HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10A_SP-19-39_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SP‐19‐39_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_2019‐12‐
03.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: November 27, 2019
Plans received: October 25, 2019
793 & 907 Shelburne Road
Site Plan Application #SP‐19‐39
Meeting date: December 3, 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
#SP‐19‐39
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Site plan application #SP‐19‐39 of R. L. Vallee, Inc. to demolish the existing structures at 907 Shelburne
Road and a portion of an existing service station at 793 Shelburne Road and construct an expanded service
station with two additional fueling positions for a total of ten and an associated 4,265 square foot retail
sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
CONTEXT
The applicant has concurrently applied for final plat approval for a subdivision to create the lot on which
this building is proposed under #SD‐19‐31.
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 a non‐conforming lot (the
parcel being below minimum lot size) containing 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 contains a building approved as an existing extended stay hotel which
Staff understands operates as multi‐family housing. This property also contains nonconformities, as the
lot itself is non‐conforming due to being under the minimum lot size, and the property contains an
existing non‐conforming structure (the building being located within the front yard setback).
PERMIT HISTORY
The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the DRB on March 5, 2019 (#SD‐19‐06). A previous
sketch plan for a substantially similar project was reviewed by the DRB in 2018 (#SD‐18‐16).
This complete application was submitted on October 25, 2019 and is therefore subject to the Land
Development Regulations effective October 7, 2019.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 10/25/2019 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
C1‐R15 Zoning District Required Proposed
Consolidated
Lot
Min. Lot Size 40,000 sq. ft. 0.95 ac
5
Max. Building Coverage 40% 15%
4
Max. Overall Coverage 70% 70%
Min. Front Setback 20 ft. Overhanging
1
X Max Front Setback
Coverage
30% 65%
2
#SP‐19‐39
3
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. >10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft. >30 ft.
@Building Height 5 stories 1 plus
mezzanine3
1. The front setback is governed by the Urban Design Overlay District. The existing gas canopy
overhangs the front property line. The proposed new building will be greater than 20 feet from the
front property line.
2. Taken together, the existing front setback coverage of the two existing lots is approximately 80%.
Discussion of this is included under Commercial District standards below.
3. The applicant has indicated the proposed finished floor elevation (FFE) of the building is 207.75, or
roughly level with the existing grades along Shelburne Road. Staff estimates based on the provided
plan that the average preconstruction grade, from which height is measured, is approximately
elevation 200. The peak of the roof is proposed to be 25 feet high from FFE, or 33 feet from average
preconstruction grade.
4. The applicant has considered the fuel canopy a building. Staff does not support this
categorization for the purpose of building coverage because the definition of building coverage
includes measurement from the exterior surface of exterior walls, and the canopy does not have
exterior walls.
5. As discussed in the memorandum pertaining to application #SD‐19‐31, the applicant has not
submitted a valid subdivision application for consolidating the two existing lots. Staff
recommends the Board review this application but they not close the meeting until a
determination is made on the proposed subdivision. The decision on that subdivision will inform
whether this project meets certain standards, including dimensional standards.
Commercial 1 Zoning District
The purpose of the C1 District is as follows.
A Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage the location of general retail
and office uses in a manner that serves as or enhances a compact central business area. Other
uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered
residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they do not
interfere with accessibility and continuity of the commercial district. Large‐lot retail uses,
warehouses, major industrial employers, and incompatible industrial uses shall not be
permitted. Planned Unit Developments are encouraged in order to coordinate traffic
movements, promote mixed‐use developments, provide shared parking opportunities, and to
provide a potential location for high ‐ traffic generating commercial uses. Any uses not
expressly permitted are prohibited, except those that are allowed as conditional uses.
At Sketch, the Board discussed that the existing service station and auto & motorcycle services & repair
businesses located at 793 Shelburne Road are existing non‐conforming uses (they are not allowed within
the C1‐R15 zoning district). The proposed retail and restaurant uses are allowed.
Section 3.11 addresses nonconformities as follows.
#SP‐19‐39
4
3.11B. Continuance and Restrictions.
(1) Any lawful structure or any lawful use of any structure or land existing at the time of the
enactment of these regulations may be continued, although such structure or use does not
conform with the provisions of these regulations, provided the conditions in this Section 3.11
are met.
(2) A nonconforming use may be continued provided that such structure shall not be enlarged
or extended unless the use therein is changed to a conforming use.
(3) A nonconforming structure that is devoted to a conforming use may be reconstructed,
structurally altered, restored or repaired, in whole or in part, with the provision that the
degree of nonconformance shall not be increased.
(4) A nonconforming structure, or part thereof, shall be maintained, repaired, or restored to a
safe condition as required by the Administrative Officer.
(5) A nonconforming structure shall not have its degree of nonconformance increased.
(6) A nonconforming use shall not be extended or enlarged, nor shall it be extended to displace
a conforming use, nor shall it be changed to another nonconforming use, nor shall it, if
changed to a conforming use, thereafter be changed back to a nonconforming use.
(7) Nothing in these Regulations shall be construed to prevent the owner of a multi‐tenant
building containing one or more nonconforming uses from utilizing a portion of the building
for a conforming use, provided there is no expansion or extension of a nonconforming use
or uses as part of such a change in use.
3.11C. Alterations to Conforming Structures with Nonconforming Use. A conforming structure
used by a nonconforming use shall not be reconstructed, structurally altered, restored or repaired
to an extent exceeding one hundred percent (100%) of the gross floor area of such structure unless
the use of such structure is changed to a conforming use.
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing service station use by adding two fueling positions. At
sketch, the Board provided direction that when taken together, 3.11B and 3.11C defines this as an
expansion of an existing nonconformity and is therefore not allowed. Some of those reasons are listed
here.
LDR 3.11B(6) prohibits a nonconforming use (service station) from being expanded.
3.11B(2) also prohibits expansion of the structure containing a nonconforming use.
3.11B(3) does allow reconstruction of a structure containing a nonconforming use provided that
the degree of nonconformity is not increased. By adding fueling positions and expanding the
canopy, the applicant is increasing the degree of nonconformity.
1. If the Applicant disagrees with the guidance the Board provided at sketch regarding expansion of a
non‐conformity, Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to explain why they disagree. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to either resubmit memoranda provided at sketch plan
substantiating their position or provide an updated memorandum substantiating their position.
2. If the applicant wishes to seek approval with additional fueling positions, Staff considers the Board
must deny the application.
Additional standards related to nonconformities are included in LDR Section 3.11.
#SP‐19‐39
5
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
A. Site plan or PUD review required.
The applicant has requested site plan review.
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 has sufficient
frontage, lot size, and lot depth.
Staff considers the lot size supports the proposed multiple uses based on the lot coverage
being no greater than the maximum allowed, but the lot frontage may not support the
proposed multiple uses based on the front setback coverage far exceeding the allowable
maximum of 30% (65% proposed, see dimensional standards above).
3. Staff considers the Board may require the applicant to reduce the front setback coverage in
order to demonstrate sufficient frontage as required for multiple uses.
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.
The applicant has proposed 21 standard parking spaces and 10 fueling positions. Under
the LDR effective October 7, 2019, which applies to this project, required minimum
parking for service station with convenience store is 10 spaces per 1,000 sf gross leasable
area, in addition to parking required for the operational function of the site. Separately,
there is a minimum requirement of 5 spaces per 1,000 sf gross leasable area for retail
uses and 12 per 1000 sf for short order restaurant uses. As characterized by the applicant,
the proposed use is service station and retail. Staff considers the 10 fueling positions as
supporting the services station use. The applicant has not indicated how much of the
proposed 4,265 sf building will be retail and how much will be restaurant. Assuming worst
case scenario of 12 spaces per 1,000 sf, the applicant must provide 52 spaces, which they
have not done.
4. Staff therefore recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a breakdown of
retail vs. restaurant use in order to determine whether they wish to grant a modification
of parking requirements.
(2) Parking areas shall be designed for efficient internal circulation and the minimum
number of curb cuts onto the public roadway.
5. Staff considers the parking spaces to the north of the proposed building, adjacent to the
proposed additional fuel pump, do not appear to meet the minimum drive aisle width
when a parking space at the fuel pump is taken into consideration.
(3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
The applicant is proposing to modify the three (3) existing site driveways so that there is
one two‐way curb cut to the north and one two‐way curb cut to the south. They are also
#SP‐19‐39
6
proposing a connection to the shopping center to the west, and a stub for future
connection to the south.
The director of public works reviewed the plans on November 22, 2019, and offers the
following comments.
In reviewing the traffic memo prepared by RSG I could not find any information
(other than a brief mention on the bottom of page 5) on the project’s overall
impact on safety to the public relative to Route 7 and turning movements in and
out of the proposed site. The proposed plan appears to allow for full movements
at each driveway. It’s worth noting that by the north driveway Route 7 has a
cross‐hatched median which would not allow left turns into or out of the
proposed site. This section of Route 7 is generally at or above it’s vehicle to
capacity ratio, meaning there is no room or safe manner for cars to leave the
proposed site and head north; given that those movements should not be
allowed.
Similar properties along Route 7 (and over on Route 2 west of the Exit 14
interchange) have successfully implemented proper access management by
having right only ins and outs. The traffic memo should be updated with a full
safety review of the proposed movements in relation to the adjacent roadway’s
volumes and capacity and provide an opinion on what turns should be allowed
from a safety standpoint.
Thank you,
Justin
6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the
Director of Public Works above.
7. Staff also recommends the Board invoke technical review of the traffic memo in order to
provide further analysis.
D. N/A
10.02 TRAFFIC OVERLAY DISTRICT
The project is located in the traffic overlay district. At sketch, the Board reviewed a traffic memo which
concluded the proposed project without additional pumps would result in at least 200 additional vehicle
trips beyond the traffic generation budget of 15.56 trips. The current traffic memo appears to use a
different trip estimation methodology than was previously reviewed by the independent technical review
and the Board.
For the Project to go above the allowable traffic budget, the applicant must make physical improvements to
offset the trips beyond the budget. The applicant is proposing to use a combination of trip credits, which
are quantified in the LDR, and a mitigation project to increase their traffic budget to meet the projected
project generation.
The applicant is proposing trip credits for a number of measures, as follows.
#SP‐19‐39
7
Connection to the parcel to the west – credit separately for rerouted trips and internal capture. Staff
notes feedback provided by the independent third party reviewer to the applicant at sketch was that
these credits should be calculated together and not separately.
Eliminating one existing curb cut
Reducing the width of the gas station curb cut and moving it south. Staff notes feedback provided to
the applicant at sketch was that moving the curb cut to the south was the same credit as closing one
curb cut and could not be considered separately.
Connect to the parcel to the south. Staff notes the LDRs are clear that credit cannot be given for
connections unless the connection is functional, which is not proposed at this time. (“These
connections must be practicable all year long.”)
As the trip credits do not sufficiently offset the applicant’s estimated traffic generation, the applicant is
proposing to construct a mitigation project previously scoped by the City as mitigation for the remaining
trips. Section 10.2H allows the DRB to allow adjustments other than those specified in Appendix B.
8. Staff recommends the Board review the provided traffic memo to understand the proposed credits, and
recommends the Board invoke technical review, as discussed above pertaining to safety and access, but
also pertaining to trip generation and trip credits.
(1) The Development Review Board or, within the Form Based Code District the Administrative Officer,
may allow adjustments to the project’s traffic generation or may approve peak hour traffic volumes
above the standards set forth in Section 10.02(F) above for a lot in a traffic overlay zone if the
Development Review Board, or within the Form Based Code District the Administrative Officer,
determines that other site improvements with respect to improved access management, internal
circulation, connections between adjacent properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit
access, will produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project. See
Appendix B for guidance on adjustments.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will allow off‐site mitigation as credit for additional
vehicle trips.
Staff notes the applicant has identified five reasons they believe the proposed mitigation will result in net
improvements to the intersection. They have not attempted to quantify the credits for each of the
elements. Staff supports this approach and recommends the Board consider the mitigation project as a
whole rather than as individual elements.
10. Staff recommends the Board consider how many credits the mitigation may be eligible for, but considers
that the Board may wish to defer this discussion until after the independent technical review is complete.
Staff recommends the Board take into consideration the number of trips credits for each other type of
improvement provided when making this determination, to provide a sense of scale based on guidance
provided in the LDR.
11. Staff recommends the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee be requested to review the proposed Shelburne
Road crossing at a public meeting with the applicant in attendance, as that committee was involved in
developing the scoping study from which the mitigation originates.
#SP‐19‐39
8
10.06 URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT (UDO)
The project is located within the urban design overlay district. Only new buildings are subject to compliance
with these standards. Portions of an existing building not being modified may remain as is, provided
alterations do not increase the degree of nonconformity.
(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.
This criterion appears to be met.
(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.
Based on the provided floor plans, the applicant is proposing one entrance facing Shelburne Road.
This entrance is on a portion of the building which is stepped back from the front of the building
by approximately 30 feet. The applicant has provided an elevation of the building from Shelburne
Road.
12. Staff considers the step back detracts from this standard, while the architecture surrounding the
entrance supports it. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider this criterion
met.
(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.
This criterion is not met. The proposed walkway leads to a side entry to the building and not an
entry that is required to serve as a principal entry, per subsection (b) above. Staff considers were
the applicant to simply relocating the currently proposed sidewalk from Shelburne Road to be
towards the principal entry, it would interrupt the pedestrian circulation, and an additional
pedestrian walkway along the front of the building may be required.
13. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update their plans to provide direct
pedestrian access to the entrance facing Shelburne Road.
(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.
The applicant has stated 100% of glazing is proposed to be transparent. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(b) In non‐residential uses, first story glazing shall have a minimum height of 7 vertical feet.
The glazing facing Shelburne Road varies in height from 6.5 feet to 11 feet, with mezzanine‐level
glazing approximately 4.25 feet high. However, Staff considers that the glazing less than 7 feet
high is beyond the required minimum glazing therefore considers this criterion met (See Urban
Design Overlay Standard 3 below).
#SP‐19‐39
9
(c) N//A
(3) Dimensional Standards
Height Minimum
(Maximums per
underlying zoning
district)
Glazing Features Setback
from
ROW
All other
properties
No height
minimums
First stories shall have a
minimum of 40% glazing across
the width of the building facade
Minimum
20 feet
Staff estimates the width of glazing meeting the minimum 7‐foot height requirement to be 32.25
feet. The façade is 67 feet long, therefore glazing meeting the minimum height requirement
represents 48% of the façade. Staff considers no modifications to the glazing that is less than 7
feet high are needed to meet this standard.
The building is set back approximately 38‐feet from the ROW. Staff considers these criteria met.
(4) Building Stories, Heights, and Rooftop Apparatus. N/A
(5) Landscaping. Projects within the Urban Design Overlay District shall meet minimum
landscaping requirements as per Section 13.06 of these Regulations. Projects are also subject to the
following supplemental standards:
(a) Landscaping which is required elsewhere in these Regulations to serve as a buffer
between properties shall not count towards the minimum landscaping budget.
No landscaping buffers are required. The property abuts a multifamily residential use, but LDR
13.06C only requires buffering where a commercial use abuts residential districts, not residential
uses within a commercial district.
(b) For lots with buildings which are set back 50 or more feet from the front lot line, at
least 50% of the required landscaping shall be installed between the front building line
and the front lot line.
Not applicable. The building is set back approximately 38‐feet from the ROW.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 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 within the Southwest Quadrant. 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;
#SP‐19‐39
10
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:
54. Promote higher‐density, mixed use development and redevelopment along Shelburne Road
and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas.
55. Maintain Shelburne Road as a roadway for both regional and local circulation
56. Improve local neighborhood connections on the east and west sides of the Shelburne Road
corridor.
57. Promote and expand public access to Lake Champlain
58. Support the ongoing agricultural use of the University of Vermont’s Horticultural Farm and its
other agricultural properties
59. 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 an expanded number of service station pumps and convenience store is
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. On the other hand, Staff
considers that providing pedestrian connections where they do not exist today, and improving
pedestrian connectivity between the west and east sides of VT Rte 7 through the proposed off‐site
traffic mitigation project are supportive of Comprehensive Plan goals.
Staff considers the project supports Objective 55. Staff considers that though Objective 54
addresses redevelopment, this project only partially supports the objective, and neither supports
#SP‐19‐39
11
nor detracts from the remaining Southwest Quadrant objectives.
Staff recommends the Board discuss the application’s overall consistency 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.
Adequacy of parking is discussed under Commercial zoning district standard C above. The applicant
has provided architectural renderings in support of their application. Pedestrian access is provided
north to south and east to west. Deficiencies in pedestrian access are addressed under the Urban
Design Overlay District above. The required minimum landscape value is met. Staff considers when
other comments on parking and pedestrian access are met, this criterion will be 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 property has two fronts – that which faces VT Rte 7 and that which faces Queen City Park
Road. The applicant is proposing five parking spaces to the front on the Queen City Park Road
frontage.
(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) – (ii) N/A
(i) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that
allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street;
Two of the proposed front parking spaces are located on the existing underground storage
tank area. The remaining three front parking spaces are located in an existing vegetated area
and are not subject to unique site conditions. Staff considers this criterion does not require
the Board to allow parking to the front; rather it allows the Board to consider the location of
the parking and the building relative to one another, and if necessary parking cannot be
accommodated to the side or rear due to site conditions, allows parking to be located to the
front.
14. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the two spaces on the tank area are allowed
under this criterion.
(ii) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re‐used and parking
needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s);
15. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the fuel canopy is a building for this criterion.
If it is not, all nine spaces on the northern portion of the lot are located to the front.
16. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the spaces between the retail/restaurant (or
between the canopy, if the Board determines it is to be considered a building) and Queen City
Park Road are eligible for consideration under this criterion.
#SP‐19‐39
12
(c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all
parking areas located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of
the width of all building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to
14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt from this subsection.
If the Board categorizes the fuel canopy as a building, this criterion applies.
There are two bays of parking spaces located to the side of the buildings to which this criterion
applies. The total width of these parking bays is 36‐feet, and the total building width is 66 feet at
the point at which no parking spaces are located to the side.
17. Staff considers this criterion is not met. Staff considers the proposed building or parking could
readily be reconfigured to meet this standard and recommends the Board discuss it with the
applicant.
(d) N/A
(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.
As discussed above, the proposed building is proposed to be one story plus mezzanine, with a
finish floor elevation roughly level with Shelburne Road. Staff considers the proposed building
footprint and height compatible with its setting.
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 architecture for this building incorporates a mix of siding types, and is proposed
to be principally one story with a small one and a half story section. Proposed landscaping is
located around the perimeter of the site. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
Based on the amount of fill the applicant is proposing, the proposed one story building may
have the appearance of being taller than adjoining one story buildings. Based on the standards
of the Urban Design Overlay District, Staff supports this configuration.
Other proposed structures on the site include several retaining walls. The retaining wall
proposed west of the existing fuel pumps is proposed to be as tall as 8 feet at its highest point.
The retaining wall nearest the south side of the building is a maximum of approximately 7 feet
tall. The retaining wall south of the drive aisle is a maximum of approximately 4 feet tall, and
the retaining wall surrounding the bioretention basin is a maximum of approximately 3 feet tall.
The rear of the building is proposed to act as a retaining wall as well, with the ground being
approximately 9 feet lower than the finished floor elevation to the west side.
#SP‐19‐39
13
18. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the number and height of the proposed retaining
walls preclude a harmonious relationship with the terrain. Staff recommends the Board consider
requesting a 3D rendering showing how this will look.
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.
The applicant is proposing a connection to the south and to the west, though the connection to the
south is not proposed to be functional at this time (see discussion under Traffic Overlay District above).
The applicant is proposing to close an informal connection to the property to the northwest. Staff
considers access to abutting properties satisfied, though the general topics of general access and
circulation, curb cuts and access for emergency services is discussed elsewhere in this document and in
the staff notes for concurrent subdivision application #SD‐19‐31.
19. Staff recommends the Board require a reciprocal access easement agreement be recorded for the
proposed cross connections to the south and to the west.
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 above ground on this section of Shelburne Road. The applicant has not
indicated on their plans whether the proposed electric service is proposed to be above or underground.
Staff recommends the Board discuss this with the applicant and require them to update their plans to
show the proposed electrical connection underground.
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 provided a detail for dumpster screening which Staff considers meets this criterion.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
The minimum required landscape value for the Project, based on an estimated building construction
cost of $2,500,000 is $32,500. The applicant is proposing $33,439.50 worth of landscaping on site in the
form of trees and shrubs.
#SP‐19‐39
14
The City Arborist reviewed the landscaping plan on November 7, 2019 and indicated there were no
issues.
Several additional landscaping standards apply to this property, as follows.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
All off‐street parking areas subject to review by the Development Review Board shall be curbed
and landscaped with appropriate trees, shrubs and other plans including ground covers as
approved by the Development Review Board.
(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.
Staff considers the parking areas adequately landscaped.
(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.
The applicant is proposing 31 standard parking spaces, including 10 fueling positions. Staff considers
the overall layout of the site is of a large continuous area of impervious surrounded by perimeter
landscaping, which is the situation this criterion and criterion 13.06B(5) below specifically attempt to
circumvent.
20. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the fueling positions are to be counted towards the
number of parking spaces requiring landscaping. Should the Board include the fueling positions in the
parking count, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide 10% interior landscaping.
(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.
21. Interior planting is protected by curbing or retaining walls except the two spaces along Queen City
Park Road. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide curbing in this location.
(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.
#SP‐19‐39
15
(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.
The majority of the 30 trees are proposed to be located around the perimeter of the parking and
other impervious surfaces.
22. Two of the proposed species do not meet the minimum size requirements. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to update their landscaping to meet the required minimum size.
(5) Planting islands
(a) Curbed planting islands shall be designed and arranged to define major circulation
aisles, entrances and exits, provide vegetative focal points, provide shade and canopy, and
break up large expanses of asphalt pavement. All islands shall be planted with trees, shrubs,
grasses and ground covers. Plant materials judged to be inappropriate by the Development
Review Board will not be approved.
(b) Curbs of such islands shall be constructed of concrete or stone and shall be designed to
facilitate surface drainage and prevent vehicles from overlapping sidewalks and damaging
the plants.
23. As discussed above, the applicant is proposing limited curbed planting islands interior to the site.
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether the proposed layout meets the requirements for
curbed planting islands.
(6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential
for erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
Snow storage areas are provided to the north of the site and on the southwest corner, in locations
that conflict with proposed tree plantings. Barring the conflict with landscaping, the snow storage
to the southwest corner appears to drain towards the adjoining property, and further appears
impractical due to being located behind a curb.
24. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify their proposed snow storage to be
feasible and to not result in the destruction of proposed landscaping.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off‐street parking areas, off‐street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse,
recycling, and compost collection (excluding on‐site composting) areas, and utility improvements
such as transformer(s), external heating and cooling equipment shall be effectively screened.
(2) Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen
and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
(3) The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect
neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The
landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development
Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing
on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the
approved plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review
Board, may be substituted for the required planting.
#SP‐19‐39
16
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate
screening or would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development Review
Board may modify the planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or
increasing the requirements.
Landscaping located north of the property generally consists of shrubs, which may not adequately
screen the parking area and fueling positions from view from the street. There is an existing planter
located on the north east corner of the site that does not appear to be proposed to be removed.
25. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the proposed shrubs and existing planter to
the north to be interspersed with trees to provide better screening.
As it pertains to abutting uses, the applicant is proposing shade trees between the project and the
housing to the west, and between the project and the commercial use to the south. Both of these
properties will also face on a retaining wall.
26. Staff considers these trees, while potentially attractive, will not provide screening and recommends
the Board discuss whether to require them to be interspaced with shrubs.
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.
No modification of standards has been requested. The applicant is proposing to continue the existing
nonconformities as they pertain to building setback and front setback coverage. The Board is not
required to accept the front setback coverage as being non‐conforming where there is proposed
redevelopment (ie, the south part of the property). This is a discretionary consideration of the Board’s.
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 applicant is proposing subsurface infiltration on the southern portion of the site, which is proposed
to overflow into an unlined surface bioretention system supported by a retaining wall around its entire
perimeter on the southwestern portion of the site. Overflow from the bioretention system is proposed
to flow into the private stormwater system on the adjoining shopping center property to the west. The
existing fueling station has known soil contamination. The applicant’s groundwater monitoring report
indicates that groundwater flow is generally from east to west.
The applicant has also provided an EPSC plan and stabilization notes. The project disturbs less than one
acre and will therefore not be required to obtain either and Individual or General Permit for Construction.
27. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to revise the EPSC plans to meet the requirements of
Article 16, including that exposed soil be seeded and mulched or covered with erosion control matting
#SP‐19‐39
17
within 48 hours of final grading, and that a minimum of four (4) inches of top soil be provided to cover
overall finished slopes.
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
The Assistant Stormwater Superintendent has reviewed the application materials on November
18, 2019. The comments from the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent are as follows.
The Stormwater Section has reviewed the “Shelburne Road Gulf Proposed Site
Improvements” site plan prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated 10/18/2019
and last updated on 10/25/2019. We would like to offer the following comments:
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed. This watershed is listed as
stormwater impaired by the State of Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC). The project proposes to create greater than 1/2 acre of
impervious area. It therefore requires the applicant to follow the standards set forth
in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDRs) Article 12.03.
2. Has the applicant contacted VT DEC to determine if this site is considered to be a
stormwater hot spot as per the VT Stormwater Management Manual (VSMM)
Section 2.3?
3. What is acting as a forebay for the Bioretention practice? Please reference the
VSMM for guidance.
4. Has the applicant contacted the appropriate parties at VT DEC to determine the
required treatments for potentially contaminated soils that are impacted by
construction?
5. The applicant should confirm that if changes are made in pipe sizing or forebay
routing, requirements in LDRs Article 12.03.C(2) are met and that peak runoff rates
are not increased during the 1‐year storm event.
6. The applicant is required to submit a Maintenance Plan for all stormwater treatment
practices as outlined in LDRs Article 12.03.D(e). It is recommended that the DRB
include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
7. It is requested that the applicant confirm that the depth to groundwater is sufficient
in the location of TP2 to allow for an infiltration chamber to be installed. As
reported, it appears that the water table is at 197.16’ which is only 1.58’ below the
proposed foundation stone of the infiltration chamber.
8. The applicant should confirm that the design of 18” total cover in addition to the
pavement layer is sufficient for the anticipated loading in the location of the
infiltration chambers. It is also recommended that the applicant provide a paving
plan that depicts the methodology used for paving this area with the 18” fill (as
opposed to 36” stabilized cover required by manufactures’ specifications to allow for
dump truck travel).
9. The applicant is requested to submit a profile of the stormwater system that includes
all utility crossings. As designed, it appears to backwater the pipes to CB#1 and
CB#6.
10. It is recommended that the location of the Oil/ Water Separator acting as a recovery
well be depicted on the plans.
#SP‐19‐39
18
11. Clarification is needed on the size pipe in DMH#1. Sheet C1.4 depicts a 15” (S) line
but HydroCAD appears to model using a 24” outlet.
12. The applicant is requested to show discharge locations for all potential roof drains
from the fuel canopy and proposed building. Provide supplemental grading
information pertaining to the areas surrounding the gas pumps to determine the
direction of flow.
13. The applicant is requested to confirm the elevation given for the Bioretention
spillway. The model shows the primary outlet at 192.5’. Type II Stone allows
infiltration and should not be considered as an impermeable surface. Therefore, if
the noted 192.75’ elevation is the top of stone, this limits the retainage to an
elevation of 191.25’.
14. It is recommended that the applicant demonstrate that the spillway of the
Bioretention area will not impact the neighboring downslope properties adversely.
Please demonstrate that downstream structures are significantly sized for the 25‐
year storm with the additional flow.
15. The catch basin at the outlet of the spillway is not currently in our mapping. Please
provide detail for the As‐Built condition of catch basin and pipe network. It also
appears that a portion of the spillway and construction entrance on the west side is
outside of the property line. Will the contractor be core drilling into the Hannaford
catch basin to connect the system? Has the applicant contacted the owner regarding
maintenance or upsizing?
16. It is recommended that the applicant provide detail that the hydraulic head of the
Bioretention area will not impact the adjacent retaining wall. Will a polymer liner be
required in this location?
17. The plans call out a structure as DMH#1A. Elsewhere in the submittals it appears to
be referenced as DMH#4. Please clarify.
18. It is recommended to ask the applicant for clarification on installation of the Oil/
Grease separator that appears to be located ~7.5’ from the Infiltration chamber. Will
construction phasing be required?
19. The narrative describes the use of Site‐Balancing in explanation for enlarging the
Infiltration Chamber. Were methods considered for treating the impervious surfaces
on site that will not be treated?
EPSC Comments
1. It is recommended that the applicant clarify what form of inlet protection will be
utilized in locations of vehicular travel (where sand bags/ coir mats may not be
feasible).
2. Is dewatering anticipated during construction?
3. Where will stockpiling occur for Infiltration Chambers Stone, Bioretention materials,
storm trench material?
4. Is there anticipated storage or disposal of contaminated soils? Indicate a location
and VT DEC approved requirements.
5. Where will snow be stockpiled during construction?
6. Include tree protection zones of PDF or fencing
#SP‐19‐39
19
28. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the stormwater
section.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See comments of the Director of Public Works as they pertain to roadway safety and entrances/access.
Parking is discussed under Site Plan Review Standard 14.06B. Connections to adjacent parcels are discussed
under Site Plan Review Standard 14.07A.
As it pertains to circulation, the applicant has provided a fuel delivery truck turning movement plan which
shows that trucks cannot navigate the site when there are other vehicles present.
29. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate adequate circulation for all users, including
delivery trucks and fire trucks.
Staff considers the applicant has generally provided for appropriate pedestrian connections and should be
required to continue to do so when they update the sidewalk layout to comply with the standards of the
Urban Design Overlay District.
15.12G. Emergency Access
This standard requires sufficient width and suitable grade to facilitate fire protection and coordinated
so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan.
The Fire Chief reviewed the submitted plans on 11/19/2019 and offers the following comments.
Staff of retail sales needs a direct view of pumps per fire safety code
Are they planning on unmonitored sales? As configured, sales must be monitored.
A right in right out driveway configuration will work for Engine 2 coming from the south
The truck will be setting up at the south side of the building ‐ needs to be 150 ft from the tanks
even if they're responding to an emergency at the pumps
The apartment building to the west has stormwater issues with water from the embankment,
which should be considered in the stormwater design.
30. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the Fire Chief.
OTHER
18.03 Housing Preservation
Section 18.03 attempts to offset the loss of housing by requiring replacement of housing units with new
construction, conversion of nonresidential to residential use or a contribution to the City of South
Burlington Housing Trust Fund.
B. Applicability. Except as otherwise provided in sub‐section C (Exemptions), this Section 18.03 of
these Regulations is applicable to the loss, demolition or conversion to a nonresidential use or nonuse
(for example a vacant lot) of any dwelling unit in the City. This includes without limitation any of the
following:
#SP‐19‐39
20
(1) any dwelling unit that is demolished, removed, or declared unfit for habitation pursuant to
any order, decision or other action of the City or State that is caused by unreasonable neglect or
deferred maintenance of an existing or prior owner(s);
(2) any dwelling unit that is demolished or removed pursuant to any municipal, State or Federal
program, including any air traffic or airport noise mitigation and compatibility program; and/or,
(3) the loss, demolition or conversion to nonresidential use or non‐use of any other form of
permanent housing, including but not limited to housing units contained within a housing facility
that is permitted as a congregate care facility, except group homes, residential care facilities, or
skilled nursing facilities as defined in these Regulations.
While the existing hotel is approved as a hotel use, the owner stated during the sketch plan meeting that
it has been operational as extended duration housing since before he purchased the property in 1993,
though it is not a building designed for that use. The Board discussed that based on the definition of
dwelling unit, a dwelling unit has sanitary, cooking and sleeping facilities, regardless of how it is permitted.
The owner indicated of the 13 units, 8 of them meet this definition. The housing replacement fee is 25%
of the appraised value. The appraised value of the property according to the 2019‐2020 Grand List is
$594,100.
31. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to be assessed a fee of 25% of 8/13 of the assessed
value, or $91,400, or similar calculation based on the assessed value at the time of zoning permit
application for demolition of the hotel.
Lighting
The applicant is proposing 9 building mounted, 19 canopy lights and 6 pole mounted lights.
The applicant has designated four canopy lights on the proposed main building entrance. Staff
recommends the Board discuss with the applicant where these lights are to be located, as provided the
architectural rendering does not appear to allow for placement of lighting.
Pole mounted lights are proposed to be 16‐feet high, below the maximum height of 30 feet allowable
under the LDR. Building mounted lights vary from 7 feet to 15 feet high. The following standard applies
to lighting in parking areas.
13.07B Specific Requirements for Parking Areas. Light sources shall comply with the following:
(2) Pole placement, mounting height, and fixture design shall serve to minimize lighting from
becoming a nuisance. All light sources shall be arranged so as to reflect away from adjacent
properties. All light sources shall be shielded or positioned so as to prevent glare from becoming a
hazard or a nuisance, or having a negative impact on site users, adjacent properties, or the traveling
public. Excessive spillover of light to nearby properties shall be avoided. Glare shall be minimized to
drivers on adjacent streets.
Appendix A also addresses lighting.
A.9 Direct Glare
(a) Direct glare is defined for the purposes of these Regulations as illumination within
property lines caused by direct or spectrally reflected rays from incandescent, fluorescent, or
arc lighting, or from such high temperature processes as welding or petroleum or
metallurgical refining.
(b) No such direct glare shall be permitted, except that parking areas and walkways may
be illuminated by luminaries so hooded or shielded that the angle of maximum candlepower
#SP‐19‐39
21
shall be sixty degrees (60o) drawn perpendicular to the ground. Such luminaries shall be
placed not more than thirty feet (30’) above ground level and the maximum illumination at
ground level shall not be in excess of an average of three (3) foot candles.
The applicant reports the maximum site illumination to be 3.95 footcandles, but an inspection of
the provided photometric drawing reveals the maximum illumination outside the fueling canopy
is 12.0 footcandles, and 15.4 footcandles within the fueling canopy.
32. Staff recommends the Board consider the area within the fueling canopy to be part of the
parking area and thus subject to this standard.
Staff also notes there are gaps in the photometric drawing where illumination levels may be
higher.
33. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to recalculate the average on‐site illumination
to demonstrate compliance with direct glare standards.
A.10 Indirect Glare
(a) Indirect glare is defined for the purposes of these Regulations as illumination beyond
property lines caused by diffuse reflection from a surface such as a wall or roof of a structure.
(b) Indirect glare produced by illumination at ground level shall not exceed 0.3 foot
candles maximum, and 0.1 foot candles average.
(c) Deliberately induced sky‐reflected glare, as by casting a beam upward for advertising
purposes, is specifically prohibited.
34. The applicant’s photometric drawing omits point by point analysis beyond the limits of the paved
areas of the site. There are however contours of illumination level which show that there are
light levels exceeding 1.0 footcandles beyond the property line. Staff recommends the Board
require the applicant to reconfigure their lighting to prevent spillover beyond the property line, in
accordance with A.10 and 13.07B.
35. Staff considers the Board may wish to invoke technical review of the proposed lighting plan.
13.14 Bicycle Parking
The proposed 4,265 sf retail/restaurant building will require four short term, two long term bicycle
parking spaces and one clothes locker. It appears the applicant has proposed three short term bicycle
racks, though no detail is provided indicating whether the proposed racks will provide parking for one or
two bicycles each. Based on provided architectural plans, the applicant is not proposing any long term
bicycle storage or clothes lockers.
36. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update their plans to demonstrate compliance with
short and long term bicycle parking and facility requirements. Staff considers the bicycle spaces and
clothes lockers must meet the dimensional standards of 13.14.
A.3 Noise Performance Standards
Appendix A provides the following limits on noise between midnight and 8:00 AM.
#SP‐19‐39
22
a. 45 dBA based on a one‐hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise
emanates adjoins any property used for residential purposes
b. 60 dBA based on a one‐hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise
emanates adjoins any property used for commercial purposes.
The applicant has not provided information on projected noise levels. Staff infers, based on the
provided vehicle turning movements conflicting with parking, that deliveries will take place at night. The
property is immediately adjacent to a multifamily residential property to the west.
37. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the applicant to provide an analysis of noise
impacts at the property line, both for residential and commercial abutters.
3.05 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.
Signage
38. Staff notes the Board may not approve plans showing signage and recommends the Board require the
applicant to remove all signage from the plans.
Water Supply
Champlain Water District has reviewed the plans and provided comments on both the relocation of the
transmission main and the service for the proposed project.
Comments on the relocated transmission main were received on November 20, 2019 and are as follows.
1. The design shall conform with Vermont Water Supply Rules (latest edition).
2. The design shall conform with CWD’s – Specifications and Details for Installation of Water Lines
and Appurtenances (latest edition).
3. The new relocated water line shall be 30” ductile iron, Class 52, and shall be poly wrapped with V‐
Bio Enhanced Polyethylene Encasement.
4. All joints shall be installed with Viton (Fluorelastomer) gaskets.
5. All water lines shall be installed with a minimum of 6’ of cover.
6. Any water and sewer line crossings shall occur at a perpendicular angle. Water and sewer line
separations shall conform to the Vermont Water Supply Rules (latest edition), and installed in
accordance with the “Ten State Standards – Recommended Standards for Water” (latest edition).
7. Thrust restraints will be required on all bends. A combined thrust block and restrained joint system
shall be designed by a Professional Engineer for review and approval by CWD.
8. CWD will need to review and approve all elevations, grading, and profiles. This information was
missing from the DRB submittal and therefore cannot be reviewed without further information.
9. A sleeve shall be provided for the new 30” water line underneath the proposed retaining wall for
the westerly pedestrian sidewalk.
10. CWD is requiring that the 30” water line be extended under Shelburne Road, through a new sleeve
that meets the Vermont Agency of Transportation, “Standard Specifications for Construction”
(latest edition), and connect beyond CWD HS 107 valve on Lindenwood Drive.
11. New 30” butterfly valves shall be installed at the connection points to CWD’s existing mains and
on either side of Shelburne Road’s sleeve crossing.
#SP‐19‐39
23
12. A 40’ x 40’ easement shall be provided on either side of the Shelburne Road sleeve crossing.
13. A 25’ easement, on center of the water line, shall be provided for the new water line.
14. No permanent above‐grade infrastructure, including trees, shall be allowed within CWD’s final
easements.
15. All final design and construction documents will require review and written approval by CWD.
16. All design and construction engineering will be at the cost of R.L. Vallee.
17. Work on CWD infrastructure shall only be permitted with prior approval. Work shall not occur
during times of high seasonal demand.
18. Only approved CWD Contractors shall install the proposed water lines.
19. All construction work shall be observed and approved by CWD personnel.
20. R.L. Vallee shall compensate CWD for cost incurred with the inspection of the water line
installation.
21. All surface restoration required for future repairs, maintenance, emergencies, etc. will be borne by
R.L. Vallee and will not be the responsibility of CWD. CWD’s responsibility will terminate at the
top of the water line backfill material.
Please don’t hesitate to contact us with any questions.
Sincerely,
CHAMPLAIN WATER DISTRICT
Nathan Pion, PE
Director of Projects & Programs / Chief Engineer
Comments on the proposed water service were received on November 19, 2019 and are as follows.
From: Jay Nadeau, CWD/SBWD Superintendent
Re: 793 & 907 Shelburne Road, Maplefields Technical Review
Date: November 19, 2019
We have reviewed the proposed plans for the above referenced project an offer the following
comments regarding water service work:
1. The proposed connection to the existing water service line currently supplying water to
the southern building (Maple Leaf Motel) may require a new service line from the main
to the proposed building TBD at the time of excavation. This note is based upon the age
and unknown condition of the existing service. The determination to replace the service
line from the main to the new connection shall be made by the Department at the time
the service line is exposed.
2. The service line to the existing gas station shall be shut off at the corporation and the
service line disconnected, on the east side of Shelburne Road.
3. A water allocation request must be submitted to the SBWD as this project proceeds
through the project review process.
4. All plans must include a note stating “All work to be performed in accordance with the
Champlain Water District Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines
and Appurtenances.”
5. The Champlain Water District as the water wholesale provider with a water transmission
main with the project’s limits will provide separate comments.
#SP‐19‐39
24
39. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of Champlain Water
District on both the transmission main and the water service for the property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner