HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07_SD-20-38_218 Hannaford Dr_Pizzagalli_Sk_SC#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
1
1 of 7
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐38_218 Hannaford Dr_Pizzagalli_Sk_2020‐11‐17.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 10, 2020
Plans received: October 7, 2020
218 Hannaford Drive
SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD‐20‐38
Meeting Date: November 17, 2020
Owner
Southland Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 6
Burlington, VT 05402
Applicant
Pizzagalli Properties, LLC
462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101
Burlington, VT 05402
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0675‐00040
Commercial 1‐Residential 15 Zoning District
Transit Overlay District
Location Map
#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
2
2 of 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐38 of Pizzagalli Properties to amend a previously approved Planned Unit
Development consisting of a 151,266 sf shopping center (including outdoor garden center), a 55,000 sf
supermarket, a 3585 sf bank with drive through service, a 3,014 sf standard restaurant and a 4,116 sf
short order restaurant. The amendment consists of resubdividing the existing parcels containing the
55,000 sf supermarket and the roadway, abandoning a future city street, and constructing a commercial
parking lot for the purpose of a shuttle lot, 218 Hannaford Drive.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the C1‐R15 Zoning District. It is part of a large PUD including the former
Hannaford grocery store and Lowes Home Improvement, extending to Shelburne Road. The last time
this PUD was before the DRB was in 2001 for site amendments to the Lowes site. The applicant has
focused exclusively on development on this parcel rather than the PUD as a whole. The development
proposal for this parcel is a relatively significant departure from the originally approved PUD, which
included two buildings and associated parking on this site.
1. Staff recommends the Board frame their discussion of this project in the context of the PUD as a
whole, including the replacement of two street‐facing buildings with a parking lot.
In 1993, 1994 and 1995, the majority of the PUD was approved, with some minor amendments
occurring later. The 1993, 1994 and 1995 approvals included some discussion of the roadways within
the PUD, including that the applicant wished for the roadways to remain private in order to retain the
ability for the businesses to the rear (Lowes and Hannaford at the time) to have a sign at Shelburne
Road. Off‐premise signs are prohibited under the Vermont billboard law. Ultimately, an agreement was
made wherein the City would accept a warranty deed for the roadways shown on “Overall Site Plan, S‐3,
sheet 2 of 15, Drawing Number D‐4591, last revised 11/3/94” as recorded in the land records, but the
City would refrain from recording said deed unless the applicant failed to maintain the roadways to City
maintenance standards. Such deed was received by the City, and therefore the City controls an
ownership interest in the roadways within the PUD.
The roadways in which the City controls an ownership interest are shown on the above‐referenced
sheet included in the packet for the Board. These roadways include the existing Fayette Road and
Hannaford Drive, as well as what Staff has herein referred to as Fayette Road Extension, which extends
north from the existing intersection of Fayette Road and Hannaford Drive to the northern PUD property
line at the location of the current Hannaford/former Kmart plaza.
The 1995 decision further included a condition that Fayette Road Extension be constructed prior to
businesses opening in the portion of the PUD currently proposed for this parking lot. While the 1995
decision contemplated businesses being in buildings, Staff considers the condition to be equally
applicable to the proposed use as it represents an independent business (as opposed to serving an
#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
3
3 of 7
existing use on the property).
CONTEXT
Fayette Road extension is also shown on the official map as an existing roadway connection1. A copy of
the official map is included in the packet for the Board.
2. The Board does not have the authority to allow the applicant to construct anything but a roadway on
the Fayette Road Extension portion of the PUD. Any use of the land except for construction of a
roadway is the jurisdiction of the City Council.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Use
As described the applicant, they are proposing to construct a 230‐space parking lot for the purpose of
employee satellite parking facility for the University of Vermont Medical Center, where employees would
come to park and then be picked up on a bus schedule to the UVMMC. Staff considers there are two potential
use categories that this could be considered: commercial parking facility (permitted as a conditional use
within the C1‐R15) and transportation services (prohibited within the C1‐R15). The definitions of each follow.
Parking, commercial or private. A parking area owned by a business establishment, membership
association or organization, place of worship, or similar use and made available by the owners
or occupants for the exclusive use of clients, customers, employees, members, owners, tenants,
lessees, or occupants of said business establishment, membership association or organization,
place of worship, or similar use. Such commercial or private parking may or may not exist on
the same lot as the principal use.
Transportation services. Establishments primarily engaged in furnishing passenger
transportation, including local, statewide and interstate bus service, taxicabs, passenger
transportation charter service, and terminal and maintenance/service facilities for motor
vehicle passenger transportation.
3. Staff considers that commercial parking does not necessarily exclude shuttle service, and recommends the
Board discuss whether they consider the use as fitting under the definition of commercial parking and thus
allowable subject to conditional use review.
Subdivision of land
The applicant is proposing to modify the boundary line between the ROW (dedicated to the City) and the
lot containing the former Hannaford grocery store to the west. Since the City has an ownership interest
in the ROW, Staff considers the applicant may not apply for this subdivision without City endorsement of
the application in the form of a signature on the application form.
If this substantial hurdle is achieved, Staff further notes that the applicant refers to the subdivision as a
“minor boundary line adjustment.” Staff considers this would not qualify as a minor boundary line
adjustment and would instead be subject to public hearing as a subdivision of land. Minor boundary line
adjustment is contemplated in 15.19 as allowed in certain circumstances, including “the proposed change
does not violate any conditions imposed from prior municipal approvals.” Since the prior approvals
required creation of the roadway ROW, this criterion is not met. Further, the Administrative Officer may
1 Fayette Road Extension was provided as an irrevocable offer, which is why it is shown as existing on the official
map, but it has not yet been constructed.
#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
4
4 of 7
refer the application to the Board for review as a subdivision whenever there is uncertainty as to whether
an application comprises a minor lot line adjustment. Since modification of the property line would
impact connectivity within the City, Staff considers it would be subject to a public hearing.
Lot Coverage
The applicant is proposing to exceed the allowable lot coverage of 70% on the involved lot. Existing lot
coverage is almost 55% on the former Hannaford lot, and proposed lot coverage is more than 76%. The
applicant requests a waiver of maximum lot coverage. Staff notes that waiver of lot coverage is
expressly prohibited, even within PUDs (see 15.02A(4)(b)). With the understanding that the proposal is
likely to change, Staff considers the following general considerations pertaining to lot coverage apply.
Within a PUD, the Board may, but not must, allow building and lot coverage on a PUD to met for the
PUD as a whole rather than for individual lots. This PUD was approved for six (6) additional buildings, as
shown on Sheet 5 “Amended Overall Site Plan” of the plans for #SD‐00‐27, dated 9/15/2000 and
prepared by DeLuca‐Hoffman Associates, Inc. and included in the packet for the Board. Though building
approvals have expired, Staff considers the purpose of the PUD approval was to allow a well‐designed
commercial center including multiple buildings, and not a handful of buildings with large areas of
unrelated parking. The configuration in #SD‐00‐27 approved 62.6% lot coverage.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate that their requested approval does
not preclude development consistent with the approved PUD.
Parking and driveway coverage in the front setback is limited to 30%. In the case of both Hannaford
Drive and Fayette Road Extension, Staff considers this means of the first 30‐feet back from the ROW,
approximately 10 feet may be paved parking and drive aisles, and the remainder must be green space.
The applicant appears to meet this requirement on Hannaford Drive. A similar configuration, with green
space which could be used to treat stormwater, could be achieved on the Fayette Road Extension
frontage.
Traffic Overlay District
The PUD is located within the Traffic Overlay District Zones 1 and 2, though the subject parcels are not. The
LDR provides the following relevant statement
In situations where a lot is located in more than one zone, the location of the driveway will
determine the zone that applies to the parcel. A lot that does not directly front on a Traffic Overlay
zone but has an actively used access to it via an easement is subject to the restrictions for that zone.
However, this rule would no apply to an existing lot with an existing access that would be
connected to as a result of these access management objectives. If a parcel has one driveway in
one zone and another driveway in another zone, the zone which is more restrictive shall apply to
the entire property.
Staff considers therefore that this project is located in Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. Traffic Overlay District
Zone 1 limits vehicle trips to 15 per 40,000 sf during the PM peak hour. For this 41.86 acre PUD, this
represents 683 trips. The applicant indicates in their cover memo that the proposed facility would add 99
trips.
5. Similar to lot coverage above, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that
allowing the traffic associated this use would not preclude development consistent with the approved
PUD. Staff notes trip credit for connections to adjacent parcels is available. If the applicant cannot
demonstrate that the approved PUD would fall under the maximum allowable trip ends, they should
consider credit for the required connection in their calculation.
#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
5
5 of 7
Transit Overlay District
The property is located in the Transit Overlay District. No use restrictions are placed on properties that
are within both the C1‐R15 and Transit Overlay districts.
IF THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO RECONFIGURE THE PROJECT TO ADDRESS ALL OF THE ABOVE CONCERNS,
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS PERTAIN TO THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT.
Roadway Required
The applicant must design the project to include construction of Fayette Road Extension. Applicable
sections of the LDR are as follows.
15.12D Criteria for Public and Private Roadways
(2) Public Roadway Required. The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in
Table 15‐1, Figure 15‐1, and the Transect Zone Street Typologies contained within Article 11 and
dedicated to the City as a public roadway if one or more of the following situations applies:
(a) The proposed roadway will or could provide a future extension to an adjoining
property.
(b) The right‐of‐way or proposed alignment of the proposed roadway is consistent
with the right‐of‐way for a proposed City street shown on the Official Map; the City
Council shall have the authority to determine if a proposed right‐of‐way with a similar
location and/or alignment to a right‐of‐way on the Official Map must be required to be
a public roadway.
(4) Connections to adjacent parcels.
(a) If the DRB finds that a roadway or recreation path extension or connection to an
adjacent property may or could occur in the future, whether through City action or
development of an adjacent parcel, the DRB shall require the applicant to construct the
roadway to the property line or contribute the cost of completing the roadway connection.
(b) In determining whether a connection to an adjacent property may or could occur, and
the location and configuration of such connection, the DRB may consider:
(i) The existence of planned roadways or recreation paths in the City’s Comprehensive
Plan, Official Map, or these Regulations;
Staff considers none of these standards preclude construction of the roadway with parallel parking on one
or both sides.
6. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they would consider diagonal parking on one side, and if
so, considers that the applicant should coordinate with the Director of Public Works before pursuing
such a course.
It is likely that traffic control should be installed at one or both ends of Fayette Road Extension. Staff
recommends the applicant be directed to engage a professional to design appropriate traffic control based
on anticipated volumes and the intention for this to remain a low‐speed local road.
Parking Lot Layout
The applicant is proposing one‐way circulation into the parking lot from Hannaford Drive and two way
circulation out onto Fayette Road Extension. Staff understands this configuration must change significantly,
#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
6
6 of 7
but as a general principal, since Fayette Road Extension is proposed to become a public street (though it
may remain private for some time), Staff considers the parking lot should be designed with appropriate
access spacing and circulation. Access points should be not at the intersection but spaced to allow vehicle
queueing. Consideration should be given for shuttle bus and emergency vehicle access.
13.01C requires all parking areas adjacent to a public street to be screened from the street by fencing, walls,
or vegetation measuring at least three (3) feet in height. The applicant would be required to provide
screening from both Fayette Road Extension and Hannaford Drive. Staff recommends that in addition to
fencing and vegetation, the Board direct the applicant to consider a small shelter near the shuttle stop.
With safety concerns in mind, this shelter could be limited to one wall, or slats.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, compatibility with
the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, and public infrastructure. Staff considers that when
the above discussed concerns are addressed, the additional issues pertaining to PUD standards will be
minor and appropriate for a later stage of review.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of
structures to the site (including location and adequacy of parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings
and the adjoining area. Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features. Similar to
PUD criterion, Staff considers when the above‐discussed concerns are addressed, outstanding issues
pertaining to Site Plan review standards will be minor and appropriate for a later stage of review.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
If the Board accepts the project as commercial parking, it will be subject to conditional use review.
Conditional use criteria pertain to the capacity of existing or planned community facilities, the character
of the area affected, traffic, bylaws and ordinances, and utilization of renewable energy resources. This
project is in the traffic overlay district and Staff has already recommended a traffic study. Staff considers
these criteria will be addressed when the other issues identified herein are addressed
RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers significant modifications to the plan are necessary and therefore the project should be re‐
warned prior to discussion of a revised plan. Therefore Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project
with the applicant and close the meeting. Sketch plan applications require 7‐day notice and Staff is willing to
work with the applicant to schedule this continued discussion on an expedited timeline as long as noticing
requirements can be met.
Respectfully submitted,
#SD‐20‐38
Staff Comments
7
7 of 7
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner