HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-20-36_1720 Shelburne Rd_Lark-Inns LP_SK#SD-20-36
Staff Comments
1
1 of 3
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: October 14, 2020
Plans received: October 17, 2019
1720 Shelburne Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD-20-36
Meeting date: October 20, 2020
Owner/Applicant
Lark-Inns, LP, Inc.
410 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, VT
Engineer/Contact Person(s)
Skip McClellan
Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers
164 Main Street
Colchester, VT 05446
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1540-01720_C
Commercial 2 Zoning District
Traffic Overlay District, Transit Overlay District
Location
#SD-20-36
Staff Comments
2
2 of 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-20-36 of Lark-Inns, LP, to amend an existing planned unit development on
13.26 acres consisting of a 121 room hotel, a 84 room hotel, a 60 room hotel, a restaurant and a 3 unit
multi-family building. The amendment consists of converting the 84 unit hotel to a 78 unit multi-family
building, 1720 Shelburne Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
This property was approved as a planned unit development with the most recent PUD amendment in
2000. Several minor modifications to the site plan have been approved and installed since that time.
The current PUD shares a driveway with the Smart Suites extended stay hotel to the north. The site
driveway accesses onto Shelburne Road and Harbor View Road.
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.
The project as presented will be subject to PUD review and site plan review. The property is located in
the Commercial 2 Zoning District, Traffic Overlay District, and the Transit Overlay District. Multifamily
housing is allowed as a PUD within the C2 district.
With the exception of replacing the existing approved bike rack with a compliant bike rack, no external
changes are proposed.
A) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD criteria pertain to water and wastewater capacity, grading and erosion control, traffic and
circulation, wetland protection, visual compatibility, open spaces, fire safety, roadway and infrastructure
design, compatibility with the comprehensive plan, and stormwater management. Staff considers the
primary applicability of the PUD standards stems from the change in use.
Staff considers the applicant should demonstrate adequate water and wastewater supply through the
provision of preliminary allocations from the City, or calculations from their engineering showing
reduced flows compared to existing conditions, as part of the next application for the project.
Based on a rough initial calculation using the ITE Trip Generation manual 10th edition, Staff estimates
that the number of trips generated will increase by a small number over existing conditions. Since the
project is located in the traffic overlay district, Staff considers the Board should ask the applicant to
provide a calculation of the total number of trips generated by the PUD at the next stage of review.
Staff considers it unlikely that the total number of trips exceeds the allowable, and also unlikely that the
increase in trips is significant enough to warrant traffic management improvements.
1. The conversion from hotel to residential will impact the demand of the property for open space. If
this proposal were for a new building, the Board would likely require functional open spaces for
enjoyment of the residents, as well as improvements to pedestrian connectivity. With recognition
that this is a conversion of an existing building, Staff recommends the Board discuss with the
applicant enhancing the lawn area east of the building with a patio and seating for use of residents,
and providing regular mowing of that area. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant to
describe what entrances will be available to residents, and to ask them to make more than one
entrance available to accommodate pedestrian access and circulation.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
#SD-20-36
Staff Comments
3
3 of 3
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.
Roadway, Sidewalks and Parking Dimensional Standards
At this time Staff has not completed a detailed review of compliance with current roadway or parking lot
standards. Staff considers for elements of the project that are not affected by this application, the Board
may elect to allow the applicant to maintain existing conditions.
2. Staff asks the Board provide direction to Staff on whether they would like Staff to provide an analysis of
existing unmodified site features at the next stage of review.
Parking
Parking is required at a rate of 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.75 spaces per 4 units for studio or one
bedroom units, and at a rate of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.75 spaces per 4 units for units with two
or greater bedrooms. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide a calculation of required
parking spaces for recordkeeping purposes at the next stage of review.
Waste Disposal
3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant how solid waste is proposed to be handled for the
proposed units.
Landscaping
The most recently approved site plan for which a landscaping plan was provided was SP-09-30, which
reconstructed the entryway to the subject building. The applicant has provided a new existing conditions
landscaping plan. Staff considers, based on the provided landscaping plan, that it appears some of the
landscaping approved in SP-09-30, which included existing previously required and new landscaping, no
longer exists on site. Landscaping approved in SP-09-30 must be present or replaced on site in order for the
currently proposed project to obtain a certificate of occupancy. If the applicant wishes to amend the
previously approved landscaping plan because certain species have not thrived, Staff considers they must
propose a revised landscaping plan that neither reduces the previously required landscaping, nor diminishes
compliance with current landscaping standards, including parking lot shading.
C) E9-1-1 ADDRESSING STANDARDS
Since more than two buildings share this driveway it should be designated as a street. Since this project will
significantly increase the number of people relying on mail and emergency services to the building, Staff
considers it important to make this change now, therefore Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant
to work with Staff to establish a street name and address scheme for the PUD prior to the next application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
5$03
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
6.(7&+3/$13(50,75(9,(:21/<0DLQ6WUHHW6XLWH&ROFKHVWHU977 ) HPDLO#NUHEVDQGODQVLQJFRP5(6,'(17,$/&219(56,21/RFXV
5$03
5$035287( 6+(/%851(5' /DQGVFDSHLQYHQWRU\E\*UHHQ0RXQWDLQ(DUWKFDUH8QGHUKLOO97'UDIWLQJE\.UHEVDQG/DQVLQJ/$5.,1+2/,'$<,11(;35(665RXWH6KHOEXUQH5RDG6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 ?':*? 6LWH%DVH GZJ6&$/( 5(9,6(' '5$:1%< 352-(&712 '$7( &217(17 3URMHFW3KDVH(;/36/012 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
(;,67,1*/$1'6&$3(3/$1 3(50,75(9,(:21/<0DLQ6WUHHW6XLWH&ROFKHVWHU977 ) HPDLO#NUHEVDQGODQVLQJFRP5(6,'(17,$/&219(56,213(50,7'5$:,1*6
/DQGVFDSHLQYHQWRU\E\*UHHQ0RXQWDLQ(DUWKFDUH8QGHUKLOO97'UDIWLQJE\.UHEVDQG/DQVLQJ/$5.,1+2/,'$<,11(;35(665RXWH6KHOEXUQH5RDG6RXWK%XUOLQJWRQ97 ?':*? 6LWH%DVH GZJ6&$/( 5(9,6(' '5$:1%< 352-(&712 '$7( &217(17 3URMHFW3KDVH(;/36/03(50,7'5$:,1*612 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
(;,67,1*/$1'6&$3(3/$1 3(50,75(9,(:21/<0DLQ6WUHHW6XLWH&ROFKHVWHU977 ) HPDLO#NUHEVDQGODQVLQJFRP5(6,'(17,$/&219(56,216HH,QVHWWKLV6KHHW,QVHW