Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05A_SD-21-08_916 Shelburne Rd_Davis Studio_SK_SC#SD-21-08 Staff Comments 1 1 of 7 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-21-08_916 Shelburne Rd_Davis Studio_SK_2021-03- 16.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: March 10, 2021 Plans received: February 1, 2021 916 Shelburne Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-21-08 Meeting date: March 16, 2021 Owner & Applicant DS Realty, LLC 3050 Fuller Mountain Road Ferrisburgh, VT 05473 Landscape Architect VIS Construction Consultants South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-00916 Commercial 1-Residential 15, Residential 4 Zoning District Traffic Overlay District, Transit Overlay District, Urban Design Overlay District 1.63 ac Location Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-21-08 of DS Realty, LLC, to create a planned unit development on an existing parcel currently developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio and standard #SD-21-08 Staff Comments 2 2 of 7 restaurant in one building and three dwelling units in two buildings. The planned unit development consists of removing all three dwelling units by demolishing one residential building and converting the other to an educational facility with associated minor improvements, and adding educational facility as an allowed use, 916 Shelburne Road. PERMIT HISTORY The Project is located in the Commercial 1-Residential 15 (C1-R15) Zoning District. It is also located in the Transit Overlay District, Traffic Overlay District and the Urban Design Overlay District. The most recent site plan approval took place in 2017 and was to add a seasonal accessory structure. The property is not currently a PUD. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT This application is to add educational facility, and convert an existing residential building to educational facility. The property is located in the C1-R15 zoning district, which requires educational facility to be approved as a PUD, and is also located in the R4, which allows educational facility as a conditional use (see discussion below). By removing homes, the project is subject to the housing preservation standards of 18.03. New buildings and substantial rehabilitation of nonconforming structures are required to comply with the standards of the Urban Design Overlay District. The project will also be subject to PUD standards, site plan standards, and traffic overlay standards. Staff’s understanding is that the property was permitted as an artist production studio, and its educational component has evolved over time to include something very much like a day school, which the applicant now proposes to formalize as an educational facility use and expand into the existing carriage house building to the rear of the lot. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions Minimum lot size is 40,000 sf; the property is more than 1 acre. Total allowable lot coverage is 70%, and allowable building coverage is 40%. The proposed coverages are below the allowed maximums. Minimum front setbacks are 20 ft from Shelburne Road, 30 ft from Lindenwood Drive. Minimum side setbacks are 10 ft. The property has no rear property lines due to its location on a corner. The existing carriage house, proposed to be converted from housing to educational facility use, is located within the side setback. The applicant is not proposing to expand the setback non-conformity. 18.03 Housing Preservation Standards #SD-21-08 Staff Comments 3 3 of 7 18.03 requires that any dwelling unit to be “removed, demolished or converted to a nonresidential use or nonuse” must comply with tenant or occupant notice and relocation provisions of applicable state and federal low, and must be accompanied by the construction of a new dwelling unit, the conversion of existing space to housing, or contribution to the housing trust fund in an amount equal to 25% of value of the housing to be removed. There are certain allowable exceptions. However, Staff considers that with housing being an important priority of the comprehensive plan, the Board should adhere to a strict interpretation of the allowable exemptions. Exemptions are limited to the following. 1. The redevelopment of a dwelling unit or any other form of permanent housing, including but not limited to housing units contained within a housing facility that is permitted as a congregate care facility, within a two (2) year period. Staff considers this exemption not applicable. 2. Any dwelling unit ordered to be demolished or declared unfit for habitation because of damage caused by civil commotion, malicious mischief, vandalism, natural disaster, fire, flood or other causes beyond the owner’s control. Staff considers this provision implies that the determination of the structures fitness for habitation is made by an independent third party. The City health officer or building inspector are possible avenues for this determination. 3. Dwelling units existing in the following zoning districts: City Center Form Based Code, Industrial – Open Space, Mixed Industrial & Commercial, Swift Street, Institutional- Agricultural, Parks & Recreation, Municipal, Commercial 1-AIR, Airport, and Airport-Industrial. Not applicable to this application. 4. The conversion of a duplex to a single-family home. Not applicable to this application. 5. If the housing is within the airport noise program area, Not applicable to this application. 6. The removal of accessory dwelling units. An accessory dwelling unit is subordinate to a principal dwelling unit and requires specific permitting. Staff considers this exemption not applicable. For the purpose of 18.03, the applicant has argued that the carriage house, A frame building, and shed are all accessory structures. Simply being an accessory structure is not reason for exemption to 18.03, therefore Staff considers this argument to be not valid. The applicant has indicated that the A frame building has been damaged by a tree branch. Staff recommends that if the applicant wishes to apply for an exemption to providing a contribution to the housing trust fund for the A frame building, the applicant should provide evidence that the building has been ordered to be demolished or declared unfit for habitation pursuant to item #2 above at the next stage of review. Further, Staff considers the applicant should work with the City assessor to determine a value for the housing units to be removed prior to the next application for the property. Educational Facility Use As noted above, educational facility is allowed in the C1-R15 in conjunction with a PUD. Educational facility is allowed as a conditional use in the R4. Therefore in order to add educational facility, the applicant must receive approval as a planned unit development and conditional use approval. PUD Review The purpose statement of Planned Unit Development review is “to provide for relief from the strict dimensional standards for individual lots in these Regulations in order to encourage innovation in #SD-21-08 Staff Comments 4 4 of 7 design and layout, efficient use of land, and the viability of infill development and redevelopment in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the comprehensive plan… The Development Review Board shall administer these regulations for the purpose of assuring orderly growth and coordinated development in the City of South Burlington and to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of its citizens.” 1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant demonstrate why they believe the project qualifies as a PUD, given the language of the PUD purpose statement by demonstrating: a) How the property functions as a unified, coherent entity, and b) How the PUD is respecting and supporting the adjacent neighborhood (as opposed to infringing upon it) 3.03C Split Lots. Where a district boundary divides a lot which was in single ownership at the time of passage of these regulations, the Development Review Board may permit, as a conditional use, the extension of the regulations for either portion of the lot but not to exceed fifty (50) feet beyond the district line into the remaining portion of the lot (See Article 14 for Conditional Use Review). This provision shall not apply to the boundary lines of any overlay or floating district. Under 3.03C Split Lots, the applicant may request the Board allow the regulations of the C1-R15 up to 50- feet into the R4 portion of the lot. The applicant has shown on their plans that the zoning district boundary is within 50-ft of the property line and has therefore made this request in order to locate the educational facility use entirely within an area governed by the regulations of the C1-R15. However, the location of the zoning district shown on the applicant’s plans is incorrect. The zoning district boundary is at a diagonal to the property line and is between 63 and 65 feet from the property line. Zoning district boundaries available in GIS from the CCRPC or upon request from the South Burlington GIS department represent the official zoning district boundaries. Therefore if the Board were to approve the applicant’s request, the lot would still be split, and, importantly, the proposed educational use in the “carriage house” building would also still be split between zoning districts. Staff recommends the Board take a different approach to the proposed educational use. Conditional Use Review Educational facility is allowed as a conditional use within the R4 zoning district. The Board’s responsibility is to evaluate whether the proposed conditional use, in this case allowing educational facility within the R4, has an undue adverse impact. 2. Since the applicant originally was requesting the regulations of the C1-R15 apply in the R4, Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that they are only seeking permission to allow educational facility in the R4, and they would be satisfied if the other provisions of the R4 district continued to apply. Conditional use criteria are as follows. The proposed conditional use shall no result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards #SD-21-08 Staff Comments 5 5 of 7 of the municipal plan. 3. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how the proposed educational facility use will differ from the current use to allow review of this criterion. The applicant should testify how the building and area around the building will be used. What will be the hours of the use? What noise will be associated with the use? What landscaping buffer exists or is proposed? Staff considers the location of the educational facility within the side yard setback to be a potential factor in determining whether the impact is undue and adverse. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Traffic is discussed below. Staff considers that since the driveway to access the R4 portion of the lot will be through the C1-R15 zoning district, no undue adverse impact will result from allowing the regulations of the C1-15 apply in the R4 district. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. Staff considers this criterion met. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources Staff considers this criterion met. Another relevant criterion is 13.06C, requiring screening where either “two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other,” or “a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a residential district or institutional use.” Staff considers the applicant should demonstrate compliance with 13.06C at the preliminary plat stage. Urban Design Overlay District The subject property lies in the Urban Design Overlay District. The urban design overlay has certain geographic extents shown on “Overlay Districts – Map 1” of the LDR. The urban design overlay extends across approximately half of the subject property. Staff considers the standards of the urban design overlay not applicable to the proposed improvements. Traffic Overlay District The subject property lies in the Traffic Overlay District Zone 1. As outlined in Section 10.02 of the LDRs, the purpose of the Traffic Overlay District is to provide a performance-based approach to traffic and access management associated with development and re- development of properties in high traffic areas of the City. It is the further purpose of the Traffic Overlay District to provide a means by which the allowable uses and the arrangement and intensity of uses on a given parcel may be regulated, above and beyond District regulations, based on traffic generated and impacts on City access management goals. It is the further purpose of the Traffic Overlay District to provide incentives to improve site design and access management during the development and redevelopment process, in keeping with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Max Overall Traffic Generation (Traffic Budget) = size of lot x max. traffic generation rate = 71,003 x 15/40,000 = 26.6 trips Based on a land uses of “Day Care Center” (LUC 565) and “Fast Casual Restaurant” (LUC 930), Staff estimates #SD-21-08 Staff Comments 6 6 of 7 the proposed trip generation potentially higher than the traffic budget. If the project exceeds the budget, a traffic study and mitigation pursuant to 10.02H and Appendix B will be required. 4. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to prepare an assessment of the trip generation of this site prior to the next application for the project, and authorize technical review of the trip assessment if necessary. B) PUD & SUBDIVISION STANDARDS If the Board allows the project to move forward as a PUD, the applicant must meet the standards of Article 15. PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, traffic, visual compatibility with the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, and public infrastructure. The applicant will be required to obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to final plat approval. At such time as a preliminary plat application is submitted, Staff will provide the application to the South Burlington water department for review. The Director of Public Works had no comments on the plan as presented at this sketch plan level of review. Staff considers the proposed building addition, and modifications to fenestrations, to be compatible with the surrounding area. The Fire Chief has not provided comments at this time, other than to note the carriage house building should be assigned a unique address. Staff will work with the applicant to address this concern. C) SITE PLAN STANDARDS 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. Parking and Access 5. There appears to be a discrepancy between the civil and landscaping drawings as it pertains to proposed parking lot layout. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify what is proposed, and to further clarify the proposed use of the area indicated on the plans as “gravel parking area”, which appears to be an abandoned driveway. Landscaping Staff has not at this time prepared a detailed review of the proposed landscaping plan. Staff notes that landscaping that was part of a previously approved plan is required to be maintained in vigorous growing condition in perpetuity. If the applicant is proposing to remove existing previously approved vegetation, and it appears that they may be removing a small number of trees, it must be replaced, either on a caliper basis or on a value basis. Staff also notes that required minimum landscaping budget must be provided in trees and shrubs unless special approval is sought for allowing other landscaping elements. The City Arborist reviewed the application on 3/1/2021 and offers the following comments. I’d recommend against using Inkberry or any other evergreen shrub along the edge of the parking lot to avoid damage from plowing/salting operations in the winter. Shrubs should also be moved further off the edge of the parking lot to avoid plow damage. Winterberry or Red Stemmed Dogwood would both do better in this location. Other than that the landscaping looks fine. #SD-21-08 Staff Comments 7 7 of 7 Staff considers the applicant should incorporate the comments of the City Arborist at the next stage of review. Low Impact Development The Stormwater Section reviewed the application on 3/5/2021 and offers the following comments. The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Davis Studio Carriage House Renovation” site plan prepared by Engineering Ventures, Inc., dated 01/29/2021. We would like to offer the following comments: 1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2. The project appears to create or redevelop greater than 1/2 acre of impervious area. It therefore requires the applicant to follow the standards set forth in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Article 12.03. Staff considers the applicant should incorporate the comments of the Stormwater Section at the next stage of review. Exterior Lighting 13.07B(2) prohibits excessive spillover of light to nearby properties. If exterior lighting is proposed, the applicant must provide a photometric drawing and lighting cut sheets at the next stage of review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and conclude the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner