HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SD-19-08_1680 Shelburne Rd_SeaComm_PP FP_SC#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
1
1 of 10
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐08_1680 Shelburne Rd_SeaComm_PP FP_2019‐04‐
02.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 29, 2019
Plans received: February 15, 2019
1680 Shelburne Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐19‐08
Meeting date: April 2, 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‐19‐08
Staff Comments
2
2 of 10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary and final plat application #SD‐19‐08 of SeaComm Federal Credit Union to amend a
previously approved PUD for a four‐story 63‐unit multi‐family dwelling. The amendment consists of
constructing 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.
The Development Review Board held a sketch plan meeting for the project on January 29, 2019.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on 2/15/2019 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% 53.5%
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. 25.5 ft.
1. Applicant has indicated the building including canopy provides 11.5% coverage. Without
canopy, building coverage is 8.0%.
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
3
3 of 10
Commercial 2 District (C2)
The purpose of the C2 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 follow. The remaining supplemental standards
are not applicable.
C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation
(3) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum number of
curb cuts onto the public roadway.
(4) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
The Project uses an existing shared curb cut. Staff considers these criteria met.
Urban Design Overlay District
(1) Entries. Buildings on subject properties must have at least one entry facing the primary road
in the corridor. Any such entry shall:
(a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations.
(b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. 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.
(c) Shall have a direct, separate walkway to the primary road. This walkway shall be at
least eight (8) feet in width and may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a
pedestrian‐oriented access.
The applicant has submitted architectural renderings in support of this application. Staff
considers this criterion met.
1. Staff notes the applicant must remove all signs from the plans, including callouts of sign
locations. The Board may not approve signs or sign locations as part of the current application,
and Staff recommends the Board include a condition to this effect.
(2) Glazing. Windows are key to the overall design of a building and the relationship between
its exterior and interior.
(a) For all properties in the Urban Overlay District, a minimum of 75% of glazing shall be
transparent.
(b) In non‐residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7 vertical feet.
The applicant has represented in their renderings that 90% of glazing will be transparent and will
be 8‐feet high. They have not provided supporting documentation of this claim.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require dimensioned building elevations to
support glazing requirements.
(c) N/A
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
4
4 of 10
(3) Dimensional Standards: First stories shall have a minimum of 40% glazing across the width
of the building façade, and must be setback a minimum of 20‐feet from the ROW.
As above, the applicant has represented in their renderings that the principal façade facing
Shelburne Road will have 60% glazing, but has not provided supporting documentation of this
claim.
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require dimensioned building elevations to
support glazing requirements.
(4) Building Stories, Heights, and Rooftop Apparatus.
(a) N/A
(b) Section 8.06(G) of these regulations shall apply to rooftop elements of buildings within
the Urban Design Overlay District.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant whether there are any rooftop elements
proposed beyond the architectural feature at the front of the building. Rooftop elements
include mechanical equipment in excess of one foot in height.
8.06(G) requires architectural features to be no greater than 20% of the area of the upper‐most
story or 200 square feet, whichever is greater, and limits the maximum height to 14‐feet above
the maximum height of the building.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that the criteria of 8.06G
are met for the front architectural features prior to closing the hearing.
PUD STANDARDS
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocations for the project. Staff
considers this criterion to be met.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The applicant has provided an erosion prevention and sediment control plan (Sheet C101) and
stabilization plan (Sheet C304).
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the EPSC notes to require seed
and mulch or erosion control matting within 48 hours of final grading. Staff considers this
can be a condition of approval.
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
5
5 of 10
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical
review by City staff or consultants.
Due to recommendations from VTrans and from Act 250, the applicant has performed a traffic
impact study for the proposed project. The study uses site specific data to estimate a
generation of 26 trips during the PM peak hour. 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 for
apartments (LUC 220), while the prior approval calculated 25 trips for the existing use based on
standard ITE methods and data for multi‐family housing (LUC 223). Staff considers LUC 220 is an
incorrect choice because it applies to one and two story buildings. LUC 223 is no longer used by
ITE. Staff considers the applicable current code would be 221, for multi‐family mid‐rise, which
estimates the existing use generates 28 trips. Staff considers that regardless of which
calculation is used, the PUD is be well below the maximum allowable. Staff notes that the
applicant will need to pay a traffic mitigation fee based on the proposed generation of 26 new
trips prior to obtaining a zoning permit. Staff considers this criterion met.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on
the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural
Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
Staff considers no natural resources will be impacted by the proposed project. The existing area
of disturbance is contained entirely within a cleared, moderately sloped area. Staff considers
this criterion met.
(5) The project is designed 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.
The applicant has provided renderings showing the proposed building from the proposed access
drive.
At sketch, the applicant indicated they would provide landscape screening to shield headlights from
Shelburne Road. The proposed grading shows the parking and drive areas will be at least 7 feet
above Shelburne Road, therefore Staff has no concerns about headlight screening.
7. Staff does not have concerns about the aesthetics of the building itself (provided urban design
overlay criteria are demonstrated to be met as discussed above), but recommends the Board
consider whether to require additional views showing whether the proposed landscaping will be
positioned to screen the parking area from Shelburne Road and showing the aesthetics of the
building as viewed from the north. The applicant has in their cover letter indicated that
landscaping is designed to provide screening to the residential apartment building to the east.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
6
6 of 10
The Board found this criterion met for the initial PUD approval for the property by clustering
development away from contiguous open spaces on other properties. The subject lot was
designated for development at that time. Staff considers this criterion met.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular
access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,
and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
8. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 3/27 and requested the applicant make modifications to
the eastern two parking lot bump‐outs. Staff relayed these comments to the applicant and
anticipates the applicant will have an update at the time of the hearing.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Stormwater is discussed below under PUD Criterion #11.
The applicant has submitted a photometric lighting plan indicating lights will be pole mounted
20‐feet above grade, which is below the maximum allowable height of 30‐feet.
Utilities and landscaping are discussed under 14.07B and 14.07D below, respectively.
Staff has no concerns with the compatibility of other infrastructure elements with adjacent
properties.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
No changes to public infrastructure are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
The Goals of the comprehensive plan are
1. Affordable & community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for
our residents and visitors.
2. Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
3. Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long‐term viability of a clean and green
South Burlington.
4. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional
and statewide community.
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
7
7 of 10
The Project is located in the southwest quadrant. Objectives of the southwest quadrant include
objective #54, promote higher‐density, mixed use development and redevelopment along
Shelburne Road and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas, and Objective #58,
support the ongoing agricultural use of the University of Vermont’s Horticultural Farm and its
other agricultural properties. Staff considers the overall PUD supports the comprehensive plan
objective #58 by provision of a right of way for future connection, which was a condition
imposed on the project at the initial PUD review, and that it also supports objective #54 of
promoting higher‐density mixed use development along Shelburne Road. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and
integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to
generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and
groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground.
The Stormwater section reviewed the plans on 2/22/2019 and provided comments to the
applicant. On 3/22/2019, the Stormwater Section indicated their only comments are as follows.
The Stormwater Section (City) has reviewed the “SeaComm Federal Credit Union” site plan
prepared by Catamount Consulting Engineers, dated 11/14/18 and last updated on 3/18/19.
1. This project is located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as
stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC).
2. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
9. Staff recommends the Board include the Stormwater Section’s comment as a condition of
approval.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
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.
Compliance with the comprehensive plan is discussed under PUD standard #10 above. Staff considers this
criterion to be met.
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.
10. Staff considers this criterion generally met, and recommends the Board review the landscaping
plan and architectural renderings to confirm.
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
8
8 of 10
(2) Parking:
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(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) – (vii) N/A
Parking is located to the side and rear. Staff considers this criterion met.
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.
There is only one building on the lot. The building is located in a PUD with Bartlett Brook apartments
to the rear. The primary building materials are brick and a tan shade of EIFS. The Bartlett Brook
apartment building is in a similar but not identical color scheme. Staff considers this criterion to be
met.
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.
The project is proposed to share a curb cut with the existing Bartlett Brook apartment building. Staff
considers this criterion met.
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. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
Wire‐served utilities are proposed to connect to an existing pole on the property and to be underground.
Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, 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).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
9
9 of 10
not be required to be fenced or screened.
The proposed dumpster location is to be screened with a vinyl fence. Staff considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
At sketch plan, the Board discussed with the applicant that they should try to retain existing trees along
the northern property boundary. These trees to be retained are shown on the plan, but are not
specifically delineated on either the EPSC or landscaping plan.
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide for tree protection on the applicable
site plans.
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and
screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum
landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13‐9 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
The applicant estimates the building cost to be $914,000. The required minimum landscape value is
therefore $16,640, as follows.
Total Building Construction
Cost
% of total Construction Cost Required Value
$0 ‐ $250,000 3% $7,500
Next $250,000 2% $5,000
Additional Over $500,000 1% $4,140
Total $16,640
The applicant is proposing $18,080 in trees and shrubs. The applicant is also proposing a large
quantity of grasses to be located between the proposed parking lot and the proposed building,
whose value is not included in the $18,080. Perimeter landscaping is proposed to be protected
by curbing. Four shade trees, the minimum required for parking lot shading, are provided. Staff
considers this criterion met, and recommends the Board require a landscape bond for $18,080.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review
Board may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's
Comprehensive Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new
structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow
land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable
zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐
existing condition exceeds the applicable limit.
Setback and site coverage requirements are met. Staff considers this criterion met.
#SD‐19‐08
Staff Comments
10
10 of 10
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various
other techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into
underlying soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground,
is required pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
Stormwater is addressed in an existing infiltration basin. Comments from the stormwater section are
provided above. Staff considers this criterion met.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
No new roadways are proposed. Staff considers this criterion met.
OTHER
Energy Standards
Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
Bicycle Parking
The applicant has provided two inverted U‐type bicycle racks, which meets the minimum requirement of
four bicycle spaces for a 3,500 sq. ft. building. Staff notes the bicycle racks must be configured to meet
the minimum spacing requirements of 13.14B(2)(d).
12. For new buildings, the applicant must provide 50% of required short term bike parking spaces as long‐
term bike storage, or two spaces, and one clothes locker. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to demonstrate how they will comply with long‐term bike storage and locker requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner