Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-02 - Supplemental - 0916 Shelburne Road (11)#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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-22-02 of DS Realty LLC to amend a previous approval for a lot currently developed with three buildings consisting of artist production studio and standard restaurant in one #SD-22-02 Staff Comments 2 2 of 6 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 setbacks are 10 ft. The property has no rear property lines due to its location on a corner. #SD-22-02 Staff Comments 3 3 of 6 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. 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 #SD-22-02 Staff Comments 4 4 of 6 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. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to prepare an assessment of the trip generation of this site 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 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 2. 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 3. 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 Upon review of master plan requirements, the proposed building can be considered an accessory structure but will be subject to conditional use review unless the applicant reduces the maximum height of the shed dormers to 5-ft or less above the midpoint of the roof. Accessory structures are not considered “Multiple Structures on a Single-User Lot or Complex” and would therefore not be subject to master plan review. If the applicant wishes to retain the shed dormer height as proposed, conditional use criteria pertain to impacts to the character of the neighborhood, traffic, and municipal services. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner