is proposing to
decrease the overall coverage, but not to meet the maximum allowable of 70%. Site Plan
Review Standard 14.07E (Modification of Standards), allows the Board to grant waivers of
#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
3
3 of 7
certain standards where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with
standards and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, but in no
case allows waiver of total site coverage for new development. Staff considers this project as
representing new development since no elements of the previous approval are retained,
therefore the applicant must comply with the maximum allowable lot coverage of 70%. Staff
considers the Board may allow the applicants request for front setback coverage on Shelburne
Street and on Bacon Street if they consider the limitations of the site cause unusual hardship in
complying. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant that they must revise their
design to not increase the degree of existing nonconformity.
The side setback in this district is 30‐feet. Staff considers there are at least four potential
approaches to addressing the applicant’s request for a 22‐foot setback. First, the applicant could
revise their site to comply with the setback. This may be desirable as it may also result in the site
meeting overall lot coverage. Second, the Board could consider the urban design overlay district as
applicable to the Bacon Street façade of the building, but that would require glazing and entrance
standards to also be met. Third, similarly to front setback coverage, the Board may allow setback
waivers where the limitations of the site cause unusual hardship. Fourth and finally, the applicant
may request approval as a planned unit development, which allows waivers without requiring
unusual hardship to be demonstrated, but also allows the Board to request additional
enhancements to offset the impacts of the waivers.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how they would like to address the
deficiency in front setback along Bacon Street.
Urban Design Overlay District
The subject property lies in the Urban Design Overlay District.
As Outlined in Section 10.06 the purpose of the Urban Design Overlay District is to recognize the impact of
simple design principles and to reflect a design aesthetic that fosters accessibility and creates civic pride in
the City’s most traveled areas and gateways, while furthering the stated goals of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan. The Urban Design Overlay District aids in fulfilling the City’s vision for the Southwest quadrant, which is
to enable infill and conversion development, encourage pedestrian movement, serve local and regional
shopping and employment needs, and make use of existing public transportation. The City intends for the
applicable areas to provide safe and inviting access to adjacent neighborhoods.
3. Standards pertain to entries, glazing, heights, setbacks and landscaping. Based on the limited information
provided, Staff has no comments on these criteria, but recommends the Board remind the applicant that they
will need to demonstrate compliance at the next stage of review.
Traffic Overlay District
The subject property lies in the Traffic Overlay District Zone 1
As outlined in Section 10.02 of the LDRs, the purpose of the Traffic Overlay District is to provide a
performance‐based approach to traffic and access management associated with development and re‐
development of properties in high traffic areas of the City. It is the further purpose of the Traffic Overlay
District to provide a means by which the allowable uses and the arrangement and intensity of uses on a
given parcel may be regulated, above and beyond District regulations, based on traffic generated and
#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
4
4 of 7
impacts on City access management goals. It is the further purpose of the Traffic Overlay District to provide
incentives to improve site design and access management during the development and redevelopment
process, in keeping with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Max Overall Traffic Generation (Traffic Budget) = size of lot x max. traffic generation rate = 29,700 x 15/40,000
= 11 trips
Based on a proposed use of 1,800 sf short order restaurant, 1,500 sf bank and 8,700 sf office, Staff estimates
that the project will exceed the traffic budget. Staff notes the property previously operated as a service
station, which may have generated more than the allowable traffic budget. In that case, as long as the project
does not exceed the previous traffic generation, no improvement to increase the budget are required. Staff
recommends the applicant work with Planning and Zoning Staff to determine the previous trip generation
prior to the next application for the project. If the proposed use exceeds the previous generation, a traffic
study and mitigation pursuant to 10.02H and Appendix B will be required
4. Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant understands the traffic budget limitations and required
calculations.
PUD & SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
Planned Unit Developments must meet the purpose statement of providing innovative design and
layout, efficient use of land, and infill development and redevelopment in the City’s Core Area as
defined the Comprehensive Plan. If a project qualifies as a PUD, it is eligible for relief from the strict
dimensional standards for individual lots, but the Board may impose additional requirements on the
project in order to offset the impacts of such relief.
5. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they intend to apply as a Planned Unit
Development.
In either case, whether reviewed as a PUD or subdivision, the applicant must meet the standards of Article
15. PUD and Subdivision standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource
protection, traffic, visual compatibility with the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, relationship
to the Comprehensive Plan, and public infrastructure.
6. As access is basically uncontrolled across the site under existing conditions, Staff considers that the
proposed access improvements represent the most significant alteration to how this property will
interact with adjoining properties and will likely result in improved predictability for motorists and
pedestrians. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe site circulation under proposed
conditions, and recommends the Board provide robust feedback on the proposed circulation at this early
stage of review.
The project is located in the Southwest Quadrant as defined the comprehensive plan. Staff has no
concerns with the projects ability to support the relevant objectives of the comprehensive plan.
The Director of Public Works reviewed the application and indicated on April 3, 2020 they had no comments
other than they are working with the applicant to locate utilities and determine ownership.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on April 7, 2020 and noted only that access needs to be reviewed by the
Fire Department.
#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
5
5 of 7
The Stormwater Section (City) reviewed the application and provided comments on April 8, 2020, as
follows.
1. The proposed project is located in the Englesby Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as
stormwater and E. Coli impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC).
2. It is difficult to determine from the level of detail given in the Sketch Site Plan how much
impervious surface is being proposed. The Applicant should be advised that if the project
proposes to create greater than 1/2 acre of impervious area, the applicant is required to follow
the standards set forth in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Article
12.03.
3. Has the applicant contacted VT DEC to determine if this site is considered to be a stormwater hot
spot as per the VT Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM) Section 2.3? Subsequent
submittals should discuss how the applicant will handle any contaminated materials during the
construction phase. Is there anticipated storage or disposal of contaminated soils? Indicate a
location and VT DEC approved requirements.
4. The project proposes to disturb less than 1 acre of area. It will therefore not require a
construction stormwater permit from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division.
5. The applicant should provide a drainage area map and detail for any proposed stormwater
treatment practices.
6. The applicant should show snow storage locations on the site plan‐ for during and post
construction.
7. Work in the City Right of Way (ROW) requires a permit before construction can begin. A “Permit
to Open Streets or Right of Way” can be obtained from the South Burlington Department of
Public Works on their web site, or by stopping by their office located at 104 Landfill Road.
The Excavation Inspector for the City of Burlington Department of Public Works submitted comments dated
April 3, 2020. They are as follows:
1. Recommend removal of slip lane off Shelburne Rd. to improve pedestrian safety significantly.
2. Any excavation work on Shelburne Street or the first 30 feet of Bacon Street requires a permit
with BPW for excavation, obstruction, and traffic control.
a. Include the Soil Management Plan and EPSC
b. Provide civil drawings when available
c. Soil Management Plan
3. Check with Burlington City Arborist on greenbelt plantings (VJ Comai, vcomai@burlingtonvt.gov)
4. Detectable warning/ADA ramp and crosswalk per DPW spec at street intersection of Shelburne
Rd. and Bacon St.
5. Any new utility connections to be made via Bacon Street to avoid disruption and impacts to
Shelburne Rd.
a. Please note BPW Water Resources is the owner of the water main supplying the existing
property. (Martin Lee, mlee@burlingtonvt.gov)
b. South Burlington Public Works is the owner of the sanitary sewer main connected to the
existing property.
6. Coordinate any proposed stormwater infrastructure improvements with impacts to DPW
collection systems with Burlington Stormwater staff. (James Sherrard Jr.,
jsherrard@burlingtonvt.gov)
#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
6
6 of 7
6. Staff recommends the applicant be directed to work with the City of Burlington DPW and South Burlington
Planning and Zoning Staff to address the comments above.
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to obtain preliminary water and
wastewater allocation prior to the next stage of review.
SITE PLAN 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.
Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area
8. Staff considers that application does not contain sufficient information to evaluate the structure’s relationship
to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity and recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe their
vision for the building, including the patio area to the front, and remind the applicant they will be required to
demonstrate compliance with this criterion at the next stage of review.
Landscaping and Screening Requirements
As a project in the urban design overlay district, landscaping required to provide buffering does not
count towards the minimum required landscape budget for the project. 13.06C requires screening along
property boundaries where the Board determines “two adjacent properties are dissimilar and should
be screened or buffered from each other.” This project abuts a multifamily residential building to the
east, and commercial properties to the north and south.
9. Staff recommends the Board provide feedback on whether the project will require screening to the east.
10. Staff notes the project will be required to provide 10% interior parking lot landscaping, which appears to
be met. The applicant should be directed to provide these calculations, as well as demonstration of the
required number of shade trees, snow storage, and other requirements of 13.06 as part of the next stage
of review.
OTHER
Exterior Lighting
11. 13.07B(2) prohibits excessive spillover of light to nearby properties. Staff recommends the Board remind the
applicant of the need to provide a photometric drawing and lighting cut sheets at the next stage of review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and conclude the
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
#SD‐20‐13
Staff Comments
7
7 of 7
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner