Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMP-24-03 - Supplemental - 0850 Hinesburg Road (2) 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: #MP-24-03 850 Hinesburg Road DATE: October 15, 2024 Development Review Board meeting 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. CONTEXT The Board reviewed this application on September 4, 2024. The applicant also submitted revised materials on October 8 consisting of a revised master plan phasing plan (sheet MP-1) and a revised context plan (sheet MP-2). This memorandum provides a summary of the revised materials. Where the Board indicated satisfaction with a criterion on September 4, and no changes are proposed affecting compliance with the criterion, the criterion is omitted from this memorandum. The majority of outstanding comments on this master plan application and on the concurrent Phase 1 preliminary plat application pertain to the proposed roadway and the proposed utilities, and stem from interdepartmental review of the application. Staff considers the Board may elect to keep the master plan hearing open until discussion of the concurrent site plan application is complete, and close both applications in one motion. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following comments. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are in red. C) MASTER PLAN REVIEW CRITERIA 15.B.04 Master Plan Components (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: • 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. • 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. It was further clarified on September 4 that the applicant’s proposal is to construct the road in Phase 1 as 20-ft wide without a separate sidewalk, and in future phases pave the roadway and add a sidewalk. The Phase 1 and full build conditions would include an open drainage system (swales and culverts). Additional discussion of the requested modifications 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; Design of the road and water line are the most significant outstanding issues for this project, and both are discussed here and in concurrent preliminary plat SD-24-08. Based on feedback provided by the Departments of Public Works and Water, the applicant has proposed to expand the right-of-way so that the water line is located within it. The applicant has not shown the proposed sewer line on the master plan. Staff infers however from the plans provided with concurrent Phase 1 preliminary plat application #SD-24-08 that the applicant is proposing to locate the sewer line within the ROW except for a portion (connecting to the municipal sewer) within the proposed civic space lot. The Director of Public Works provided the following updated relevant comments on the revised plans on October 15. • As part of any future phase, entire road must be upgraded to meet current DPW standards. This includes the existing section of road between Hinesburg Road and the new portion of Maxine Way included in phase 1 as well as all roads constructed as part of phase 1. • The project shall be constructed in accordance with South Burlington Public Works Standards and Specifications. • I believe that an updated plat is on the way. I’d like to review the proposed future ROW width and location. It is not clear based on the current plat which utilities and structures are proposed to be located within the ROW. It should be clarified at what point the City is being asked to accept wastewater infrastructure (smh#3 and to the east)? Staff note: This comment is discussed below. • The project proposes to eliminate the hammerhead turn around constructed as part of phase 1 when the road is extended. Phase 2 must include a turnaround at it’s end. Staff note: While Staff is generally supportive of this comment, Staff recommends the Board word this condition slightly differently to require a hammerhead turn-around at the end of Phase 2 if it does not connect to a road on the adjacent lot. • The project must obtain drinking water and wastewater allocations for the additional development. • The "Neighborhood Street - Narrow" street typology does not accommodate on-street parking. Applicant will need to provide street signage to this effect. • The application should review the City's stormwater ordinance to ensure that policies related to the future acceptance of stormwater infrastructure are clear. Aside from as indicated in embedded Staff notes above, Staff recommends the Board incorporate the comments of the Director of Public Works as conditions of approval. The South Burlington Water Director reviewed the revised plans on October 11 and offers the following updated comments. 1. There is a 1-1/2” water line proposed for Phase 1 of this project. That line shall be disconnected from the Hinesburg Road water line when the new water main is installed. Disconnection shall include closing the corporation, disconnecting the water line from the corporation and wrapping the area of water main with V-Bio sleeve. Each existing water service must also be connected to the proposed water main depicted in the Master Plan. 2. The connection of the proposed new water main on the water line serving the Lane Press and Dynapower will require approval from the owner prior to connection. A three- way valve cluster will be required at the time of connection. 3. A permanent easement must be provided to the City for the water main installed outside of the proposed street right-of-way, centered over the installed water main. 4. Prior to construction of the water main proposed for the Master Plan, the SBWD shall be provided plans for further review and comment. Comments of the Fire Marshal were provided on October 17 and are including in the concurrent preliminary plat memorandum. (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: It does not appear the applicant has updated the table of Summary Statistics on Sheet MP- 1 to reflect the revised future ROW width. Some of the statistics are unchanged, while many should be updated. The following information should be provided. • 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. • 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. • 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. • Number of proposed dwelling units by housing or building type within each designated Development Area and block shown on the Master Plan; • 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 • Other statistics or data required by the DRB as necessary to determine conformance with relevant standards under these Regulations. Staff considers the master plan map graphically represents these statistics, and comments affecting them are embedded within this report. If the project is ultimately approved, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the statistics on sheet MP-1 as a condition of approval. (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; 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 Staff comments pertaining to this land use table are unchanged from the initial submission, and may be addressed as conditions of approval. Staff has replicated those comments as follows for reference. 1. 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. 2. Rights of way are to be included in residential land use. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the table. 3. 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; The applicant on September 4 noted that 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, while this project only creates nine (9) new units Staff has reviewed this interpretation and agrees. • Minimum percentage, and area in square feet, of required civic space(s) within designated Development Areas; Since street rights of way are excluded from buildable area, the applicant must update the buildable area computations. Staff considers this can be a condition of approval. (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. • Typical street cross-sections by Street Type, as referenced under Article 11.A; The applicant has proposed a neighborhood narrow street type, which has a required ROW width of 40-ft minimum. The applicant has requested relief from several elements of the required cross-section for Phase 1. The applicant’s request for relief from the required cross section for master plan extends only to the proposal for a ditch and culvert drainage system in lieu of a curb and gutter system, with which request the Board indicated they had no concerns at the September 4 hearing. The applicant has proposed a ROW which varies in width from 44-ft for phase 2 and 52 to 63 ft in phase 1. There is one section that is proposed to be curved on one side and straight lines on the other. 1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update the plat and revise the ROW to be more regularly and consistently shaped prior to closing the master plan. (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. Because the project requires creation of a civic space lot, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to create the proposed HOA prior to recording the subdivision mylar for Phase 1. 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. 2. The applicant must offer the road as public infrastructure otherwise it would not be permitted to be more than 200-ft long. No discussion of when the road must be offered has yet occurred. Staff recommends the Board require an irrevocable offer of dedication and deed for the roadway be provided as part of the Phase 2 subdivision application. Staff considers provision of an irrevocable offer for Phase 1 may result in future property owners requesting City Council take over a roadway that does not meet City standards. In addition, the totality of the road will not be subdivided until Phase 2. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, P.E. Senior Development Review Planner