HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10A_SD-19-06_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_Sk_SC#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
1
1 of 7
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐06_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_Sk_2019‐03‐
05.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 1, 2019
Plans received: February 11, 2019
793 & 907 Shelburne Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐06
Meeting date: March 5, 2019
Owner
793 Shelburne Road:
Phoenix 2, LLC, c/o Ernest
Hoechner
79 Commerce St
Hinesburg, VT 05461
907 Shelburne Road:
Skipco Inc.
793 Shelburne Road
South Burlington, VT
05403
Applicant
R. L. Vallee, Inc.
c/o Skip Vallee
P.O. Box 192
St. Albans, VT 05478
Property Information
793 Shelburne Rd: Tax Parcel 1540‐00793
907 Shelburne Rd: Tax Parcel 1540‐00907
Commercial 1 Residential 15 District
0.36 ac, 0.59 ac
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
c/o Christopher Galipeau
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
2
2 of 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐19‐06 of R.L. Vallee, Inc. to demolish an existing hotel and a portion of an
existing service station and create a planned unit development consisting of an expanded service station
with four additional fueling positions for a total of twelve and associated 4,500 square foot retail sales
building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The proposed Project is within the Commercial 1 Residential 15 (C1‐R15) district, urban design overlay
district, and the traffic overlay district. The parcel at 793 Shelburne Road is an existing non‐conforming
structure (the canopy having zero front yard setback, and in fact overhanging the property line) and two
existing non‐conforming uses: 1) an eight fueling position service station and 2) auto & motorcycle
service & repair. The existing use also does not conform to the traffic overlay district, which is discussed
in detail below. The parcel at 907 Shelburne Road is an existing extended stay hotel which Staff
understands operates as multi‐family housing. This property is also non‐conforming as the structure is
located within the front yard setback.
In 2018, the applicant submitted a sketch plan application for a similar project on the same parcels (#SD‐
18‐16). The Board identified several issues with the proposal at that time, some of which have been
addressed with the current application.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 2/11/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The proposed Project consists of creating a two‐lot planned unit development for the purposes of
expanding the existing service station and constructing a retail sale building. The applicant is proposing
to combine the two presently separate and unconnected properties in a single PUD.
The applicant has indicated in their cover letter that in addition to the project described in the project
description, they would also consider an option to develop the northern property without expanding the
number of gas pumps. Adding to the existing number of gas pumps was identified as a significant issue
in the prior sketch plan application. For the present proposal, the applicant wished to submit two
separate sketch plans, one including an expansion in the number of pumps and one without, but agreed
based recommendation of Staff to consider both options with a single application for administrative
simplicity. In general, Staff considers that a reduction in a project’s scope between sketch plan and
preliminary plat does not necessitate a second sketch plan meeting, and recommends the Board discuss
both options as part of this sketch plan.
Staff notes that Sketch Plan is a non‐binding discussion between the applicant and the Board and it does
not result in an appealable decision by the DRB.
Staff has identified several issues with the application and has organized the issues into two groups, use,
and layout. Staff considers both important, but layout related topics may be easier to overcome.
#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
3
3 of 7
Use
1. Nonconformities
2. Applicability of Planned Unit Development Standards
3. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
4. Traffic
5. Housing Replacement
Layout
6. Dimensional Requirements
7. Urban Design Overlay District Standards
8. Circulation
9. Parking
10. Infrastructure Improvements
USE
1. Nonconformities
Service Station is a non‐conforming use in the C1 district. At the 2018 sketch plan meetings, the Board
indicated to the applicant they considered the applicants proposed addition to the number of fueling
positions to be an expansion of a non‐conforming use. There have been no changes to the regulations since
the previous sketch plan meeting was concluded, therefore Staff considers this topic does not need to be
discussed at length. The Board’s conclusion at the previous sketch plan meeting the project had non‐
conforming use issues, and the project could not move forward as presented, in part because of the
additional proposed fueling positions. Staff directs the Applicant and Board to the packets and minutes from
June 5, July 17, September 4 and October 2, 2018 for more details on the Board’s direction regarding
additional fueling positions. Staff therefore considers the applicant’s proposal to add four additional fueling
positions is not viable.
Additional issues related to nonconformity involved whether conducting transactions of fuel sales on the lot
at 907 Shelburne Road constituted an expansion of the service station use to that lot. The applicant is
currently proposing to have the convenience store building straddle the two lots.
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the issue of expanding the use to the southern lot is solved by
the building location. Staff notes that this potential solution creates setback issues and is discussed under
dimensional requirements below.
2. Applicability of Planned Unit Development Standards
The purpose of a PUD is, in part, “to encourage innovation in design and layout, efficient use of land, and
the viability of infill development and redevelopment in the City’s Core Area, as defined in the
Comprehensive Plan.” Staff considers the Applicant could potentially create an innovative layout1 but has
not yet done so, but even with a revised building configuration, the project inefficiently uses the available
space by increasing impervious, and does not represent infill as both parcels are already developed. In
order for the Board to grant waivers, they must determine the Project is a PUD. Staff anticipates the
applicant will need to request lot coverage waivers, and setback waivers.
Staff recommends the board discuss whether they consider the proposed project would qualify as a PUD.
1 There may be elements of the site layout or mix of uses that could be innovative but as presented, Staff does not
consider there are any innovative elements as proposed. In particular, there are no features which differentiate
this from other similar uses or which create a combination of elements not already extant in South Burlington.
#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
4
4 of 7
3. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan
The Goals of the Comprehensive Plan are as follows.
Affordable & Community Strong. Creating a strong sense of place and opportunity for our
residents and visitors.
o Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life;
o Keep unique features and maintain the quality of life of existing neighborhoods;
o Be a recognized leader in public education offerings and outcomes;
o Provide quality public safety, infrastructure, health, wellness, and recreation services;
o Ensure transparent and accessible government.
Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
o Develop a safe and efficient transportation system that supports pedestrian, bicycle,
and transit options while accommodating the automobile;
o Establish a city center with pedestrian‐oriented design, mixed uses, and public buildings
and civic spaces that act as a focal point to the community.
Green & Clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long‐term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington.
o Promote conservation of identified important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic
resources, air quality, arable land and other agricultural resources, historic sites and
structures, and recreational assets;
o Reduce energy consumption city‐wide and increase renewable energy production where
appropriate.
Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community.
o Prioritize development that occurs within the community into the higher intensity areas
identified within this Plan;
o Support a diverse and vibrant economy built on quality jobs, employment centers and a
supportive educational and research system; support markets for local agricultural and
food products.
In the Southwest quadrant, specific objectives are to:
Promote higher‐density, mixed use development and redevelopment along Shelburne Road
and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas.
Maintain Shelburne Road as a roadway for both regional and local circulation
Improve local neighborhood connections on the east and west sides of the Shelburne Road
corridor.
Promote and expand public access to Lake Champlain
Support the ongoing agricultural use of the University of Vermont’s Horticultural Farm and its
other agricultural properties
Provide for the continued viability and use of the Vermont Railway line while supporting the
viability of residential neighborhoods.
Staff considers that the removal of an extended‐stay hotel (operating as multi‐family housing) and
replacement with a convenience store is inconsistent with the needs and objectives of the comprehensive
plan.
#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
5
5 of 7
When the Board discussed this issue in the context of the previous application, the Board was split as to
whether the project could be considered consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan
as required under Subdivision & PUD standard #10. If the Board believes the Project qualifies as a PUD, Staff
recommends the Board discuss this topic further.
4. Traffic
Staff concerns related to traffic were presented in staff notes for the previous sketch plan application.
There have been no changes to the regulations since the previous sketch plan meeting was concluded,
therefore Staff considers the issues remain the same.
The allowable traffic generation (the “budget”) for both properties together is 15.56 trips.
For the Project to go above the trip budget, the applicant must make physical improvements to provide
adequate credits to offset the trips proposed to be created by the Project beyond the trip budget. Staff
does not believe it to be the case, but if the applicant were proposing fewer trips than is currently
generated (staff estimates around 120 trips currently), the applicant would be able to use that pre‐existing
number as their baseline rather than the trip budget.
The applicant is proposing to remove the extended stay motel/multifamily housing and construct a 4,500
sq. ft. convenience store and possibly add four additional fueling positions to the two properties. There are
multiple potentially applicable categories under the proposed configuration. When appropriate, Staff will
determine the appropriate number of VTEs. As an initial estimate, Staff considers the proposed
configuration would generate between 222 and 398 VTEs depending on calculation method.
The applicant would therefore need to make improvements to obtain credit for at least 206 VTEs in order to
be approved. Based on past experience, this number is substantial and significant. Staff considers the
number of required credits would be difficult to achieve.
Staff recommends that before proceeding, the Board request the applicant provide a workable proposal to
achieve the required number of VTE credits.
5. Housing Replacement
LDR Section 18.03 requires replacement of dwelling units when dwelling units are lost, demolished or
converted to nonresidential use. The property at 907 Shelburne Road is permitted as an extended stay
hotel, but operates as multi‐family housing. If it is considered to be housing, that the applicant would be
required to do one of the following (a) replace on site, (b) replace elsewhere in the City, or (c) make a per‐
unit contribution to the City’s affordable Housing Trust fund. Staff considers this topic warrants further
study.
LAYOUT
6. Dimensional Requirements
The applicant has not provided dimensional values for the proposed lots individually. Staff considers that
while the Board has the ability to grant waivers for coverages and setbacks for individual lots should they
determine the Project qualifies as a PUD (discussed above), dimensional standard waivers must be
requested on a lot by lot basis. Because lot‐by‐lot information was not submitted, compliance with
dimensional standards cannot be evaluated at this time. Based on visual inspection and the provided values
for the overall project, Staff estimates that the north lot is proposed to exceed the maximum allowable lot
#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
6
6 of 7
coverage of 70% and the maximum front setback coverage of 30%.
Staff reminds the Board that for similar applications, the Board has required applicants to fully comply with
the maximum front setback coverage of 30%, which has the additional benefit of providing applicants with a
location to place their required minimum landscaping.
The applicant is proposing to locate the new building across the property line between the two lots, which
would necessarily create a building that does not conform to the minimum side setback of 10 ft. The Board
has the authority to grant a building setback waiver to a minimum of 5 ft. (Section 15.03A(4)((a)), but even
with the minimum setback, the proposed building configuration would not be allowed.
Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to either merge the lots or keep buildings separate on
their own lots in accordance with setback requirements.
7. Urban Design Overlay District Standards
The properties are located in the urban design overlay district, which requires buildings meet certain design
standards, including 40% glazing across the width of the building façade, a principal entry designed as a
focal point facing Shelburne Road, and a direct walkway to the principal entry from Shelburne Road. No
elevations have been provided, but Staff considers the proposed footprint does not lend itself to a principal
entry designed as a focal point facing Shelburne Road.
8. Circulation
Staff and the Public Works Department each note that the proposed curb cuts onto Shelburne Road appear
wider than standard width. Both curb cuts also appear to allow bi‐directional movement. The existing
service station to the south operates with one‐way curb cuts which improves safety and circulation.
For projects involving access to a state highway, under Title 24 VSA Section 4416 Statute applicants must
include a letter of intent from VTrans that confirms that the Agency has reviewed the proposed site plan
and is prepared to issue a State Highway Access and Work Permit.
Staff recommends the Board request the applicant to demonstrate why the wider curb cut widths are
required, and that they request the applicant to reduce the range of potential vehicle movements to and
from Shelburne Road.
There appears to be excess drive aisle width between the fuel canopy and the parking spaces along the
west boundary.
Staff recommends the Board request the applicant substantiate their request for a drive aisle wider than the
standard width.
9. Parking
There is no minimum required parking space number for the service station. The minimum required
parking spaces for the proposed convenience store is 23 based on five spaces per 1,000 square feet gross
floor area (if the convenience store is classified as retail) or 45 based on 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet
gross floor area (if the convenience store is classified as service station with convenience store).
Staff recommends the Board discuss the classification of the convenience store as it pertains to parking
(Table 13‐2). Staff considers the latter definition, service station with convenience store, is highly likely to be
the right classification if the applicant merges the lots to address the dimensional issues described above,
#SD‐19‐06
Staff Comments
7
7 of 7
and may be the right classification even if they do not merge the lots.
The applicant is proposing 22 parking spaces plus eight fueling positions. Fueling positions do not count as
parking spaces (Tables 8‐1 to 8‐6 note 2). Staff considers if the proper classification is retail and the
applicant were to reduce the number of parking spaces they would need less of a waiver for lot coverage,
but that if the proper classification is service station with convenience store, the applicant would require a
waiver of parking minimums and would need at least 12 additional parking spaces using the full allowable
25% waiver (75% of 45 is 34 required spaces).
10. Infrastructure Improvements
Champlain Water District owns a 20‐foot wide easement along the north side of the parcel at 907 Shelburne
Road, which widens to 40‐feet for the 40‐feet nearest to Shelburne Road (see Existing Conditions Plan). The
applicant has proposed to relocate the water line around the south side of the proposed building.
If the Project moves forward, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate support of
Champlain Water District for the proposed realignment prior to proceeding with the next stage of the
application.
Staff notes that in addition to the proposed water line relocation, which will be costly and complicated,
there is also an existing utility pole which carries several types of electrical infrastructure which conflicts
with the proposed sidewalk reconfiguration.
The Hannaford redevelopment to the west includes new bicycle and pedestrian access. Staff recommends
the Board discuss whether a connection to the Hannaford lot should consider users other than vehicles. Staff
considers the connection should at minimum include a sidewalk.
The applicant is proposing modifications to the space between the property line and the Shelburne Road
curb line. Staff calls to the Board’s attention that these improvements are off‐site and should be considered
in that context. Any improvements outside the applicant’s property must be approved by VTrans.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner