HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-20-07_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_SK_SCCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐07_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee_SK_2020‐03‐
04.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: February 27, 2020
Plans received: February 3, 2020
793 & 907 Shelburne Road
Final Plat Application #SD‐20‐07
Meeting date: March 4, 2020
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
#SD‐20‐07
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐07 of R. L. Vallee, Inc. to consolidate two lots of 0.36 acres and 0.59
acres into one lot for the purpose of constructing an expanded service station and retail sales and
restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
CONTEXT
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
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 parcel at 907 Shelburne Road is an
existing extended stay hotel which Staff understands operates as multi‐family housing. This property is
also non‐conforming as the structure is located within the front yard setback and the lot size is below
the minimum required lot size.
The applicant has concurrently applied for site plan review of a project to construct a building on the site
under application #SP‐19‐39.
PERMIT HISTORY
The sketch plan for this project was concluded by the DRB on March 5, 2019 (#SD‐19‐06). That sketch
plan expired, therefore the applicant has re‐applied for sketch plan review as a prerequisite to final plat.
This complete application was submitted on February 3, 2020 and is therefore subject to the Land
Development Regulations effective November 29, 2019.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed
the plans submitted on 2/3/2020 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 Size1 40,000 sq. ft. 0.95 ac.
Max. Building Coverage 40%
Information
pertaining to
development
is contained
in site plan
application
#SP‐19‐39
Max. Overall Coverage 70%
Min. Front Setback 20 ft.
Max Front Setback
Coverage
30%
Min. Side Setback 10 ft.
Min. Rear Setback 30 ft.
Building Height (flat
roof)
35 ft.
#SD‐20‐07
3
1. Each existing lot is less than the minimum lot size. Merging the two lots brings the lot
size into conformity. Conformity of uses is addressed in concurrent site plan
application #SP‐19‐39.
Zoning district requirements are addressed in the concurrent site plan application #SP‐19‐39.
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
In general, these staff comments omit elements which are addressed in the staff comments for application
#SP‐19‐39, but some subdivision standards are not duplicated in site plan standards and are thus necessarily
addressed here.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of
the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
1. The applicant has not obtained preliminary water or wastewater allocation. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to obtain these allocations prior to final plat
approval. Comments from Champlain Water District pertaining to water supply are
included in the staff comments for #SP‐19‐39.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
No construction is being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Compliance of the
site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on application #SP‐19‐39.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely
on the findings of a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any
technical review by City staff or consultants.
No construction is being reviewed as part of this subdivision application. Staff considers
compliance with this standard will be adequately addressed under concurrent application
#SP‐19‐39 through standards 14.07A, 14.07G and 15.12. 15.12F(4) discusses traffic impacts.
(4) The project’s design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams,
wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features
on the site. In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these
Regulations related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the
Natural Resources Committee with respect to the project’s impact on natural resources.
The subdivision does not impact wetlands, streams or wildlife habitat. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in
the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in
which it is located.
On an overall basis, Staff considers the proposed consolidation of two parcels into one parcel
compatible with the existing and planned development patterns of the area. Detailed
#SD‐20‐07
4
discussion of the aesthetics of the building itself is provided under concurrent site plan
application #SP‐19‐39.
(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities
for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The proposed consolidated parcels are generally surrounded by paved areas. Open spaces
on the existing parcels are located to the rear of the parcels. The consolidated parcel is
proposed to have limited unpaved areas around the perimeter of the site. The compliance of
the consolidated parcel with required maximum lot coverage is discussed in the staff
comments on application #SP‐19‐39. Staff considers this criterion has limited applicability
due to the urban setting.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall
be designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by
municipal water.
2. Staff recommends the Board require compliance with comments of the Fire Chief, included
in the staff comments for #SP‐19‐39, prior to final plat approval.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and
lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such
services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
3. As part of related site plan application #SP‐19‐39, the applicant is proposing to relocate a
24‐inch Champlain Water District potable water transmission main. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to address the comments of Champlain Water District,
described in the staff notes for #SP‐19‐39, prior to final plat approval.
(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
As part of related site plan application #SP‐19‐39, Staff has provided comments on sidewalks
and lighting which Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address prior to final
plat approval.
The subdivision is located in the Traffic Overlay District and is proposed to support a
development which the applicant estimates will generate 242 vehicle trips per PM peak hour,
over the allowable traffic generation of 14 trips by 228 trips. The applicant has proposed
traffic mitigation strategies defined in LDR appendix B, as well as additional mitigation beyond
that specifically defined in LDR appendix B. Staff comments on these strategies are discussed
in comments for application #SP‐19‐39.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on
application #SP‐19‐39.
#SD‐20‐07
5
(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less
runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater
as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard
shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these
Regulations.
Staff considers the proposed subdivision does not affect compliance with this criterion.
Compliance of the site plan with this standard is discussed in the staff comments on
application #SP‐19‐39.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Compliance with site plan review standards is discussed in the staff notes for application #SP‐19‐39.
OTHER
Staff notes the address of the proposed building will need to be evaluated for compliance with State
E9‐1‐1 addressing standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner