HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11_SD-20-14_1751 Hinesburg_Morway_SK#SD‐20‐14
Staff Comments
1
1 of 5
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐14_1751 Hinesburg_Morway_SK‐2020‐05‐19.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 13,2020
Plans received: March 31, 2020
1751 Hinesburg Road
SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD‐20‐14
Meeting Date: May 19, 2020
Owner
Jennifer & Robert Morway
1731 Hinesburg Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Applicant/Engineer
CEA
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0860‐01751
SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential
Dorest Park Overlay View Protection District
15 acres
Location Map
#SD‐20‐14
Staff Comments
2
2 of 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐14 of Jennifer and Robert Morway for a planned unit development on an
existing 15.0 acre lot development with a single family home and barn. The planned unit development
is to consist of 8 single family homes and one existing single family home, 1751 Hinesburg Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential district. The applicant is
proposing a nine lot subdivision. The applicant received final plat approval #SD‐18‐15 creating the
subject property in 2018.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner (“Staff”) have
reviewed the plans submitted and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s
attention are in red.
CONTEXT
The project is in the vicinity of, though not a direct abutter to, the Cider Mill II development which
received final plat approval in 2018. That project proposed construction of a roadway north of the
subject property. A zoning permit to construct that road has not yet been applied for.
The applicant did not discuss the project with Staff prior to submitting this application. Therefore the
project was not reviewed for conceptual compliance with the City’s LDR prior to this application. These
comments focus first on the project’s overall compatibility with purposes and policies of the Land
Development Regulations for the Southeast Quadrant, and then a limited review of specific project
details follows.
SEQ STANDARDS
The purpose of the Southeast Quadrant is as follows.
A Southeast Quadrant (SEQ) District is hereby formed in order to encourage open space
preservation, scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation,
continued agriculture, and well‐planned residential use in the approximately 3,200‐acre area
of the City shown on the Official Zoning Map as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural features,
visual character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized as very
special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The design and layout of
buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will
best create neighborhoods and a related network of open spaces consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall be encouraged. Any uses not expressly
permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed as conditional uses.
This project is located on a prominent ridgeline, and is in fact the highest point in the City. A portion of
the project area has areas of 20% or higher slope, noted in the comprehensive plan as primary
conservation areas. Staff considers this project should be carefully designed to enhance rather than
detract from this unique natural area.
#SD‐20‐14
Staff Comments
3
3 of 5
The density standards in the SEQ are established “to encourage both well‐planned residential
development in clusters and the preservation or protection of open space, natural resources, scenic
views and agricultural uses.” The project area is 15 acres with a base density of 1.2 units per acre and
an allowable density of four (4) units per acre with transfer of development rights. The applicant is
proposing only 9 units, representing a density of only 0.6 units per acre. While there is no prohibition on
lower density, the SEQ purpose and density standards focus on clustered development and preservation
of contiguous open spaces, and this layout appears to attempt to spread the proposed homes as far
from one another as possible, without regard for contiguity of development or open spaces.
Requirement 9.06B(3) for development in the SEQ is provision of an open space management plan. The
applicant must, through the open space management plan, protect existing natural resources “including
(but not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation areas
shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature
forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges.” Staff considers this standard applies to the central
ridge feature of this site, on which the applicant is proposing significant regrading to accommodate the
proposed homes.
9.07C describes the intention of the street, block and lot criteria to provide pedestrian‐scaled
development patterns that allow direct and efficient walking and bicycling trips, and decrease circuitous
vehicular trips.
1. In aggregate, Staff considers the proposed configuration detracts from rather than enhances the
goals of the SEQ, and recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to revise the
proposed subdivision so that the goals are better supported.
Residential Design
The applicant has stated their intent is to demonstrate compliance with the residential design standards
of the LDR on a case by case basis at time of zoning permit application rather than at the time of PUD
review. Staff notes that the residential design requirements include standards that apply to the PUD as
a whole and thus cannot be deferred to individual lots. For example, residential buildings must be
oriented to the street and have a close relationship between the building and the street. The applicant’s
proposed building envelope configuration results in buildings which have driveways between 50 and 150
feet long, which Staff considers preclude a neighborhood feel. Buildings must be related harmoniously
to one another and to the site. While it may be possible to consider compliance with these criteria a
forgone conclusion for a two lot subdivision, or to establish parameters for certain individual criteria as
part of zoning compliance, review of specific design is necessary to evaluate whether 9 lots can achieve
harmony.
2. Staff recommends the Board advise the applicant that they will need to demonstrate compliance
with residential design standards as part of any application involving the proposed number of units.
Roadway Design
Several sections of the SEQ standards and of Article 15 PUD standards pertain to roadway layout and
design.
Roadway extensions
Per 9.06D and 9.06E, design of recreation paths and streets must be compatible with the extension to
adjacent properties, while 9.08 and 15.12D(4) require streets be constructed at minimum to adjacent
property lines. The applicant has shown a potential road configuration that connects to the parcel to
#SD‐20‐14
Staff Comments
4
4 of 5
the south. The parcel to the south is currently held by Dirt Capital, LLC, a firm which works to fund
conservation of land. While there is some potential for development on that parcel, Staff notes that
there is no potential for connecting directly to the Cider Mill development through the proposed
roadway configuration because of the configuration of lots in Cider Mill, therefore even if the property
to the south were to be developed the proposed connection would not meet the requirements to
provide for extension to adjacent properties.
3. Staff considers, if the ultimate development layout warrants a roadway through the middle of the
parcel, it may be possible to satisfy the connectivity requirements by connecting the south end of the
roadway back to Hinesburg Road at the existing curb cut, but not by connecting to the adjacent
parcel to the south, and recommends the Board advise the applicant to consider such an alternative
once a layout satisfying the purpose of the SEQ has been achieved.
Proposed Access
The applicant is proposing to access the development via the future Nadeaucrest Drive, which is proposed to
be constructed as part of the Cider Mill II development. As mentioned above, the Cider Mill II applicant has
not yet applied for a zoning permit to construct that road.
4. Staff recommends the Board consider whether they would allow this project to be approved without
the necessary Nadeaucrest Drive being constructed.
Lot and Block Standards
9.08A establishes block lengths of 300 to 500 feet, and as noted above, contemplates 20 lots, or 50’ frontage,
in a typical neighborhood design. The applicant is proposing 850’ of roadway infrastructure to support eight
(8) house lots, or over 200’ per lot.
5. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to a more consolidated development pattern.
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
The property fronts on Hinesburg Road. Front setbacks are 20 ft in the SEQ NR, however lots with lot
lines on Hinesburg Road must have the building set back 50‐feet from the planned 80‐foot Hinesburg
Road right of way in accordance with 3.06B(1). Staff advises the applicant any proposed layout must
comply with this standard.
Building and lot coverage on a PUD may be met for the PUD as a whole rather than for individual lots.
Maximum coverages are 15% and 30%, respectively. Staff considers that compliance with coverage
requirements for this or any revised layout is not likely to be a problem.
VIEW PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
A portion of the property is located in the Dorset Park View Protection Overlay District. The applicant
has calculated the maximum allowable building elevation in the portion of the property which is within
the overlay is between 540 and 550 feet. Existing topography is around 450 feet, so Staff considers
compliance with the View Protection Overlay to not be a problem.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All subdivisions for more than a single or two family residence in the SEQ district are required to be a PUD.
PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, natural resource protection, compatibility with
the surrounding area, open space, fire protection, and public infrastructure. Compatibility with the
surrounding area and open space are discussed above.
#SD‐20‐14
Staff Comments
5
5 of 5
Water and Wastewater
6. The applicant is proposing to tie into the proposed gravity system that was approved to be constructed
in the Cider Mill II development. Staff recommends the Board consider whether they would allow this
project to be approved without the sewer system in Cider Mill being constructed.
7. As the highest point in the City, this project cannot be served by municipal water. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to demonstrate available water supply at preliminary plat.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff considers significant modifications to the plan are necessary and therefore the project should be re‐
warned prior to discussion of a revised plan. Therefore Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project
with the applicant and close the meeting
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner