Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-18-26 - Supplemental - 1398 Hinesburg RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: August 17, 2018 SD-18-26_1398 Hinesburg Rd_Gardner Construction Plans received: July 20, 2018 Inc Sketch 2018-08-21.docx 1398 Hinesburg Road Sketch Plan Application #SD-18-26 Meeting date: August 21, 2018 Owner/Applicant Engineer Bradley C. Gardner O'Leary Burke Civil Associates P.O. Box 21 13 Corporate Dr. Colchester, VT 05446 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Propertv Information Tax Parcel 0860-01398 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential; Hinesburg Road North View Protection District 5.84 acres _ocation Map #SD-18-26 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-18-26 of Gardner Construction, Inc. to subdivide two existing parcels totaling 5.8 acres and developed with one single family dwelling into approximately six (6) lots for the purpose of a 23 unit residential planned unit development. The planned unit development is to consist of 17 detached single family homes, six units in two-family dwellings and one existing single family home, 1398 Hinesburg Road. PERMIT HISTORY In April 2016, the Development Review Board reviewed a sketch plan application for the subject property. At that time, the applicant was proposing a 22-unit residential planned unit development. Feedback from the Staff and the Board focused on access and street configuration, park planning, building orientation and design, and density. The Board expressed concern about the configuration of open spaces and of the number of units proposed. At the 2016 meeting, the applicant indicated the proposal involved two properties. The northern property was located in the Industrial -Open Space district, but the zoning for the northern parcel is now neighborhood residential. The northern portion of the current application was subdivided from its parent parcel as part of SD-16-28. It is unclear from the applicant's submitted materials who owns the northern portion of the property. The northern portion is not referenced independently in the current application. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that the project involves two parcels. If two, the current and subsequent applications must reference both tax parcels and be co -signed by the second property owner, if any. Staff recommends the meeting be continued in order to allow the applicant to update the application to reflect the information and signature of the second property owner. If the information is not updated before the meeting is closed, the meeting cannot be considered as a qualifying sketch plan application for two separately owned properties. CONTEXT The Project is located in the SEQ Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. A portion of the property is located within the Hinesburg Road North View Protection District. There are Class 2 wetlands on the north of the property and Class 3 wetlands on the east and west sides. Topography is generally flat with the lowest point on the northeast corner of the property. The purpose of the Southeast Quadrant is to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well -planned residential use. The design and layout of buildings and lots is intended to create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Within the SEQ-NR, the maximum development potential is four units per acre with the purchase of TDRs. The applicant has indicated the subject property or properties (as discussed above) is 5.84 acres, which staff calculates has a maximum density of 23 units. The inherent density without the use of TDRs is 7 units. DPW, Fire, Stormwater, and Police have not yet reviewed the application. 2 #SD-18-26 COMMENTS & REVIEW PROCESS Planning Director Paul Conner, City Planner Cathyann La Rose and Development Review Planner Marla Keene ("Staff') have reviewed the plans submitted on 6/11/2018 and offer the following comments. There are several major issues of concern with the proposal. As such, Staff has tried herein to limit comments to those issues, while retaining the right to provide for further review of broad concepts at subsequent sketch plan review, and more detailed comments at the preliminary and final plan reviews should the project advance. Comments at this time are organized based on the following general categories: - Layout & Setting - Buildings & Lots The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant and has more than 10 units. As such, the proposed development will be required to seek Master Plan approval within six months of the final sketch plan meeting. The development proposal will be subject to subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the Southeast Quadrant standards, including design review. These will all be assessed in greater detail at subsequent reviews. LAYOUT & SETTING CONSIDERATIONS Height The Project is located in the SEQ Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. A portion of the property is also located within the Hinesburg Road North View Protection District, which limits building and landscape heights to elevation 393.5 plus 5.8 feet for each 1,000 feet the structure or landscaping is horizontally distant from the Hinesburg Road North baseline. The baseline is located approximately on Hinesburg Road, and the existing grades within the view protection district are around 387 feet, and no more than 500 feet from Hinesburg Road. Therefore the maximum allowed height in this zone is likely to be less than that of a single -story building. 2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether proposed homes 1 through 5 are allowable in the view protection zone. Street Standards Section 9.07 describes the goals of design standards within the SEQ as follows. Street, Block and Lot Patterns (1) Overall Criteria: Development criteria within the Street, Block and Lot Pattern section are intended to provide pedestrian -scaled development patterns and an interconnected system of streets that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous vehicular trips. (2) Street Design: The intention of street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian -oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. (3) Building Design: The intention of the building design guidelines is to ensure that new housing and commercial development reinforce a pedestrian friendly environment, while allowing creativity in design. #SD-18-26 Staff considers that the proposed layout, with two dead end streets and pedestrian connectivity limited to the streets themselves, may not achieve the goals of this district without significant refinement. Staff considers the retention of the existing home may present a significant hurdle to providing a high -quality connected layout at the proposed scale. Applicant should consider how to either integrate the home or consider alternatives which involve removal of the home. 3. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to invoke design review of the proposed subdivision. Specific comments on the current configuration follow. The applicant is proposing two dead end streets. The applicant refers to these in their application narrative as private drives. Staff notes these streets cannot be considered driveways because they are proposed to serve more than two homes. Dead-end streets within the SEQ-NR district are limited to 200 feet if they do not extend to an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection. Further, Section 15.12 Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation limits the number of single-family or duplex dwellings on a private roadway to five and the number of units to nine, and Section 3.05B(2) limits the number of lots on a private roadway to three. 4. Staff considers the City is unlikely to accept either street as a public road, therefore the applicant should be limited to five buildings containing a maximum of nine units on each roadway. The southern dead-end street meets this standard, but the northern does not. 5. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that homes built on a private roadway must be sprinklered to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, and sprinkler systems must be approved prior to final plat approval. Staff notes that the dead-end street standards of Section 15.12J apply to all streets, including private streets. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss providing culs-de-sac or hammerhead turnarounds on the dead-end streets. Staff considers that such a configuration may also facilitate homes facing one - another across the street which would further support the design standards of this district. Public Facilities, Parks and Open Space Section 9.07D provides specific standards relating to park design in the Southeast Quadrant, which the proposed project must meet. The applicant has identified two common land areas on the submitted plan. The first is to the rear of units 1 through 5. Staff considers this area is predominately wetland buffer and cannot be maintained as open space, therefore should not be considered to meet the park requirements. The second open space is located on the inside of the curve of Wildflower Drive. The applicant has indicated they intend to retain a landscape architect to develop this open space. Staff considers without a concept of what this open space will look like, the Board cannot evaluate whether the space meets the standard to provide "developed parkland" meeting "a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation," or whether the proposed open space meets the purpose of being "a focal point of the neighborhood." Staff recommends the Board continue the meeting and request the applicant to provide at minimum a concept of how this open space meets the required standards. 4 #SD-18-26 In addition to the required elements of Section 9.07D, open spaces are encouraged to use single -loaded roads to define a clear transition between the private and public realm. Staff considers a single -loaded curved roadway mirroring the curve of Wildflower Drive may allow nearly the same number of units and create a centralized open space with clear delineation from yard areas. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss the feasibility of this configuration with the applicant. Wetlands There is a Class 2 wetland located near Hinesburg Road. The applicant is not proposing any structures within the Class 2 wetland or wetland buffer. A portion of the roadway crosses the wetland and buffer, and Staff anticipates additional buffer impacts when the applicant develops a grading plan. However, the homes which may impact the buffer are also within the view protection district, so these impacts may not be relevant. There are class 3 wetlands located on both the eastern and western sides of the property. The applicant is proposing to completely impact all but one Class III wetland and their 50-foot buffers. 9. Staff considers any revised layout should take wetland impacts into consideration. BUILDING AND LOT CONSIDERATIONS Density The applicant is proposing 23 units, which includes one existing unit. This represents the maximum allowable density for the applicant -stated project area of 5.84 acres. Staff considers this acceptable, if the other criteria pertaining to building orientation and design, access and opens spaces can also be satisfied. Note Staff is unable to confirm parcel size because it is unclear whether one or two parcels are involved, as discussed above. The applicant noted in their application that units 6 through 11 are intended to match the size of the homes located on Kirby Road. The applicant further indicated that they believe these proposed homes do not require the purchase of TDRs. The applicant has not indicated why they believe this to be true. Staff considers the proposed units 6 through 11 may, with additional documentation, be eligible for some density or TDR flexibility if they are proposed to be affordable. At this time, Staff cannot recommend whether the proposed units 6 through 11 require purchase of TDRs. 10. Staff recommends the Board clarify with the applicant their intended approach for units 6 through 11, or equivalent units in a revised layout, in order to allow Staff to review the proposed approach against the LDR standards, specifically related to the need for TDRs or perpetual affordability. Dimensional Requirements Based on submitted materials, it appears the applicant will be using footprint lots which are at least 10- feet apart but otherwise do not meet the lot and building coverage maximums of the district. Building Orientation and Design Section 9.08 lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. During the 2016 meeting, the Board reviewed an elevation of the west- 5 #SD-18-26 facing side of Unit 1 to evaluate it for consistency with the character of the adjacent homes on Hinesburg Road. Staff considers this topic is still of concern. 11. Even though units 1 to S may not be developable as proposed when the view protection zone is considered, Staff recommends the Board request the applicant to evaluate the proposed development for consistency with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, particularly when viewed from Hinesburg Road. 12. The current proposal shows a variety of housing types and sizes, and Staff recommends the Board encourage the applicant to continue proposing an assortment of homes when considering revisions to the layout. Lot Ratios Section 9.08(A)(4) states that lots "shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended." The proposed lots for the single family homes appear to meet this standard. The two and three family homes are located on shared lots and do not meet this standard. Staff supports a waiver for this if the PUD otherwise meets the design intentions of Section 9.07. 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. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the major issues identified herein. Staff recommends the Board consider continuing the meeting to address issues with the application form, if any, and to potentially allow design technical review. Respectfully submitted, 1 Marla Keene, Development Review Planner M.