HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-19-31_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_FPCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐31_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_FP_2020‐04‐
21.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: April 15, 2020
Application received: October 25, 2019
793 & 907 Shelburne Road
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐31
Meeting date: April 21, 2020
Owner
793 Shelburne Road:
Phoenix 2, LLC, c/o Ernest
Hoechner
79 Commerce St
Hinesburg, VT 05461
907 Shelburne Road:
Skipco Inc.
793 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
R. L. Vallee, Inc.
c/o Skip Vallee
P.O. Box 192
St. Albans, VT 05478
Property Information
793 Shelburne Rd: Tax Parcel 1540‐00793
907 Shelburne Rd: Tax Parcel 1540‐00907
Commercial 1 Residential 15 District
0.36 ac, 0.59 ac
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
c/o Christopher Galipeau
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
#SD‐19‐31
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐31 of R. L. Vallee, Inc. to consolidate two lots of 0.36 acres and 0.59 acres
into one lot for the purpose of constructing an expanded service station and retail sales and restaurant
building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
CONTEXT
The proposed project is within the Commercial 1 Residential 15 (C1‐R15) district, urban design overlay
district, and the traffic overlay district. The parcel at 793 Shelburne Road is a non‐conforming lot
containing an existing non‐conforming structure (the canopy having zero front yard setback, and in fact
overhanging the property line) and two existing non‐conforming uses: 1) an eight fueling position
service station and 2) auto & motorcycle service & repair. The parcel at 907 Shelburne Road is an
existing extended stay hotel which operates as long‐term multifamily housing. This property is non‐
conforming as the lot size is below the minimum required lot size, and additionally contains a non‐
conforming structure located within the front yard setback.
The applicant has concurrently applied for site plan review of a project to construct a building on the site
under application #SP‐19‐39. That application has already been discussed by the Board on February 4,
2020 and March 4, 2020, and will also be discussed on April 21, 2020 concurrently with this application.
PERMIT HISTORY
The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on March 4, 2020 (#SD‐20‐07). A previous
sketch plan for a substantially similar project was reviewed by the DRB in 2019 (#SD‐19‐06). This
application was originally submitted on October 25, 2019 but it was determined unripe because the
sketch plan had not been reviewed by the Board in the previous six months are required under LDR
15.06. This application was continued to this date in order to allow a new sketch plan to be reviewed.
This complete application was submitted on October 25, 2019. The Board in conjunction with their
review of #SD‐19‐06 determined this application is subject to the Land Development Regulations
effective October 7, 2019.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 10/25/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
#SD‐19‐31
3
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
C1‐R15 Zoning District Required Proposed
Consolidated
Lot
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 0.95 ac.
Max. Building Coverage 40%
Information
pertaining to
development
is contained
in site plan
application
#SP‐19‐39
Max. Overall Coverage 70%
Min. Front Setback 20 ft.
Max Front Setback
Coverage
30%
Min. Side Setback 10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.
Building Height (flat
roof)
35 ft.
Zoning district requirements are addressed in the concurrent site plan application #SP‐19‐39.
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 has provided a calculation of water and wastewater flows for the existing
condition and the proposed project, and concludes flows are reduced. Staff notes the
estimate of existing flows incorrectly uses 10 fueling positions to estimate flows when only 8
exist, and calculates the long‐term rental units as hotel rooms. Staff has independently done
a calculation of existing flows based on 8 fueling positions and a 14‐unit multifamily building
and concurs that flows would be decreased under the proposed configuration, though by a
different amount than that calculated by the applicant, and therefore considers no additional
allocations are required from the City.
Comments related to the design of the water system and relocation of the Champlain Water
District’s water supply main have been reviewed as part of site plan application SP‐19‐39.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
No construction is being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Compliance of the
site plan with this standard has been discussed in the staff comments on application #SP‐19‐
39.
(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.
#SD‐19‐31
4
No construction is being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Compliance of the
site plan with this standard has been discussed in the staff comments on application
#SP‐19‐39.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features
on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the
Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The subdivision does not impact wetlands, streams or wildlife habitat. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(5) 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.
On an overall basis, Staff considers the proposed consolidation of two parcels into one parcel
compatible with the existing and planned development patterns of the area. Detailed
discussion of the aesthetics of the proposed building itself has occurred under site plan
application #SP‐19‐39.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The proposed consolidated parcels are generally surrounded by paved areas. Undeveloped
spaces on the existing parcels are generally located to the rear of the parcels. The
consolidated parcel is proposed to have its undeveloped space to the rear, though none of
these undeveloped spaces are truly functional open spaces in terms of being an amenity area.
The compliance of the consolidated parcel with required maximum lot coverage has been
discussed in connection with application #SP‐19‐39.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by
municipal water.
Fire department comments have been discussed in connection with application #SP‐19‐39.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and
lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such
services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(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.
On an overall basis, Staff considers the proposed consolidation of two parcels into one parcel
does not affect compliance with these two criteria. Compliance with the proposed
development with these elements in these criteria is addressed by site plan application #SP‐
19‐39.
#SD‐19‐31
5
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
A discussion of compliance of the proposed development has been had in connection with
#SP‐19‐39. Staff considers this criterion met for the proposed subdivision.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less
runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater
as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
Staff considers the proposed subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion.
Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on
application #SP‐19‐39.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff notes for application #SP‐19‐39.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board not close this hearing until the related hearing for #SP‐19‐39 is also ready
to be closed, as issues affecting the site plan may also affect this decision and the Board may not accept new
information once this hearing is closed.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner