Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-24-08 - Supplemental - 0850 Hinesburg Road (22) CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane Phone: 802-864-2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 Fax: 802-864-2271 E-Mail: dmarshall@cea-vt.com August 21, 2024 Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Development Review Planner City of South Burlington Planning & Zoning 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT, 05403 Re: WGM Associates MP-24-03 Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application (PUD) and Master Plan Application 896-950 Hinesburg Road Dear Ms. Keene: Thank you for taking the time to review the draft staff report with Keith and Nicole Wright and myself. Based upon that discussion, we have revised the plan set and have offered the following response in bold font to each of the red font action items from the draft report. 2. The applicant has not yet provided the required minutes of the neighborhood meeting. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to do so, and to demonstrate either through verbal or written testimony how the comments at the neighborhood meeting were taken into consideration. The Neighborhood meeting was held and the meeting minutes distributed. 3. 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. No comment. 4. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify what is meant by “a portion of Lot 2 is double counted with Phase II,” as this area is not clear from the provided plans. It may be necessary to modify the phasing plan to show an overlap between the two phases. This should have said Phase I and Not Phase II Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 2 of 6 August 21, 2024 as the roadway on Lot 2 is included in the Phase I outline. Sheet MP-1 has been revised to reflect the corrected phasing depiction. 5. The phasing plan should also be clarified with regard to the planned roadway. The red outlines of the phases do not match the text descriptions. The phasing lines will be revised. The Phase I outline was intended to depict all of the open space lot. This has been revised to include only that portion of the proposed road to be constructed in Phase I with the remaining portion depicted for the Phase II work. 6. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to modify the subdivision so that the roadway is in a right of way suitable for dedication, consistent with 15.A.14C, The plans have been revised to place the proposed road within a dedicated ROW Parcel. and revise the remaining lot configuration to result in lots that meet the required minimum lot size and have frontage on the future street. Staff notes the provisions of 13.12 Utility Cabinets and Similar Structures may pertain to the lot containing the existing silo and shed. With the creation of the dedicated right-of-way parcel, Lot 1E has been created to support the utility uses associated with the Silo and equipment shed. 7. 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. Acknowledged. 8. 8. 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 will provide testimony to the Board to that effect. Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 3 of 6 August 21, 2024 9. 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 the applicant and Board discuss whether and how the stormwater facility would be allowable as part of the civic space lot using the applicable civic spaces, since if this is not acceptable, the applicant will need to assign additional land for civic space use. The applicant will be prepared to discuss this. 10. Staff considers the Board must, at minimum, require the applicant to locate the proposed road within it’s own ROW and offer the east-west segment to the City as part of Phase 1. The proposed road has not been laced within its own dedicated right-of-way for phase I. Staff recommends the Board additionally include a condition recommending the City Council not accept the roadway until such time as it connects to another roadway. Acknowledged. 11. Whether to require the full roadway in Phase 1 is a significant decision point for the Board on this application. Staff recommends the Board discuss the above comments pertaining to the required roadway components. The applicant will be prepared to discuss this item at the hearing. 12. The applicant has indicated utilities will be located along the proposed alignment. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to show the proposed configuration, omitting final design details, as part of this master plan application. The proposed Phase I and future utility lines have been added to Sheet C2.2. 13. Staff considers the correct course of action is to require the applicant to address the comments of the Water Director in Phase 1, but if the applicant has an alternative proposal that provides reasonable surety that the water line be constructed, such as a bond lasting the duration of the master plan, the Board may consider it, subject to review of the Water Director. Subsequent discussions have occurred with the Water Department which is now reflected on Sheet C2.2 – Site Utility Plan. This includes a hydrant placed on the east side of Lot 1C with service liens extending to Lot 1D. easement provisions for the proposed extension of this main as part of phase II construction is provided for on the Plat plan. 14. Staff recommends that the Board determine whether they will permit the proposed block length. Acknowledged. Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 4 of 6 August 21, 2024 15. The applicant has indicated an intent to have eleven 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 / H 687 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 11 units (3 existing and 8 new). With the requirement to allocated no less than 20% of the residential density to any single phase of development, the applicant has modified Phase 3 to include a duplex structure, one of the units to be constructed and offered as an inclusionary unit. The new total would be 12 units (3 existing and 9 new). 16. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant how they will meet the requirement for a mix of housing types. The ix of housing units has now been met with the inclusion of a duplex unit on Lot 3C 17. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide the information to fill in the missing spaces in the below table for recordkeeping purposes. The applicant has excluded the existing single family home lots to remain from the computation of buildout analysis. Staff considers they should be included in phase 1 as residential land use, since no improvements are necessary to complete them. Outlined below is the updated unit and areal summaries. Phasing Distribution by Units Land Use Types Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Residential 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% Phasing Distribution by Area (Acres) Land Use Types Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Residential 3.33 1.72 1.59 0.76 7.40 Civic Space 0 1.00 0 0 1.00 ROW 0.21 0.49 0.34 0 1.04 Utility 0.13 0 0 0 0.13 Commercial 0.49 0 0 0 0.49 Unallocated 0 0 0 0 0.00 4.16 2.21 1.93 0.76 10.06 41.4% 21.9% 19.2% 7.5% Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 5 of 6 August 21, 2024 18. If applicable, 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. With the requirement to allocated no less than 20% of the residential density to any single phase of development, the applicant has modified Phase 3 to include a duplex structure, one of the units to be constructed and offered as an inclusionary unit. The new total would be 12 units (3 existing and 9 new). 19. Staff recommends the Board confirm that no street lighting is proposed. No street lights are proposed. 20. Staff recommends the Board determine whether this is acceptable, taking into consideration this standard also can be applied to 20% of the units per phase. This has bene addressed with the increase in unit density within Phase 3. 21. 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. Acknowledged. This completes our general summary of the proposed project. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 864-2323 x310. Respectfully, David S. Marshall, P.E. Project Engineer Attachments: Plans and Mapping P1 – Plat Plan Dated 02-27-2023 – Rev 8-21-24 C1.0 - Existing Conditions Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions C1.1 - Existing Conditions Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions C2.0 - Proposed Conditions Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 L1.0 – Landscaping Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 L1.1 – Landscaping Retention Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 MP1 – Master Plan - Phasing Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 MP2 - Master Plan - Area Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 C2.1 - Proposed Grading Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 C2.2 - Proposed Utility Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 C3.0 - EPSC Site Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 C3.1 – EPSC Notes and Details Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions C3.2 – EPSC Details Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions Ms. Marla Keene, P.E. Page 6 of 6 August 21, 2024 C4.0 – Road Profile and Details Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions C4.1 – Sewer Details Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions C4.2 – Water Details Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 8-21-24 C4.3 – Storm Details Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions C4.3 – Gravel Wetland Details Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 7-29-24 SW1 – Stormwater Site Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 7-29-24 SW2 – Stormwater Site Plan Dated 03-01--2024 – Rev 7-29-24 C5.0 – 5.5 Specifications Dated 03-01--2024 – No Revisions cc: CEA File 24110.00 P:\AutoCADD Projects\2024\24110-WGM Associates\3-Permitting\1-Local Applications\2-Preliminary\Keene - Prel & Masterl Cover Letter 8- 21-24.rtf