HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-003 - Supplemental - 1795 Shelburne Road (2)
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: #SP-22-003 1795 Shelburne Road
DATE: May 17, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP-22-003 of RHTL Partners, LLC to modify a previously approved plan for a 10,000
sf automotive sales, service and repair building on an existing 2.61 acre lot. The amendment consists of
constructing a 3,155 sf building expansion, 1795 Shelburne Road.
CONTEXT
The Board held a hearing on this application on March 2, 2022. The Board provided feedback to the
applicant and continued the hearing for the purpose of allowing the applicant to make necessary
modifications to the project.
The applicant provided revised materials on May 3. Review of these revised materials is incorporated
herein; criterion which Staff considers to have been addressed have been removed from this report.
COMMENTS
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
10.05D Urban Design Overlay District Standards
The entirety of the Urban Design Overlay District Standards apply to building facades which are
proposed to be altered by more than 50%. Based on the provided elevations, it appears that more than
50% of the façade is altered.
If less than 50% of the façade is in fact proposed to be altered, the applicant must comply with the
Urban Design Overlay Standards for the altered portion of the façade.
(1) Entries. Buildings on subject properties must have at least one entry facing the primary road in
the corridor. Any entry shall:
(a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these regulations.
(b) Serve, architecturally, as principal entry. Front entries shall be a focal point of the front
façade and shall be an easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include
accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticos, overhangs,
recesses/projections, decorative front doors and side lights, or emphasis through varied
color or special materials. This requirement does not preclude additional principal entry
doors.
1. The applicant has provided a double door facing Shelburne Road. Staff considers the door
does not meet the requirement to be principal entry and a focal point of the front façade. The
applicant has provided elevations illustrating the entrances. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to modify the front entry to be an architectural focal point.
(c) Shall have a direct, separate walkway to the primary road. This walkway shall be at least
eight (8) feet in width and may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a
pedestrian-oriented access.
The applicant has provided steps connecting to Shelburne Road. The steps connect to a
north-south roadway, shown on the provided plans, which does eventually reach the
proposed entry.
2. The walkway is not “direct” and does more than “meander,” and Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to modify the design of the walkway and the entrance to meet these
criteria. Staff considers a different entry configuration may support compliance with both
these criteria, such as a corner entry.
(4) Building Stores, Heights & Rooftop Apparatus
(b) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within the
Urban Design Overlay District.
Rooftop mechanical equipment and appurtenances are required to be arranged so as to
minimize visibility from any point at or below the roof level of the subject structure. Such
features in excess of one foot in height must be enclosed by outer building walls or parapets,
grouped and screened, or themselves designed so that they are balanced or integrated with
respect to the design and materials of the building.
Based on the provided plans, rooftop equipment is proposed to be 2’-4” in height. The applicant
has indicated there will be an 18-inch parapet, leaving 10-inches of rootop equipment above the
parapet. The building is proposed to be located 7.5 ft below the adjacent roadway, and setback
57 feet. The rooftop units appear to be set back 18-ft from the edge of the roof. Based on an
analysis by staff, the rooftop units will be screened by the parapet for a user anywhere on the
adjoining roadway. The applicant also provided a “RTU Study” exhibit, but since this exhibit
does not indicate from where the visibility was evaluated, Staff was unable to use it to evaluate
compliance with this criterion.
Where flat roofs are used, architectural elements such as cornices shall be included along all
primary and secondary building facades. This building has only a primary facade.
3. In response to feedback from the Board, the applicant has applied a metal coping to the top of
the parapet. This coping appears to be approximately 1-ft high and consist of the same material
as the façade of the building. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether this criterion is met.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
H. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure
and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the
enclosure(s). Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non-dumpster,
non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
The applicant has modified their plans to provide a new dumpster enclosure. Staff considers
this criterion now met.
C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading
F. Access management Requirements. It is the intent of the City to minimize traffic and
pedestrian conflicts caused by vehicular driveways on public roadways by reducing the
number of required driveways and by minimizing the number of vehicles utilizing such
driveways off public roadways. All applicants must make an effort to reduce these impacts. All
commercial lots (retail, restaurant, office, service uses, excluding residential, agricultural and
industrial uses) located adjacent to other commercial lots must provide a driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. If the adjacent property owner does not want to provide for
that connection, the applicant must provide an easement to do so in the future when
circumstances may change. This driveway connection or easement should be located where
vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
LDR 13.02F requires all commercial lots located adjacent to other commercial lots to provide a
driveway connection to any adjacent commercial lot. It goes on to state that if the adjacent
property owner does not want to provide for that connection, the applicant must provide an
easement to do so in the future when circumstances may change. This driveway connection or
easement should be located where the vehicular and pedestrian circulation is most feasible.
There is an existing driveway connection to the property to the west. On 3/2, the Board
discussed with the applicant that this criterion is not met for the property to the south and
directed them to provide an easement. It was acknowledged that if a connection in the location
of the easement were appropriate in the future, it would require removal of a parking lot light
and, as currently proposed, relocation of the dumpster. The applicant has provided the
following narrative requesting the Board not require an easement.
The applicant would like to respectfully request that this easement not be required based upon
the following information –
a. As the southwestern portion of the property serves as both a service and access area to
the garage, as well as the location of the existing and proposed dumpsters, providing a
cross-lot connection at this location could create unsafe conditions for users and site
employees.
b. An existing easement along the north access to the property to the west has already
been granted and is in place. An additional easement would further encumber the
property.
c. The owners have concerns about providing this type of easement for potential future
use as it could create a scenario where users of the Champ Car Wash who want to head
north utilize this site as a drive through to get to a signalized intersection that allows for
northbound traffic. Currently the exit for the Champ Car Wash (Nesti Dr.) only allows for
southbound exits. This could create excessive traffic on a portion of the lot where it
would not be appropriate.
d. Any potential change in use of this property in the future would most likely require
site plan approval and, if deemed appropriate at that time, an easement could be
established then.
The Board’s authority to grant waivers in the case of a site plan application is as follows:
14.04 Authority for Review of Site Plans
A. Authority, Development Review Board (DRB). The DRB has the authority under these
regulations and 24 V.S.A. SS 4414 and SS 4416 to:
(3) Modify a dimensional requirement under this Article or the Table of Dimensional
Standards (Appendix C).
(a) The DRB may modify a dimensional requirement under this Article or the Table of
Dimensional Standards (Appendix C) subject to conditions, if it finds that due to
physical site limitations, including Hazards or Level I Resources, or other legal or
development constraints specific to the land to be subdivided, including the lack of
existing or planned connecting facilities or services adjacent to or in proximity to
the subdivision:
(i) The requirement is not necessary to ensure public health, safety and
welfare;
(ii) The proposal modification is demonstrated to better meet the purposes of
this Section, the applicable zoning district, and the Comprehensive Plan;
and,
(iii) The modification or waiver is the minimum necessary to afford relief and
represents the least deviation from the standards and requirements of these
Regulations.
The DRB in granting a modification or waiver under this section may impose
conditions which, in its judgment, are necessary and appropriate to mitigate
any adverse effects, and to ensure compliance with the above standards of
review.
(b) Limitations. In granting a modification, In no case shall the DRB permit:
(i) the location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property
boundary;
(ii) land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit
for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development;
(iii) increasing the coverage on sites where the pre-existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit;
(iv) an increase in residential density above the allowed maximum in the applicable
zoning district, outside of review as Planned Unit Development (Article 15C),
Inclusionary Zoning (Section 18.01) or via a Transfer of Development Rights (Article
9); or,
(v) the location of parking not in compliance with Section 14.06 (A)(2).
(c) All requests for modification must be submitted in conjunction with the
application for site plan. The DRB, in granting a modification under this section, may
impose conditions that in its judgment are necessary and appropriate to meet the
objectives or to mitigate the adverse impacts of any modified or waived requirement.
The Board’s authority is limited to dimensional requirements under Article 14 and dimensional
requirements in the Table of Dimensional Standards (Appendix C). Staff considers the provision
of an easement for future cross-lot connection to not be a dimensional requirement and
therefore outside of the Board’s authority to grant.
4. Staff recommends the Board continue to require the applicant to provide on the plans and record
a cross-lot easement to the benefit of the adjacent property to the south at the southwest
portion of the site. Staff considers the Board has discretion on the width of the easement. The
purpose is to provide for vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Staff therefore recommends the
easement be 30-ft in width, which accommodates two 10-ft drive lanes, a 5-ft grass strip, and a
5-ft sidewalk.
In response to the applicant’s concerns about vehicles accessing the signal, this is the explicit
purpose of cross-lot connections. Nonetheless, only an easement, not a connection, is required
at this time.
In response to the applicant’s suggestion that an easement could be established at such time as
the property is redeveloped, the purpose of the easement is to allow the southern property
owner to construct a connection without the need for site plan approval on the adjoining lot.
G. Design requirements for Parking Spaces, Parking Aisles, Lighting and Landscaping
(4) Pedestrian safety. Insofar as practicable, pedestrian and bicycle circulation shall be
separated from motor vehicle circulation. Safe and convenient pedestrian circulation,
including appropriate sidewalks, shall be provided on the site and its approaches. The
pedestrian circulation on site shall be designed to minimize adverse effects of vehicular
traffic on sidewalks and recreation paths.
10.05D(1) requires the applicant to provide a direct sidewalk connection to the street. Staff
considers this criterion will be met when 10.05D(1) is met.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
The applicant has proposed to relocate two bicycle racks, and has provided a photo demonstrating that
the bike racks provide parking for two bicycles each. Staff recommends the Board include a condition
that the placement of the bicycle racks must meet the dimensional standards of 13.03.
13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees
B. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one-family or two-family dwelling, all off-street
parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board, shall be curbed and landscaped
with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants including ground covers, as approved by the
Development Review Board. Sections of recessed curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow
stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area to reach stormwater collection, treatment and
management infrastructure. The Development Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the
proposed landscaping to assure the establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area
and the privacy and comfort of abutting properties.
Since this is an amendment to a previously-approved site plan, the applicant is required to retain
previously required landscaping and provide supplemental landscaping as necessary to meet the
requirements for the modified portion of the parcel as well as to meet the required minimum
landscaping budget for the proposed addition.
(1) All off-street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with trees,
shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently to allow for
snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view of the parking lot
from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide shade and canopy for
the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for surveillance purposes and for the
perception of safety to install the size and type of plants that leave visual access between the
parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
There is limited parking lot landscaping. The applicant is proposing to provide a small amount of
parking lot landscaping in the form of perennial grasses. The March 3 staff report suggested
perimeter planting as a way to meet the required minimum landscaping budget. The City Arborist
recommends trees be set back 10-ft from curbs to provide protection from snow plowing.
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty-eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces and/or in
parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of the interior of
the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and other plants. Such
requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below-ground parking.
This criterion is not met for the existing parking lot. The applicant is not reducing compliance with
this criterion. The applicant has referred to 95 of the parking spaces as “vehicle storage.” Outdoor
storage and display may be permitted by the Board as a conditional use pursuant to 13.08. Since
this site contains an existing nonconformity proposed to be reduced, Staff considers it unnecessary
to review the application under 13.08 or as a conditional use.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically designed as
a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per 13.04(B)(5)(c)
below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet on any one side, and
shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large islands are encouraged.
The applicant is proposing to install landscaping to screen the existing sewer pump station. This
landscaping will not be protected by curbing. The applicant is proposing to protect the landscaping
with bollards. Staff considers as a retrofit that the Board may accept the proposal to provide
alternative compliance with this standard and recommends the Board find this criterion met for this
location. Other plantings are proposed to be perennials and located at least 6-ft from the edge of
pavement. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers. All
planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road runoff or
salt spray, shall be salt-tolerant.
5. The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 2/15/2022 and indicated that the landscaping plan is
acceptable. Since that time the applicant has added two trees, slightly modified the selection of
shrubs, added a small number of perennials, and added a perennial bed consisting of 48 daylilys.
The applicant is not providing the required minimum landscaping value. Compliance with this
criterion will be reevaluated when adequate landscaping value is provided.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be placed
evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall be placed a
minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
This criterion is not met. Noncompliance with this criterion is reduced by reducing the number
of parking spaces.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one-half (2 ½) inches when
measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
6. The March 3 staff report noted that proposed tree sizes are provided in height. This has not been
corrected. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their plans to meet this
standard.
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged; the species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and layout of the
parking lot and the site.
Fewer than ten trees are proposed.
(e) Within the City Center FBC District, landscaping required within this section shall not
count towards meeting minimum landscape budget requirements as detailed in Section
13.04(G).
N/A
(7) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for
erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
Snow storage areas have been specified on the plans. Staff considers this criterion to have been
adequately addressed.
C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping, fencing, land
shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it determines that a) two
adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each other, or b) a property’s
appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with pavement or structures or
is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and multi-family use abuts a
residential district or institutional use, or (d) a parking or loading area is adjacent to or visible from a
public street.
Staff considers that the proposed site is not dissimilar enough from the adjoining property to require
additional screening beyond that required in B(1) above.
D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses. In the case of non-residential and multi-
family uses, the required front yard and/or the frontage along designated arterial and collector
streets (see Article 3, Section 3.06 for this list) shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good
appearance. Landscape elements that reduce stormwater runoff and promote stormwater infiltration
are encouraged. The Development Review Board shall require the applicant to meet the provisions of
sections 13.04(F) and (G).
Staff considers compliance with this criterion is improved by the applicant’s proposed landscaping plan.
Since the minimum required landscaping value is not provided, Staff considers additional front yard
landscaping to be an opportunity to meet landscaping budget requirements.
G(3) Landscaping Budget Requirements. The Development Review Board shall require minimum
planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 below. In evaluating landscaping requirements,
some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as
long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. The costs below are cumulative; for example, a
landscaping budget shall be required to show a planned expenditure of three percent of the first
$250,000 in construction or improvement cost plus two percent of the next $250,000 in construction or
improvement cost, plus one percent of the remaining cost over $500,000. The landscaping budget shall
be prepared by a landscape architect or professional landscape designer.
The cost of the proposed building addition is $1,965,000, requiring $27,150 in plantings.
At the March 3 hearing, it was noted the applicant’s proposed landscaping budget was deficient by
nearly $15,000. The applicant has revised their proposed landscaping plan and is now proposing
$15,658 in plantings, including $7,430 in trees and shrubs and $8,228 in perennials, and the following
additional elements.
Item Cost Staff Recommendation
Retaining Wall $4,950 The applicant has indicated this includes only the value of stone facing, as recommended by Staff on
3/2. Patio Pavers at bike racks and at entrance $3,500 Staff recommends including only when the Board finds the other provisions of the landscaping criteria to be met
Patio Pavers at picnic table $3,750 Applicant indicates this area is 150 sf, or a unit cost of $25 per square foot. It is unclear why the unit cost
of the pavers in this location is higher than the unit cost elsewhere. At $20/sf, the cost would be $3,000 Sub Total $11,450 Applies $20/sf for all pavers
7. As part of the proposed landscaping plan, the applicant is proposing to remove a previously required
tree and to plant a replacement tree. This is proposed in a location near the southwest corner of the
existing building, and not in an area affected by the proposed construction. 13.04I requires all
plantings shown on an approved site plan to be maintained by the property owner in a vigorous
growing condition throughout the duration of the use therefore Staff recommends the Board reject
the applicant’s proposal to remove a tree and replant new trees.
With acknowledgement that the use of the majority of the parking lot is outdoor storage (which would
require conditional use review to change, as discussed above), Staff considers that the provided
landscaping plan does not even attempt to meet the applicable provisions of the landscaping standards.
In particular, Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to address perimeter planting
requirements of 13.04B and 13.04D before allowing credit for site improvements other than trees or
shrubs. When the Board finds the other provisions of the landscaping criteria to be met, they may allow
the applicant credit for landscaping elements other than trees and shrubs. Since some of the proposed
trees are not allowed (see Staff Comment #7 immediately above), it is not possible to calculate the
provided landscaping, but Staff considers that there is a deficit no matter the computation method.
8. Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to devise a landscaping program that will meet
the budgetary requirements while advancing the requirements of 13.04B and 13.04D.
13.05 Stormwater Management
Stormwater standards apply when one-half acre or more of impervious surface exists or is proposed to
exist, and where 5,000 sf of impervious is created or reconstructed. In their comments of 2/22/2022,
the City Stormwater Section indicated that the applicant was subject to the stormwater standards. The
applicant has since performed more detailed site investigations and determined they do not meet the
threshold requiring compliance. The City Stormwater Section provided confirmation on May 6, 2022.
Staff considers the stormwater management standards to be not applicable.
Signage
The applicant has included information about exterior signage materials and illumination on their
architectural renderings. Signs are not shown. Signage is subject to separate ordinance. The Board
should require the applicant to remove all references to signs from all plans as a condition of approval.
3.08 Temporary Structures and Uses
The applicant is proposing a number of temporary structures during the construction phase of the project.
A. General Provisions. Any temporary use of a lot, not approved in connection with the primary
use of that property, shall be restricted according to the provisions of this section. This section shall not
apply to peddling activities that are regulated through the Ordinance to Regulate Peddling.
B. Location of Temporary Uses and Structures. Temporary uses or structures on a lot shall not be
placed or conducted in such manner as to obstruct or interfere with vehicle circulation and parking,
pedestrian movement, block sidewalks, obstruct crosswalks or damage landscaped areas.
9. Since the principal building will not be in use by customers during construction, Staff considers the
proposed temporary structures meet this criterion. Staff has requested Fire department review of this
criterion and anticipates having an update at the time of the hearing.
C. Temporary Construction Structures. Temporary structures used in conjunction with construction
work shall be permitted only during the period that the construction is in progress.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition to this effect.
D. Temporary Outdoor Storage. Temporary outdoor storage used in conjunction with the principal
use or uses on that property shall be permitted for a period up to one month during a calendar year.
Permits for temporary outdoor storage shall be issued by the Administrative Officer in accordance with
the provisions of this section.
Staff considers this criterion not applicable to storage of construction materials. Construction materials
must be removed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed project.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner