The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP-10-13 - Decision - 0035 Green Mountain Drive#SP-10-13 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ROBERT BERMAN, LLC - 35 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-10-13 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Robert Berman LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 14,431 sq. ft. office/warehouse building. The amendment consists of developing the property in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of: 1) converting the building to wholesale use, 2) adding a loading dock, 3) removing an attached shed, 4) relocating an HVAC unit, 5) making minor parking improvements, and 6) constructing a deck. Phase II will consist of 1) constructing a 4200 sq. ft. addition for wholesale use, and 2) making improvements to the easterly parking area. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on March 2, 2010. Tyler Scott represented the applicant. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 14,431 sq. ft. office/warehouse building. The amendment consists of developing the property in two phases. Phase 1 will consist of: 1) converting the building to wholesale use, 2) adding a loading dock, 3) removing an attached shed, 4) relocating an HVAC unit, 5) making minor parking improvements, and 6) constructing a deck. Phase II will consist of 1) constructing a 4200 sq. ft. addition for wholesale use, and 2) making improvements to the easterly parking area. 2. The application was received on February 2, 2010. 3. The owner of record of the subject property is Robert Berman, LLC 4. The subject property is located in the Commercial 2 Zoning District. 5. The plans submitted consist of a three (3) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "TTI Instruments 35 Green Mountain Dr. South Burlington, Vt.", prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineers, dated 1/6/2010. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\Berman_SP1013_ffd.doc #SP-10-13 The following general criteria and standards shall be used by the Development Review Board in reviewing applications for site plan approval. They are intended to provide a framework within which the designer of the site development is free to exercise creativity, invention, and innovation while improving the visual appearance of the City of South Burlington. The Development Review Board shall not specify or favor any particular architectural style or design or assist in the design of any of the buildings submitted for approval. The Development Review Board shall restrict itself to a reasonable, professional review, and, except as otherwise provided in the following subsections, the applicant shall retain full responsibility for design. A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is being met. The proposed use is identified as a preferred use in the district in the Comprehensive plan. B. 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. There are no changes with respect to the transitions from structure to site and from structure to structure as a result of Phase 1 of this proposal. Phase 2 of the proposal does make improvements to the easterly parking area, including the addition of a handicapped parking space and a more efficient use of the parking area. (2) Parking: (a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. (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. (i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act; (ii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home; (iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street; (iv)The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re- used and parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s); or, (v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation. (c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C) (2) (b) shall be considered adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas shall not be considered adjacent to the public street. 2 I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Berman_SP1013_ffd.doc #SP-10-13 (d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate. There are no proposed changes with respect to the location of parking on the site. Section 2(iv) above indicates that parking may be permitted to the front of the building if the buildings are to be reused. That appears to be the case here. There is not a threshold of re -use and new construction with respect to this criterion. (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. There are no proposed changes with respect to the height of the building, which remains within the limits of the district. (4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. There are no proposed changes with respect to the height of the building, which remains within the limits of the district. C. 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. (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 applicant has not submitted any elevations of the existing or proposed building. No height waiver is requested and the proposed addition to be part of Phase 2 is in the rear of the building. 14.07 Specific Review Standards A. 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 do not appear to be any additional opportunities for useable connections to other properties. The UVM Horticulture Farm is to the east, but a connection via this property would not be very reasonable. The Board does not require the reservation of any additional land. I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\Berman_SP1013_ffd.doc #SP-10-13 B. 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. As already stated, additional utility lines shall be installed underground. C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling 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). The plans show a screened dumpster on the property D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees. Based on construction costs of $414,600, the plans should include a minimum landscaping budget of $10,792. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan but has not included an itemized listing of proposed plantings. The City Arborist reviewed the plans. He has asked for planting details to be included on the plans. Snow storage areas are shown on the plans. A bike rack is shown on the plans but is completely out of the way of use for the general public, tucked to the side of the building. The bike rack should be relocated to be more user-friendly. Lighting Phasing The draft decision will contain language with respect to proposed phasing of the project. Traffic The applicant estimates that the existing use and the proposed use under Phase I will remain at 59 vehicle trip ends during the pm peak hour. The applicant estimates that the Phase II expansion will generate 5 additional vte's for a total of 64. Parking The Phase I and Phase II projects will require a total of 41 parking space and 56 spaces will be provided including three (3) handicapped spaces. DECISION 4 I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\Berman_SP1013_ffd.doc #SP-10-13 Motion by Gayle Quimby, seconded by Roger Farley, to approve Site Plan Application #SP-10-13 of Robert Berman, LLC subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant_ and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The plans shall be revised to include an itemized listing of approved plantings which meets or exceeds the minimum requirement. b. The plans shall be revised to include planting details. c. The plans shall be revised to not exceed the current front yard coverage. 4. All new exterior lighting shall consist of downcasting, shielded fixtures. Any change to approved lights shall require approval of the Administrative Officer prior to installation. 5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit for Phase I within six (6) months of this approval. The Development Review Board grants a period of five (5) years for approval of Phase II of the proposed development. At such time as the five years is reached and the applicant has not sought a zoning permit for Phase 11, they shall be eligible, per Section 17.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, for one (1) extension to an approval if the application takes place before the approval has expired and if the Development Review Board determines that conditions are essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension, the Development Review Board may specify a period of time up to one (1) year for the extension. 6. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the expansion in Phase II in use will generate five (5) additional vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour. 7. Prior to permit issuance for Phase II, the applicant shall post a $10,792 landscaping bond. This bond shall remain in full effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good chance of survival. 8. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Administrative Officer prior to use or occupancy of each Phase of the project. 9. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\Berman_SP1013_ffd.dOc #SP-10-13 Mark Behr — yea/nay/abstain/riot resent nth Matthew Birmingham —yea/nay/abstai no Ares 1 John Dinklage —( a /nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley — ea nay/abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — ay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — ea nay/abstain/not present Bill Stuono — ea,nay/abstain/not present Motion carried by a vote of `' - 0 - 0 -2- } Signed this day of i, b 1 �� _ 2010, by rrr.. John Dinklagel chairman r Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this decision is issued. The fee is $250.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long. You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy; finality). 6 hDevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\Berman_SP1013_ffd.doc