HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_SD-20-24_510 Shelburne St_Champlain Oil_FPCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐24 510 Shelburne St_Champlain Oil_FP_2020‐08‐
04.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 29, 2020
Plans received: July 8, 2020
510 Shelburne Road
Final Plat Application #SD‐20‐24
Meeting date: August 4, 2020
Owner
Champlain Oil Co, LLC & Bacon Street Properties, LLC
45 San Remo Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant
Bacon Street Properties, LLC
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‐20‐24
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD‐20‐24 of Champlain Oil Company, LLC to consolidate an existing 0.48 acre lot
and an existing 0.32 acre lot into one lot, 510 Shelburne St.
CONTEXT
The project will be subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, Urban Design Overlay
Standards, Traffic Overlay Standards, Transit Overlay Standards. The existing parcels are both non‐
conforming in terms of lot coverage and use.
The applicant has concurrently applied for site plan review of a project to construct a building on the site
under application #SP‐20‐029. That will be discussed on August 4, 2020 concurrently with this
application.
PERMIT HISTORY
The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on April 21, 2020 (#SD‐20‐13).
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 7/8/2020 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions
C1‐R15 Zoning District Required
Merged Lots
Existing 1 Proposed
X Min. Lot Size 40,000 SF 29,700 sf 29,700 sf
Max. Building Height 5 stories 1 story 3 stories
Max. Building Coverage 40% 6.6% 16.6%
X Max. Overall Coverage 70% 86.7% 79.5%
X Max. Front Setback Coverage, Shelburne St 30% 98.6% 44.3%
X Max. Front Setback Coverage, Bacon St 30% 64.7% 79.1%
Min. Front Setback, Shelburne St2 20 ft. 52 ft. 20 ft.
X Min. Front Setback, Bacon St 30 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 67 ft. 28 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, see discussion below and in concurrent site plan application #SP‐20‐029
1. While this application does not address modification of the lots, Staff has included proposed coverages
as a demonstration that the site plan, if approved concurrently with this subdivision application, will
result in a reduction in existing nonconformity. Since without the proposed site plan consolidation of the
lots would result in an increase in lot coverage nonconformity, Staff recommends the Board not approve
#SD‐20‐24
3
this subdivision application unless the site plan application is also approved.
2. If approved, this subdivision will reduce the existing lot size nonconformity. The proposed uses of the
combined lots are allowed. Staff recommends the Board consider the project a reduction in
nonconformity and allow the nonconforming lots to be consolidated if other subdivision criterion are
met.
Zoning district requirements are addressed in the concurrent site plan application #SP‐20‐029.
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 obtained preliminary water allocation from the City of Burlington and
preliminary wastewater allocation from the City of South Burlington.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the project on 7/20/2020 and had no
comments. The main for the proposed tap is owned by the City of Burlington.
(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‐20‐
029.
(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.
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‐20‐
029.
(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.
#SD‐20‐24
4
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‐20‐029.
(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, with a small
landscaped area adjacent to the Bacon Street Lofts building to the east. Undeveloped spaces
on the existing parcels include a small area contiguous with the Bacon Street Lofts landscape
area. The consolidated parcel is proposed to have its undeveloped space to the front. There
are limited opportunities to create contiguous open spaces in this urbanized area. The
compliance of the consolidated parcel with required maximum lot coverage has been
discussed in connection with application #SP‐20‐029. Given the context of the property, Staff
considers this criterion not applicable.
(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 are discussed in staff comments for application #SP‐20‐029.
(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‐
20‐029.
(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 is provided in staff comments for
#SP‐20‐029. 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.
#SD‐20‐24
5
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‐20‐029.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff comments for application #SP‐20‐029.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board not close this hearing until the related hearing for #SP‐20‐029 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