HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SP-19-41_4 Harbor View Rd_Rieley Cohen_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐41_4 Harbor View Rd_Rieley Cohen.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 27, 2019
Application received: November 4, 2019
4 Harbor View Road
Site Plan Application #SP‐18‐41
Meeting date: December 3, 2019
Applicant
Rieley Cohen Partnership, LLC
P.O. Box 4279
Burlington, VT 05406
Owner
WESCO Real Estate II, LLC
225 West Station Square Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15219‐1122
Engineer
Lamoureux & Dickinson
14 Morse Drive
Essex, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID 0780‐00004
Commercial 2 District
#SP‐19‐41
Staff Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Site plan application #SP‐19‐41 of Rieley Cohen Partnership to amend a previously approved site plan for
a 12,000 sf warehouse with outdoor storage. The amendment consists of adding a 4,960 sf one‐story
accessory structure and changing use to contractor or building trade facility, 4 Harbor View Road.
CONTEXT
The applicant is proposing to convert the existing warehouse and office building to a landscape and
property management business, which falls under the use category of contractor or building trade facility.
The property abuts light manufacturing businesses to the south and east, shares a driveway with an auto
service and repair business to the west, and is buffered by a significant wooded area to the north from the
hotel use.
This project is subject to review under the Land Development Regulation Standards covering the
Commercial 2 District, Section 14.06 General Review Standards, Section 14.07 Specific Review Standards,
and 13.05 Outdoor Storage and Display, as well as various other standard provisions of the LDR which
apply to all properties.
PERMIT HISTORY
The property received approval for outdoor storage as a warehouse use in 2009 (#SP‐09‐66). At that
time, the property was required to be screened with fencing on the north and west sides. The property
is currently fenced with what appears to be 8‐foot high fences covered in a mesh screen on those sides.
The remainder of the perimeter is screened by existing vegetation. The approval also required
reconfiguration of the parking to provide adequate circulation and accommodations for accessible
parking.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner have
reviewed the plans submitted on November 4, 2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
#SP‐19‐41
Staff Comments
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Commercial 2 Zoning District Required Existing Proposed
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf 1.84 ac No change
Max. Building Coverage 40 % 16.2% 18.3%
Max. Overall Coverage 70 % 49.2% 49.2%
Min. Front Setback 30 ft. > 30 ft. No change
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. > 10 ft. No change
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. 30 ft. No change
Max. Front Setback Coverage 30% 0% No change
Max. Height (flat roof) 35 ft. <35 ft. No change
Max. Height, Accessory 15 ft. N/A 14 ft.1
Min Side Setback, Accessory 5 ft. N/A Unknown2
Min Rear Setback, Accessory 5 ft. N/A Unknown2
√ Zoning Compliance
1. The proposed material storage bunker has a pitched metal roof. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant indicate on their site plan the height of the structure as measured from
existing preconstruction to the midpoint of the roof.
2. While it appears that greater than 30 feet of side setback and at least 20‐feet of rear setback
is provided, Staff recommends the Board require the Applicant indicate the actual proposed
setbacks on the plan.
A) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
Land Development Regulations Section 5.08 apply to development within the C‐2 district.
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 a change in use and new accessory building for material storage. Staff
considers the project does not impact compliance with this criterion.
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.
The proposed building can be considered an accessory structure under 3.10. Staff considers this
criterion not applicable.
C. [Reserved]
#SP‐19‐41
Staff Comments
D. N/A
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.
Staff considers the proposed change of use and accessory structure does not affect the property’s
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan goals or objectives.
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 is proposing to remove six of the existing parking spaces, with five spaces to
remain. The applicant has indicated the proposed business will operate with four employees.
The applicant is also proposing to remove some of the previously approved outdoor storage
areas, leaving only two large outdoor storage areas between the building and the street. They
are also relocating the dumpster to the front of the site. Minor additional plantings are
proposed; no vegetation is proposed to be removed. Pedestrian movement will remain
unchanged. Staff considers 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 proposed parking is located to the side of the building. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
Section 3.10 requires that accessory structures be limited to 50% of the first or ground floor of the
principal structure. The principal structure is 13,000 sq ft and the accessory structure is proposed to
be 1,694 square feet. The accessory structure is proposed to be below the maximum allowable
height of 15 feet (see staff comment pertaining to height above). 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.
The proposed accessory structure is proposed to be sided in vertical wood siding with a metal
roof and an exposed concrete wall footing. As the entire site is screened by existing vegetation
and fencing, Staff considers this criterion met.
#SP‐19‐41
Staff Comments
3. Staff recommends the Board include a condition that the applicant retain the existing wooded
areas in a state of robust health for the purpose of meeting this standard. Staff considers such a
condition should not preclude clearing or limbing of trees for the purpose of overall buffer health.
(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.
Because of the existing screening, Staff considers there are limited visual relationships and
considers this criterion met provided the Board adopts the condition described above regarding
maintenance of vegetative screening.
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
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.
No changes to existing wire served utilities are proposed. 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 applicant is proposing to relocate the dumpster to the front of the site, between the access
drive and Harbor View Road. The dumpster will be enclosed within the fenced area, and will be
further enclosed on three sides, with the open side facing north.
4. Staff considers the direction of the opening in the proposed dumpster fence to not be compatible
with the configuration of the site and recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify their
intent. Staff further recommends the applicant provide details on the proposed dumpster
screening, which Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate into the plan
as a condition of approval.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
The applicant is not proposing to remove any landscaping. The required minimum landscape value is $900
based on a building construction cost of $30,000. No landscape bond is required.
Other landscaping standards include the requirement for one major deciduous shade tree within or near
the perimeter of each parking area for every five parking spaces, and landscaping, fencing, land shaping,
#SP‐19‐41
Staff Comments
or screening along property boundaries. Staff considers the applicant’s proposed landscaping does not
particularly enhance the project’s aesthetics or functional values.
Staff notes the property does include a wooded area between the portion of the fence without a mesh
backer and the street, but that the wooded area consists principally of pine trees with no understory and
thus the proposed outdoor storage area is relatively unscreened.
5. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require understory plantings to provide additional
screening of the outdoor storage area not currently screened by a mesh backed fence.
6. Staff further recommends the Board require the applicant to maintain the existing wooded areas in a
vigorous growing condition as described in the staff comments above.
Snow storage areas meeting the requirements of Section 13.06 have been provided.
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.
As there is less than 5,000 square feet of reconstruction, the stormwater management standards of Article
12 do not apply. The applicant is proposing to construct the accessory structure on an existing paved
surface. 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
13.05A Outdoor Storage
Outdoor storage of goods, materials, vehicles for other than daily use, and equipment shall be subject
to the following provisions:
(1) Any outdoor storage shall be appurtenant to the primary use of the property and shall be
allowed only in nonresidential districts and upon approval of the DRB in conjunction with a
site plan, conditional use and/or PUD application.
Staff notes the applicant may use only the designated areas on the plan for outdoor storage of
materials. Staff considers this criterion met.
#SP‐19‐41
Staff Comments
(2) The Development Review Board may require that outdoor storage areas in connection with
commercial or industrial uses be enclosed and/or screened where the storage area may
comprise an attractive nuisance, where the proposed use of the storage areas present
opportunities for theft, or where the Board finds that said storage areas are in view of
residentially‐zoned parcels.
The property is currently screened. The proposed reconfiguration of the outdoor storage areas
remains within the existing screened areas. Staff considers this criterion met.
13.14 Bicycle Parking and Storage
The minimum required short‐term bicycle parking for the building is 2 spaces based on 13,000 sq. ft. of
warehousing/contractor/light industry. The applicant is proposing an inverted U bicycle rack near the
accessible parking space. Staff notes the location of the bicycle rack must meet the minimum spacing
requirements of Section 13.14 and Appendix G. Staff considers this criterion met.
16.03 Standards for Erosion Control during Construction
The applicant estimates the proposed project will result in approximately 2,500 sq. ft. of disturbance.
Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to comply with the erosion
control standards of Article 16, including site restoration and topsoil requirements.
Wastewater
7. The applicant has not submitted information on permitted water and wastewater flows relative to the
current and proposed demand. Staff recommends the Board require either demonstration that
wastewater flows will not increase or wastewater allocation be received prior to issuance of a zoning
permit.
Traffic
The applicant estimates the project will generate 26 vehicle trips per day. Staff considers that since the
appropriate land use and building square footage for the property (used to calculate vehicle trips) will be
unchanged from existing, the currently calculated number represents a baseline for the property and no
additional traffic impact fees for additional trips are required.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board review the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
___________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner