HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06A_SP-19-13_600 Swift St_City of South Burlington_SC#SP‐19‐13
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐13_600 Swift St_City of South Burlington_2019‐06‐
04.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 31, 2019
Application received: May 14, 2019
600 Swift Street
Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐13
Meeting date: June 4, 2019
Applicant & Owner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Engineering Ventures
208 Flynn Ave, Suite 2A
Burlington, VT 05401
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID 0570‐1000
Park & Recreation District
#SP‐19‐13
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan application #SP‐19‐13 of the City of South Burlington to amend a previously approved plan for
a recreational complex. The amendment consists of constructing an 8,900 sq ft building addition to an
indoor recreation facility between the two wings of the existing building, and associated stormwater and
site improvements, 600 Swift Street.
CONTEXT
This application is subject to DRB review because it involves the construction of greater than 5,000 sq ft
of impervious. The most recent site plan amendment to the property was in 2013 to install the
veterans’ memorial.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene has reviewed the plans submitted on October 31, 2018 and
offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Park and Recreation Zoning
District
Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size No Minimum N/A N/A
Max. Building Coverage 15% 2.3% 2.6%
Max. Overall Coverage 25% 12.1% 12.5%
Min. Front Setback 40 ft. +/‐ 450 ft. No change
Min. Side Setback 15 ft. +/‐ 420 ft. No change
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. N/A N/A
Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% 0.5% 0.5%
Max. Height (pitched roof) 40 ft. < 40 ft. No change
√ Zoning Compliance
B) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.6 General Review Standards
Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general
review standards for all site plan applications:
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.
The project is located in the southeast quadrant planning area, whose objectives as stated in the
comprehensive plan include prioritizing contiguous and interconnected open spaces, maintaining
opportunities for agriculture, and enhancing Dorset Street as the “main street”. The Project is located
in an area identified for very low intensity principally open space land use. Staff considers this
criterion met.
#SP‐19‐13
3
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.
The applicant has provided architectural drawings showing how the proposed addition will be
integrated into the existing structure. The applicant proposes galvanized aluminum siding to be
left exposed.
1. Staff recommends the Board review the architectural drawings to evaluate compliance with
this criterion.
The applicant is proposing plantings along the new façade. No changes to parking are proposed.
The applicant is proposing sidewalks along most of the new façade but Staff notes a gap in the
sidewalk between the northern most building entrance and the second from the north.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether this sidewalk could be
connected between the two northern most entrances.
(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.
There are no proposed changes to the parking. The most recent decision addressing parking
was issued in 2000 (#SP‐00‐24), which indicates that there are 269 parking spaces, of which 106
are designated for the rink. Staff considers the location of parking to be an existing
nonconformity.
The applicant has indicated in their application they intend to increase the number of full‐time
employees by one and the number of part‐time employees by three. Play surface area is not
proposed to be increased.
3. In order to better match the functionality of the property, Staff recommends the Board
include as a condition of approval that parking not be assigned.
(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.
The building addition is proposed to be one story while the existing rink structures are approximately
two stories high. Staff considers this criterion met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
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
#SP‐19‐13
4
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.
Staff considers that no additional land is needed to support access to abutting properties.
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 utility services are currently under ground and are proposed to remain so. 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
not be required to be fenced or screened.
The existing dumpster enclosure is located to the rear of the rinks. No changes are proposed. Staff
considers this criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
The total cost of the project for landscape budget purposes is estimated at $2,300,000 by the applicant.
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% $18,000
Total $30,500
The applicant is proposing $24,149 in trees and shrubs. The applicant is also proposing $1,190 in grasses and
$9,450 in rain garden perennials. The proposed trees and shrubs appear to be well distributed around the
affected portion of the site, but Staff considers that the remainder of the site has ample opportunity for
additional landscaping. LDR 13.06G(3) requires the Board only allow credit for site improvements other than
tree planting as long as the objectives of the landscaping standards are not reduced. One of the requirements
of 13.06 is to provide for landscaping of parking areas with at least one major deciduous shade tree for every
five (5) parking spaces. Staff notes there are no trees around the north or south existing parking areas.
4. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant meet the minimum landscape
value in trees and shrubs in order to bring the Site closer to compliance with 13.06B.
#SP‐19‐13
5
The City Arborist reviewed the plans on May 30, 2019 and offers the following comments.
Sugar Maple is a poor choice for a parking lot island due to reflected heat, exposure to salt, poor
soils, etc. Maples are already prevalent in the park and are overused throughout the city
Would not recommend Aronia(or any other shrub for that matter) along the road in front of the
rink. Plow/salt damage is very likely to occur
Who will be responsible for maintenance of perennials, rain gardens and shrub plantings? If city
Parks Dept. will be responsible then Andrew Noonan Parks Foreman should be consulted
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Arborist prior to
closing the hearing.
6. Snow storage areas meeting the requirements of Section 13.06 are not shown on the provided plans.
Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to identify the proposed snow storage locations, and to
show those locations on the plan.
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.
Staff considers that no modification of standards is necessary.
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.
The Project proposes to disturb approximately 23,000 square feet and creates more than 5,000 square
feet of new impervious. Therefore the stormwater management standards of Section 12.03 apply. The
Stormwater Section reviewed the submitted materials on May 13, 2019 and indicated they have no
concerns with the proposed design.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the plans to meet the requirements of
Article 16, including that exposed soil be seeded and mulched or covered with erosion control matting
within 48 hours of final grading, and that a minimum of four (4) inches of top soil be provided to cover
overall finished slopes.
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.
#SP‐19‐13
6
OTHER
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
The minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for the property is 16 spaces based on 76,663 square
feet of use that falls under the category of “all other.” The requirement is for one space for every 5,000
square feet, with a minimum of four. At the time of the first site plan application, the applicant must
provide at least 50% of the required number of short term bicycle parking spaces.
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to identify where they wish to place at least four
inverted‐U type bicycle rack on the plan, providing parking for eight bicycles. Staff considers that
revising the plans to show the bicycle racks can be a condition of approval. The racks must meet the
minimum spacing and siting standards of LDR Section 13.14B(2). The applicant will be required to
place the remainder of the required bicycle parking spaces as part of their next site plan approval.
Wastewater
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether additional water or wastewater is
needed to support the additional employees. If additional is needed, Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to receive water and wastewater allocation prior to issuance of the zoning
permit. If additional is not needed, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to submit a
statement from their engineer to this effect prior to issuance of a zoning permit.
Signs
10. Staff notes the Board may not approve plans showing signage and recommends the Board require the
applicant to remove all signage from the plans as a condition of approval.
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