HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-22-039 - Supplemental - 0370 Shelburne RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP-22-039_370 Shelburne Rd_Hauke_SC_2022-12-06.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 30, 2022
Plans received: October 19, 2022
370 Shelburne Road
Site Plan Application #SP-22-039
Meeting date: December 6, 2022
Owner/Applicant
Hauke Building Supply/David Hauke
1127 North Avenue, Suite 42
Burlington, VT 05408
Engineer
O’Leary – Burke Civil Associates, PLC
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1540-00370
Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District, Traffic
Overlay Zoning District (Zone 3), Transit Overlay Zoning
District, Urban Design Overlay District (Secondary Node)
Location Map
#SP-22-039
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
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
This small mall building has been in existence for several decades. The one significant change in the past
20 years was the construction of a cross-lot driveway connection to the Hickok and Boardman building
to the north, located in Burlington, in 2010/2011, which is discussed below.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Planning Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted on 10/19/2022 and offer the following comments. Comments for the
Board’s attention are indicated in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning
District
Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 65,962 sf 65,962 sf
Max. Building Coverage 40% 30% 30%
# Max. Overall Coverage 70% 83.7% 83.5%
Min. Front Setback (Urban Design
Overlay District)
20 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.
# Max Front Setback Coverage 30% 73.3% 72.7%
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. < 4 ft. < 4 ft. (no
change)
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A
* Building Height (flat roof) 5 stories 22 ft. 34 ft.
Meets requirement
# Pre-existing non conformity proposed to be reduced
* Does not meet requirement, see below.
1. The applicant has not correctly calculated height. They have instead provided heights for the building
in three sections: 18’ height on the west (unclear if this is measured correctly), 13’ height in the
center, and 22’ existing and 34’ proposed on the west. Staff considers the provided information is
useful in review of 3.06I below but nonetheless recommends the Board require the applicant to
provide a correct calculation prior to closing the hearing. Height should be calculated based on the
average grade at the outer perimeter of the building, and the difference between that and the
proposed height of the flat roof at the building addition.
#SP-22-039
3
Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District
The purpose of the Commercial 1 Zoning District is to encourage the location of higher density
residential, retail, office and vertically mixed uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact
central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area,
including clustered residential development and small industrial employers may be permitted.
Warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be permitted. Urban
design supporting a transition for these areas from a suburban environment to compact centers is
encouraged.
3.07 Height of Structures
B. Stories
(2) In the C1-R12, C1-R15, and C1-Auto districts:
a) No building shall be more than 1 story taller than the shortest building on an adjacent lot in the
R4 District. However, for each 75’ of separation from said building in the R4, the proposal
building may increase in height by 1 story, up to the allowable maximum height.
b) First story floor-to-floor height shall not exceed 20 feet. Upper stories shall not exceed 14 feet
in floor-to-floor height.
Staff considers these criteria met. The building is proposed to be 3-stories high, and the adjacent
building is 2 stories high. Story height is under the required maximums.
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
2A 20
2B 25
2C 30
3 45
#SP-22-039
4
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. The applicant has indicated that the
existing trip generation is 108 trips, and they are proposing 3 additional trips. Though 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, since the applicant is proposing to add trips, they must provide
mitigation from the baseline to the total new proposed number of trips, or mitigation for 36 trips.
Mitigation can consist of the following.
• Change or reduction in number and location of curb cuts
• Creation of cross-lot connections
• Elimination of left turns across an arterial
• Reduction in curb cut width
• Relocation of access points farther from high-volume intersections
• Improvements on overall traffic and levels of service at proximate intersections
• Other criteria the DRB finds relevant
The applicant has not proposed mitigation.
In SP-10-04, the applicant obtained approval to reconstruct the curb cut on Shelburne road and the
vehicular connection to the abutting property to the north. Improvements also included installation of a
crosswalk across Shelburne Road at the north side of the intersection, including concrete, a pedestrian
signal, and striping. No credit was taken at that time, because no additional trips were proposed.
However, Staff considers the Board may retroactively allow credit for the cross-lot connection and
intersection improvements.
The methodology for trip credit for cross-lot connection is described in LDR appendix B, and is equal to
half of the internal capture that could be expected between two connected properties. Staff considers
it is unlikely that the internal capture would be 72 trips (half of 72 is 36), and therefore the cross-lot
connection would not provide sufficient mitigation.
Staff has spoken with the Applicant’s engineer who has indicated that their estimate of 108 trips is
based solely on the standard ITE values for the uses. Staff has suggested that the applicant may wish to
“sharpen their pencil” on the existing and proposed trip generation to determine if the amount of trips
needed to be mitigated is accurate. Any non-standard trip evaluation would require technical review,
but combined with the potential trip credit above may allow the project to move forward.
2. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe their proposed approach to address the
trip generation issue.
#SP-22-039
5
10.05D Urban Design Overlay District Standards
While a portion of the property does fall within the boundaries of the Urban Design Overlay District, the
proposed addition is outside of the urban design overlay district and therefore these criteria do not
apply.
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one
or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board
shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(c) Parking area width. Surface parking areas and affiliated drive aisles located to the side of buildings shall not exceed the width of building(s), Civic Spaces, and Site Amenities along any
street frontage. This may be calculated separately or cumulatively for corner lots. Parking approved
pursuant to 14.07(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection.
(d) For through lots, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or to the front of
the building adjacent to the public street with the lowest average daily volume of traffic. Where a
lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, parking shall be located to the side of the building(s) or
to the front adjacent to the Interstate. Parking areas adjacent to the Interstate shall be screened
with sufficient landscaping to screen the parking from view of the Interstate.
Existing parking is located to the front of the building relative to Shelburne Road. The applicant is
proposing to add one additional parking spot to the side of the building relative to Proctor Ave, but
otherwise no changes to parking are proposed. Staff considers there is insufficient nexus to require the
applicant to modify the existing non-conforming parking.
(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.
As noted under dimensional standards above, the existing building encroaches into the allowable
minimum setbacks. The proposed addition is on the east side of the building, where the building is clad
in brick. The proposal is to add a story at the east end of the building above the existing two story portion,
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. Staff has inserted these criteria here as they expand upon and inform the above criterion of
14.06A.
3.06I. Setback and Buffer Strip Adjacent to Residential District Boundaries.
(1) Setback to residential zoning districts. Any new, reconstructed, or expanded principal building
located wholly or primarily in a non-residential zoning district shall retain a setback of not less
#SP-22-039
6
than sixty-five (65) feet from all adjacent residential zoning districts, unless applicable lots are
part of a Master Plan or Planned Unit Development.
This property is adjacent to the R4 zoning district therefore this criterion applies. The existing
zoning district boundary is somewhat within the current parcel. Staff has assumed for the
purposes of the discussion of 3.06I that the Board is willing to adjust the location of the district
boundary to the property line, as allowed under LDR 3.03C Split Lots, resulting in the subject
property being wholly within the C1-R15 zoning district. The existing building setback is less
than four (4) feet from the property line.
(2) Buffer strip. A buffer strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-five (65) foot
setback in subsection (a) shall be installed and landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing,
and/or other plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be
permitted within the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area.
The applicant is proposing to increase the height of the building, and add a large walkway and
partially covered porch. The portion of the building proposed to increase in height is located
approximately 30-ft from the property line. The walkway is, at its nearest point, proposed to be
approximately 7-ft from the property line. One accessible parking space is proposed between
the building and the property line. The applicant has proposed to use the remainder of the
space between the proposed building and the property line as the required amenity area for
residential uses.
(3) The Development Review Board may permit new or expanded nonresidential uses, structures
and/or parking areas, and new external light fixtures, within the setback and/or buffer as set
forth in (1) or (2) above, and may approve a modification of the width of the required setback
and/or landscaped buffer as set forth in (1) above. In doing so the DRB shall find 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 in (1) above. However in no case may the required side or rear setback be
reduced below the standard requirement for the zoning district in which the non-residential
use is located.
This criterion specifically refers to non-residential uses, structures, and/or parking areas within
the 65 or 15 ft buffer to residential zoning districts. However, the required setbacks in (1) and
(2) above refer to buildings within a non-residential zoning district, not to the uses thereof. Staff
considers the required setbacks apply to the structure, regardless of the use, and recommends
the Board consider that criterion (3) modifies criterion (1) and (2) as they apply to structures in a
non-residential zoning district.
3. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration that the proposed combination of a multi-family
residential use and the location of a site amenity adjacent to the residential zoning district provides
equivalent screening to that which would be provided by a 65-ft buffer (or 15-ft densely vegetated
buffer) between a residential zoning district and a three-story non-residential use. In other words, if
the structure met the 65-ft buffer (or 15-ft densely vegetated buffer) and were a three-story non-
residential use, would the impact be the same as the proposed impact of a three story multifamily
residential use 4-ft from the property line? Staff considers a factors in this determination, in addition
to the setback and use, is the height and proximity of the adjoining single family residential home.
#SP-22-039
7
Staff reminds the Board that their authority to grant a waiver is limited to dimensional criteria not
achievable due to physical site limitations or other legal or development constraints. Criteria for
granting a waiver are as follows.
(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.
B. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and
architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing), landscaping, buffers,
screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different
architectural styles.
The existing building is brick. The applicant is proposing to construct the proposed addition in fiber
cement lap siding, with an architectural feature between the existing brick and proposed addition.
The applicant is proposing to add windows facing Proctor Ave, and a porch facing Shelburne Street,
though the porch will be set back behind the existing building and may not be visible from Shelburne
Street. Staff considers the proposed architecture and landscaping to improve compliance with this
criterion, though the criterion of 3.06I regarding buffers still applies.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
The structure is proposed to be one story higher than the existing detached single family home to
the east. Staff considers the proposed modifications to have a harmonious relationship with the
existing three-story residential building to the south. Staff considers this criterion to be met.
(3) To accomplish (1) and (2), the DRB shall consider:
(a) Pattern and Rhythm. Update or maintain or extend the overall pattern of development
defined by the planned or existing street grid, block configurations, position and orientation of
principal buildings, prevalence of attached or detached building types.
(b) Architectural Features. Respond to recurring or representative architectural features
that define neighborhood character, without adhering to a particular architectural style.
(c) Privacy. Limit impacts and intrusions to privacy on adjoining properties, including side
and back yard areas through context sensitive design.
See discussion above.
C. Site Amenity Requirement
(1) Sites are required to include a specific minimum area for appropriate Site Amenities. This
section does not apply to projects within the City Center FBC District (which are governed by Section
8.08).
(2) Applicability. Applications for the following shall be required to provide Site Amenities:
#SP-22-039
8
(a) Any non-residential development over 5,000 SF.
(b) Additions or expansions exceeding 5,000 SF for existing non-residential structures.
(c) Any residential development, including conversion of non-residential structures to
residential use.
(3) The required area shall be:
(a) For Non-Residential development, a minimum of 6% of non-residential building gross
floor area.
(b) For Residential development, determined by number of units as:
(i) For fewer than 10 units, 100 square feet per unit;
(ii) For 10 to 19 units, 85 square feet per unit; or
(iii) For 20 or more units, 60 square feet per unit.
The applicant must provide 600 sf of site amenity for the proposed six residential units. The
applicant has proposed an approximately 1,800 sf area which consists of a covered outdoor space,
a walkway and elevated patio, and a vegetated ground level seating area. The applicant has not
made a proposal for which site amenity space type they are proposing. Based on the size, the
only potentially applicable open space type is a snippet/parklet. This open space type has the
requirement of being highly vegetated. The ground level seating area portion of the open space
is approximately 600 sf. Staff considers this criterion met.
However, the Board should be aware that this open space is located in the required 65 ft (15 ft if
highly vegetated) residential buffer. If the Board requires modification of the buffer, this criterion
should be reevaluated.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall
apply:
A. Environmental Protection Standards. All proposed development shall be subject to the
applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards.
None of the resources identified in Article 12 exist on the site.
B. Site Design Features. All proposed development shall comply with standards for the
placement of buildings, parking and loading areas, landscaping and screening, open space,
stormwater, lighting, and other applicable standards related to site design pursuant to these
Land Development Regulations.
These standards are contained in Article 13 and are discussed below.
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.
#SP-22-039
9
15.A.14 (D) Functional Capacity and Transit Oriented Development. The nearest signalized
intersection or those intersections specified by the DRB shall have an overall level of
service “D” or better, at the peak street hour, including the anticipated impact of the fully
developed proposed PUD or subdivision. In addition, the level of service of each through
movement on the major roadway shall have a level of service of “D” or better at full
buildout.
As noted above, the proposed use adds three trips. Staff considers the small number of
additional trips to not warrant a traffic study of adjacent intersections.
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.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how residents of the proposed
units will travel between their parking spaces and their front doors. It appears their
front doors are accessed via the south side of the building, while the parking is on the
north.
Staff considers the elements of this criterion pertaining to sight distance, access
separation distances and accommodations for high-accident locations to be met.
(8) Align access point with existing intersections or curb cuts and consolidate existing
access points or curb cuts within the subdivision, to the extent physically and
functionally feasible.
The applicant is not proposing to change the access points. Staff considers this criterion
met.
(9) Minimize vehicular access point (curb cuts) to abutting properties and building lots
along pedestrian oriented street frontage; and provide, where feasible, shared
vehicular access to frontage and other abutting building lots via rear alleys, side
streets, service lanes, shared driveways, or rear cross connections between adjoining
parcels.
The applicant is not proposing to change the access points. Staff considers this criterion
met.
D. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) [reserved]
#SP-22-039
10
E. Building Form. Development within the City Center Form Based Code District, the Urban
Design Overlay District, and other districts with supplemental building form standards shall
adhere to the standards contained therein.
This criterion does not apply as no overlay or related districts apply to the location of the
proposed units.
F. Streetscape Improvements. A proposed new construction or extension/expansion of an
existing structure exceeding the thresholds listed in either (a) Section 14.09(B) or (b) Section
8.11(D) within the City Center Form Based Code, or Section 3.15(D) in all other zoning districts,
shall be required to upgrade adjacent sidewalks, greenbelts, and related street furniture
(trees, benches, etc.) to the standards contained within the applicable Street Type and
Building Envelope Standard. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit
requirements for additional upgrades as necessary to meet the requirements of these Regulations.
Staff considers no improvements to Proctor Ave to be needed.
G. Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for
provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce
curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or
other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area.
There is already an existing cross-lot connection to the adjoining commercial lot. Staff considers
this criterion met.
Staff notes the Fire Marshal has indicated the applicant has not yet coordinated with the South
Burlington Fire Department. Staff recommends the Board require demonstration of approval by
the Fire Marshall’s office prior to obtaining a zoning permit.
H. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire-served utility lines and service connections shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities
regulations. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a
harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.A.18,
Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services, shall also be met.
The City of South Burlington Water District reviewed the proposed plans on 11/19/2022 and
offers following comment.
The SBWD requires a new domestic water service connection for this building given it’s
change in use and demands. The new domestic service may be tapped from the existing fire
sprinkler line into the building, with a separate domestic service and outside shut off, or a
new tap on the Proctor Avenue water main can be installed. Either way, the existing water
service shall be shut off and abandoned at the water main. The building owner or engineer
should contact the SBWD to discuss this requirement if there are any questions.
5. Staff recommends that the DRB require the applicant to obtain water and wastewater allocation
and modify the plans to address the comments of the South Burlington Water Department prior
to issuance of a zoning permit.
I. 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
#SP-22-039
11
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.
No changes to existing dumpsters are proposed. Dumpsters must remain enclosed.
C) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
13.02 Off Street Parking and Loading
The applicant must provide 6 parking spaces for the 6 residential units. Staff considers this criterion
met.
13.03 Bicycle Parking and Storage.
The applicant is proposing a tenant storage area. For the proposed mix of 16,605 sf commercial space
and 6 residential units, the applicant must provide uses, the applicant must provide five (5) short term
bicycle parking spaces. The applicant has indicated a location of the bike rack on the plans, but has
stated in the narrative it is not an allowable type and must be replaced. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to modify the plans to provide an acceptable type and number of bicycle racks
prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
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 portions of the landscaping
standards apply.
The most-recently approved site plan that establishes the required landscaping to be retained was from
2014. Based on a comparison between that plan and the currently proposed landscaping plans, much of
the previously required landscaping has been removed. Based on the way the applicant has prepared
their landscaping cost estimate, it appears they have attempted to provide replacement for the
improperly removed trees and shrubs, but there is no accounting of the removed trees and shrubs, and
the proposed plantings consist almost entirely of perennials located in a different area from the
previously required plantings, therefore Staff considers modifications must be made to the landscaping
plan prior to approval.
6. For the replacement landscaping, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to do the
following:
• prepare a list (or plan) and current value of previously approved landscaping that is not present
on the site or proposed to be removed. The applicant has stated the value of plantings on the
2000 plan not in existence to be $6,110, but no supporting information has been provided.
• propose landscaping in the general locations of the previously approved landscaping, consisting
predominantly of trees and shrubs, with a value equal to the current value of the previously
approved landscaping either not present or proposed to be removed.
#SP-22-039
12
The applicant estimates the building cost to be $1,900,000, requiring $26,500 in new trees and shrubs.
In total, the applicant has proposed $12,664 in trees and shrubs, and an additional $19,950 in
perennials. This includes the applicant’s proposed replacement landscaping.
Of the proposed landscaping value, $15,708 is proposed in the vicinity of the addition, while the
remainder is proposed to be located around the site. 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. Site landscaping not in
proximity to the proposed residential units consist of 5 ginkgo trees, 18 hydrangea shrubs, and 1 lilac
shrub, and a large number of perennials.
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.
7. 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 to meet the
minimum budget, consistent with the standards summarized in the paragraph above. Staff
specifically recommends replacement landscaping be required to consist of trees and shrubs, as that
is what has been improperly removed or proposed to be removed. The landscaping budget is
summarized below.
Required Minimum Landscaping $26,500
Applicant’s estimate of required
replacement landscaping + $6,110
Trees and shrubs proposed - $12,664
Additional available budget,
proposed by the applicant to
consist of perennials
= $19,946
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on 11/22/2022 and offers the following comments.
• Planting Details and Specs should be included in the plan
• Species of street trees on Proctor Ave are not specified
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the required elements for City Arborist
review prior to closing the hearing.
Finally, 13.04B(7) requires designation of snow storage areas for parking lots.
(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.
#SP-22-039
13
9. Snow storage is not shown. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to indicate the
boundaries of the snow storage area and provide snow storage not coincident with stormwater
treatment or conveyance practices.
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. Less than 5,000 sf is proposed to be
disturbed therefore stormwater management standards do not apply.
Nonetheless, the City Stormwater Section reviewed the provided plans on 11/28/2022 and offers the
following comments.
1. This project is located in the Engelsby Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Please note
that the Engelsby Brook is now classified as a warm water stream.
2. The project proposes to convert an existing commercial space on the second floor of a building
located at 370 Shelburne Rd to residential use, as well as add a third floor to the building. This
project will also include general site improvements. As the project does not proposed greater
than 5,000 SF of new impervious and redevelopment, the project is not subject to the
stormwater management requirements listed in Section 13.05 of the LDRs.
3. The applicant should provide a detailed EPSC plan, indicating location of inlet protection,
designated construction entrance(s), as well as locations of silt fencing. The applicant is
recommended to provide inlet protection on the catch basin to the north of the proposed
sidewalk, as well as on the catch basin to the north of the Shelburne Rd access where planting is
proposed.
10. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide an EPSC plan subject to review and
approval of the City Stormwater Section.
13.07 Exterior Lighting
Lighting requirements are summarized as follows.
(1) Fixtures must be downcast and shielded
(2) Illumination must be evenly distributed
(3) Fixtures must be placed to minimize lighting from becoming a nuisance
(4) Poles shall be rustproof metal, cast iron, fiberglass, finished wood or similar structural
material, with a decorative surface or finish
(5) Poles & building mounted fixtures may be no higher than 30-ft
(6) Poles must be located in safe locations
The applicant’s provided plans do not show any exterior lighting exists on the site. Building elevations
indicate a new overhead light fixture at the proposed addition, but details are not provided nor is it
shown on the plans. Existing light fixtures must be brought into compliance with downcast and shielded
requirements if they are not already.
#SP-22-039
14
11. Staff recommends the DRB require the applicant to show where light fixtures are proposed, and
require a lighting cut sheet. Depending on light fixture location, a photometric drawing may also be
required.
13.11 Fences
The applicant has not included any additional fences in this Site Plan, so this section does not apply.
Staff notes that if the DRB decides to require fencing as part of additional screening from abutting
properties, review under this section will be required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner