HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05A_SD-18-35_1680 Shelburne Rd_SeaComm_Sk_SC#SD‐18‐35
Staff Comments
1
1 of 5
CITY 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
#SD‐18‐35
Staff Comments
2
2 of 5
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
1. 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
#SD‐18‐35
Staff Comments
3
3 of 5
standards are not applicable. Staff has no concerns with the Projects compliance with C2 standards.
Urban Design Overlay District
1. 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.
2. 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.
#SD‐18‐35
Staff Comments
4
4 of 5
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.
3. 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.
#SD‐18‐35
Staff Comments
5
5 of 5
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner