HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-24-03 - Supplemental - 0850 Hinesburg RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
MP-24-03_850 Hinesburg Rd_WGM
Assoc_0204_07_16_SC.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: July 9, 2024
Application received: May 22, 2024
850 HINESBURG ROAD – WGM ASSOCIATES
MASTER PLAN APPLICATION #MP-24-03
Meeting date: July 16, 2024
Owner /Applicant
WGM Associates
PO Box 2352
South Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID: 0860-00896
Industrial & Open Space Zoning District
Parcel size: 10 acres
Location Map
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master plan application #MP-24-03 of WGM Associates to subdivide an existing approximately
10.0 acre lot developed with three homes and an existing non-conforming commercial or private
parking facility into ten single family home lots ranging from 0.26 acres to 2.05 acres, one single
family home lot with an existing non-conforming commercial or private parking facility on 1.52
acres, and one 1.0 acre civic space lot, 850 Hinesburg Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
Sketch plan application #SD-24-02 was reviewed on January 17, 2024. At that time the Board
provided feedback on the proposed roadway, indicating that the street would need to connect to
the southern property line as part of the master plan, but could include only the east west segment
for Phase 1. Other feedback indicated that development within each phase should be internally
compatible.
This application was complete on May 22, 2024, thereby vesting it in the LDR effective 11/20/2023
but also requiring it to be reviewed under the provisions of Act 47 and Act 181.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planners Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, herein
after referred to as ‘Staff’, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant on May 22, 2024,
and offer the following comments. Numbered items for Board review are in red.
A) OVERVIEW
This property is located in the Industrial Open Space zoning district, which has an allowance for
single family homes. Minimum lot size in this zoning district is three acres. Lot coverage is limited
to 50%, and setbacks are relatively high at 50-ft front and rear and 35-ft side. These dimensional
standards are set up for industrial development.
This application proposes to take advantage of Act 47, which requires municipalities to allow lot
sizes that enable at least 5 units per acre in areas served by municipal water and sewer that allow
for residential use. Act 47 does not change coverage, setback, or other requirements.
This lot is currently developed with three single family homes.
The Board reviewed the geography of this lot at Sketch. A public water line exists along the western
boundary of the property, while a public sewer line exists along the eastern boundary. The Board
provided direction that it would consider this property to be “served by municipal water and sewer”
and that as such the pertinent provisions of Act 47 would apply. Since the time of the Sketch Plan
review, the City Council has adopted revisions to the City’s water and wastewater ordinances,
establishing “areas of service” for each. The entirety of the subject property is within the water &
wastewater service area.
B) ZONING DISTRICT TABLE
I/O Zoning District Required Existing Proposed1
# Min. Lot Size 2 3 acres 10.05 0.26 ac min
√ Max. Building Height 40 ft pitched roof Unknown 28 ft max
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
3
@ Max. Building Coverage 30% 2.6% 20% max
@ Max. Overall Coverage 50% 11.4% 40% max
^ Min. Front Setback 50 ft < 1 ft 30 ft max
^ Min. Side Setback 35 ft 10 ft 10 ft max
^ Min. Rear Setback 50 Ft > 650 ft 30 ft max
1. The applicant has proposed to adhere to the dimensional standards for the R4 zoning
district, with the exception of lot size for which specific values are proposed. See further
discussion immediately below.
2. Minimum lot size is reduced to 8,712 sf (0.20 acres) by Act 47
As discussed at sketch, the I/O zoning district standards, where single family homes are permitted,
is modified by Act 47 to permit five units per acre. The Board at sketch indicated that they would
be comfortable that this would reasonably translate to a minimum lot size of 8,712 sf. Further,
given that the standard setbacks for the I/O zoning district would unreasonably restrict the building
envelope, the Board at sketch indicated they would support a modification of setbacks
commensurate with the state-mandated reduction in minimum lot size. The applicant has
proposed to adhere to the coverage, setback and height standards of the Residential-4 (R4) zoning
district. Staff considers the R4 to be reasonably analogous to the 5 units per acre minimum
established by Act 47 and recommends the Board grant the dimensional
modification/interpretation as part of the preliminary and subsequent final plat application. The
Board’s authority to grant waivers at master plan is limited to process waivers.
C) MASTER PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA
15.B.03 Master Plan Review Process
The following procedures apply to any subdivision or development project for which master plan
review is requested or required:
A. Pre-Application Sketch Plan Review.
This took place on January 17, 2024.
B. Master Plan Application.
The administrative officer deemed the application complete on May 22, 2024.
C. Combined Review
The applicant has requested to combine master plan with preliminary plat for Phase 1 of the
project. Separate findings of fact must be issued.
D. Neighborhood Meeting.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 1, 2024 at 7:00 PM at 10 Mansfield View
Lane. This meeting met all applicable criteria regarding notice, location, and accessibility. The
applicant provided a set of summary minutes from the meeting.
E. Public Hearing.
The public hearing has been warned and is taking place on July 16, 2024, and may be
continued for further discussion should it be necessary to do so.
15.B.05 Review Standards
Staff has located these review standards at the beginning of this report to frame the Board’s
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
4
review of the project. However, the review standards are informed by the required submission
components, therefore Staff has largely reserved discussion of compliance with required
standards to the portion of this document pertaining to the submission components.
(A) Findings. For Master Plan approval, the DRB must find that:
(1) The Master Plan includes all the components required under 15.B.04 above, in sufficient detail
to provide the framework and standards for future development under the plan, unless
specifically waived by the DRB as not applicable to the proposed subdivision or development;
Staff has provided a detailed review of submission requirements below in order to support this
finding that all required application materials are provided. Staff has flagged the areas where
this standard does not appear to be met with a red comment.
(2) The overall type, pattern, and density of development, and allocation of land uses, are
consistent with these Regulations and other City regulations in effect at the time of application,
including relevant subdivision, zoning district or planned unit development standards;
Compliance with each of the elements of this criterion is addressed in Section 15.B.04 below.
(3) The proposed Development Plan demonstrates the efficient, coordinated, and integrated
development and use of land which:
a. Considers existing topography and physical site constraints;
Staff considers this criterion met.
b. Avoids or minimizes and mitigates the impacts of future development on environmental
resources identified for protection, as enumerated in Article 12, and as incorporated into
the overall design;
The project avoids new impacts to natural resources, which consist of a potential wetland
buffer in the south east corner of the development. The existing use of the potential
wetland buffer is lawn. The applicant is proposing to retain the area as a landscaped
area, which is permitted under 12.06D(4). Staff considers the applicant may not develop
the potential wetland buffer with any permanent features without demonstration that it
is not a wetland or wetland buffer area.
c. Defines an overall pattern of development, including proposed streets and blocks, that
is consistent with the zoning district or proposed type of planned unit development;
Staff considers this criterion has been demonstrated to be met through the submitted
materials reviewed below.
d. Maintains street, pedestrian, and transit connectivity, and contiguous or accessible
open space with the adjoining neighborhood, and within and between each phase of
development;
Staff considers this criterion has been demonstrated to be met but additional discussion
of the street is provided below and in concurrent preliminary plat #SD-24-08.
e. Avoids, or minimizes and mitigates the adverse impacts of development on adjacent
properties and uses, through the designation of transition areas or buffer areas along
the project perimeter; and
Staff considers limited transition areas to be needed, discussed below.
f. Includes adequate standards specific to each type and phase of development, to include
guidance for the functional and aesthetic integration of development with the
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
5
surrounding neighborhood, and provisions for buffering or screening incompatible land
uses.
Staff considers limited integration to be needed, discussed below.
(4) The Buildout Budget sets reasonable development parameters for the entire project, and as
allocated for each phase of development, for reference in subsequent regulatory reviews, as
necessary to identify and limit the cumulative and overall impacts of project development on
City infrastructure, facilities and services.
While Staff has identified some omissions pertaining to the buildout budget, Staff considers
the overall impact of the project to be acceptable.
(5) Proposed design standards and related guidance are sufficiently detailed to prescribe and direct
coordinated development, consistent with the Master Plan and regulations in effect at the time
of master plan approval, for the duration of the plan.
Staff has included comments pertaining to design standards for the Board’s review under
15.B.04H below.
(6) The Phasing Plan and Schedule:
(a) are consistent with the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program;
(b) ensure that all phases of development will occur in an orderly fashion; and that
(c) infrastructure and facility improvements necessary to support each phase of
development will be provided concurrently with such development, as may be further
ensured through subsequent or separate regulatory review processes and development
agreements.
Staff has provided comments pertaining to phasing under Section 15.B.04.I.
(7) The Management Plan:
(a) defines a management structure for the duration of the Master Plan that supports
long-term project viability through project buildout;
(b) identifies those principals or entities responsible for securing necessary municipal
permits and approvals for development under the Master Plan; and
(c) clearly identifies proposed ownership and responsibilities for the long-term
management, maintenance and operation of capital and community assets, including any
proposed dedications of land, facilities and infrastructure to the City.
Staff considers these criteria met as discussed under 15.04.J.
15.B.06 Master Plan Approval, Effect, Duration, Amendment
A. Decision. Within forty-five (45) days after the close of the public hearing on the Master Plan,
the DRB must issue its written findings of fact and decision to approve, approve with conditions,
or disapprove the Master Plan.
B. Subsequent Regulatory Review. In its approval of a Master Plan, the DRB shall specify the
level of review and review processes required for subsequent applications filed under the Master
Plan, provided such procedure is consistent with the intent of these Regulations and the following:
(1) Sketch plan review is not required for any application for preliminary subdivision or site plan
review that complies with the approved Master Plan, and associated conditions of approval.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
6
(2) The DRB may waive preliminary subdivision or site plan review for specified phases or portions
of a project.
(3) The DRB may in its decision specify allowed modifications or changes under the Master Plan
which require only administrative review and approval by the Administrative Officer.
The applicant has not requested any process modifications or changes.
(C) Effect. Once a Master Plan has been approved, all subsequent land subdivision and
development must conform to the Master Plan as approved.
(1) The Development Review Board in issuing a decision shall make specific findings as to
which components of the Master Plan are vested, based on the type, level, and detail of
information provided in the Master Plan, and the amount of time the plan is intended to
remain in effect. The Board may approve components or elements of the Master Plan as
applicable to all subsequent applications; or determine those components or elements of
the Master Plan that are vested, or not vested, for the duration of the plan.
Staff recommends the following aspects of the master plan be vested, as may be modified
by the Board’s review of the project. Staff intends the term “vested” to mean that subsequent
phases of review will use the LDR applicable at the time the Master Plan application was
submitted (in this case, the LDR adopted November 20, 2023) for the identified elements for
the duration of the master plan approval.
• Overall density.
• Buildable area.
• Civic Space areas.
• Natural resource impacts under the Environmental Protection Standards.
• Proposed street, block, and lot layout.
• Building heights, setbacks, and building and lot coverages.
• Max peak hour trip generation for the entire master plan.
(2) Master Plan approval is binding upon the applicant, the owner(s), their agents, and
successors in interest.
(3) Once the Master Plan is approved, the applicant may apply for other permits and approvals
referenced in the conditions of Master Plan approval, as required prior to the start of
construction.
(4) Unless the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of Master Plan approval and these
Regulations, the Master Plan as approved shall not be modified, revoked, or otherwise
impaired by any action of the City without the consent of the applicant. For purposes of
subsequent regulatory reviews under the Master Plan, for the duration of the plan the
regulations in effect at the time of Master Plan approval shall apply to vested elements
under Subsection(C)(1). For vested elements, Regulations enacted following master plan
approval shall apply only as necessary to address public health and safety or, at the request
of the applicant, to incorporate types or forms of development allowed under more recently
adopted regulations, in conjunction with an application to amend the Master Plan.
(D) Duration. The duration of the Master Plan, as specified in the conditions of DRB approval,
shall be determined by the DRB in consultation with the Planning Director and City Engineer.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
7
(1) The Master Plan should be approved for a specified period of time, not to exceed six (6) years,
for which the impacts of proposed development can clearly be ascertained from the quality and
detail of the information provided; which allows sufficient time for project planning, financing,
permitting, and development, including required regulatory reviews; and which accommodates
full project buildout in relation to the timing of planned infrastructure and facility
improvements.
Staff notes this timeframe will start with issuance of a decision on this application.
(2) The Master Plan shall remain in effect as approved until the development allowed by the plan
has been completed, the plan expires, or the plan is amended or superseded.
(3) Applicant shall submit a complete preliminary or final subdivision or site plan application (as
applicable) for at least one phase of the project within two (2) years of the date of Master Plan
approval. Concurrent review with Master Plan shall be deemed to have satisfied this
requirement. Failure to submit a complete application within two (2) years of the date of
approval shall result in expiration of the Master Plan.
The applicant has submitted a concurrent preliminary final plat for Phase 1 of the project. Staff
considers this criterion met.
(4) The duration of an approved Master Plan may be extended by the DRB for cause, if the request
and reasons for the extension are submitted in writing prior to the Master Plan expiration date;
however, in no event shall the duration of an approved Master Plan exceed ten (10) years in
total, to include all authorized extensions or amendments.
(5) An expired Master Plan may be extended, renewed, or amended only on submission as a new
Master Plan, subject to full DRB review under 15.B.03 and the Land Development Regulations
in effect at the time of application.
(6) A complete application for a Master Plan may be submitted at any time subject to the rules in
effect at the time of submission.
(7) Pursuant to 24 V.S.A. 4463, any site plan or subdivision plat, and associated conditions of site
plan, subdivision, or Planned Unit Development approval that are recorded in city land records
under an approved Master Plan, shall remain in effect as recorded following Master Plan
expiration.
(E) Amendment.
There are specific criteria by which the applicant may amend the master plan, and whether such
application is considered a minor amendment or a substantial amendment. Staff considers the
parameters that require substantial amendment of the master plan to be well thought out and
defined and does not consider it necessary to include conditions prohibiting any particular
modifications, as major modification seems unlikely within the duration of the initial master plan
and extensions thereof.
15.B.04 Master Plan Components
The applicant has submitted an application package addressing each of the required master plan
submission materials.
1. Staff recommends the Board read the five page application narrative as it provides a concise
line-by-line response to each of the submission criteria.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
8
Staff has reviewed the submitted materials and provided an analysis of each required element as
follows.
(B) Project Description. A map, narrative, and accompanying table(s) that describe:
• The overall vision for and scope of the proposed development; The applicant’s testimony
states “The overall goal is to construct the phase I infrastructure which will enable the future
connection of the three (3) Phase II homes into that infrastructure. The building-out of the
roadway will be required during this phase which will enable the future phase III residential
units.”
• The land area and properties to be included under each phase of development;
The applicant has provided a phasing plan.
Phase 0: The applicant has indicated a “Phase 0” for lands which have already been developed
and are only proposed for subdivision without additional development.
Phase 1: Phase 1 includes Lots 1B, 1C, and 1D, the civic space lot (Lot 4) and the east west
portion of the road, plus a hammerhead turn-around.
Phase 2: Phase 2 includes Lots 2B, 2C, and 2D as well as the north west portion of the road.
Phase 3: Phase 3 includes Lots 3B and 3C.
• Current property ownership and contact information;
Staff considers the applicant has adequately addressed these requirements in their application
narrative.
• Current zoning district designations;
The property is located entirely within the Industrial/Open Space Zoning District.
• Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) type(s) under Article 15.C, as applicable;
The applicant has indicated their intention to apply as a general PUD (15.C.07). General PUD
requirements are considered in concurrent preliminary plat application #SD-24-08.
• Project consistency with applicable zoning and subdivision regulations; and
Zoning district standards are discussed above.
In order to meet subdivision regulations pertaining to street network, the applicant has
proposed for the subdivision street to be on a lot suitable for dedication as a public ROW. As
part of this configuration, the applicant is proposing one approximately 5,000 sf lot, containing
an existing silo (housing cell tower infrastructure) and an existing shed. The minimum lot size
for non-residential lots in this zoning district is 3 acres, therefore this would not create a viable
subdivision layout.
2. LDR 13.12 pertains to dimensional and screening requirements for lots containing Utility
Cabinets and Similar Structures and permits a smaller lot size for those structures. While the
actual standards will be reviewed under concurrent preliminary plat SD-24-16, for this master
plan, Staff recommends the Board affirm as part of this master plan the Board affirm that they
would consider the silo (housing cell tower infrastructure) under those criteria.
• Any requested modifications or waivers, as allowed under the Regulations.
The applicant has not requested any modifications or waivers.
(C) Context Report. A map and accompanying narrative that describe the area proposed for
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
9
subdivision, development, or redevelopment, in relation to the existing and planned pattern and
type of development in surrounding neighborhood, and to existing and planned City facilities,
services, and infrastructure in the vicinity of the project, to include:
The purpose of establishing a context report is to allow the applicant and the Board to understand
how the project should be laid out to complement existing and proposed community resources.
• Existing parcels, and existing and planned streets and blocks, recreation paths, transit routes,
buildings, land uses, parks, civic spaces, and other open spaces and community facilities located
within ¼ -mile of project boundaries;
The applicant has provided three maps in response to this criterion: A map of community
facilities from the 2024 City Plan with the project location shown, the official map with the project
location shown, and a project-specific map showing the relevant elements from the previous
two maps tighter to the project area.
Surrounding properties on the east side of Hinesburg Road are in industrial/commercial use.
Relevant features of these maps are a scenic vista immediately north of the project area, a
proposed I89 exit 12B ramp, and a planned recreation path extending from the west side of VT
116 directly adjacent to the project to the west. There is an existing shared use path along
Meadowland Drive and a sidewalk along Landon Road, both south of the project area.
3. The project-specific map also shows a planned shared use path along the far side of VT 116.
The City Plan is agnostic as to which side of the road this path is on. The Board has historically
required projects along the east side of Hinesburg Road to provide space for planned
infrastructure, including construction of path segment in front of the medical office buildings
to the south and a determination in the Rye neighborhood on the west side of Hinesburg Road
that the path was not needed on the west side because it is being planned along the east side.
Given the lack of space between the right of way and the existing homes, and the scale of this
master plan which is far below the full development potential of the lot, Staff considers
provision of additional right-of-way to be unwarranted and recommends the Board confirm
their agreement with this interpretation.
• Proposed street, recreation path, transit, infrastructure, and open space connections between
existing, planned, and proposed development;
The proposed street runs east to west, connecting Hinesburg Road to the project open space
and then north to south, connecting to the Dynapower shared driveway to the south.
• A more detailed Development Context Analysis as required for an Infill or Redevelopment (IRD)
PUD under Article 15.C, as applicable; and
Not applicable.
• A description of how concerns raised in the Neighborhood Meeting will be addressed.
There were no concerns raised in the Neighborhood Meeting.
(D) Existing Conditions Report. A Site Conditions Map for the entire tract and accompanying
narrative, that depict and describe existing:
• Topographic conditions, including elevation contours, surface waters, wetlands, and other
natural features;
• Natural Resources under Article 12, or as otherwise regulated by the City;
• Existing streets, blocks, and utility corridors, including existing rights-of-way; and
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
10
• Existing land uses and structures, including any historic sites or structures listed or eligible
for listing on the Vermont State Register of Historic Places.
The site slopes from west to east, with natural resources limited to a possible wetland buffer in
the south east of the property. There is an existing sewer line along the east side of the
property within a City-owned easement.
(E) Development Plan. One or more maps and an accompanying narrative that depict and
describe the overall pattern, type, and density of development proposed for the entire project, and
for each phase of development, to include:
• Natural resource areas identified for protection, consistent with adopted Environmental
Protection Standards under Article 12;
As described above.
• Any designated Conservation Area or other open space areas,
10% of the buildable area for subdivision over 2 acres must be reserved as integrated civic
space lots. The applicant is proposing a 1 acre civic space lot on the eastern boundary of
the existing 10 acre lot. The applicant has identified in their application narrative that the
proposed civic space type is Community Garden.
4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to provide documentation showing that rights
to use the Community Garden civic space is to be shared between the various property owners
or tenants within the planned master plan area. Staff considers a verbal description may be
satisfactory to close the hearing, with a condition requiring documentation be produced prior
to permitting the phase 1 subdivision to proceed.
The applicant is proposing to locate the project’s stormwater treatment practices within this civic
space lot. Neighborhood civic spaces may include or incorporate stormwater management
practices, but any such practice must be designed to service the description and service intent of
the applicable civic space type and compliment the features. The Board may exclude stormwater
practices from the calculation of minimum civic space requirements where it finds the practices to
be excessive to the primary purpose of the civic space type.
5. While the request and determination of the type of civic space to be assigned to this lot will
take place with the Phase I preliminary plat, Staff recommends at this stage that the Board ask
the applicant to describe what measures will be included in order for the stormwater practice
to complement and serve the intent of the civic space.
• Any land area to be set aside for renewable energy production;
The applicant has indicated that the northeast corner of the property is currently dedicated
for PV Panel solar generation. This is within the proposed civic space. Staff considers the
scale and configuration of the PV Panel solar generation to not detract from the proposed
civic space. Staff notes that having a portion of the array within the civic space lot and
portion outside that lot may provide difficult from an ownership and management
perspective.
• The proposed street and block grid within and connecting each phase of development,
including the location of major streets by Street Type, and any existing rights-of-way,
easements or intersections identified for relocation;
The applicant is only proposing one street, and is proposing “Neighborhood Street –
Narrow” as the street type. This is the smallest permitted street type, the characteristics of
which are as follows.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
11
• Description: Narrow Streets are a special residential street type within the local
street network that provides for greater intimacy and ambiance as well as traffic
calming because of its limited width. Its application should be targeted to areas
where through trips are undesirable or unlikely and where parallel alternative
routes are accessible
• 5-ft Sidewalk required on one side. Sidewalk may be integrated with the street on
dead-end streets.
• 6-ft greenbelt required on each side
• On-street parking is prohibited
• 2 drive lanes at 9 – 10 ft width with a total pavement width of 20 – 22 ft is required
(1-ft shoulders on each side)
• 40-ft right of way width
• Vertical faced curb required
Staff is generally supportive of the requested street type. At the sketch plan meeting, the
applicant indicated it was their desire to retain the road as private during Phase 1, but
would make provisions for the road to be converted to a public road during subsequent
phases of development.
The applicant provided a request for modification of the required roadway components in
their application cover letter as follows.
The applicant is seeking a determination of Alternate Compliance for the proposed
typical section of this street which diverges from the standard typical street section
found in the newly published Department of Public Works Standards and
Specifications.
a. This is concurrently being forwarded to the City Department of Public Works to
address the durability and suitability of the proposed revisions.
b. Alternate approaches include:
i. Substitution of a crushed stone surface in lieu of a bituminous concrete
wearing surface.
ii. Substitution of a swale in lieu of curbing and enclosed drainage system.
iii. Consolidation of the sidewalk and roadway into one surface as part of a
shared use design for low volume roadways.
c. The proposed use of the Alternate Compliance route is one of the reasons that a
PUD approval is sought for this project.
Alternative compliance is an element of subdivision review requires that the applicant
demonstrate how their approach equally or better serves the project. Their request is
reviewed in detail as part of concurrent preliminary plat #SD-24-08. Comments of the
Department of Public Works pertaining to the roadway are included in concurrent
preliminary plat application #SD-24-08 to facilitate a cohesive conversation about the
roadway. However, determinations made by the Board as part of that discussion may
need to be rolled back into this master plan decision therefore Staff recommends the Board
keep this hearing open until such time as their discussion of the roadway is concluded.
6. Staff recommends the Board confirm with the applicant that their request to construct the
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
12
road as gravel only extends to Phase 1, and they would accept a condition requiring the road
be brought to public road standards at such time as the road extends to an adjacent lot. Staff
further recommends the Board confirm the applicant’s request to provide an open drainage
system (sheet flow to swale) and to omit a dedicated sidewalk applies to the entire master
plan. Assuming this is correct, and if the Board ultimately approves the applicant’s request,
Staff considers the applicant must modify the plans to indicate that Phase 2 includes
improvements to the Phase 1 roadway.
Additional discussion of the requested modifications, including the provision of a sidewalk,
is included in concurrent preliminary plat #SD-24-08.
• Proposed recreation paths, transit routes, infrastructure, and utility corridors between and
serving each phase of development;
7. The applicant has indicated utilities will be located along the proposed alignment. However
it appears from the provided plans that the applicant is proposing to locate at least a portion
of the proposed water and sewer lines outside of the proposed future right of way, as
reflected by a comments of the Director of Public Works included in the concurrent
preliminary plat. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the utilities to
be within the future right of way. If this is not possible, Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to work with the the Director of Public Works to satisfy their concerns pertaining
to utilities in the roadway prior to closing preliminary plat.
The South Burlington Water Director reviewed the provided plans on July 2, 2024 and August
23, 2024 and offers the following assembled comments.
The South Burlington Water Department has reviewed the Master Plan and the Preliminary
Plat Folder for the above referenced property. These comments are primarily directed to the
Master Plan but will have a significant impact on the preliminary plans as currently
provided.
1. The plans show a 1-1/2” water tap on the Hiensburg Rd. water main but also show a
fire hydrant and 8”tee and stub. Plans must be corrected to show an 8” water line from
Hinesburg Rd. Main material must also be identified.
2. Since each new building will be outfitted with a Type 13D sprinkler system, are the
proposed service line sizes large enough to support the sprinkler system?
3. The yard hydrant detail should be removed since yard hydrants are not permitted for
this project.
4. The following note must be provided on all future plan sheets and detail pages: All
water lines and appurtenances shall be installed in accordance with the Champlain Water
District Specifications and Details for the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances,
current edition, henceforth CWD Specifications.”
5. The project shall be constructed, completed, maintained, and operated in accordance
with the approved plans. No changes shall be made in the project without the written
approval of the appropriate CWD Division.
6. When a pipe material is specifically noted on the approved project drawings, the
contractor/developer shall not have the option of utilizing any other pipe material.
7. No water lines shall be installed after November 15 or before April 1 without prior
approval of the SBWD. The SBWD may restrict work before November 15 and after April 1 during
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
13
adverse weather conditions. The SBWD does not allow excavating water mains or service lines
during the winter months except by special permission.
8. The applicant or project engineer shall be responsible for the submittal of test results to
the SBWD. Submittal of all test results shall be required prior to the water main being placed into
service.
9. Record drawings, prepared by a VT licensed Professional Engineer shall be provided to
the SBWD in pdf. and Auto-CAD format. Drawings shall include ties to all gate valves and curb
stops to sub-meter accuracy.
10. It is the responsibility of the contractor to be familiar with the CWD Specifications beyond
what is included in this information. The Champlain Water District Specifications and Detail for
the Installation of Water Lines and Appurtenances information can be found at
www.champlainwater.org
The South Burlington water department will have further comments as this project proceeds
through the development review process.
These comments are supported by the Fire Marshal, who also indicated that if there were
not an 8” main and hydrant serving Phase 1, the homes will be required to be sprinklered
and subject to Fire Marshal inspection.
8. There is some confusion about whether the homes will be sprinklered or served by a hydrant.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address which type of fire protection will
be provided as part of the preliminary plat, though detailed pipe design may be a condition to
be addressed as part of the final plat.
• One or more designated Development Areas, to include land use allocation areas by
proposed use type(s), at minimum to include any designated residential areas,
nonresidential areas, mixed use areas, civic space areas, and the location of principal or
shared parking areas serving the development.
9 acres are proposed for development, with 1 acre reserved for Civic Space.
• Any proposed transition areas along the project perimeter, in which proposed development
will either be integrated with or buffered from adjoining properties and development;
The applicant has not proposed any integration or buffering with adjoining development.
The applicant has indicated there are existing hedgerows along the north and south property
lines.
• Existing buildings to be incorporated in proposed development or redevelopment; and
The applicant has proposed for each of the existing single family homes to be on its own
lot. The applicant has proposed for the existing non-conforming commercial parking
facility to be on a lot with a proposed single family home.
• Public and private transportation, infrastructure, and utility improvements necessary to
accommodate each phase of development, and the entire project at buildout, to include any
land, facilities, or improvements proposed for public dedication, consistent with the City’s
adopted Official Map.
As noted above, the Deputy Director of Capital Projects and the South Burlington Water
Director have indicated that right of way and utility improvements are necessary to
accommodate the full build of the development. Staff considers no additional public
infrastructure dedication to be necessary.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
14
(F) Summary Statistics. The following project statistics or metrics, presented in an easy to
reference tabular format, must be provided for the entire tract or project area, and for each phase
of development, unless waived by the DRB as not relevant or applicable to a particular project:
The applicant provided a table of Summary Statistics on Sheet MP-1. Notable information
is indicated below.
• Total tract or parcel area, and the area associated with each phase of development, in acres
and square feet; for protection under Article 12, and by resource type (Hazard, Level I, Level
II); and the area, in acres, of any designated Conservation Area(s) or lots, as shown on the
Master Plan;
• Total area, in acres, included in existing and planned street rights-of-way; the number and
length in feet of proposed streets by Street Type, and the number of street intersections,
as shown on the Master Plan.
0.69 acres of right of way are proposed in Phase I. 0.30 acres of right of are proposed in
Phase II.
• Total number of existing and planned blocks; and the block perimeter and average block
length for each block, in feet, as shown on the Master Plan.
The applicant has reported the average block length to be 475 ft.
The applicant has reported the block perimeter to be 2,100 ft.
15.A.16.B includes standards applicable to newly created blocks, which include the following
standards:
15.A.01(B)(1) Blocks must be of sufficient developable area, length and width to
accommodate building lots that meet zoning district, transect zone (building envelope
standards), or PUD standards with regard to intended use, lot size and dimensions
and, where applicable, proposed building types.
15.A.01(B)(4) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, or as approved
by the DRB under 15.A.01(B); in order to ensure and maintain a pedestrian-oriented scale
of development within residential and mixed use subdivisions:
(a) The block perimeter must not exceed 2,000 feet
(b) The minimum block length allowed is 200 feet; and
(c) The average block length (for all block sides or faces) must not exceed 500 feet.
15.A.01(B) is the section permitting modification of dimensional standards in the case of
physical site limitations provided the modification is the minimum necessary, does not affect
public health, safety, and welfare, and does not nullify the intent and purpose of the
regulations.
While these are subdivision and not master plan standards, Staff recommends the Board
consider them at this stage of review because if additional roads are needed, it will
significantly alter the master plan. Staff notes there are not specific lot size or building types
within a general PUD.
Staff considers that while this mater plan only contemplates one block, the proposed lot
sizes could permit development of a second block in the future after expiration of the current
master plan.
9. Staff recommends that the Board affirm the guidance provided at sketch that they will
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
15
approve the proposed block configuration.
• Total Buildable Area, in acres and square feet, as allocated by land use or building type,
within each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan, to exclude
existing and planned street rights-of-way, but to include existing and proposed civic space
lots and parking lots.
The applicant has indicated there are 8.35 acres of buildable area.
• Number of proposed dwelling units by housing or building type within each designated
Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan;
10. The applicant has indicated an intent to have twelve total dwelling units within the master plan
area, plus one or more possible accessory dwelling units. Staff recommends that in light of the
Act 47 / Act 181 allowances for home types, that the applicant and Board discuss and agree to
the maximum total dwelling units (not including ADUs) included in the Master Plan that would
not trigger an amendment to the Master Plan in the future. Based on the application materials
indicating a single unit dwelling on each residential lot, the total would be 12 units (3 existing
and 9 new).
Within a general PUD where more than four units are proposed, 15.C.07I(6) requires that a
mix of two or more building types be provided. Types of dwelling units are differentiated
by either housing type under Article 11.C or, within multi-family structures with more than
four (4) dwelling units, by number of bedrooms per unit. Each housing type has a
minimum and maximum lot size and other dimensional requirements.
The applicant has proposed twelve single family homes. Applying the standards of the R4
zoning district (as the applicant has done as an analogue for Act 47 compliance with
dimensional standards), housing types allowable within this type of development include:
• Cottage
• Detached house
• Carriage house
• Duplex
• Small multiplex
11. The applicant has proposed 10 single family homes and one duplex for a total of 11 homes.
Staff recommends the Board determine if this is an adequate mix.
• Total gross floor area by use or building type for nonresidential and mixed use development
within each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan; and
Not applicable
• Other statistics or data required by the DRB as necessary to determine conformance with
relevant standards under these Regulations.
Staff has noted additional requests for information in various red comments throughout
this report.
(G) Buildout Analysis and Budget. Based on the statistics provided under (F) above, the
applicant must also provide an analysis for each of the following based on total forecasted demand
at buildout, and as allocated for each phase of development, for use in determining the project’s
total “Buildout Budget”:
• Minimum and maximum acreage allocations by land use or building type, as percentages
of the Buildable Area within designated Development Areas;
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
16
Land use types are defined in 15.C.04D(4) as Residential, Mixed-Use, Civic Space, Resource
Land (consisting of protected natural resources and otherwise conserved areas), and
Unallocated. Street rights of way are excluded from buildable area altogether. The
applicant has provided the following totals. Staff has consolidated “right of way” into
“residential,” since roadways are defined to be included in the land use type they support.
Land Use Types
(acres) Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
Residential 3.54 2.21 1.93 0.76 8.44
Civic Spaces 0 1.0 0 0 1.0
Utility 0.13 0 0 0 0.13
Commercial 0.49 0 0 0 0.49
Unallocated 0 0 0 0 0
12. The applicant has not broken out the resource land. Since resource land (the wetland buffer) is
non-buildable, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the table to include
it as a separate line item. Staff considers this can be a condition of approval.
13. Rights of way are to be included in residential land use. Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to update the table.
14. As an existing non-conformity that is permitted to remain, Staff recommends the Board require
the applicant to include the commercial parking facility as part of the “residential” land use
type. Staff considers this can be a condition of approval.
• Gross and net (or effective) development densities by land use or building type;
Development density within a General PUD is determined by maximum development
density in the underlying zoning district. As discussed above, the applicant is proposing to
take advantage of Act 47 which permits 5 units per acre to increase the base density above
what is permitted in the underlying zoning district. The applicant has proposed 1.2 units per
acre. However, Staff considers this may change when the building type mix is updated as
required above.
• Minimum number or percentage of affordable housing units required within residential and
mixed-use development areas, as applicable pursuant to Article 18;
18.01B(2) requires provision of 10% inclusionary units (assuming all units are ownership and
not rental units) for all development that will result in the creation of twelve or more total
dwelling units through subdivision, Planned Unit Development, new construction, or the
conversion of an existing structure or structures from non-residential to residential use.
Accessory dwelling units do not count in determining whether the threshold of twelve units
is met. 18.01(3) exempts “the redevelopment of existing dwelling units in a project that
produces no additional units.” Whether 18.01B(2) applies depends on how the applicant
addresses the requirement for a mix of dwelling unit types under 15.C.07I(6) above. If twelve
or more units are proposed, 18.01B(2) requires 10% of the units be inclusionary, rounded up.
15. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe how they will meet this
requirement. Staff considers the building type mix to be a relevant consideration for
inclusionary units, as is timing of provision of the inclusionary units.
• Minimum percentage, and area in square feet, of required civic space(s) within designated
Development Areas;
The applicant has indicated 8.35 acres of buildable area, and 1.0 acres of civic space.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
17
• Maximum peak hour trip generation rates, by use type;
16. The applicant indicated 12 PM peak hour trips for the development. Staff recommends the
Board confirm this number is unchanged since the applicant has increased the proposed
number of units since the initial submission.
• Maximum water supply and wastewater system demand, by use type;
17. The applicant has estimated 4,160 gpd water and 2,646 gpd wastewater (including infiltration
& inflow). Staff recommends the Board confirm this number is unchanged since the applicant
has increased the proposed number of units since the initial submission.
• Maximum total impervious surface (percentage, total square footage), and volume of
stormwater runoff per designated Development Area; and
The applicant estimates 112,182 sf total impervious, including a 10% buffer for future
expansion, and 1.317 acre feet of runoff during the 10 year storm event.
The City Stormwater Department reviewed the provided plans on July 8, 2024 and offers
the following comments.
(a) The response to the requirements of 15.B.05.6.c states that “The infrastructure
requirements are either readily available or will primarily be accommodated in the first
phase of the project.” The proposed gravel wetland looks to be the only proposed
stormwater treatment accounted for in the Master Plan. Please note that all new
impervious will need to receive treatment from a stormwater treatment practice that
conforms with the standards laid out in section 13.05 of the LDRs.
• Other measures or parameters required by the DRB as necessary to identify and limit the
forecasted impacts of development on municipal facilities, infrastructure and services, and
properties and uses within the vicinity of the project.
Staff, in their review of this application, have not identified additional necessary buildout
analysis or budget information beyond that which has already been required by the LDR.
Deficiencies in the provided information are described herein.
(H) Design Standards. The application must include proposed standards, specifications,
illustrations, best management practices, or other forms of guidance for the following, consistent
with City regulations in effect at the time of Master Plan approval, as applicable to all subsequent
development under the Master Plan:
The purpose of this section to evaluate the standards the applicant has set for themselves that will
ensure a cohesive design within the master plan area and that will apply to the entire Master Plan.
• Protections for natural resources defined and regulated under Article 12, consistent with the
standards and accepted mitigation measures of Article 12.
The wetland buffer is currently maintained as lawn. No additional protections are proposed.
• The mix or allocation of land uses, as specified for each phase of development;
The applicant has proposed 12 single family homes and one accessory dwelling unit. The applicant
has also noted that there is an existing commercial use. While it is true that the applicant has an
existing non-conforming commercial parking facility, since it is non-conforming Staff considers it
should not be official included in the approved mix of land uses, though it is permitted to remain
under 3.15B.
• Typical street cross-sections by Street Type, as referenced under Article 11.A;
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
18
The applicant has proposed a neighborhood narrow street type, the details of which are
discussed above and in concurrent preliminary plat application #SD-24-08.
• Typical Civic Space and other proposed open space types, as referenced under Article 11.B;
The applicant is proposing a community garden type civic space.
• Typical block and building lot dimensions and configurations, consistent with applicable
subdivision and zoning district regulations, or PUD type, and for designated transition areas as
necessary to complement or match the adjoining pattern of development;
As noted previously, the created block perimeter is approximately 2,100 ft. Lot dimensions are
discussed under dimensional standards above. Staff considers no transitions to be needed.
• Typical building types, as applicable and referenced under Article 11.C, including proposed
housing types, and building elevations;
The need for additional building types is discussed above.
• Building height and setback standards as applicable by zoning district, PUD or building type;
and for designated transition areas, as necessary to complement or match the adjoining
pattern and form of development;
Proposed heights and setbacks are discussed under dimensional standards above.
• Parking standards and specifications for off-site, on-street, and on-site parking, including any
charging stations needed to serve proposed development, consistent with City parking
standards under Section 13.01, Article 14, and by Street Type;
The applicant has proposed only off-street parking. Staff notes all homes are subject to 3.17
Building Design Standards, which require front facing garages for single and two family
homes to be set back 8-ft from the front and to be no more than 40% of the width of the
building. Front parking is prohibited for homes containing more than two units.
• Setbacks, buffering, screening, or other mitigation measures necessary to separate
incompatible land uses, particularly within designated transition areas;
Staff considers no additional setbacks to be needed.
• Overall lighting plan, including typical fixtures, consistent with relevant lighting requirements
under Section 13.07 and Appendix D;
No street lighting is proposed.
• Landscaping and screening specifications, consistent with relevant landscaping standards
under Section 13.04;
Pursuant to 13.04 Landscaping, Screening, and Street Trees, street tree planting is required for
all public streets in a subdivision or planned unit development. No specifications for street
trees are current provided in the Land Development Regulations or Department of Public
Works specifications, though Staff anticipates this deficiency will shortly be corrected. Staff
recommends a street tree spacing of 30’ with a minimum size of 2 ½” at planting (consistent
with parking lot tree requirements). The City Arborist must review all proposed landscaping
plans, and typically requires a mix of tree species with no more than 50% of one type. Staff
considers this should be noted in the master plan, but the details of street tree design will be
reviewed as part of the preliminary or final plat application for each phase involving
construction of a street.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
19
• Specifications for the siting and design of new buildings, and the retrofit of existing buildings,
as necessary to meet applicable energy standards under Section 3.18, and to incorporate
renewable energy installations; and
3.18 pertains to residential building energy standards. The applicant will be required to record
the RBES certificate in the land records upon construction of each new building.
• Any additional architectural or design guidance for each type or phase of development, and for
proposed transition areas, that is intended to integrate existing and new forms of development,
and to ensure coordinated and cohesive phased development.
No additional architectural or design guidance is proposed.
(I) Phasing Plan. The application must include a narrative or table and map that clearly
identify, describe and depict each phase of development, including properties included, designated
development areas by use type, major streets, supporting infrastructure and facility improvements,
civic spaces, and other public amenities to be provided prior to or in association with each phase;
and a schedule for the timing and sequence of development over the period covered by the Master
Plan, consistent with the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program and Official Map.
The applicant has provided a phasing plan but has omitted any discussion of phase timing. The
provided plan indicates Phase 1 is proposed for 2024 – 2029 and Phases 2 and 3 are indicated as
“Future Potential Development.”
The master plan may only be approved for 6 years, with one possible future extension, allowing the
applicant up to 10 years to complete the project. After the end of 6 years or the end of the extension
period, this Master Plan will expire. Any and all subsequent development will be subject to rules in
effect at the time of re-application. Staff reminds the applicant that under the draft LDR warned by
City Council for public hearing on September 16, 2024, no additional residential development will
be permitted in this zoning district.
(1) An applicant for a Conservation PUD may elect to not provide a schedule, timing, and
sequence of development for phases beyond the first phase by labelling them as Reserved.
In rendering its decision in such an instance, the Board shall clearly indicate that an
amendment to the Master Plan, enumerating the schedule, timing, and sequence of
development shall be required in order for Reserved phases to proceed to the next stage of
review.
Not applicable.
(2) Each proposed phase of development should account for at least 20 percent of the total
project area or expected buildout in units/square feet; incorporate one or more distinct
areas identified for coordinated development and management; and the infrastructure and
facilities necessary to support that phase of development.
The applicant has provided the following table.
Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
# of Units 3 3 3 3
% of total Units 25% 25% 25% 25%
Staff considers this criterion met.
#MP-24-03
Staff Comments
20
(3) Any temporary or interim structures or uses (e.g., buildings, parking, construction, or
staging areas) intended for conversion or redevelopment in a subsequent phase should also
be identified in the phasing plan.
The applicant has indicated no construction or staging areas are proposed.
18. Staff recommends the Board confirm this to be the case, as use of areas not included within
the limits of a particular zoning permit may constitute a violation of the regulations. Staff
considers inclusion of a construction area, particularly for the road, to be a safeguard against
potential zoning violations.
(J) Management Plan. A narrative description of the proposed management structure
responsible for project development, to include all principals or entities with direct control over and
responsibility for the financing, permitting, construction, and completion of development under the
Master Plan; and, following project completion, for long-term ownership, management, operation,
and maintenance of capital and community assets.
The applicant has indicated that WGM Associates is the owner of the property. Following
completion, the management of the common infrastructure is proposed to be outlined in a
Homeowners Association Declaration and Covenants.
The management plan must also clearly identify any streets, infrastructure, facilities, civic or other
open spaces proposed for public dedication under each phase of development, consistent with the
City’s adopted Official Map and Capital Improvement Plan, for consideration under subsequent DRB
reviews and conditions of approval or under development agreements to be approved by the City
Council.
The applicant has indicated there is no proposed public infrastructure. Staff considers the
applicant must offer the road as public infrastructure otherwise it would not be permitted to be
more than 200-ft long.
19. However, Staff recommends the Board include a condition recommending that City Council not
accept the roadway until such time as it connects to a roadway on the adjacent property to the
south.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address
the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Senior Development Review Planner