Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-17-21 - Supplemental - 1699 Hinesburg RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: September 15, 2017 SD_17_20_1580DorsetStreet_JJJ_Cider Mill II Sketch-2017- Plans received: August 15, 2017 09-19.docx 1699 Hinesburg Road & 1580 Dorset Street Owner/Applicant JJJ South Burlington, LLC 21 Carmichael St., Suite 201 Essex Junction, VT 05452 Propertv Information Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-21 Meeting date: September 19, 2017 Engineer O'Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Dr. Essex Junction, VT 05452 Tax Parcel 0570-R1580, 0860-01731, 0860-01625_R SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District- Village Residential, SEQ Zoning District- Natural Resource Protection 65.49 acres .ocation Map PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-17-21 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258 unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill 11) of the project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 45 units to 154 units. The 154 units will consist of 70 single family lots, 54 two (2) family dwellings, and 30 three (3) unit multi -family dwellings, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road. COMMENTS Applicant has previously been approved for 109 housing units in Phase II. In this application, they are proposing to develop on the northernmost portion of the Cider Mill property, which had previously been left aside for future phases. Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A. Dimensional Requirements: This development (Cider Mill I and II) received the following dimensional standards waivers from the Board as part of the Master Plan (#MP-07-01): • Single family minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft. • Single family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60% • Single family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42% • Multi -family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60% • Multi -family maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42% • Multi -family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet • Multi -family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet B. Master Plan The property is presently subject to a Master Plan and this project will require an amendment to that plan. At least one reason for the change to the Master Plan is the increase in the total number of units, but there are other possible reasons that could also necessitate the change. C. Density The SEQ-NR and the SEQ-VR districts allow 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The acreage involved in the entire Cider Mill Development (Cider Mill I and 11) is 161.59 acres, therefore the development has 193 units of inherent density and 646 units of maximum density. Cider Mill I included 149 units, therefore 44 units of inherent density remain. As part of the Master Plan approval, the applicant submitted the legal documents pertaining to the option to purchase development rights for Cider Mill I and Cider Mill II for review by the City Attorney, up to a maximum of 326 units. The development rights must be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 44 remaining of the property's inherent density. Therefore as presented in this application, the Cider Mill II Project will need 110 TDRs. 2 D. Access & Circulation Staff has reviewed the proposed street layout in relation to Article 9 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which states that the intention of the street design criteria is to provide a system of attractive, pedestrian -oriented streets that encourage slower speeds, maximize connections between and within neighborhoods, and contribute to neighborhood livability. And further states Dead end streets are strongly discouraged (e.g. cul de sacs). Dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels... Staff considers the proposed network of streets to be well-connected and pedestrian -friendly with sidewalks throughout that lead to Hinesburg Road and into Cider Mill I. Based on feedback provided by the Board at sketch plan application SD-16-27, the applicant has removed a cu-de-sac and replaced it with a loop road and neighborhood park. The applicant has requested that the Board consider whether they would approve of replacing the segment of Russett Road between Liberty Lane and Lindamac Street with a 10-foot wide recreation and emergency vehicle path. The purpose of this replacement would be to reduce wetland impacts. Staff considers that this change would not meet the standards of Section 15.12J, but also acknowledges that the referenced segment of Russett Road would not be the preferred route for vehicular egress. Planning and Zoning, the Department of Public Works, and the Fire Department are amenable to the applicant - proposed option with the caveat that additional details are needed during Preliminary Plat review. 1. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether reducing the width of Russett Road to 18 feet for its entire length would achieve the some goal. 2. Staff recommends that the Board discuss whether the applicant has received an evaluation from the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) on whether either or both of a northbound left turn lane or southbound deceleration lane is warranted. Further Staff recommends that the Board discuss whether a traffic study has been prepared and if it evaluates whether turn lanes out of Nadeaucrest Drive are warranted. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the sidewalk would better serve residents on Lindamac Street if it were located on the other side of the proposed roadway. E. Natural Resource Protection Section 12.02 provides standards for new encroachment into Class II wetland buffers and Section 15.18A provides standards for connectivity of open spaces and natural resource areas. The applicant is encouraged to consider the connectivity of the resource area labeled "mid site undeveloped space" with the remainder of the wetland complex when selecting cross -road conveyances. 3 F. Public Facilities, Parks and Open Space Section 9.07 provides specific standards relating to park design in the Southeast Quadrant, which the proposed project must meet. Of particular note is that "Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parked parkland per 1,000 population." It appears to staff that there are some open areas in the development which may meet the design and size guidelines of Section 9.07. Staff notes that when the existing Cider Mill I was permitted the design and size guidelines in Section 9.07 were not in place and therefore Cider Mill I residents may be underserved in terms of parkland, which makes the establishment of adequate park space especially important in Cider Mill II. Furthermore, the additional housing units proposed in this application were not contemplated at that time and this impacts whatever parks and open space currently exist in the surrounding area. The applicant met with the Recreation & Parks Committee on December 19, 2016 to discuss the project. The plan presented to the committee was the prior version of the sketch plan layout that included the Nadeau parcel and 167 units. The applicant indicates the sketch plan reviewed by the Committee included 3.41 acres of useable open space. The Committee voted to endorse the Cider Mill II development. The applicant indicates the revised preliminary plan proposes 2.90 acres of useable open space. No open space was provided within the now eliminated Nadeau parcel. The only change in the proposed recreation space from the prior to the current sketch plan layout is the reduction of the community garden area labeled open space 'E'. The area has been limited in order to create space for 8 duplex units along Nadeaucrest Drive and has been designated as a community garden. In order to obtain preliminary plat approval, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the proposed park land meet the standards of Section 9.07. 4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their intended open space amenities (e.g. playgrounds, sports apparatus, benches). The applicant is proposing two pedestrian path easements, one connecting to Cider Mill I and the second connecting to the parcel owned by the City of South Burlington. 5. Staff recommends the Board review with the applicant their proposed management strategy for making these easements useable as pedestrian paths. Staff has included for Board consideration a sketch of existing and planned trails and paths which could potentially connect to Cider Mill II. Of note are the Scott Property to the southwest and it's planned connections to Shelburne Pond and the current Clair Solar farm to the north with potential connections to Hinesburg Road. 6. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the Application providing at least one pedestrian path easement to the Clair Solar farm. The applicant is providing a recreation path consistent with the comprehensive plan to connect Hinesburg Road to the existing portion of the Cider Mill development. Between sketch and preliminary, Staff proposes to present the current plan to the bicycle and pedestrian committee for discussion of how the proposed recreation path shall connect to Somerfield Ave. G. Building Orientation and Design Sections 9.08 and 9.09 of the LDRs lay out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the 12 proposed housing units will have entrances facing a public road —a requirement of the regulations. The materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate the other Residential Design standards of the LDRs. The current proposal shows a variety of housing types (single family, carriage home, and duplex) and the materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate whether there will also be a mix of housing styles (ex: ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.). 7. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant to review the Residential Design requirements and recommendations of Section 9.08(C) and 9.09(C) prior to future stages of the review process. 8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their intended mix of housing types throughout the development. H. Lot Ratios Section 9.08(A)(4) states that lots "shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended." The materials required for sketch do not require an applicant to submit sufficient information to evaluate dimensional information on the proposed single-family house lots. In the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD-16-01) similarly sized and proportioned single-family lots in a near identical layout were approved by the Board in the southernmost section of the project. In the present proposal, the south portion gains four single family lots. The homes within the north portion of the project are significantly reconfigured compared to the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD-16-01), though the units on the northern portion of the project are not proposed to be on individual lots therefore section 9.08A (4) does not apply. The four new lots on the south portion of the project are of similar proportion to the previously approved lots. Staff considers that the proposed single-family lots do not all meet the ratio requirement of Section 9.08A(4); however, given that the Board has previously permitted similarly sized and proportioned lots in the south section of the project, staff does not consider it appropriate to re -open a discussion on those lot proportions. I. Parking The applicant is proposing parking along one side of the road throughout much of the development. South Burlington prohibits overnight parking on public streets during the winter, thus the applicant is encouraged to provide sufficient parking for residents and overnight guests within the individual lots, and consider whether there may be excessive daytime guest parking. Staff notes that parking is not required on local streets within the SEQ-VR or SEQ-NR zones. Staff considers that a degree of on -street parking may be warranted in the vicinity of the multi -family and duplexes, as well as in the vicinity of the neighborhood parks. J. Fire and Public Works The City Engineer reviewed the application and offers the following comments for the applicant's consideration in preparing their preliminary plat application. 1. A lighting plan will be required to show lighting levels at intersections and mid -block crossings, Details of the proposed light fixtures will also be required. 2. A signage and marking plan will be required for preliminary approval. 3. All pavement markings must comply with the prevailing Vermont Agency of Transportation ("VTrans") specification for Pavement Marking Tape, Type I. Final material selection shall be approved by the Department of Public Works. 4. For sight distance purposes, parking will need to be prohibited on Pippin Lane near the mid - block crossing on the curve, approximately station 11+68. 5 The Fire Chief provided the following comments on the application. 1. Each phase of the Cider Mill project shall have fire hydrants installed and tested before construction of combustible buildings are started pursuant to NFPA 1 Chapter 18. Minimum hydrant flow shall be based on NFA- NFF formula plus a safety margin of not less than 10%. 2. Fire Department access to these phases including temporary turn around shall be installed when construction begins to each phase. 3. All roads shall comply with Fire Department apparatus turning radii (includes mutual aid apparatus). 4. Parking of construction vehicles shall be restricted to one side of the road to maintain Fire Department access during construction. 5. The Project shall comply with NFPA 241— Safe Guarding buildings under construction, alteration or demolition. K. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. L. Phasing The applicant has submitted a phasing plan showing four phases of development. The phasing plan takes into consideration the LDR's prohibition on greater than 50 units accessed via a single access point. Staff does wonder if units 143 and 144 should be included in Phase II rather than Phase I, or whether additional infrastructure to support units 143 and 144 should be included in Phase I. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the issues identified herein with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, 1 Marla Keene, Development Review Planner A