Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-18-35 - Supplemental - 1680 Shelburne RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-18-35_1680 Shelburne Rd_SeaComm_Sk_2019-01-29.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: January 23, 2019 Plans received: December 21, 2018  1680 Shelburne Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-35 Meeting date: January 29, 2019  Owner/Applicant Pizzagalli Properties, LLC 462 Shelburne Road, Suite 101 Burlington, VT 05401 Engineer Catamount Consulting Engineers, PLLC P.O. Box 65067 Burlington, VT 05406  Property Information Tax Parcel 1540-01680 Commercial 2 Zoning District 1.00 acres   Location Map /   PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-18-35 of SeaComm Federal Credit Union to construct a one-story, 3,500 sq. ft. financial institution with three drive-through lanes and twenty (20) parking spaces on one (1) acre, 1680 Shelburne Road. PERMIT HISTORY The property was subdivided from the property containing Bartlett Bay Apartments in 2015 and is included in the PUD approved as part of that subdivision (#SD-15-09). That PUD involved construction of 63 residential units, which is the maximum unit count for the property. It also involved approval of a shared use driveway. This applicant represents an amendment to the approved PUD, therefore the applicant must demonstrate how the PUD standards including compatibility with adjoining uses are met. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 12/21/18 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The project as presented will be subject to PUD review and site plan review. The property is located in the Transit Overlay District, the Traffic Overlay District Zone 3, and the Urban Design Overlay District. This is the first site plan application for the property. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions Commercial 2 District Required Proposed  ( Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 43,560 sq. ft  ( Max. Building Coverage 40% 11.5%1  ( Max. Overall Coverage 70% 53.8%  ( Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 30 ft.  ( Min. Side Setback 10 ft. 35 ft.  ( Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 67 ft.  ( Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% 5.4%  ( Height (flat roof) 35 ft. 1 story  Applicant has indicated the building including canopy provides 11.5% coverage. Commercial 2 District (C2) The purpose of the IO district is, in part, to encourage general commercial activity. Developments are subject to site plan review to coordinate traffic movements, encourage mixed-use developments, provide shared parking opportunities and to provide a potential location for high-traffic generation commercial uses. Applicable supplemental standards within this district pertain to minimizing curb cuts; other standards are not applicable. Staff has no concerns with the Projects compliance with C2 standards. Urban Design Overlay District The property is located within the general urban design overlay district. Standards in this district apply to all new buildings. This is the first time the Board has reviewed a viable project within the district, therefore Staff considers the Board may want to review these criteria to become familiar with them, but has no concerns at this time. All buildings must have at least one operable entry facing the primary road which serves architecturally as the principal entry. The specific standard is as follows. Front entries shall be a focal point of the front façade and shall be an easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticos, overhangs, recesses/projections, decorative front doors and side lights, or emphasis through varied color or special materials. This requirement does not preclude additional principal entry doors. There must be a direct separate walkway to the primary road, at least 8-feet wide. First stories must have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width of the building façade. Staff considers the layout criteria appear to be addressed, but that the front entry and glazing criterion cannot be evaluated at this time. PUD STANDARDS PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, traffic and circulation, compatibility with the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, public infrastructure. Traffic and Circulation The applicant calculates the Project will generate 72 trips based on standard computation methods and data available from ITE. On an overall basis, based on the size of the involved parcels, the PUD has 448 trip ends available before mitigation is needed. The applicant estimates existing use generates 53 trips based on standard ITE methods and data, but the prior approval calculated 25 trips for the existing use. Staff will evaluate the existing trip generation more closely for future phases of review, but considers that regardless of which calculation is correct, the PUD will be well below the maximum allowable. Visual Compatibility Staff assumes based on the provided materials that the proposed bank will be one story high. No renderings or elevations have been provided. Staff recommends the Board discuss the Project’s compatibility with planned development patterns in the area and specifically in the PUD as it pertains to building scale and height. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area. Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, and site features. The site plans the Applicant has submitted at this time do not allow evaluation of compatibility with adjoining buildings or of landscaping, but the Applicant has indicated in their cover letter and subsequent that landscaping will be positioned to screen vehicle headlights from Shelburne Road, and to screen the property from the adjoining multi-family building to the east. It appears that the trees shown on the above aerial image still exist on the property. The applicant is proposing to remove two trees near the front setback line and two trees near the north edge of the property, as shown on the provided existing conditions plan. The applicant has indicated they believe these trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed layout. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they’d be willing to grant the applicant credit for existing trees if the applicant modified their layout to preserve them. Staff considers there is no prohibition on diagonal sidewalks nor a side yard setback for parking. The Board has the authority to grant credit for existing trees when the other objectives of the landscaping standards, including a mix of large canopy tree species and one deciduous shade tree for every five parking spaces, are met. Staff considers the existing trees may better meet these criteria than smaller replacement trees, and recommends the Board request the applicant to evaluate site plan modifications to preserve the trees. An image showing the existing trees near Shelburne Road is provided below. / RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the meeting. Respectfully submitted, / Marla Keene, Development Review Planner