Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SP-22-039_370 Shelburne Rd_Hauke 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-22-039 370 Shelburne Road Site Plan Application DATE: January 18, 2023 Development Review Board meeting PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site plan application #SP-22-039 of David Hauke to amend a previously approved site plan for a 21,420 sq. ft. mixed use building. The amendment consists of constructing a 3,550 sf third story addition, which will be combined with 4,600 sf of existing building and used as six (6) residential units, with 16,605 sf commercial space to remain, 370 Shelburne Road. CONTEXT The Board opened the hearing on this application on December 6, 2022. At that hearing, the Board accepted testimony and new materials for submission. The Board continued the hearing to allow time to review the new materials, and to allow the applicant to make necessary modifications to address outstanding issues discussed on that date. The applicant provided revised materials on January 6. Review of these revised materials is incorporated herein; criteria which Staff considers to have been addressed have been removed from this report. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are in red. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 10.01 Traffic Overlay District This property is located in Traffic Overlay District Zone 3 which is established to regulate uses based on traffic generated. The parcel has one driveway within Zone 3 and one driveway which is out of the Traffic Overlay District. LDR 10.01E states that if a parcel has one driveway in one and another driveway in another zone, the zone which is more restrictive shall apply to the entire property. 10.01G calculates the peak hour trip generation limits per 40,000 sf of land area. G. Peak Hour Trip Generation Limits per 40,000 SF of land area: The maximum permitted peak hour volume per 40,000 square feet of land area in any zone shall be as set forth in Table 10-1 below. Table 10-1 Maximum Peak Hour Trip Ends per 40,000 SF Zone Max. number of peak hour trip ends per 40,000 SF of land area 1 15 #SP-22-039 2 2A 20 2B 25 2C 30 3 45 The above allowable traffic generation rates assume a mix of right-turn and left-turn movements in and out of the site driveways. If a site is located along an arterial with a raised median thus preventing all left turns, the traffic budget for that site shall be increased by 15%. This Traffic Budget credit of 15% can only be taken when all site access points off the adjacent arterial(s) are for right-turns-in and right-turns-out only. The maximum allowable trip generation is 45 trips per 40,000 sf, or 75 trips. The previously approved trip generation (SP-00-56) was 81.23 trips based on a ITE land use code of “specialty retail center,” which code no longer exists. It is the City’s practice to “true up” additional existing trips without requiring mitigation if the calculation methodology changes without a change in use. The applicant has indicated that the existing trip generation based on the ITE land use code for “strip plaza retail” (LUC 822) is 134 trips per PM peak hour. Staff concurs with this choice of land use code. With the proposed reduction to 16,605 sf “strip plaza retail,” the trip generation is reduced to 112 trips for retail and 3 trips for six units of “single family attached housing” (LUC 215)1, or 115 proposed trips, less than the previous approval. Therefore no additional mitigation is needed. B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards (3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or anticipated adjoining buildings. The existing building encroaches into the allowable minimum setbacks, though the proposed addition is outside of the standard setback. The proposed addition is near the east side of the building, where the building is clad in brick. The proposal is to add a story near the east end of the building above the existing two story portion (though not within the setback), and add a porch area where there is an existing loading dock. LDR 3.06I enumerates specific requirements for setbacks and buffer strips adjacent to residential district boundaries. In summary, there is required to be a 15-ft densely vegetated buffer and a 65-ft setback between buildings within non-residential zoning districts and a residential zoning district, unless the Board modifies the width of the required buffer and/or setback. The Board may only modify the required buffer and/or setback if the Board finds “that the proposed lighting, landscaping and/or fencing to be provided adjacent to the boundary of the residential district will provide equivalent screening of the noise, light and visual impacts of the new non-residential use to that which would be provided by the standard setback and buffer requirements” What is interesting here is that though the buffer and setback is required for all principal structures within non-residential zoning districts adjacent to residential zoning districts, the modification refers to non- residential uses. The applicant is proposing a residential use, while the existing use is non-residential. 1 Staff concurs with this choice of land use code. Alternative codes are only applicable for unit counts well out of the range of the proposed unit count. The South Burlington Impact Fee ordinance calculates 0.67 trips per unit for a multi-family building, which would result in a similar traffic generation for the proposed homes. #SP-22-039 3 Staff on December 6 recommended the Board consider the change in use from non-residential to residential to be a factor in favor of granting the requested modification. The applicant has proposed to locate their required site amenity within the required vegetated buffer. The site amenity consists of a mixture of dense plantings, lawn, and seating. The Board on December 6 seemed generally in support of the change from non-residential loading dock use to residential use as an improvement to the existing non-conforming buffer and setback, though there remained some concerns about the vertical relationship between the proposed third story addition and the existing two story home to the east. 1. The Board asked the applicant to provide more information regarding the relative elevations and distance between these structures. The applicant has added the adjoining building to their provided elevation drawings, as well as providing a shadow study, which shows the difference in access to sunlight of the adjoining building during the summer and the winter. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe, based on the revised materials, why they believe the Board should modify the required setback and buffer to permit the proposed building addition. 14.07 Specific Review Standards C. Access and Circulation. All proposed development shall comply with site access and circulation standards of Section 15.A.14. Much of 15.A.14 pertains to the construction of streets, which are not applicable to this application. The applicable sections of 15.A.14 follow. 15.A.14(E) Access and Circulation. The applicant must demonstrate that the street network is arranged to meet applicable access management, traffic, and pedestrian circulation standards under these Regulations, including criteria for site plans under Article 14, Transect Zone Subdivisions under Article 9, or a type of Planned Unit Development under Article 15.C; and, for state highways, VTrans Access Management Program Guidelines in effect at the time of application. Unless otherwise specified under these regulations, the street network, including the location and arrangement of streets, must be designed to: (1)-(6) not applicable (7) Provide for safe access to abutting properties for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians, including safe sight distances, access separation distances, and accommodations for high-accident locations. On December 6, the Board expressed concern that there is no pedestrian access along the south / Proctor Ave side of the property. Site Plan Review Standard 14.07F requires streetscape improvements where the adjoining street does not meet the applicable Street Type. Proctor Ave has a 50-ft ROW width, making it a neighborhood street, which is required to have a sidewalk on one side, a 5-ft greenbelt (planted with street trees) on both sides, two lanes of vehicular traffic, and between 20 and 26’ of pavement depending on whether on-street parking is provided. Proctor Ave meets the required cross section therefore no streetscape improvements are needed. The Board asked the applicant to evaluate whether there could be a sidewalk either on the subject property or in the public ROW along Proctor Ave. Staff would not support any proposal which would reduce the greenbelt on Proctor Ave to less than the required 5-feet. #SP-22-039 4 The applicant provided the following supplemental narrative regarding a sidewalk. Regarding the pedestrian connection on the south side of the 370 property along Proctor Ave. There are gas and power services on this end of the building, so we want to keep a new sidewalk at least 18” off the edge of the building. If we construct the sidewalk at 4 feet wide and propose it as private, it will encroach into the ROW by approximately a foot, see attached SH 1 – Site Plan. We have discussed the idea with the City Director of Public Works who believe an easement could be granted by the City to construct the walk within the ROW but keep it private. We would also be amendable to constructing a 3-foot-wide sidewalk to keep the path clear of the ROW. Please keep in mind, the new residents have access to the north side of the building through the stairwell network inside the building and a sidewalk is already on the south side of Proctor Ave. 2. Staff considers the 4-ft sidewalk to be viable if the Board finds it to be necessary, and considers an agreement with the City for a private sidewalk encroachment in the right of way can be a condition of approval. Staff recommends the Board review the provided plan and determine whether to direct the applicant to proceed with this option. B) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.04 Landscaping, Screening & Street Trees 13.04G requires minimum landscaping based on the value of new structures, while 13.04H requires that previously approved landscaping be maintained for the duration of the use. The applicant is proposing a building addition, and proposing to remove existing landscaping, therefore these portions of the landscaping standards apply. On December 6, the applicant described the proposed landscaping plan and provided an updated landscaping budget, which Staff has reviewed as follows. The most-recently approved site plan that establishes the required landscaping to be retained was from 2014. The applicant has performed a comparison between that plan and the currently present landscaping and has provided a list and an estimate of the plant value of the missing plantings from the approved plan. Generally speaking, there are a number of previously approved shrubs missing from around the west façade of the building, and two trees which were removed when a sewer pump station was installed. The applicant testified that the missing shrubs were likely removed due to poor growing conditions, and they have selected replacement plantings that they believe will be successful. The applicant is also required to provide $26,600 in new plantings based on the value of the proposed building addition. The applicant has not broken out the proposed replacement plantings and the plantings required for the proposed building value separately. The applicant has proposed perennials along the western front yard, shrubs along the northern side of the building, six (6) small trees along the west façade of the building, three trees with groundcover near the renovated northern entrance, and a number of trees, shrubs, perennials and ground cover in the required site amenity. They have also proposed street trees along Proctor Ave, which, as mentioned above, are required under 14.07F. The Board’s practice in modifying a previously approved landscaping plan has been to prioritize plantings that have the same effect as the previously approved plantings. 3. Taking first into consideration the effect of the proposed plantings compared to the effect of the previously approved plantings, Staff considers that the proposed trees along the western façade of #SP-22-039 5 the building do not have the same effect as the previously approved plan, but recommends the Board consider whether to accept the proposal, due to the applicant’s testimony that the existing roof configuration makes the west façade a difficult location for vegetation to thrive. Staff considers an alternative to accepting the proposal would be to require the applicant to install gutters to improve conditions for landscaping. The applicant’s proposed plantings are as follows. Trees and shrubs proposed, site amenity $4,076 Groundcover and perennials, site amenity $6,060 Street trees $5,200 Additional site trees and shrubs $3,388 Additional grasses and perennials along Shelburne Street $13,890 Total Proposed Planting Value $32,614 Required Minimum Landscaping $26,500 Applicant’s estimate of required replacement landscaping (plant value only) $6,110 As indicated in the comments for December 6, Staff considers the vicinity of the addition to be well landscaped. However, were the proposed residential units a stand-alone site, it would not meet lot coverage requirements, therefore Staff considers it appropriate to require additional landscaping around the property to make up the required minimum landscaping budget. As the Board is aware, there are a number of landscaping standards pertaining to landscaping of parking lots, including the requirement for one shade tree per five parking spaces, 10% of parking areas consisting of interior landscaping islands, curbing to protect parking lot landscaping, and a minimum shade tree size of 2.5 inches. Additional landscaping standards not specific to parking lots require screening or buffering between dissimilar sites, of parking areas, of outdoor storage, and of utility cabinets. Front yards along collector streets are required to be landscaped, and a mix of large canopy tree species is required throughout. 4. Though the applicant is not proposing to modify the existing parking lot, Staff considers the Board should require the applicant to propose a higher proportion of trees and shrubs, particularly in the front yard facing Shelburne Street, to meet the minimum budget, consistent with the standards summarized in the paragraph above, and because trees and shrubs are what has been improperly removed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. If the applicant is able to address the issues during the hearing by provided any necessary supplemental hearing as (digital) handouts, Staff considers the Board may wish to close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, #SP-22-039 6 Marla Keene, P.E. Development Review Planner