Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_760 Shelburne Road_comment Response180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO:South Burlington Development Review Board FROM:Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: #SD-23-05 760 Shelburne Road DATE:July 18, 2023 Development Review Board meeting PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary and final plat application #SD-23-05 of Gary Bourne to create a General Planned Unit Development by re-subdividing three existing lots into three new lots of 0.18 acres (Lot 1), 0.14 acres (Lot 2), and 1.06 acres (Lot 3), and constructing a 3,350 sf financial institution on Lot 1, a 6,480 sf 2-story mixed commercial and residential building on Lot 2, and a 3-story 27-unit multifamily building on Lot 3, 760 Shelburne Road. COMMENTS The Board reviewed this application on March 7, April 4, and June 6, 2023. The Board continued the hearing for the purpose of allowing the applicant to address Board feedback, particularly on the architecture of the proposed financial institution on Lot 1. The applicant provided supplemental materials to resolve some issues discussed on June 6. Staff has included in this memo a review of subject areas for which the applicant has submitted revised materials, as well as areas where Staff expected revised materials but none were submitted. As noted in previous staff reports, the applicant has requested modification or waiver for each dimensional standard as well as a number of other modifications. The Board must only grant a modification for cause, and the modification must result in better compliance with the objectives of the LDR, both those specific to the standard requested to be modified and to the overall LDR objectives. A)ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS The project is located in the Commercial 1 zoning district, which is intended to be a “higher-intensity residential, retail, office, and vertically mixed uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area.” It is also located within an urban design overlay node, whose purpose statement includes that it “will serve as important connections, gateways, or areas of activity. As such, a more urban form is desired and, where noted, required and permitted.“ At the June 6 meeting, the applicant presented updates to a few dimensional standards, which are now included in the updated table below. 2 Commercial 1-R15 Zoning District Required Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2 Proposed Lot 3 Proposed Overall @ Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 8,054 sq. ft. 6,287 sq. ft.46,359 sq. ft. 60,700 sq. ft @ Max. Building Coverage 40 %41.6%51.5%22.9%28.4% @ Max. Overall Coverage 70 %63.2%77.6%76.8%75.1% @ Min. Front Setback, Urban Design Overlay 20 ft.10 ft.13 ft.73 ft.N/A @ Min. Side Setback 10 ft.7.4 ft.9.9 ft.10.7 ft N/A @ Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.N/A 10 ft.N/A N/A @ Max. Front Setback Coverage, Shelburne Road 30%0%4%44%40.3% @ Max. Front Setback Coverage, Swift St 30%0%N/A 37.6%53.1% @ Max. Height 5 stories max, Appearance of 2 stories min 1 story 2 stories 3 stories N/A √ Zoning Compliance @ Modification or Waiver Requested Updated information from the last time this table was presented include lot coverage and front setback coverage. The applicant is proposing to increase lot coverage above the maximum allowable in the zoning district through the use of additional on-site open/civic space in 10.05E. 10.05 Urban Design Overlay District (UDO) (2) Glazing. Windows are key to the overall design of a building and the relationship between its exterior and interior. (a)For all properties in the Urban Overlay District, a minimum of 75% of glazing shall be transparent. On June 6, the applicant presented a design for the building on Lot 1 in which 60% of the glazing facing Shelburne Road was transparent. The Board’s feedback was that the spandrel glass detracted from the appearance of the building. The applicant appears to have removed the spandrel (opaque) glass from the façade, though they have not submitted revised floor plans and the current elevations are not consistent with the previously-submitted floor plans. Staff recommends, if the Board approves the project, the Board require the applicant to submit revised floor plans consistent with the elevations dated 6/29/2023. 3 (3)Dimensional Standards Height Minimum (Maximums per underlying zoning district) Glazing Features Setback from ROW Designated Secondary Node Appearance of two stories. Buildings with a GFA of less than 6,000 SF may be one story. First stories shall have a minimum of 60% glazing across the width of the building facade on primary street; 40% minimum glazing across width of the façade facing the secondary street. Must have significant architectural feature at corner of corner building. Minimum 20 feet 1.On June 6, the Board directed the applicant to modify the building on Lot 1 to have the appearance of two stories. The applicant has made modifications. Staff recommends the Board review the revised elevations and the site as a whole and provide feedback on whether they consider the dimensional requirements of the Urban Design Overlay to have been met. TCE RESPONSE: The building for Lot 1 has been modified to address comments from the Board at the June 6th hearing. The applicant would like to discuss the specific changes at the hearing. Phasing The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. The first phase includes the buildings along Shelburne Road and the base course of the site drive including the connection to Swift Street. The multifamily building is the second phase. The third and final proposed phase includes the finish coat of pavement on the driveway. In a phased project in general, the applicant must obtain a certificate of occupancy for each phase prior to use of that phase. Since there is nothing to “occupy” with the applicant’s proposed phase three, Staff considers there would be no incentive for the applicant to complete it. Staff recommends the Board either require the applicant to reduce the project to two phases, thus requiring completion of the final coat of pavement before occupancy of the second building, or require provision of a bond of the cost of phase 3 prior to issuance of a zoning permit for phase 2. Staff considers the option where phases 2 and 3 are combined to be preferred since the City does not have established protocols for constructing on private property when an applicant fails to complete their obligations. On June 6, the Board asked the applicant to demonstrate that site amenity, bike parking, and landscaping requirements are met on a phase by phase basis. Site Amenity The required site amenity is calculated as follows. Required Provided Phase 1 6,590 sf non-residential x 6% = 396 sf 3 units x 100 sf / unit = 300 sf 890 sf snippet Phase 2 27 units x 60 sf / unit = 1,620 sf 1,840 sf snippet 4 3,110 additional sf lot coverage in Urban Design Overlay = 933 sf 1,900 sf snippet Total 3,249 sf 4,630 sf Landscaping The required landscaping is calculated as follows. Required Provided Phase 1 $51,500 $60,099 Phase 1 + 2 $123, 500 $184,720 Provided landscaping includes hardscape elements of benches and sculptures. Bicycle Parking The required bicycle parking is calculated as follows. Required Long- Term Parking Provided Long-Term Parking Required Short-Term Parking Provided Short-Term Parking Phase 1 4 42 8 43 Phase 2 27 27 4 8 Total 31 31 12 12 2.Two of the long-term bicycle parking spaces in Phase 1 are located within an interior room within the proposed bank building. Users of the racks would have to pass through what appears to be the employee break room with their bicycles in order to use the racks. While the LDRs provide limited detail on the location of long-term bicycle parking, Staff considers the location to be less than ideal and considers a more accessible location would be one way the applicant could improve the project in light of the modifications they are requesting as a PUD. TCE RESPONSE: As noted, the LDR’s don’t provide specific requirements for where the long-term storage must be located. The specific proposal works for the Applicant and tenant. The Applicant proposes to keep the long-term bicycle storage as proposed. 3.Bicycle racks serving lots 1 and 2 are located just beyond the Lots 1 and 2 property lines on Lot 3. Since the project is proposed as a PUD, Staff recommends that the Board allow off-site bicycle racks to count towards the required minimum. However, the bike racks serving Lots 1 and 2 do not provide the minimum for those lots (8 spaces required, 4 provided). Staff recommends the Board require the Phase 1 bicycle parking areas to be expanded to permit parking of four bicycles each (two racks each) so that bicycle parking requirements are met on a phase by phase basis. Staff considers this can be addressed as a condition of approval. TCE RESPONSE: The Applicant requests that the Board waive this requirement. While the project is broken into phases, the intent is to build the whole project as quickly as possible. The Applicant feels that four bike spaces for Phase 1 while Phase 2 is under construction will adequately serve the tenants while Phase 2 is completed. 5 Residential Density and 18.01 Inclusionary Zoning The Board has provided feedback to the applicant that in order to construct 30 units total (10 over the base zoning density unit-maximum), the applicant must provide for 10 of their base zoning density unit- maximum to be inclusionary. Based on the most current versions of application materials, the applicant is only proposing five (5) inclusionary units, though they have stated they consider the LDR to require seven (7) inclusionary units. As noted at previous meetings, the applicant may also use Transferable Development Rights for one or more units. The applicant also has the option to make some of the inclusionary units 3 or 4 bedroom units, which count towards more than 1 of the required inclusionary in order to attain the desired bonus. The applicant has submitted a second letter arguing that the Board’s interpretation is incorrect, included in the packet for the Board. The Board may deliberate and issue its decision which may include conditions pertaining to required inclusionary covenants and documentation. TCE RESPONSE: Revised architectural plans submitted to the City on 07/17/23 that include seven (7) total inclusionary units – six (6) inclusionary units and one (1) inclusionary unit. See letter from Mark Hall. B)SITE PLAN REVIEW 14.07 Specific Review Standards In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply: 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. Staff provided the plans updated 6/26/2023 to the South Burlington Water District, which indicated on 7/3/2023 the following comments still need to be addressed. Many of these comments are unchanged from previously rounds of comments provided by the Water District. While these comments are extensive, Staff considers they do not affect the appearance of the project and are sufficiently specific that they can be included as conditions of approval. It is the responsibility of the contractor to be familiar with the CWD Specifications beyond what is included in this information. The Champlain Water District Specifications and Detail for the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances information can be found at www.champlainwater.org Plan Specific Comments Sheet C3-01. (See sheet C3-01) 1.The proposed eight-inch (8”) tee shall include a main line gate valve on either side of the new tee to be cut-in, secured to the tee with Foster Adapters; total three (3) eight-inch gate valves. This 6 must be shown on the plans. The cut-in of this tee shall require a shutdown on the only line supplying the northern part of the City so must be scheduled for night work. At least three weeks’ notice must be provided to the SBWD so all affected customers can be notified in advance of the water service interruption. 2.Include a tracing wire box near tee per CWD Specifications. 3.A six-inch (6”) valve on the line supplying the Multi-family Residential 27DU building shall be secured to the hydrant tee. Add a tracing wire box to this tee, per CWD Specifications. 4.Place the 1.5” curb box inside a gate valve box top when located in concrete or asphalt surface areas. Include a minimum 1” paving riser. 5.Locate and abandon all three existing water services at the corporations. Close the corporations, disconnect the service lines, and wrap the service taps in V-Bio polyurethane. 6.The services to all of the proposed buildings shall be copper and DI if petroleum infused soils are encountered. See VT Water Supply Rule requirements. 7.Install 6” gate valve on FS line to 27 DU Multifamily Residential building. Add tracing wire box per CWD Specifications. 8.See CWD Specifications for tracing wire requirements for all PVC water pipe. TCE RESPONSE: TCE supports Staff’s recommendation of revising plans per CWD comments as a condition of approval. Sheet C8-04 1.Water Details must be those found in the CWD Specifications. The Department will not accept any pipe or material that is not in compliance with the CWD Specifications. There are too many discrepancies to list here between Sheet C8-04 Water Details and the CWD Specifications. TCE RESPONSE: TCE supports Staff’s recommendation of revising plans per CWD comments as a condition of approval. C)SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 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. The City Stormwater Section reviewed the plans and provided comments on 3/2/2023. The City Stormwater Section offers the following comments on the revised plans received 5/23/2023. 1.The swale conveying water to Bioretention 7 terminates in a 9-foot vertical drop over the top of the retaining wall into the bioretention. Please provide an appropriate inlet for water conveyed to the bioretention from the swale. On June 6, the Board asked the applicant to address this comment. The applicant indicated they would add a yard drain. The plans have not been revised. Staff considers stormwater to be an area for which the applicant has not sufficiently addressed the comments of the Board. 4.Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant does not propose to make any changes to this aspect of the plans. 7 TCE RESPONSE: The plans submitted on 6/26 show the yard drain. See C3-01 Utility Plan and below snip of the 06/26/23 Utility Plan showing the yard drain. 13.07 Exterior Lighting Specific requirements for maximum illumination levels are included in Appendix A and are limited to 3 footcandles average at ground level and 0.3 footcandles at the property line. The June 6 Staff report recommended reducing lighting on the southern side of the property to reduce excess spillover to 0.3 footcandles maximum, and reducing peak illumination levels to a more reasonable level, on the order of 8 to 10 footcandles. The applicant testified on June 6 that the parking lot lighting on the southern side of the site also illuminates the adjacent property. Staff considers without a joint application, there is no nexus for this project to illuminate an adjacent property. Illumination levels beyond the southern property line are up to 1 footcandle. However, the more concerning area of illumination is the rear (east) entrance to the bank building, which is proposed to have illumination levels in excess of 19 footcandles. Staff considers lighting to be an area for which the applicant has not sufficiently addressed the comments of the Board. 5.Staff recommends the Board confirm the applicant does not propose to make any changes to this aspect of the plans. TCE RESPONSE: Based on an email from Josh Kline on 7/16/23, Chase Banks is ok with adjusting the building lights at the Lot 1 building east/parking lot under the entrance canopy 8 area where there is a hotspot by diming the canopy lights to reduce the light level to 8 -10 footcandles in this area, while still meeting Chase Bank security standards. The Applicant proposes this be a condition of approval. At the hearing the Applicant presented the rationale regarding the proposed lighting and the Board appeared receptive. The Applicant would like clarification on if the Board is able to accept the lighting as proposed or if the Applicant must modify the lighting along the southern property line from what is currently proposed. If it is required that the lighting must be changed, the Applicant proposes, as a condition of approval, to either (a) shift the lights along the southern light away from the property line, or (b) change the fixture to have a back shield that will prevent light from going south of the fixture. Either of these options will limit the lighting so the footcandles are 0.3 or less at the lot line. As noted above, the Applicant proposes the above changes be included as a condition of approval as they will not change the design, look, or intent of the project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the remaining issues with the applicant and close the hearing.