Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-24-001 - Supplemental - 0403 Queen City Park Road (9)#SP-24-001 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SP-24-001_403 Queen City Park Rd_CWD_ffd_DRB.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: December 27, 2023 Plans received: December 5, 2023 403 Queen City Park Road – Champlain Water District Site Plan Application #SP-24-01 Meeting date: January 3, 2024 Owner Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Applicant Champlain Water District 403 Queen City Park Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax IDs 1430-00403 & 1430-00503 Commercial 1-Residential 15 Zoning District, Possible Class II Wetland Overlay, River Corridor Overlay, 100- year Floodplain & Special Flood Hazard Area. Engineer Dufrense Group 56 Main Street, Suite 200 Springfield, VT 05156 Location Map #SP-24-001 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Plan application #SP-24-001 of Champlain Water District to amend a previously approved plan for a municipal water treatment plant. The amendment consists of replacing an existing 1-million-gallon water tank with a new 1-million-gallon water tank and associated sitework & stormwater system modifications, 403 Queen City Park Road. CONTEXT The applicant and property owner, Champlain Water District, serves South Burlington, Shelburne, Williston, Essex, and Colchester but is a separate municipality with an independent municipal charter. Champlain Water District owns land throughout these communities and occasionally develops that land with new or renovated buildings and structures that are required for water treatment. The current application includes the demolition of an existing 1-million-gallon tank, the construction of a new 1- million-gallon tank, the creation of paved and other impervious surface on the site, and the construction of a communications tower and small communications building on the site to enable the sending of radio frequencies between this property and other nearby properties owned by Champlain Water District, including the Champlain Water District water towers on Dorset Street and Harbor Ridge Road. This application requires DRB review because it involves the alteration of an approved site plan, including the expansion of an existing parking lot, and more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surfaces. This application involves the construction of a structure of height exceeding the maximum height standards for the subject zoning district, and a discussion of how best to apply the minimum landscaping budget to a property owner/applicant such as Champlain Water District, which owns relatively little land and has a relatively limited purpose & scope that does not include aesthetics. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Marty Gillies, hereafter referred to as ‘Staff’, have reviewed the plans submitted on 12/8/2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for Board review are in red. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS C1-R15 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 605,484 No Change Max. Building Height 5 stories (up to 76 ft) 48.6 ft 48.6 ft Max. Building Coverage 40% 9.96% 9.97% Max. Overall Coverage 70% 28.1% 29.2% Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% Not Provided No Change Min. Front Setback 30 ft Not Provided No Change Min. Side Setback 10 ft Not Provided No Change Min. Rear Setback 30 ft Not Provided No Change #SP-24-001 3 The applicant has not provided elevations or an estimated height for the proposed communications building; however, they have communicated to Staff that the building is proposed to be quite small. Staff considers that the maximum elevation for an accessory structure in this zoning district is 15 feet. 1. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to provide the height for the proposed communications building. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 70.5’ communications tower with a 10’ lightning rod on the site, the total elevation of which is 80.5’ and apparently in excess of the maximum height for principal structures in the subject zoning district. However, the definition of ‘Height’ in the LDRs exempts minor rooftop apparatus from the height calculation of a building, and provides the following examples of what constitutes a minor rooftop apparatus: “solar collectors, chimneys, elevator and mechanical penthouses, air conditioning equipment, satellite dishes, and similar apparatus that project from the roof”. If the Board finds a lightning rod to be a minor rooftop apparatus, the communications tower would then have a building height of 70.5’. That height is less than the maximum height of 76’ theoretically allowed by the 5-story height maximum in this Zoning District. The 76’ maximum is calculated using Article 3.07.B(3)(b), which states that story height in the C1-R15 zoning district is not to exceed 20 feet for first stories and 14 feet for upper stories. If the Board finds that a lightning rod is a ‘Larger Rooftop Apparatus’ (examples given in the LDRs include “steeples, spires, towers, water tanks, radio and television antennas”), Article 3.07.D(1) allows the Board to permit that apparatus as a Conditional Use, which would require a supplemental application form and fee from the applicant, and would require a second warned hearing. 2. Staff recommends that the Board discuss whether the 10-foot lightning rod is a ‘minor rooftop apparatus’ or a ‘larger rooftop apparatus’. If determined to be a ‘larger rooftop apparatus’, Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to pay an additional fee and submit all necessary additional materials for a Conditional Use review. Finally, Staff notes that the applicant has submitted application materials that suggest the consolidation of the lots addressed 403 Queen City Park Road and 503 Queen City Park Road. The City of South Burlington’s online City Map Viewer is a planning tool and not an official record, but it suggests that those two parcels, while both owned by Champlain Water District, are distinct. If the two parcels are in fact distinct and separate parcels, then the parcels’ lot lines and side setbacks would apply to this project and potentially impact this project’s level of compliance with side setback regulations or other dimensional standards. 3. Staff recommends that the Board ask the applicant to describe the history of the 503 Queen City Park Road parcel and its status today. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS 14.06 General Review Standards A. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The DRB shall consider the following. Staff considers the proposed structures relate to the structures presently located on the site and are essential for the use of the property, which is municipal water treatment. The applicant is able to provide ‘adequate planting’ as part of this application and thereby meet the minimum landscape #SP-24-001 4 budget requirement of 13.04.G(3) below, but future planned improvements to this site may test this property’s ability to accommodate ‘adequate planting’. This situation is discussed in greater detail under 13.04.G(3). (a) Street Frontage. Maintain internally-consistent building setbacks and landscaping along the street. (b) Building Placement, Orientation. Maintain or establish a consistent orientation to the street and, where a prevalent pattern exists, shall continue the manner in which the site’s existing building foundations relate to the site’s topography and grade. (c) Transition Contrast in Scale. Minimize and mitigate abrupt contrasts in scale between existing, planned or approved development, and proposed development. (d) Pedestrian Orientation. Improve and enhance pedestrian connections and walkability within the area proposed for development. Staff noticed that the existing staircase behind the water tank to be demolished was alternatively labeled on various plan sheets as ‘to be replaced’ and ‘to be removed’. 4. Staff considers that the status of this staircase has only a marginal impact on site walkability but nonetheless recommends that the Board require the applicant to clarify whether the staircase is proposed to be replaced or removed, and update the plans accordingly as a condition of approval. (e) Solar Gain. Orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible within the context of the overall standards of these regulations. (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. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing parking area into the area behind the principal building on the property which will be made available via the demolition of the existing 1-million-gallon water tank. The new parking area is located to the rear of the building and does not face a public street on either side of the property. Staff considers this criterion met. (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 proposed water storage tank will be 47 feet tall and will have a maximum elevation that is identical to the existing water storage tank. It will also be located directly behind the existing water tank. The proposed communications tower will be 70.5’ with a 10’ lightning rod on the top, for a maximum height of 80.5’ feet. Staff considers these building forms and functions to be compatible with the existing use of the site and to the existing development on the site. 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), #SP-24-001 5 landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. (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. (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. Staff considers the proposed water storage tank, communications building, and communications tower all relate to the existing structures on the site in form and in function, as all three are essential for the function of this site as a municipal water treatment facility. C. Site Amenity Requirement Site amenities are required for additions exceeding 5,000 sf to non-residential structures. This requirement is not applicable. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. Environmental Protection Standards All proposed development shall be subject to the applicable requirements of Article 12, Environmental Protection Standards. The proposed development is not taking place within the portions of the property which are within the River Corridor or the 100-year Floodplain & Special Flood Hazard Area. As such, the proposed development will not impact any Natural Resources or Environmental Hazards, so no changes affecting compliance with Environmental Protection Standards are proposed. 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. Staff considers these criteria to be met. The future of landscaping on this site is discussed in greater detail in 13.04.G(3) below. C. Access and Circulation. #SP-24-001 6 D. [Reserved for Transportation Demand Management (TDM)] 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. These standards are not applicable to this project. 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 3.11(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. This standard is applicable to this project – however, the existing streetscape meets City standards and therefore no upgrade or improvement is necessary. 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. As part of approval for Site Plan application #SP-20-028, the Board found that no further reservation of land for inter-lot access was necessary. Conditions that would impact this property’s compliance with this standard have not changed since that approval and therefore Staff considers this criterion to continue to be met. 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. No modifications to utility lines or other service connections are proposed. 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 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 (i.e., non-dumpster, non-large drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened. This standard requires that all dumpsters be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing. The applicant has not identified any dumpsters on the submitted plans. 5. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to identify any dumpsters on the plan sheets and testify how the dumpster screening requirements will be met as part of this application. Any necessary plan modification can likely be incorporated as a condition of approval. #SP-24-001 7 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees A. Purpose B. Landscaping of Parking Areas. 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. The applicant is proposing to add 7 parking spaces in the footprint of the water tank proposed to be demolished and three to the west of that water tank, bringing the total number of parking spaces in the rear of the property to 28 and the number of contiguous parking spaces in that portion of the parking area to 21. The parking area is proposed to be curbed. No landscaping is proposed to be installed. 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. No perimeter plantings are proposed in the proposed off-street parking area. Although this parking lot area does not serve the public and is not visible from the public way, the benefits of shade and canopy for parked cars still do apply to this parking area. 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. The proposed expansion of the parking area will bring the total number of contiguous parking spaces in this lot to 21 – as this is less than 28, this criterion does not apply. 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. As noted above, the applicant is not proposing any perimeter plantings and has not specified any species of plant to be installed. (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. The applicant is proposing to add a total of 10 parking spaces to a rear parking area that is proposed to be re-surfaced and re-striped. These 10 parking spaces require the provision of 2 major deciduous shade trees. 6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate how this criterion will #SP-24-001 8 be met. The applicant can identify major deciduous shade trees that exist in proximity to this parking are which are proposed to be retained, propose to relocate existing major deciduous shade trees from elsewhere on the site to the edge of the parking area, or propose to install new major deciduous shade trees. (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. As noted previously, the applicant has not proposed any trees to be planted around the perimeter of this parking area. 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. The applicant has not included snow storage areas on the plans. 7. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to describe the proposed location for snow storage and, as a condition of approval, identify all snow storage areas on the plan sheets. C. Screening or Buffering D. Front Yards of Non-Residential and Multi-Family Uses This criterion applies only to the front yards of non-residential and multi-family uses along designated arterial and collector streets – Queen City Park Road is neither an arterial nor a collector street, so this criterion does not apply. E. Site Restoration F. Landscaping Plan G. Landscaping Standards (1) The Development Review Board shall require compliance with any Tree Ordinance or Landscaping Design Standards enacted by the City of South Burlington, subsequent to the effective date of these regulations. (2) Overall, there shall be a mix of large canopy tree species within each landscaping plan. (3) Landscaping Budget Requirements The Development Review Board shall require minimum planting costs for all site plans, as shown in Table 13-4 below. 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. Total Building Construction or Building Improvement Cost % of Total Construction/ Improvement Cost $0 - $250,000 3% Next $250,000 2% Additional over $500,000 1% The applicant is proposing to resurface existing pavement, create additional pavement, create an impervious stone apron surface, and construct a water tank, a communications tower, and a small communications building. Table 13-4 specifies that the minimum landscaping budget is #SP-24-001 9 calculated based on the total building construction and improvement costs. Any project costs that are not associated with construction or improvement of buildings is not required to be reflected in the landscaping budget. The applicant has therefore only included the cost of constructing the communications building and has not included the costs of paving, water tank construction, or communications tower construction for the purposes of calculating the minimum landscaping budget. The minimum landscaping budget for this project is therefore calculated as 3% of $20,000 (which is the cost associated with the construction of the communications building) for a total of $600 in required plantings. The applicant is proposing to install three 10’ arborvitaes on the property, which each have a cost of $300, for a total provided landscaping budget of $900. The applicant is not required to bond for this amount, as Article 17.15.B(1)(a) exempts development with a total landscaping budget requirement of $2,000 or less from the bonding requirement. While the applicant was able to include the required amount of landscaping on the site to meet the minimum landscape budget for this application, the applicant has expressed concern about their ability to meet this requirement for future projects, which may include multi-million dollar expansions to the buildings on site and/or the addition of new buildings, both of which would require tens of thousands of dollars of landscaping to be installed. The applicant’s primary concerns include that finding space throughout the site to dedicate to plantings could interfere with the function of the site, which is municipal water treatment; and that the front yard is already landscaped to the point that no more plantings are feasible in that area. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss the future of landscaping at this and other CWD sites in South Burlington with the applicant. Staff recommends that this conversation include a discussion of the factors that limit the applicant’s ability to provide landscaping on site and a discussion of the location and type of projects/improvements the Board might accept as a substitute for on-site landscaping. For example, does CWD have the opportunity to do something akin to the Airport’s pre-approved overall landscaping plan which allows them to construct, in pieces as landscaping budgets permit, a recreation path on Airport-owned lands that are separate and distinct from the lands on which the landscaping budget is required? Staff considers that both the Airport and CWD are publicly owned, for public benefit, and are subject to external regulation that limits the ways in which landscaping features can be incorporated on site. Staff therefore considers that it is appropriate to consider alternative approaches to compliance for both uses. Would the Board accept installations of bus shelters or infrastructure necessary for installation of crosswalks to count towards the landscaping budget? What about financial contributions towards ongoing projects that are within a certain distance from the subject property or other property owner by Champlain Water District? RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board review the project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner