HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-19-06 - Supplemental - 0907 Shelburne Road (2)PRIMMER PIPER
EGGLESTON
CRAMER PC
30 Main Street, Suite 5001 P.O. Box 1489 1 Burlington, VT 05402-1489
February 11, 2019
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner
Planning & Zoning Department
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: R.L. Vallee, Inc.
Dear Ms. Keene:
JON T. ANDERSON
ADMITTED IN VT
jnnderson@primmer.com
TEL: 802-864-0880
FAx: 802-864-0328
Attached is a sketch plan submission by R.L. Vallee ("Vallee") for a project to be located
at 793 and 907 Shelburne Road. The site comprises two lots, each of about 20,000 square feet.
On the more southerly lot, Vallee would raze two motel buildings and replace them with a 4,500-
square-foot retail store with an accessory restaurant. The store/restaurant building will be
uniquely designed for the site. Vallee has negotiated with the former K-Mart plaza cross -
easements for traffic.
On the northerly lot, which is now used for a service station, Vallee would raze the
existing 1,425-square-foot service station building. Vallee would like the DRB to consider two
variations of what might be done on the northerly lot. Variation 1 would maintain the four gas
pumps located on that site. Vallee is hopeful that the DRB will approve Variation 1 without
substantial opposition. Variation 2 proposes to add two gas pumps. Both proposals reduce the
area of that lot occupied by structures. Variation 2 is submitted so that, if necessary, the
Environmental Court can resolve the several issues about which Vallee and the DRB may
disagree.
Vallee notes the following:
1. Existing non -conformities. First, the existing canopy and some of the pumps are
non -conforming structures. They were recently installed, and they are in good
condition. Vallee does not propose to eliminate this non -conformity. In Variation
2, Vallee proposes to add two pumps and extend the canopy in full compliance
with setback requirements. Non -conforming structures may be altered as long as
the "alteration does not exceed in aggregate costs ... twenty-five percent 25% for
industrial and commercial property ...". SBZO § 3.11(D)(1). In the alternative,
the change might be considered as an alteration to the main gas station building
which is a conforming structure. Up to 100% of the gross floor area of this
structure may be altered as Vallee proposes to do by taking it down and adding an
3716279.1 NEW HAMPSHIRE I VERMONT I WASHINGTON, D.C.
www.primmer.com
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner
February 11, 2019
Page 2
extension to the canopy and pump islands, which replacement structure occupies a
smaller area. The end result will be increased compliance since the area of
structures devoted to non -conforming uses will decrease. See also my letter to
you dated August 15, 2018.
2. Vallee would like the option to present the Project as a PUD.
Vallee's project can be approved as a PUD because it complies with the criteria
for the review of PUD as listed in SBZO § 15.18, which is copied as Attachment
1. We believe that Vallee's proposal also addresses the purpose section of the
PUD ordinance and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 117. The project is an innovative layout
and an efficient use of land including enabling viable infill redevelopment. Thus,
Vallee has considered dozens of plans to address the many challenges at the site
including (1) that the pre-existing gas station use is a valuable one, (2) that the
existing gas pumps were recently reconstructed, (3) substantial grade changes
across the two lots, (4) CWD's ownership of an easement substantially affecting
the areas where redevelopment can occur, (5) the need to improve traffic flow by
closing up entrances on Shelburne Road while at the same time opening entrances
to surrounding properties, and (6) the odd configuration and distressed nature of
the buildings on the south lot.
3. Traffic Overlay District
Assuming the DRB's reaction to Variation 1 is positive, we would develop a plan for
allowing traffic engineers to address the traffic before Vallee's next filing. At the same time, we
would ask the traffic engineer to address issues associated with Variation 2.
We look forward to sketch plan review.
Very truly yours,
?onAnderson
JTA/alb
Attachments
3716279.1