The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSD-18-01 - Supplemental - 0068 Nesti DriveSD-18-01 Staff Comments CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: February 2, 2018 SD-18-01_68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd —Catamount Plans received: January 5, 2018 M idd lebury_Sketch_2018-02-06.docx 68 Nesti Dr & 1795 Shelburne Rd Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-01 Meeting date: February 6, 2018 Owner/Applicant Engineer Catamount/Middlebury, LLC Civil Engineering Associates 210 College Street, Suite 201 10 Mansfield View Ln Burlington, VT 05401 South Burlington, VT 05403 Propertv Information Tax Parcel 1215-0068, 1540-1785, 1540-1795 Commercial 2 Zoning District 12.96 acres, 1.77 acres, 1.23 acres Location Map a o }I 1785 Shelbu roe Rid 1 SD-18-01 Staff Comments PROJECT DESCRPTION Sketch plan application #SD-18-01 of Catamount/Middlebury, LLC for review of a resubdivision, 68 Nesti Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road. PERMIT HISTORY In 2011, Catamount/Middlebury, LLC obtained Site Plan Approval to add an access drive connection for 68 Nesti Drive through 1795 Shelburne Road (#SP-11-48). At that time, the applicant was not proposing construction of pavement or curb cuts. The conditions of that approval stipulated that site plan approval from the DRB was needed prior to constructing access connection, and that a zoning permit was needed within six (6) months in order for the easement approval to remain valid. The applicant did not obtain a zoning permit and thus the approval for an easement lapsed. The current application seeks to addresses the connection through 1795 Shelburne Road via a re -subdivision rather than an easement. CONTEXT The subdivsion includes a proposed reconfiguration of the 1785 Shelburne Road driveway to access 68 Nesti Drive. Access to 68 Nesti Drive would also be possible through the creation of an easement without subdividing the lots. The proposed driveway adds a lane to create a dedicated right turn lane and a dedicated left turn lane onto Shelburne Road, and does not create additional impervious. However, by reducing the frontage of 1785 Shelburne Road the subdivision increases the degree of front yard non- conformity, discussed below. The proposed subdivision also creates frontage for 68 Nesti Drive on Shelburne Road, which would allow the 68 Nesti Drive property to have a sign on Shelburne Road. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. 2 SD-18-01 Staff Comments A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed Existing 1785 Proposed 68 Nesti Dr 68 Nesti Dr & 1795 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Rd Shelburne Rd ✓Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 531,064 sq. 556,386 sq. ft. 128,135 sq. 102,672 sq. ft. ft. ft. ✓Max. Building 40% 9.9% 9.5% 7.8% 9.8% Coverage ✓Max. Overall 70% 28% 27% 51% 64% Coverage X Max. Front Yard 30% Unknown No change from 36% 54% Coverage' on Nesti Dr Nesti Dr, <30% on Shelburne Rd ✓Min. Front 30 ft. from 141 ft. from No change from 38 ft. No change Setback Nesti Dr, 50 Nesti Dr Nesti Dr, 385 ft. ft. from from Shelburne Shelburne Rd Rd ✓Min. Side 10 ft. 52 ft. No change >25 ft. Setback ✓Min. Rear 30 ft. >30 ft. No change N/A' Setback Building Height 35 ft. Unknown No change Unknown No change (flat roof) ✓Proposed to be in compliance X Not in compliance 1. Estimated by staff 1. The proposed subdivision exceeds the maximum front yard coverage described in Section 3.06(H) and increases the pre-existing non-conformance. Without removing pavement, it is not mathematically possible to subdivide the properties and not increase the degree of non -conformity. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether they are willing to remove pavement so that the front yard coverage requirement for 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Road can be met. This is not a criterion which may be waived. Alternatively, the applicant has the option return to the prior proposal of creating an easement for access to 68 Nesti Drive. Development within the C2 district is subject to Site Plan review. In order to modify the existing driveway for 1785 & 1795 Shelburne Road so that it can be used by 68 Nesti Drive, the applicant will need to submit an application for site plan review. B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS 15.10 Lot Layout A. Lots shall be laid out in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with these land development regulations, and giving consideration to topography, soils and drainage conditions. 3 SD-18-01 Staff Comments 2. The proposed lot line crosses a stream and stream buffer area, dividing ownership of the stream buffer between two properties. Staff considers that the proposed layout creates challenges to maintenance of the stream buffer. For example, should there be an erosion control problem, there would be multiple parties involved. 15.18A General Standards The project's design must respect and provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site. 3. Staff considers that the stream buffer itself is not proposed to be impacted by development but that stream corridor of Bartlett Brook is bisected as described above and the proposed layout poses challenges to the stream corridor. The Project is required to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located. 4. Staff considers that the proposed lot line creates a triangular flag lot geometry which is inconsistent with the geometry of other parcels within the vicinity. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether a rectangular geometry which splits ownership of the proposed drive between the parcels would accomplish the same goal while being consistent with the other parcels in the area. The majority of the remaining subdivision standards pertain to projects which involve construction. Therefore, the majority of the discussion of compliance below focuses on the reconfigured access driveway element of the Project. The Project is required to comply with erosion control standards described in Article 16 even if it does not require a State General Permit for Construction. 5. Staff recommends the Board confirm that the applicant understands the requirements of Article 16, which specify stabilization timelines, minimum side slopes, and minimum topsoil thickness. The Project will be required to provide a Letter of Intent from VTrans prior to obtaining site plan approval to reconfigure the Shelburne Road access driveway. The applicant is proposing to use remove a small portion of the existing parking area to allow reconfiguration the access drive. It appears the applicant is proposing to replace the landscape islands which will be impacted by the reconfiguration. Staff considers that the driveway entrance will be widened, resulting in a slightly longer pedestrian crossing distance. Should the applicant wish to reduce impervious in order to allow the project to proceed, one option would be to reduce the driveway width and retain a single lane for each of entrance and exit. From the submitted plans, it is not clear when the wetland delineation was completed. In order to comply with the submission requirements for Site Plan Review and to demonstrate compliance with the Subdivision Standard pertaining to wetland protection, the applicant may need to perform an updated wetland delineation. 4 SD-18-01 Staff Comments 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant when their wetland delineation was completed. Q SITE PLAN STANDARDS The Project specifically proposes to create a shared driveway for the purposes of creating access to an arterial street without an additional curb cut, which is one of the Site Plan Review Standards. Staff considers that the proposed reconfigured access drive will not meet the minimum criteria for requiring a private road, therefore the requirements of Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation do not apply. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and determine whether the project can proceed as is. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner S