HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-22-02_916 Shelburne Rd_Davis Studio_SK#SD-22-02
Staff Comments
1
1 of 6
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT SD-22-02_916 Shelburne Rd_Davis
Studio_SK_2022-01-18.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 12, 2022
Plans received: December 1, 2021
916 Shelburne Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD-22-02
Meeting date: January 18, 2022
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
Traffic Overlay District, Transit Overlay District, Urban Design Overlay District
1.63 ac
Location Map
C)
D) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-22-02 of DS Realty LLC to amend a previous approval for a lot currently
#SD-22-02
Staff Comments
2
2 of 6
developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio and standard restaurant in one
building and three homes in two buildings. The amendment consists of removing all three homes by
demolishing both buildings and constructing a second principal building for educational use, adding
educational facility as an allowed use, and constructing associated site improvements, 916 Shelburne
Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Commercial 1-Residential 15 (C1-R15) Zoning District. The draft LDRs,
warned November 10, 2021, propose to relocate the boundary of C1-R15 to the property line,
eliminating R4 zoning on the property. 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 has been submitted while adoption of draft Land Development Regulations are pending.
This analysis assumes that all relevant sections of the draft LDRs will be adopted by the City of South
Burlington City Council. If all relevant sections of the draft LDRs are not adopted, the Applicant can apply
for a new analysis under the effective LDRs at that time.
This application is to add educational facility as a use of the property, and demolish an existing
residential building to rebuild as an educational facility. The property is located in the C1-R15 zoning
district, in which educational facility is an allowed use. 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 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 a private elementary 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. The applicant proposes to retain the restaurant and artist
production studio uses.
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
#SD-22-02
Staff Comments
3
3 of 6
setbacks are 10 ft. The property has no rear property lines due to its location on a corner.
18.03 Housing Preservation Standards
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 law, 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.
7. Conversion of a dwelling unit to a licensed, non-residential child care facility. The application
indicates that the dwelling unit shall be converted to educational use, not a licensed, non-
residential child care facility.
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. The Board
provided guidance at the previous, expired, sketch plan hearing that they would consider the A-frame
building to be unfit for habitation and subject to this exemption. Since sketch plan is a non-binding
meeting, 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.
#SD-22-02
Staff Comments
4
4 of 6
The applicant has indicated that the new building that will replace the “Carriage House” that currently
contains two dwelling units will be used for educational use. “Educational Facility” is defined as “A
facility used for or in support of education, instruction, or research in any branch of knowledge including
private and public elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities.” In contrast, a
“licensed, non-residential child care facility” that would be exempted from housing replacement
requirements of 18.03 is defined as “A child care facility operated outside of the caregiver’s
own residence which complies with all State of Vermont requirements for licensure of child care
facilities. A “child care facility” is defined in the LDR as:
An establishment operated as a business or service on a regular or continual basis,
whether for compensation or not, to provide care, protection, supervision and/or
education for children under the age of 16 outside their homes for periods of fewer than
24 hours a day by a person other than a child's own parent, guardian or relative as defined
by rules adopted by the Vermont Department for Children and Families, but not including
a kindergarten approved by the State Board of Education.
The applicant has not applied for a “licensed, non-residential child care facility” in the to-be-built
building replacing the Carriage House, so this exemption also does not apply.
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 10.01 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)1 and “Small Office” (LUC 712), Staff estimates the
proposed trip generation potentially higher than the traffic budget by a factor of 2. If the project exceeds the
budget, a traffic study and mitigation pursuant to 10.02H and Appendix B will be required.
1 The ITE trip generation manual (10th edition) does not provide the necessary information for private elementary
school uses.
#SD-22-02
Staff Comments
5
5 of 6
1. 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) 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 environmental protection, site design features, access and circulation, utilities,
building form, streetscape improvements, and waste disposal.
Relationship of Proposed Structures to Site
Staff considers the proposed building to be consistent with the character of the existing principal building to
remain.
Parking and Access
The intersection of Lindenwood and Shelburne Road is signaled, allowing for safe left-turning traffic. The
Board should discuss with the applicant the potential for left-turning traffic to exit only onto Lindenwood. This
would also be more in compliance with the purposes of Section 15.A.14, as limiting direct access onto arterial
and collector streets. Such improvement could potentially be considered a mitigation measure if the trip
generation exceeds the allowable traffic budget.
Site Design Features
Landscaping
The applicant has calculated the required minimum landscaping budget to be $10,500. They have
proposed an assortment of shrubs and perennial plantings. Staff notes that required minimum
landscaping budget must be provided in trees and shrubs unless special approval is sought for allowing
other landscaping elements. Staff also 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.
The City Arborist has not yet reviewed the proposed planting plan.
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.
C) MASTER PLAN
Under the draft LDRs Section 15.B.02(4), a Master Plan is required for “Multiple Structures on a Single-User
Lot or Complex, in accordance with Section 3.09.” Staff recommends the applicant meet with Staff to review
the Master Plan submission and review requirements prior to the next application for the property.
Staff is analyzing this requirement and anticipates having further information at the time of the hearing.
#SD-22-02
Staff Comments
6
6 of 6
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
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-22-02 916 Shelburne Road Sketch Plan Application - ADDENDUM
DATE: January 18, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
Staff comment #2 in the staff report for the above-referenced application inadvertently describes the
intersection of Shelburne Road and Lindenwood as signalized. This is incorrect; there is no signal at that
intersection. There is still merit to reducing the number of locations where left turns occur onto
Shelburne Road, but it is not as large a benefit as stated.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner