Loading...
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