HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SP-19-21 CU-19-04_2 Holmes Rd_DS LLC_SC#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
1
1 of 10
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐21 CU‐19‐04_2 Holmes Rd_DS LLC_2019‐07‐16.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 11, 2019
Plans received: June 14, 2019
2 Holmes Rd
Conditional Use Application #CU‐19‐04
Meeting date: July 16, 2019
Owner/Applicant
DS, LLC
286 Tamarack Drive
Williston, VT 05495
Engineer
O’Leary‐Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0870‐00002
Commercial 2 District
8.80 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site Plan application #SP‐19‐21 and Conditional Use application #CU‐19‐04 of Shelley Forrest to amend a
previously approved site plan for a pre‐existing truck terminal. The amendment consists of adding
commercial parking facility as a use, constructing a parking lot and associated stormwater treatment
facility, 2 Holmes Road.
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
2
2 of 10
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Commercial 2 (C2) Zoning District. It is also located in the Transit Overlay
District. A portion of the property consists of wetland and wetland buffer. The most recent site plan
approval issued for this property was in 1999, which approved a 8,400 square foot truck terminal with a
vehicle fueling tank and pump. The current application is to add a parking lot for the use of an off‐site
facility. The parking lot will be unrelated to the current approved use. The Board reviewed an optional
sketch plan for the project on March 5, 2019.
CONTEXT
The project is subject to site plan review. Conditional use review is required because commercial
parking is a conditional use in the C2 zoning district. Staff notes that though the applicant is only
proposing to modify a portion of the subject property, the LDRs require that certain elements be
brought up to compliance with current standards, including waste disposal and utility cabinet screening,
lighting, and bicycle parking.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 6/14/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
1. The application was continued without being heard on July 16, 2019. In the interest of facilitating a
single meeting, the applicant has met with Staff to review the July 16 staff comments. Based on that
meeting, the below staff comments include some minor modifications from the July 16 comments.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Commercial 2 Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 8.58 ac. 8.58 ac.
Max. Building
Coverage
40% Apprx. 3% No change
Max. Overall
Coverage
70% 33% 41%
Max. Front
Setback Coverage
30% Apprx. 7% No change
Min. Front
Setback
50 ft. Apprx. 120 ft. No change
Min. Side
Setback
10 ft. >10 ft. No change
Min. Rear
Setback
30 ft. >30 ft. No change
Building Height
(flat roof)
35 ft. Unknown
No change
Proposed to be in compliance
B) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Land Development Regulations Section 5.08 apply to development within the C‐2 district.
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
3
3 of 10
A. Development according to commercial district regulations and multifamily development at the
residential density specified for the applicable district shall be subject to site plan review, as set
forth in Article 14, the purpose of which shall be to encourage innovation of design and layout,
encourage more efficient use of land for commercial development, promote mixed‐use
development and shared parking opportunities, reduce stormwater runoff and maximize
infiltration, provide coordinated access to and from commercial developments via public
roadways, and maintain service levels on public roadways with a minimum of publicly financed
roadway improvements.
This site plan is for the purpose of creating off‐site commercial parking for vehicles for sale on an
adjacent property. Staff notes that a number of auto dealers have expressed a need for additional
off‐site parking, and considers that should the Board wish to approve off‐site commercial parking,
this is the best available type of location for that use due to its location in an already‐developed
non‐residential area with limited visibility from the public ROW, and due to its shared access drive
with the primary proposed user of the parking lot thereby limiting traffic impacts. Staff considers
this criterion met.
B. Multiple structures, multiple uses within structures, and multiple uses on a subject site may be
allowed, if the Development Review Board determines that the subject site has sufficient
frontage, lot size, and lot depth. Area requirements and frontage needs may be met by the
consolidation of contiguous lots under separate ownership. Construction of a new public street
may serve as the minimum frontage needs. Where multiple structures are proposed,
maximum lot coverage shall be the normal maximum for the applicable district.
This site plan consists of adding commercial parking use to an existing truck terminal.
Dimensional requirements are met. Staff considers this criterion met.
C. Parking, Access, and Internal Circulation
(1) Parking requirements may be modified, depending in the extent of shared parking, the
presence of sidewalks or recreation paths, and residences lying within walking distance
(defined as no further than one‐quarter (¼) mile for purposes of commercial zoning districts).
Any requirements for shared access and/or parking must be secured by permanent legal
agreements acceptable to the City Attorney.
(2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum
number of curb cuts onto the public roadway.
(3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
There is no minimum required parking for the proposed use. The proposed parking area uses an
existing access drive which is presently used to access the property where the vehicles parked in
the proposed lot will be sold.
2. Staff recommends the Board include a condition stating that the proposed and approved use is
for commercial parking, and that vehicle sales, including permanent or temporary signage,
transactions, or sales events, is not permitted.
D. N/A
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
4
4 of 10
The proposed parking lot will be located to the rear of the lot at 2 Holmes Road. There is an existing
driveway which creates connections between commercial properties and is proposed to access the lot. The
applicant has stated in their cover letter that access to the driveway is gated and locked when Goss Dodge is
not open. Staff considers that the operation of this driveway is not a factor in this application and that the
gated condition does not need to be included as a condition of approval.
14.06 SITE PLAN REVIEW GENERAL REVIEW 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.
The project is located in the northeast quadrant, whose objectives as stated in the comprehensive
plan are to allow opportunities for employers in need of large amounts of space provided they are
compatible with the operation of the airport, and to provide a balanced mix of recreation, resource
conservation and business park opportunities in the south end of the quadrant. The land use policy
for this area is medium to higher intensity, principally non‐residential.
The Board finds the project is in compliance with 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.
No changes to the structures are proposed. Planting is discussed under 14.07D below. Staff
considers the remainder of this criterion met.
(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.
The applicant is proposing to stripe a portion of the existing parking area in front of the existing
building with sixteen (16) spaces. The 1999 site plan approval granted the applicant eight (8)
regular parking spaces in the front of the building and trailer parking around the front corner,
with additional truck and trailer parking along the sides and rear of the building. The applicant is
not proposing any additional pavement to accommodate the proposed additional parking
spaces. Historically, the Board has allowed applicants to reconfigure nonconforming parking as
long as no additional pavement is proposed.
3. Since the applicant is proposing to formally add eight parking spaces adjacent to Holmes Road,
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant plant at least two shade trees between the
parking area and the street in compliance with Section 13.06. Staff notes there are no shade
trees in the front of the lot today.
Several sections of Article 13 address parking areas. Staff has excerpted relevant sections of Article
13 parking standards below.
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
5
5 of 10
13.01G(1) All paved parking spaces shall be striped or otherwise physically delimited.
The applicant is proposing two rows of parking which allow for vehicles to be parked two deep,
and one row of single‐deep parking spaces. Historically the City has only considered the non‐
blocked space as counting towards the minimum parking requirement, but there is no minimum
parking requirement for the proposed use therefore there is no issue in this case.
13.01G(3) Provision shall be made for access by police, fire and emergency
vehicles.
The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on June 28, 2019 and provided oral guidance to staff that he
had no concerns with the application. Staff considers this criterion met.
13.01G(6) Stormwater management strategies that facilitate infiltration including
but not limited to recessed planting islands, bioretention facilities, and pervious parking spaces
are encouraged in the design of any off‐street parking or loading area.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “DS, LLC” site plan prepared by O’Leary‐Burke Civil
Associates, dated 12/31/18 and last updated on 7/9/19. We would like to offer the following
comments:
1. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
4. Staff recommends the Board incorporate the comment of the stormwater section as a condition
of approval.
13.01K Access Drives. Commercial or industrial access drives connecting parking areas
to a public street or right‐of‐way shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width, or ten (10)
feet if designated for one‐way traffic. Aisles and access drives shall be privately owned and
maintained.
Required parking space and aisle dimensions are shown in Table 13‐8 and Figure 13‐1.
The access drives to the street are proposed to be 24’ wide to continue the required aisle width
to the access road. The dimensional requirements of Table 13‐8 and Figure 13‐1 are met. Staff
considers this criterion met.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas. Except for parking spaces accessory to a one‐family or
two‐family dwelling, all off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review
Board, shall be curbed and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs, and other plants
including ground covers, as approved by the Development Review Board. Sections of recessed
curb are permitted if their purpose is to allow stormwater runoff from the adjacent parking area
to reach stormwater collection, treatment and management infrastructure. The Development
Review Board shall consider the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to assure the
establishment of a safe, convenient, and attractive parking area and the privacy and comfort of
abutting properties.
(1) All off‐street parking areas shall be landscaped around the perimeter of the lot with
trees, shrubs and other plants. Perimeter planting shall be set back from the curb sufficiently
to allow for snow storage. The purpose of perimeter planting shall be to mitigate the view
of the parking lot from the public way and from adjacent uses and properties, and to provide
shade and canopy for the parking lot. In some situations it may be necessary both for
surveillance purposes and for the perception of safety to install the size and type of plants
that leave visual access between the parking lot to the public way or other pedestrian areas.
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
6
6 of 10
(2) In all parking areas containing twenty‐eight (28) or more contiguous parking spaces
and/or in parking lots with more than a single circulation lane, at least ten percent (10%) of
the interior of the parking lot shall be landscaped islands planted with trees, shrubs and
other plants. Such requirement shall not apply to structured parking or below‐ground
parking.
(3) All interior and perimeter planting shall be protected by curbing unless specifically
designed as a collection and treatment area for management of stormwater runoff as per
13.06(B)(5)(c) below. Interior planted islands shall have a minimum dimension of six (6) feet
on any one side, and shall have a minimum square footage of sixty (60) square feet. Large
islands are encouraged.
(4) Landscaping Requirements
(a) Landscaping shall include a variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and ground covers.
All planting shall be species hardy for the region and, if located in areas receiving road
runoff or salt spray, shall be salt‐tolerant.
(b) At least one (1) major deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the
perimeter of each parking area, for every five (5) parking spaces. The trees shall be
placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. Trees shall
be placed a minimum of thirty (30) feet apart.
(c) Trees shall have a caliper equal to or greater than two and one‐half (2 ½) inches
when measured on the tree stem, six (6) inches above the root ball.
(d) Where more than ten (10) trees are installed, a mix of species is encouraged;
the species should be grouped or located in a manner that reinforces the design and
layout of the parking lot and the site.
The applicant has proposed four crabapple trees in the interior landscape island and four
crabapple trees along the northern parking area perimeter. The south and west sides are
already well vegetated and the east side is the location of the access driveway. Staff notes
that crabapple trees are not going to provide shade and canopy of the parking lot, a
requirement in (1) above. The applicant has made the following requests
In the island where we are planting trees, our request is that they not be tall shade trees.
This is a storage lot and no customers or pedestrians will be entering it or be around it.
Also, leaves can damage some paint on cars. So we would like to plant small trees.
We would like to request a waiver to plant less trees than your regulations, which is one
tree for every 5 parking spaces. We have 63 parking spaces, that would require 13 trees.
We are asking for 8 trees instead of 13. This lot is totally screened to the south and east.
To the west about half will be screened by woods, the other half by the wetlands. In
between the wetlands and the parking lot, the lot is where the stormwater design is.
Staff has excerpted the relevant standards that apply to the applicant’s requests above. Staff
considers the LDRs do not explicitly allow for waiver of either of these standards. Historically,
the Board has granted some flexibility in tree spacing when the layout of the parking lot does
not support 30‐foot spacing and the tree selection is appropriate for the revised spacing.
5. Staff considers the Board may wish to grant similar flexibility regarding the tree quantity when
full screening is otherwise provided, but that the Board should not grant a waiver of the
canopy and shading requirement without canopy and shading being otherwise provided. Staff
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
7
7 of 10
refers the Board to Site Plan Specific Review Standard 14.07E below in making their
determination on this standard.
The applicant has verbally indicated that should the Board deny their request to not plant
shade trees, they would consider planting Serviceberry trees instead. The City arborist offers
the following comments on the applicant’s request for crabapple trees and their potential
substitution of serviceberries.
Via email 7/23/2019
Crabapples are OK as far as a species selection. The size of the trees and their
location will provide minimal shading of the parking lot
Landscaping specifications are out dated:
o Fertilizer specs are meaningless without both the rate of application and
fertilizer analysis. A generally accepted starter fertilizer specification is 1 lb.
Nitrogen 2 lbs. Phosphorous and 1 lb. Potassium per 1000sq. ft.
o It is generally not recommended to mix fertilizer with the backfill for
tree/shrub planting
o The Tree Planting Detail should specify that the root flare of the tree should
be visible. Planting so the top of the root ball is at finish grade can result in
the tree being planted too deep if the root flare is buried in the root ball as is
often the case
Via email 8/5/2019
Serviceberry will reach a height of 20‐30 ft. and a spread of 15‐20 ft. however, some
species/cultivars only attain a height of 10‐15 ft. If you’re looking to provide some
shade to the parking lot then the species/cultivars that mature at a taller height
should be specified. There are also cultivars of crabapple other than sargent that
mature at greater height. Another suitable tree that matures at a height of 25‐30 ft.
is Amur maackia.
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the landscaping specifications
comments of the Arborist as a condition of approval.
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.
No changes to the structure are proposed.
14.07 SITE PLAN REVIEW 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
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
8
8 of 10
arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
No changes to access to abutting properties are proposed. The Board finds 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.
No new utility connections are proposed. The Board finds 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 applicant has indicated two waste disposal locations on the property. One is enclosed by a fence.
The applicant has indicated the second is a roll‐off dumpster for waste pallet material only. Staff considers
that because there is a low likelihood that debris from the pallet dumpster would escape the enclosure,
screening would be adequate without full enclosure.
7. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to screen the pallet dumpster on the side facing Holmes
Road as a condition of approval.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
Landscaping is discussed under 14.06B(2) above.
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.
8. Staff recommends the Board consider this criterion in determining whether to grant the waivers requested
under 14.06B(2) above.
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.
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
9
9 of 10
Low Impact development is discussed under 14.06B(2) above.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Standards of 15.12 pertain to street layout, roadway design, connection to adjacent parcels, and
roadway construction. Staff considers this criterion not applicable.
CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS
A commercial parking facility is allowed in the C2 Zoning District only as a conditional use.
Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the LDRs, the proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue
adverse effect on any of the following:
(1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
(2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning
district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the
municipal plan.
(3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
(4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.
(5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
The property is located in an area with other large‐scale commercial facilities. No new access drives or
curb cuts are proposed. Staff considers the proposed commercial parking lot will not result in an undue
adverse effect on any of the above criteria.
OTHER
Section 13.14: Bicycle Parking
The minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for the truck terminal is 8 based on approximately
10,000 sq. ft. truck terminal (2 spaces) and approximately 30,000 sq ft of commercial parking (6 spaces).
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.
a. The applicant has proposed a bicycle rack location but has not indicated the number or type of rack
which will be provided. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant install
at least two inverted‐U type bicycle racks meeting the minimum spacing and location standards of
13.14.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
#SP‐19‐21 & #CU‐19‐04
Staff Comments
10
10 of 10
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner