HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-14-15 - Decision - 1075 Hinesburg Road#SD-14-15
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
RYE ASSOCIATES LLC -1075 HINESBURG ROAD
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-14-15
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Final plat application #SD-14-15 of Rye Associates to subdivide an 18.01 acre panel into 30 lots
for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi -family dwellings, and 3) a
5,000 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on June 3, and June 17, 2014. Greg
Rabideau & Dave Marshall represented the applicant. It is noted here that this project also
needed master plan approval, and that application, #MP-13-01, was approved by the DRB on
February 4, 2014.
Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the
Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicant, Rye Associates LLC, seeks final plat approval to subdivide an 18.01 acre
panel for development of: 1) 36 single family dwellings, 2) four 4-unit multi -family
dwellings, and 3) a 5,000 sq. ft. general office building, 1075 Hinesburg Road.
2. The owner of record of the subject property is Rye Associates, LLC.
3. The application was received on May 6, 2014.
4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential &
Village Commercial Zoning Districts.
5. The plans submitted consist of a 62 page set of plans, page two (2) entitled, "Subdivision
Plat Rye Meadow P. U. D. 1075 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VT", prepared by Civil
Engineering Associates, Inc., dated May 23, 2013, and last revised on 3/24/14.
6. Master Plan application #MP-13-01 was approved by the DRB on February 4, 2014. For
purposes of judicial clarity and economy, decisions on master plans and preliminary
plats are separate and distinct. Matters relevant only to Master Plan approval for this
project will not be repeated here; matters relevant to both may also be included here to
help all parties move forward toward final plat approval.
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
WAIVER REQUESTS
As a part of this application, the following waiver requests were submitted on 1/14/14:
1. Section 3.06(C) Setbacks and Buffers, Yards Abutting a Planned Street. See review
under SEQ Residential Building Standards.
2. Section 9.07(B)(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw
in any SEQ subdistrict shall conform to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of
one to two (1:2), with ratios of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended. See review under SEQ NR
Subdistrict.
3. Section 9.11 D. (4) Parking Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of these
Regulations, each nonresidential use shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces
per 1,000 gross square feet. The DRB may grant a parking waiver in conformance
with Section 13.1(N)(3). See review under Parking, SEQ-VC.
4. Section 13.01 Off Street Parking and Loading. See review under SEQ-NR Parking.
5. All the appendix Table C-2 Dimensional Standards requested except (J).
DENSITY AND TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
The base density of the parcel generated by the land at 1.2 units per acre, based on 18.01 acres,
is 21 units. Up to 60 units could be permitted under Chapter 9 of the LDRs in the Neighborhood
Residential sub -district under the Transfer of Development Rights program. Similarly, up to 21
units could be permitted in the Village Commercial sub -district with a Transfer of Development
Rights. No dwelling units are proposed in the VC district, only commercial buildings.
The applicant proposes 52 new dwelling units, for a proposed density of approximately 2.9 units
per acre. This requires 31 transferable development rights (52 proposed — 21 'base level' = 31).
In order to ensure that these 31 TDRs are actually available, the applicant must submit legal
documents confirming options to purchase these development rights for review by the City
Attorney prior to final plat approval. The applicant must also submit legal documents showing
clear ownership of all of the remaining 31 development rights to the City Attorney for approval
prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 21 allowed by the property's
inherent, base level density.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
SEQ-VC Zoning District
Required'`
Proposed
* Min. Lot Size
40,000 SF
See waiver request
Max. Building Height
40 ft.
28 ft. / TBD (1)
Max. Building Coverage
15%
<15%for PUD per Master
2
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
Plan Approval
Max. Overall Coverage
30%
<30% for PUD per Master
Plan Approval
Min. Front Setback
20 ft.
4Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road)
50 ft. + 7 ft.
23' per Master Plan
Approval
4 Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
> loft.
4 Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
> 30 ft.
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
SEQ-NR Zoning District
Required
Proposed'
* Min. Lot Size
12,000 SF*
See waiver request
Max Building Height
45 ft./ 28 ft.
28 ft.(1)
Max. Building Coverage
15%
<15%for PUD per MP
Approval
Max. Overall Coverage
30%
<15% for PUD per MP
Approval
* Min. Front Setback
20 ft.^
See waiver request
* Min. Front Setback (Hinesburg Road)
50 ft. + 7 ft.
See waiver request
* Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
See waiver request
* Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
See waiver request
� Zoning compliance
*waiver requested
(1) This decision does not address buildings on commercial lots #2 through lots #4.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall
comply with the following standards and conditions:
(A) (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the
needs of the project.
According to Section 15.13(B) (1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the
existing public utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an
acceptable pressure, to the proposed dwelling units.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider
or developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system
approved by the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot wastewater is proposed.
The project is proposed to be served by gravity sewer mains flowing to a new pump station which
conveys flows to an existing sanitary manhole along Hinesburg Road. A looped water distribution
system is proposed to service the project. Storm drainage will be collected in an enclosed drainage
system within the local streets and will be directed to a stormwater management facility located at
3
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road —Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
the low point in the southwest corner of the property while runoff from lots #1-5 will flow to a
stormwater management facility located in the southeast corner of the site.
(A) (2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to
prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the
subject property and adjacent properties.
The proposed project shall adhere to the standards for erosion control in Section 16.03 of the LDRs,
and the grading plan shall meet the standards in Section 16.04 of the LDRs.
The applicant has submitted an erosion control and grading plan as part of the final plat. See the
Director of Public Works' notes within the DPW consolidated comments below.
(A) (3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
Access is proposed via a public street connection to Hinesburg Road as well as to the existing
public road of Fox Run Lane. A traffic study dated May 21, 2013 was prepared by Lamoureux &
Dickinson.
The Director of Public Works has reviewed the plans and provides notes in the consolidated
Public Works comments below.
The study projects that the proposed development is expected to generate 107 pm peak vehicle
trip ends (using Land Use Codes 210 and 230 for the single family and condominium units,
respectively and Land Codes 710 and 710 for general office and medical office respectively). The
study concludes that acceptable levels of service will be maintained at nearby intersections and
that peak hour volume will not reach levels sufficient to warrant a signalized intersection at the
intersection of VT-116/Meadowlands Drive/ Street D.
The connection on Hinesburg Road is directly across from Meadowland Drive. This intersection
had previously been studied as part of the Meadowland Drive Development and there are
established thresholds for when traffic improvements are to be made, including signalizing the
intersection and dedicated turn lanes. This study reviewed that mandate and incorporates the
vehicle trip ends generated within into the study. If the trips generated as a result of this
proposal exceed those limited by the Meadowland Drive development, then this applicant shall
be responsible for the necessary improvements.
As noted above, the applicant has submitted a traffic study for this project. As an addendum to
that study, please see below the questions raised and the answers thereto from the applicant's
traffic engineer, Roger Dickinson, which address these concerns.
From: Lee Krohn
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:37 PM
0
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
To: roger@ldengineering.com
Subject: Rye Associates
Hi, Roger, I have reviewed your traffic study for the project, and wonder:
1. Did you review/take into account prior approvals and conditions related to traffic for
Meadowland Drive development(s)? Apparently, there may be relevant issues and
information from that which may affect matters here relative to cumulative impacts of
new/additional traffic.
Yes; the original traffic study for the Meadowland Drive development was reviewed in
1996 by VTrans. Their traffic study review letter, dated September 6, 1996, included
the following conditions (in italics):
"if the access intersection with VT 116 is determined to warrant a separate left turn
lane sometime in the future, then the proposed design of the left turn lane will need to
be brought up to today's standards (i.e., not to have a bypass lane, but a separate left
turn lane, especially if signalization is contemplated). This issue should be addressed
as soon as additional development within the complex is contemplated."
The bypass left -turn lane in the southbound direction on VT 116 was
subsequently upgraded to the separate left -turn lane that now exists. I don't have the
exact date that occurred.
"in conclusion, you should provide us with an updated traffic study whenever you
intend to develop an individual lot within the project complex. The information we
need should include the following:
- For signal warrant analysis: You need to provide at least a 12-hour turning
movement (to include the 0600-1800 hours at a minimum) showing distribution of all
moves within the intersection. Volumes should be factored to reflect the average
weekday condition.
- For SOS analyses and geometric improvements: You need a minimum AM (0700-
0900) and PM (1500-1800) peak periods surveyed. The analysis should use DHV's."
We have performed the above requested signal warrant and LOS analyses for various
projects within Meadowland Business Park since 2002. Most recently in July 2013 for
Lot 5 at 66 Bowdoin St. That analysis also included "other development" traffic from
the Rye Associates development and a new building on Lot 6 proposed by Super -
Temp.
2. Can you please help me understand the difference/distinction between the two LOS
tables toward the end of your report (pages 3 & 4). They are quite similar, but slightly
different; and each must have unique meaning.
Table 3 includes two intersections, but got split between pages 3 and 4. At the
bottom of pg. 3 are the results for the northerly VT 116/Meadowland Drive/Rye
Associates Street D intersection. At the top of pg. 4 are the results for the southerly
5
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
VT 116/Fox Run Lane/Mansfield View Lane intersection. Fox Run Lane being located
immediately south of the Rye Development. Street B connects with Fox Run Lane.
3. Finally, and not unique to this report or project, I will appreciate learning how adding
this much new commercial and residential development will create virtually no change
in LOS at this intersection, and at most only one additional second of delay for one
turning movement, when comparing the 'build' and 'no build' conditions.
if you look closely as the WB LT/TH lanes exiting Meadowland Drive at the northerly
VT 116/Meadowland Drive/Rye Associates Street D intersection, the delays for that
lane increases by 6 seconds (19 to 25). Also, while Street D's LOS D rating
meets VTrans' LOS Policy for an unsignalized intersection, its delay of 29 seconds is not
insignificant. That being said, this development benefits from having two access
points onto VT Route 116; Street D to the north and Fox Run Lane to the south.
Turning movements entering and exiting the Rye Associates development
will gravitate towards the access in the direction that they are traveling to/from. This
helps minimize the impact on future delays and LOS.
The Board finds the application to have adequately addressed Meadowland Drive development
threshold requirements.
The Board finds that the connection to Fox Run Lane was anticipated with the development of
Oak Creek, and that the north -south road to connect to Fox Run Lane is shown on the Official
Map for South Burlington for future road connections. Finally, the Board supports the layout
which calls for a short road connection with a "jog", which enables the connection without
providing a long straight road which would have the potential to encourage higher speeds.
The road now named Swift Street Extension on the plans is also on the official map to connect to
the property to the west.
At sketch plan review, the Recreation Path Committee had reviewed the plans and provided
comments; it was noted then that their comments had been incorporated into the plans.
(A) (4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands,
streams, wildlife habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural
features on the site.
Wetlands issues have been addressed in a report prepared by Gilman and Briggs environmental.
This report addresses relevant criteria in the LDRs.
The applicant seeks approval to impact wetlands as outlined in the Gilman and Briggs report
dated May 3, 2013. The Board therefore reviews the request pursuant to section 12.02 of the
Land Development Regulations, excepted herein:
12.02(E) Standards for Wetlands Protection
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and
buffer areas is generally discouraged.
6
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
(2) Encroachment into Class 11 wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction
with issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3)
below.
(3) Encroachment into Class 11 wetland buffers, Class 111 wetlands and Class 111 wetland
buffers, may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project's overall
development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream
buffering, and landscaping plan achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to
carry or store flood waters adequately;
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed
stormwater treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and
values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset
by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other
mitigation measures.
The Gilman and Briggs report concludes that all wetlands on the site are Class III and addresses
each of the criteria under #3 above.
The applicant is seeking to directly impact a handful of isolated wetlands around the site, and to
reduce the 50' buffer to 25' surrounding the central complex of Class III wetlands depicted
within the proposed park/ open space area.
Based on the information presented, and the fact that these are Class III wetlands, the Board
finds the reduced buffer zone acceptable.
Section 9.06(B) (5) States that "Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to
protect wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is
aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape."
Concrete monuments should be placed at the rear corners of the single family home lots to help
delineate property boundaries where they adjoin the wetland buffers. The final plat submittal
includes a proposal by the applicant for vegetation along the west side of lot #8 to delineate the
rear lot lines of all properties that adjoin the wetland buffers to lessen the likelihood of residential
uses intruding into the more sensitive wetland buffers.
Section 9.06(B) (3) states that "a plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and
their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant."
To satisfy this requirement, the following conditions shall apply:
There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non -organic fertilizers, within the
wetlands or associated 25 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association
documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning
permit for the first building on the property.
7
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
2. There shall be no mowing within 25 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush -hogging
shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the
association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of
a zoning permit for the first building on the property.
(A) (5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development
patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the
zoning districts) in which it is located.
Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District
(SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural
resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well as
planned residential use in the largely undeveloped area of the City known as the Southeast
Quadrant. The open character and scenic views offered in this area have long been recognized
as very special and unique resources in the City and worthy of protection. The location and
clustering of buildings and lots in a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review
Board will best preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged.
The criterion is satisfied.
(A) (6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize
opportunities for creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or
stream buffer areas.
The homes are clustered closely and a continuous corridor of open space is present.
Furthermore, the largest portion of the wetland and undeveloped portion of the site is
immediately adjacent to a wetland/buffer area on the adjoining development to the south.
See additional detail under SEQ standards.
The criterion is satisfied.
(A) (7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to
ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided.
The South Burlington Fire Chief reviewed the plans and provided comments on August 13, 2013
as follows:
We have reviewed the plans for this proposed development. It looks like a pretty straight
forward proposal but we have the following concerns and/or recommendations.
1. Turning radii and road widths within this development should be sized to allow for
parking, set-up and operation fire apparatus.
2. There appears to be no hydrants adjacent to the "cottage units" off of Street D.
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
3. Trees, fences and floral outcroppings should be placed so as not to interfere with the
deployment of the aerial ladder, hoselines, portable ladders and other firefighting
equipment.
4. Commercial structures and multifamily units will need fire protection plan review from the
South Burlington Fire Marshal's office to review for compliance with the Vermont Fire and
Building Safety Codes.
The Fire Chief submitted additional comments in a letter dated May 30, 2014 to staff which is
incorporated herein by reference. The Board is satisfied that these concerns have been met.
(A) (8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and
lighting have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such
services and infrastructure to adjacent landowners.
(A) (9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner
that is consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
Below are the consolidated comments from Public Works and the applicant's responses (in bold
or in brackets), from emails dated January 6, January 7, and June 2, 2014:
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed, which is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). Also, the project
proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. It will therefore require a
stormwater permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Storm water Division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval for the
project. Acknowledged and Acceptable provided that the condition reads that this
permit be acquired prior to the commencement of construction.
2. The plans indicate that the project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land. Therefore,
this project will need to obtain and comply with a construction stormwater permit (3-
9020 or individual permit) from the Vermont DEC Storm water Division. Obtaining this
permit should be a condition of approval for the project. Acknowledged and Acceptable
provided that the condition reads that this permit be acquired prior to the
commencement of construction.
3. Provide hydrologic modeling for the project so that potential impacts on downstream
structures can be evaluated. Providing the actual HydroCAD files would facilitate review
by DPW staff. Please find attached the HydroCad modeling of the watershed
characteristics.
4. Does the proposed drainage network convey the 25 year, 24 hour storm event without
surcharging? The proposed stormwater management pond and the facilities
downstream of the pond are design to pass the 100-year design storm. Detailed
information on the infrastructure upstream will be forwarded shortly.
5. Plans have been revised so that water leaving the proposed detention pond on lot #31 no
longer enters the existing drainage system north of Fox Run Lane. Water leaving the
G�
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
proposed pond now flows to Potash Brook via a new—900'swole. Flow to Potash Brook
via the new swale is preferable to allowing this water to flow into the existing drainage
system on Fox Run Lane. Acknowledged.
6. The proposed detention basin on lot #5 discharges water into the existing closed
drainage system under Oak Creek Drive. Adjacent to the proposed detention basin, the
plans show an existing 18" culvert beneath Fox Run Lane that leads to on open channel
along VT Route 116. Rather than send water to the closed drainage system (and
eventually through an existing detention pond located downstream), could this water
instead be discharged to the ditch along VT Route 116 via the existing 18" culvert?
Discharge in this manner would be the City's preference. This would be redirecting
existing stormwater from the City collection system to the State of Vermont's
infrastructure on Route 116. It is our recent experience that VTrans will not allow nor
will accept any increases in peak flows (for the 50-year design storm or smaller) to
their stormwater infrastructure. Therefore this is not a likely outcome.
7. Confirm that the swale to the rear of lots 9-14 will be sufficiently graded to prevent
water from flowing onto adjacent properties to the south. Similar to the pond and
discharge swale from the pond, this swale has also been designed to accommodate
the 100-year storm event.
8. Backflow preventers must be installed on all foundation drains. Yes, the new plans
show this requirement.
9. The pump station and detention basin on lot #31 must have an appropriate maintenance
access drive identified on the plans. Yes, these facilities will have the necessary means
of access. Please advise on the width requirements.
10. In a future submission, include landscaping plans for the detention basin on lot #31.
Acknowledged.
11. Provide a map showing the drainage area to each proposed stormwater treatment
practice. This pre and post development plans of the site are attached.
12. Please confirm that the proposed stormwater treatment pond located on lot #31 and the
dry detention basin in the park will accept runoff from only residential properties. Past
resolutions by the South Burlington City Council indicate that the "The City shall accept
conveyance of and assume responsibility for the following types of Regulated Private
Systems that serve exclusively residential development in the City:" (emphasis added). It
appears that the proposed detention pond on lot #31 and the proposed dry detention
basin in the park would be eligible for City take over, but the proposed detention pond
on lot #5 would not. Stormwater runoff from the commercial lots on the east side of
the project site have been graded to that all runoff from these properties will be
directed to their own dedicated stormwater management facility. No commercial
runoff is directed into the proposed stormwater treatment pond located on lot #31
and the dry detention basin in the park.
10
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
13. The proposed development shows wetlands on the project site. Is the applicant seeking
wetland permit coverage from the State of Vermont or ACOE? Section 12.02 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations (LDRs) contains provisions to protect
wetlands. The applicant should provide more information on the wetlands contained on
the site so that any potential impacts can be evaluated pursuant to the regulations in the
LDRs. Attached is the description of the wetlands and the impacts to their functions
and values.
14. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on -site. Acknowledged and
Acceptable.
15. Per section 12.03.F(1) of the City's Land Development Regulations, the final decision
should require the submission of record drawings showing pipe invert elevations,
drainage structure rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc. Acknowledged and
Acceptable.
16. The final decision should require that final hydrologic modeling be submitted to the
Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated into the City's
watershed model for Potash Brook. Acknowledged and Acceptable.
Additional Public Works Comments:
1. Remove all "Winter Parking Ban" signs from the plan. (1/24: applicant has revised plans
to reflect this change)
2. All pavement markings shall be Type/ Durable Tape. Applicant to submit a specific
product to Public Works for approval prior to installation. (1/24: applicant has revised
plans to reflect this change)
3. Pedestrian level street lighting is needed at all crosswalks. (DPW Director reports this
has been addressed).
4. All foundation/perimeter drains shall be shown on plans. No Certificates of Occupancy
shall be issued for any of the single family homes without approved As-Builts showing
the drain lines.
5. A foundation drain detail is needed that shows the backflow prevention method. (DPW
Director reports this has been addressed)
6. No roadway striping is needed other than for crosswalks and stop bars. Each parking
space does not need to be striped, nor is crosshatching necessary to highlight no parking
areas. (DPW Director reports this has been addressed)
7. Remove the crosswalks through the driveways, carry the sidewalk through. (DPW
Director reports this has been addressed)
11
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
8. The east radius of the proposed Edgewood Lane and Fox Run Lane shall be tightened.
(DPW Director reports this has been addressed)
9. Does Edgewood as a name comply with 911 naming standards? Is it too similar to other
existing city streets? (This item to be addressed by the Planning Commission)
10. Illustrate via crosshatch the limits of disturbanc%xcavation on existing city streets
necessary for utility connections, matching curb radii, etc.
Additional comments from June 2, 2014 with responses from the applicant:
Justin,
The engineer for the Rye Meadow PUD project updated information in anticipation of their DRB
meeting tomorrow. I have reviewed the updated information (sheet 3.0 dated Dec. 2011, last
revised on 5/29/14, and sheet C3.1 dated Aug., 2013, last revised on 5/29/14) and would like to
provide the following comments:
1. This project is located in the Potash Brook watershed, which is listed as stormwater
impaired by the State of Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). Also, the project
proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area. It will therefore require a
stormwater permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Stormwater Division. Obtaining this permit should be a condition of approval for the
project. [David Marshall] A condition of approval that requires evidence of the issuance
of an State Operational Stormwater permit authorization is acceptable.
2. The plans indicate that the project will disturb greater than 1 acre of land. Therefore,
this project will need to obtain and comply with a construction stormwater permit (3-
9020 or individual permit) from the Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. Obtaining this
permit should be a condition of approval for the project. [David Marshall] A condition
of approval that requires evidence of the issuance of a State Construction Stormwater
permit authorization is acceptable.
3. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all
stormwater treatment and conveyance structures on-site.[David Marshall] Acceptable with
the understanding that at some point in the future the roads and residential stormwater
management facility on Lot 31 is proposed to be taken over by the City.
4. Per section 12.03.F(1) of the City's Land Development Regulations, the final decision should
require the submission of record drawings showing pipe invert elevations, drainage structure
rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc.[David Marshall] This is acceptable.
5. The final decision should require that final hydrologic modeling be submitted to the
Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated into the City's
watershed model for Potash Brook.[David Marshall] This is acceptable.
6. Check roads names shown on the subdivision plat versus what is in the legend. The legend
indicates that dedication "E" is for Edgewood Lane, but the plans show this road named as
Summer Lane. There is a similar issue for dedication "F"; the legend lists the road name as
Cottage Circle and the plans show it as Morgan Circle.[David Marshall] A condition requiring
reconciliation of the road names and the legend is acceptable.
12
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
I
#SD-14-15
7. The subdivision plat legend lists proposed dedication C to the Rye Homeowners
Association and the plat labels this to be conveyed to the City of South Burlington. Which is it?
[David Marshall] To the City of South Burlington The easement labeled "8" would be redundant
if the entire lot 31 is to be conveyed to the City. This question applies to both sheet P1 and
P2.[David Marshall] A condition requiring reconciliation of the callouts to reference the City and
not the HOA is acceptable..
8. Confirm that the proposed dedication labeled A should be to the City and not the Rye
Homeowners Association. [David Marshall] To the City of South Burlington. If it should be to
the Rye Homeowners Association, it should be determined whether or not the City will need a
20' easement along the recreation path in this area.[David Marshall] Not applicable.
These comments should replace those I submitted on May 5 and shown in the email below. My
prior concerns specified in comments 8, 10, and 11 below have been satisfied and have been
removed based on the updated information.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
-Tom
The applicant has sought a waiver from minimum radius of curves for local streets. Following
review by the Director of Public Works, the Board finds the request acceptable. As a part of any
final plat submittal, the applicant shall confirm with the Fire Chief and Public Works Director that
the design of "Cottage Circle", recently added to the plans, is acceptable. The Public Works Director
in an email to the applicant's engineer on 4/15/14 indicted that this street was acceptable as a
public street.
(A) (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
The Board finds this criterion satisfied.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD
shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications:
(C) Relationship of the Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington
Comprehensive Plan.
The Board finds this criterion satisfied.
(C) (1) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site,
from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian
movement, and adequate parking areas.
The Board worked with the applicant at the sketch plan level to ensure suitable and safe
pedestrian movement throughout the PUD. The plans include a complete sidewalk loop on the
13
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
entire development of the road, safe crosswalks, and a paved recreation path. The plans also
provide provisions for the adjacent neighborhood to access the recreation path, sidewalk
network, and park via a sidewalk along B Street.
The Board finds this criterion satisfied.
(B) (2) Parking
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and
one or more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are
met. The Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions
below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act;
The parking area will serve a single or two-family home;
(iii) The lot has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable
soils that allow for parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the
public street;
(iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re -used and
parking needs cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the
existing building(s); or,
(v) The principal use of the lot is for public recreation.
(c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all
proposed parking areas that are both to the side of a building and between the front
lot line and the building line of the building on the lot that is closest to the public
street shall not exceed one-half of the total building width of all buildings on the lot
that are located adjacent to the public street. Buildings separated from the front lot
line by parking approved pursuant to 14.06(C)(2)(b) shall be considered adjacent to the
public street. Buildings separated from the front lot line by any other parking areas
shall not be considered adjacent to the public street.
(d) The DRB shall require that the majority of the parking on through lots and corner
lots be located between the building(s) and the side yards or between the building and
the front yard adjacent to the public street with the highest average daily volume of
traffic. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts an Interstate or its interchanges, the
majority of parking shall be located between the building and the side yards or
between the building and the yard that is adjacent to the Interstate.
All parking on the preliminary plat complies with the standards above.
Parking for the single family homes and Lot 7 cottage units is provided onsite as well as on -
street parking limited to one side of the street. Parking for the lot 8 cottage units is provided by
a shared carport and surface lot. Parking for the 16 quad-plex units is proposed via garages
located to the rear of the four quad-plex buildings.
14
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
The applicant is proposing 13 parking spaces for Lot 8, Cottage units. This represents a 1-space,
or 7.2% waiver request. The applicant notes that these units will be smaller than average single
family homes. This request is acceptable.
The Board finds the proposed one (1) space, 7.2% parking waiver for lot 8 acceptable.
Parking for the Commercial lots is discussed under the SEQ-VC standards below.
(B)(3) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height
and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings.
The heights of all buildings are within the limits of the district and characteristic of typical and
nearby single and two-family dwellings.
(B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
As required in the LDRs, all newly installed utility services shall be underground.
(C)(1) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and
architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create
attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles.
The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast
Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report.
(C)(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
The design of buildings is discussed in greater detail in a discussion of the specific Southeast
Quadrant design standards found elsewhere in this report.
Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the
South Burlington Land Development Regulations:
(A) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting
properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial
of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
Access is proposed via a public street connection to Hinesburg Road, to the property to the east,
and to the existing public road of Fox Run Lane. The Board finds these plans consistent with the
Official Map.
(B) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be
underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to
have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site.
15
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
As already noted above, all newly installed utility lines must be underground.
(C) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any
recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s).
Trash disposal and recycling facilities for the single family home lots and cottage homes on lot 7
and 8 will be addressed individually.
The plans show a screened dumpster enclosure to the rear of the lot 6 four-plexes.
Final plans for commercial lots 2-5 shall also show dumpster locations.
(D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and
screening shall be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The minimum
landscape requirement for this project is determined by Table 13-9 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
The Board has previously reviewed landscaping plans for all portions of the PUD save for
Commercial lots 2-5 (to be provided as part of subsequent applications).
The Board received revised landscaping/planting plans, lists, and cost schedules for the overall
project on January 281h, but for simplicity and clarity, are summarized below:
Street trees:
$94,592
Central open space:
$12,436
Cottage units w/ garages:
$18,969 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost)
Cottage units w/o garages:
$14,775 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost)
Four-plex buildings:
$28,210 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost)
Professional building:
$16,000 (meets min. requirement based on est. construction cost)
The City Arborist reviewed these latest planting plans and species lists, and he stated that, "1
spoke with Ray Belair last week and Ok'd the revised plans. Prior to that, 1 spoke with Mike
Lawrence and recommended some species changes. While/ haven't seen the species changes on
the plans, I'm sure Mike has adequately addressed them as his plans generally only require
minor adjustments when he submits them. Please let me know if there is anything specific you
wish me to comment on or if you have any questions." - Craig Lambert, South Burlington City
Arborist
E911 Addresses & Street Names
The applicant submitted E911 addresses for the proposed project, in conformance with the E911
addressing standards.
16
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
The applicant shall seek approval of any proposed new street names from the Planning Commission
and revise the final plat plans prior to recording with the approved names.
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT
This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to
the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts
The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:
(A) Height
The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or SEQ-NR sub -district
shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'), the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to
occupied structures in these sub -districts.
The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC sub -district shall not
exceed fifty feet (50'), the waiver provisions of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied
structures in these sub -districts.
Standards from Table C-2, Dimensional Standards Applicable in All District also apply.
This criterion will be evaluated at subsequent levels of review for the project.
(B)(1) Open Space and Resource Protection
Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
The applicant proposes a 2.54 acre park / open space to be dedicated to the City. It is centrally
located and provides access to residents within the proposed project and to adjacent
neighborhoods. Recreation path easements, further, are provided to ensure ease of access from
adjoining parcels. See additional detail below.
(B)(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent
with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub -district allowing carefully planned
development at the average densities provided in this bylaw.
The average density remains below that which is permitted in the sub -district, and the location of
development areas are consistent with the standards. The requested waivers are discussed below.
(B)(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing
management shall be established by the applicant.
See below under Parks.
(B)(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and
after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
17
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the
Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under
the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation.
See above under Planned Unit Development Standards.
(B)(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland,
stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is
aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for
agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing
made of natural materials is encouraged.
See above under Planned Unit Development Standards.
(C) Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged
through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to
development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas
between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure,
or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not
limited to community -supported agriculture.
As noted above, the approved Master Plan shows a central park / open space to be dedicated to
the city. This may include some opportunities for small scale agriculture such as community
gardens. The applicant is also proposing a garden area for use by the four four-plexes.
In addition, the total number of housing units proposed for the project would require the use of
Transferable Development Rights, the use of which would conserve open spaces elsewhere in
the Southeast Quadrant.
(D) Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development
Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is approved for a specific
development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and utilities shall conform with the
location of planned public facilities as depicted on the Official Map, including but not
limited to recreation paths, streets, park land, schools, and sewer and water facilities.
Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be
designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure
to adjacent properties.
Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with
the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
Final plans shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not limited to,
minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular access from two directions where
18
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants.
Plans were reviewed and commented on by the Fire Chief on 5/30/14.
(E) Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management
strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to
create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and
emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the
Development Review Board may rely on the findings of a traffic study submitted by
the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or consultants.
Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance
standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been
approved by the City Council.
The provisions of Section 15.12(D) (4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
The proposed project is consistent with the Official Map. A network of recreation paths and
sidewalks are proposed linking the project east -west and north -south along each new street.
See above under Planned Unit Development Standards and DPW comments for additional
information.
(D) Parks Design and Development.
General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park
Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini -parks as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000
square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.
Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car free
destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood's quality of life.
They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the neighborhood, to add
vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes, local streets and visitors.
Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and there should be a park within a
quarter -mile of every home.
(1) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in
the SEQ-NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC districts:
(a) Distribution and Amount of Parks:
(i) A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to
meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the
outdoors, and active recreation.
19
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
(ii) Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the
heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by development.
(iii) Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per
1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.
(iv) A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be
provided within a one -quarter mile walk of every home not so served by an
existing City park or other publicly -owned developed recreation area.
(b) Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be
approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained
permanently by a homeowners' association in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
(c) Design Guidelines
(i) Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to
make them sociable, safe and attractive places.
(ii) Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle
connections.
(iii) To the extent feasible, single -loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to
natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and public
realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource and not
extended yard areas.
The applicant proposes an open area of 2.54 acres. This is smaller than proposed at sketch plan
review, but exceeds the minimum of approximately 0.97 acres of parkland recommended based
on the number of housing units. The park incorporates more "active" recreational features than
before: an enhanced network of recreation paths within the site and linking to external
networks of paths or sidewalks, and a dry detention basin for stormwater. The applicant is
proposing an active use area to include playground equipment and benches.
The applicant is proposing to install granite posts, three (3) feet in height, 6"-10" square and
placed 30 feet on center to separate private spaces of the eight (8) lots abutting the park area
from the public park/open space. The plans should be revised to show these posts.
See above under Planned Unit Development for comments concerning clear transitions to
wetland areas.
9.08 SEQ-NR &NRT Sub -District; Specific Standards
The SEQ-NR and SEQ-NRT sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as
enumerated in this Section.
(A) Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(A) (1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and
500 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. if longer block lengths are unavoidable
20
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path
connections.
The applicant proposes a block length of approximately 520 feet on the two principal north -
south roads. The eastern roadway includes approximately 180 feet of park/open space frontage
to be dedicated to the city, while the western roadway includes a mid -block recreation path
right -of way crossing. All other streets and blocks comply with the standards.
The Board finds granting this waiver acceptable.
(A) (2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are strongly discouraged. Dead end streets
shall not exceed 200 feet in length.
(c) 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 per section 15.12(D)(4).
See above under block lengths. A street stub is proposed at the western end of Swift Street
Extension as depicted on the Official Map.
(A) (3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the
property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of these
Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly
encouraged.
A street stub is proposed at the west end of Swift Street Extension. This criterion is satisfied.
(A) (4) 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 proposed lots largely meet or exceed the minimum standards. 19 of the 22 single home lots
exceed the 2:1 ratio. Lots 15-17 are slightly below this standard, but abut recreation paths and
the proposed park/open space. The remainder of lots within the District are PUDs, and so the lot
width -to -depth is not applicable.
Given the overall layout of the project and inclusion of recreation paths / open space, the Board
finds granting this waiver acceptable.
(B) Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(B)(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the
NR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through
movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local
streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-1 and 9-2, and Figures 9-4 and 9-5 of the SBLDR.
21
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
I
#SD-14-15
(B)(2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional
minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the street.
Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a pattern that
promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may in its discretion require
supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this purpose.
(B)(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet wide.
Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the City Arborist.
Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall
be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on center.
The proposed project complies with the above criteria.
(B)(4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).
On street parking is appropriate in a small neighborhood. The roadway right-of-way is of
sufficient width and well -planned to accommodate such. The applicant should demonstrate
compliance with this criterion at subsequent levels of review for the project.
On street parking is proposed along both sides of the eastern leg of "Rye Circle" and one side of
"Edgewood Lane", "Cottage Circle", and the remainder of "Rye Circle".
Swift Street Extension is proposed to have 30' of pavement. As a part of final plat submittal, the
applicant confirmed that there would be parking on this street except within 50 feet of any street
intersection.
(B)(5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).
The Board acknowledges receipt of comments from the Fire Chief and Public Works Dept. and
finds the intersection designs acceptable.
(B)(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12'to 14') shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall
illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development patterns and
character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots)
and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
The site lighting includes 14 ft. poles along the public street and 12 ft. poles at the pedestrian
crossing of Rye Circle.
(C) Residential Design
(C)(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi family buildings must face the street. Secondary
22
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines
apply to arterial streets).
(C)(2) Building FaVades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades
should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops,
and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are
encouraged.
(C)(3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the
building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. Buildings
should be set back twenty-five feet (25') from the back of sidewalk.
(C)(4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front
setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be enclosed or
weatherized with glazing or other solid materials.
(C)(5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The front
building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the house by a
minimum of eight feet.
(C)(6) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.),
sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These
should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than
compartmentalized into sections of near -identical units.
The proposed plans include:
22 standard detached single family homes;
14 cottage style units;
16 units in the form of 4 quad-plex buildings
Overall, the project is designed in a logical framework, and the placement of the buildings
around the 'green' in the center of the property appears to be well -designed. The location of the
4-unit buildings between the commercial uses and the residential zone also helps to transition
this development from commercial, to higher density residential, to lower density residential.
Architectural designs for the cottage homes and the multi -family dwellings were submitted for
review.
The Board finds that these designs are acceptable for the cottage units and with the specific
condition for changes to the multi -family buildings being imposed, this new design will also be
acceptable.
As described in the cover letter/narrative, the applicant has redesigned the project in order to
address the Board's concerns about design and layout; for example, providing an orderly
transition from commercial buildings to multi -family to single family homes.
23
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
The Board finds the design meets the goals and objectives of the Southeast Quadrant design
standards in the LDRs. The applicant has submitted detailed architectural elevations and
materials lists for all of the proposed buildings. The garages on the cottage units, types 'C1', 'C21
,
'D', and 'E' are set back at least 8' as required. The Board finds that the covered porches from
which these are measured are substantial enough to qualify as the front lines of these houses,
and that the homes are oriented toward the street(s), as required.
As noted above, the four quad-plexes serve as a transition for the overall project and represent
different styles and sizes from other units on the property. The designs of these four buildings are
identical, but represent a small portion of the overall development.
The applicant on January 28, 2014 submitted a document entitled, "Single Family Home
Design Guidelines Rye Parcel Subdivision" from Rabideau Architects for the Board's
consideration. The Board finds this approach demonstrates conformance with this criterion,
and this document shall be used by the Administrative Officer to determine compliance
when reviewing individual zoning applications for these single family homes. This document
is attached by reference as a part of this preliminary plat approval, and shall be incorporated
into any subsequent final plat approval.
The applicant is seeking a waiver of Section 3.06(C) Setbacks and Buffers; Yards Abutting a
Planned Street. Specifically, "With the assumption that the reference to "Swift Street" also
means Swift Street Extension, the applicant seeks a waiver for Cottage buildings 7-1 and 7-7 (to
30') and residential lots #22 and #23 (to 20') and Commercial Lot #1 (to 30') to achieve the goals
set forth in the SEQ district guidelines."
The Board finds this waiver request acceptable.
The Applicant is also seeking the following waivers regarding setbacks, lot size, and lot coverage.
Appendix C Table C-2 Dimensional Standards
A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 9,937 SF. -
B. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 20% for all lots.
C. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 42% for Lot 7.
D. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10' (Cottage Units 6-1 & 6-2 off of
Edgewood Drive).
E. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 20' (Cottage Units 7-2 thru 7-6).
F. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 28% for Lot 6.
G. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 55% for Lot 6.
H. Commercial Lot Coverage from 30% to 54% for all lots except for Lot 3 which shall
be 63%
Commercial Building Coverage from 15% to 21 % for all lots except for Lot 3 which
shall be 26%
The Board finds these waivers acceptable as part of a creative PUD design. Lot coverage, although
exceeded for individual lots, shall comply with the overall PUD maximum of 30%.
24
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
Building setbacks within the Cottage unit areas generally range from 10 to 43 feet, with one
building on lot 8 setback 66 feet. The regulations do not specify whether the 25' setback is a
minimum or maximum. The cottage units meet the intent of the standards.
9.10 SEQ-VC Sub -District; Specific Regulations
The SEQ-VC sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated
below:
A. Street, block and lot pattern.
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 200 and
300 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. Blocks 300 feet or longer must include mid -
block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average intersection spacing shall be 200 to 300 feet.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul de sacs) are discouraged. Dead end streets shall not
exceed 200 feet in length.
(c) Street stubs are required at dead end streets to allow for future street
connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian connections to open space and future
housing on adjoining parcels per Section 15.12(D)(4).
(3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to the
property line per Section 15.12(D)(4) of these Regulations to allow connection to adjacent
parcels. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets is strongly
encouraged.
(4) Lot ratios. Lots for new residential structures shall incorporate a minimum lot
width to lot depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1.2.5 to 1:5 recommended.
The portion of the project within the SEQ-VC subdistrict fronts Hinesburg Road and the eastern
leg of the north -south street. The block length is approximately 740 feet along Hinesburg Road
and 520 feet on the other north -south street. Both blocks line up with existing intersections /
shared driveways. See the note above concerning recreation path rights -of -way.
The applicant is not proposing any new roads within the SEQ-VC district, and so the Board finds
that the street standards do not apply to Hinesburg Road. Given the nature of Hinesburg Road
and location of intersections, the Board finds this proposal acceptable. However, the Board
reserves the right to require one or more sidewalk / recreation path connections (public or
private) to Hinesburg Road as part of final plat review for future projects.
The proposed commercial lots along Hinesburg Road do not strictly comply with the lot depth
ratio of 2:1. All lots are deeper than they are wide. The applicant is also proposing that lots be
smaller than the minimum lot size. Given the narrow depth of the VC district, it would be
impossible to meet both the minimum lot sizes (40,000 sf) and minimum lot - depth ratio. Given
these unique, site specific circumstances, the Boards finds that the applicant has proposed a
plan that allows the project to relate to both Hinesburg Road and "Rye Circle", and finds that a
25
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
waiver of the lot - depth ratio is acceptable.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets in the VC sub -district
are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and
are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Dimensions for public collector and local streets
shall be as set forth in Section 9.09(B)(1) above, and Tables 9-3 and 9-4; cross -sections
shall be as set forth in Figures 9-10 and 9-11 below.
(2) Sidewalks
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet in width plus a five-foot planting
strip separating the sidewalk from the street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street.
(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
(4) On -street Parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4)
(5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic; see Section 9.08(B)(5) and Figure 9-6.
(6) Lighting. Pedestrian scale light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14') shall be provided
sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall
illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development
patterns and character of the SEQ with lower, smoother levels of illumination
(rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with
public safety.
See above under SEQ-NR subdistrict analysis.
D. Design Standards for Non -Residential Land Uses in the SEQ-VC Sub -District
(1) Building Orientation. Non-residential buildings must be oriented to the principal
public street on which the building has a facade. Primary building entries must be oriented
to and open onto a sidewalk or other public walkway providing access from the public
street. Secondary building entries may open onto parking areas.
(2) Building Facades
(a) Building facades should be varied and articulated for pedestrian interest.
(b) Street level windows and numerous shop entries are encouraged along the
sidewalk. Blank or solid walls (without glazing) should not exceed thirty feet (30') in
length at the street level.
(c) Building entries should be emphasized with special architectural treatment.
(d) All buildings should have a well-defined 'base' with richer detail in the
pedestrian's immediate view (i.e., textured materials, recessed entries, awnings,
fenestration patterns) and a recognizable 'top' consisting of elements such as cornice
treatments, roof overhangs with brackets, textured materials, stepped parapets.
26
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
(e) Buildings should have hipped or gabled roofs or flat roofs with an articulated
parapet. Mansard style roofs are discouraged.
(f) Buildings in the SEQ-VC should employ "four-sided" design principles intended
to ensure a high visual quality from any publicly -used vantage point.
(3) Building Setbacks. New buildings with commercial uses must be built to a 'build -
to line' established no less than fifteen feet (15') and no more than twenty feet (20') from
the edge of the curb. The area between the building and the curb shall provide for
convenient pedestrian access via sidewalk or recreation path; see Section 9.10(C)(1) above.
Parking is prohibited between the building and the sidewalk.
(4) Parking
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of these Regulations, each non-
residential use shall provide three (3) off-street parking spaces per 1,000 gross square
feet. The DRB may grant a parking waiver in conformance with Section 13. 1(N)(3). The
Development Review Board may allow on -street parking within 500 linear feet of the
nearest building line of the use to count towards the use's parking requirements.
(b) The provisions of Section 13.1 notwithstanding, the DRB may allow shared
parking anywhere within the VC district, regardless of linear distance from the
proposed use.
The Board has previously indicated that buildings should be oriented toward "Rye Circle".
The Board finds that the proposed building for commercial lot #1 complies with the design
standard above, for the following reasons. Windows are numerous and no "blank walls" are
shown. The building includes doors facing to the south as well as to the west towards "Rye
Circle". The building's roofs comply with the standards. The building employs a "four-sided"
design principle, and incorporates varied architectural features throughout.
Lot 1 has a GSF of 5,000, which requires 15 parking spaces. The applicant proposes 14 spaces on
the lot, with the understanding that this parking lot will be extended and shared with other
commercial buildings. This represents a waiver of 6.7%. Given this future sharing and availability
of on -street parking nearby, the Board finds this waiver request acceptable.
9.11 Supplemental Standards for Arterial and Collector Streets
A. Setbacks. The minimum front setbacks from Dorset Street, Old Cross Road, Nowland
Farm Road, Hinesburg Road, Swift Street, Swift Street Extension, and Old Cross Road
Extension, shall be as set forth in Section 3.06(B) (1) and (2) of these Regulations.
B. Building Orientation along Arterial and Collector Streets.
(1) New developments with frontage on Dorset Street, Old Cross Road/Nowland Farm
Road, or Swift Street, or which have the potential to include frontage along Swift Street
Extension or Old Cross Road Extension, shall maintain a setback of twenty feet (20') from
the edge of the planned right-of-way.
27
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
(2) New developments with frontage on Hinesburg Road shall maintain a setback of
forty feet (40') from the edge of the planned right-of-way.
(3) This setback area shall be attractively landscaped, with suitable street trees and
fencing made of natural materials, in a manner that creates a defined edge to the
development, without creating a visual "wall" or barrier. Acceptable alternatives for this
treatment are shown in Figures 9-12 and 9-13.
(4) A public sidewalk or recreation path planned in coordination with the South
Burlington Recreation Path Committee shall be incorporated into the setback area.
(5) The use of earthen berms of more than four feet (4') in height above the average
pre -construction or finished grade of the setback area, shall not be permitted. Under no
circumstances shall vegetation other than grasses and low -growing shrubs be planted
along the slope or top of any berms or other land shaped areas.
As noted above, and given the unique, site specific circumstances existing on this property, the
Board finds acceptable the proposed waiver of the setback requirements of Section 9.11(B)(2) from
57 feet to 23 feet from the existing highway right of way for all lots adjacent to Hinesburg Road to
be acceptable.
The Board reviewed the sidewalk/recreation path requirement and finds it not needed as a
recreation path is on the opposite side of the street in this location.
OTHER
Buffer Strip
Section 3.06(1) Buffer Strip for Non -Residential Uses Adjacent to Residential District
Boundaries.
(1) Where a new non-residential use is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of
a residential district, or where an existing non-residential use, structure or parking area
that is adjacent to or within fifty (50) feet of the boundary of a residential district is
proposed to be expanded, altered or enlarged, the required side or rear setback shall be
increased to sixty-five (65) feet. A strip not less than fifteen (15) feet wide within the sixty-
five (65) foot setback shall be landscaped with dense evergreens, fencing, and/or other
plantings as a screen. New external light fixtures shall not ordinarily be permitted within
the fifteen (15) foot wide buffer area.
The Board understands the applicant's concern that it is difficult or perhaps even impossible to
have mixed use development, a goal of the district, while still meeting the 15 foot wooded
buffer requirement, especially within such a narrow strip of land as provided in this commercial
zoning district. With limitations for where parking may be located, along with a significant
setback requirement from Hinesburg Road, it is very difficult to meet the requirement for the
buffer between zones while also providing a street and keeping parking to the rear of the lots.
These are not large buildings, with footprints at or below 5,000 SF. In addition, the proposed
project is designed as a mixed -use development with transitions incorporated as discussed
above.
NR
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
The Board has previously discussed this item. Given the particular circumstances of this project,
a mixed -use project in an area with a VC and NR subdistrict, the Board finds the waiver
requested by the applicant acceptable.
DECISION
Motion by Bill Miller, seconded by John Wilking, to approve final plat application #SD-14-15 of
Rye Associates, LLC subject to the following stipulations:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended herein.
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file
in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit for the first building within six (6) months of this
approval. The Development Review Board grants a period of five (5) years for approval of
the multi -family buildings and the commercial building. At such time as the five years is
reached and the applicant has not sought a zoning permit for any of these approved
buildings, they shall be eligible, per Section 17.04 of the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations, for one (1) extension to an approval if the application takes place before the
approval has expired and if the Development Review Board determines that conditions are
essentially unchanged from the time of the original approval. In granting such an extension,
the Development Review Board may specify a period of time up to one (1) year for the
extension.
4. Prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for the 22"d dwelling unit, the applicant shall record
the document entitled, "Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights"
and a survey of the area from which the 31 transferable development rights have been
severed as required under 24 V.S.A § 4423(b) (4), upon approval of the City Attorney in the
South Burlington land records.
5. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy prior to use or occupancy of any of the
buildings other than the single family homes.
6. The applicant shall receive final wastewater allocations prior to issuance of any zoning permits.
7. The Board approves a one (1) space, 7.2% parking waiver for lot #8 for a total of 13 spaces
provided.
8. The Board approves a one (1) space, 6.7% parking waiver for lot #1 for a total of 14 spaces
provided.
9. The Board approves the document entitled, "Single Family Home Design Guidelines Rye
Parcel Subdivision" prepared by Rabideau Architects which setforth the method by which
the applicant will comply with the residential design guidelines.
29
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
10. The Board approves the following waivers:
Appendix C Table C-2 Dimensional Standards
A. Single Family Minimum Lot Size from 12,000 SF to 9,937 SF. -
B. Single Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 20% for all lots.
C. Single Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 42% for Lot 7.
D. Single Family Front Yard Setback from 20' to 10' (Cottage Units 6-1 & 5-2 off of
Edgewood Drive).
E. Single Family Rear Yard Setback from 30' to 20' (Cottage Units 7-2 thru 7-6).
F. Multi -Family Max. Building Coverage from 15% to 28% for Lot 6.
G. Multi -Family Max. Lot Coverage from 30% to 55% for Lot 6.
H. Commercial Lot Coverage from 30% to 54% for all lots except for Lot 3 which shall be
63%
1. Commercial Building Coverage from 15% to 21 % for all lots except for Lot 3 which
shall be 26%
Other Waivers
• a waiver from minimum radius of curves for local streets
11. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines,
services, and service modifications shall be underground.
12. The proposed project shall adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section
16.03 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan
shall meet the standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations.
13. Per section 12.03.F(1) of the City's Land Development Regulations, upon completion of the
infrastructure, the applicant shall submit record drawings showing pipe invert elevations,
drainage structure rim elevation, pipe material, final grading, etc.
14. There shall be no use of herbicides or pesticides, nor non -organic fertilizers, within the
wetlands or associated 25 foot buffers. This shall be reflected in the association documents
which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first
building on the property.
15. There shall be no mowing within 25 feet of the wetlands on the property. Brush -hogging
shall be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. This shall be reflected in the
association documents which shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a
zoning permit for the first building on the property.
16. Any stormwater permit required from the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Stormwater Division shall be provided to the Administrative Officer prior
to the issuance of the first zoning permit.
30
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
17. Pursuant to Section 12.03 (F) 1 of the Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall
submit record drawings showing pipe invert elevations, drainage structure rim elevation,
pipe material, final grading, etc. prior to acceptance of the streets as City streets.
18. Prior to the issuance of the first zoning permit, the applicant shall submit final hydrologic
modeling to the Department of Public Works so that this information can be incorporated
into the City's watershed model for Potash Brook.
19. The applicant shall be responsible to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and
conveyance structures on -site.
20. For the purpose of calculating road impact fees under the South Burlington Impact Fee
Ordinance, the Development Review Board estimates that the 5,000 sq. ft. commercial
building on commercial lot #1 will generate 7.45 vehicle trip ends during the P.M. peak hour.
21. The final plat plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of
the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted
to the Administrative Officer prior to recording the final plat plans:
a. The final plat plans shall include street names approved by the Planning
Commission.
b. The plans shall be revised to include two (2) bike racks for the multi -family
dwellings and a bike rack for the general office building.
c. The plans shall be revised to indicate snow storage area for the multi -family
buildings and the general office building.
d. The plans shall be revised to show granite posts, three (3) feet in height, 6"-10"
square and placed 30 feet on center to separate private spaces of the eight (8)
lots abutting the park area from the public park/open space.
e. The survey plats shall be revised to include the signature and seal of the land
surveyor.
f. The elevation drawings for the multi -family dwellings shall be revised to indicate
that the entries are to be delineated by a variety of either round, square or
tapered columns and that the column colors shall match the trim color.
g. The elevation drawings for the multi -family dwellings shall be revised to indicate
that where the entries require two (2) columns, both shall be of the same type.
22. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, the
applicant shall submit to the Administrative Officer a final set of project plans as approved in
digital (PDF) format.
23. Prior to permit issuance for the first permit in each element or "phase", the applicant shall
post landscaping bonds in the amounts indicated below. These bonds shall remain in full
effect for three (3) years to assure that the landscaping has taken root and has a good
chance of survival.
a. Central open space: $12,436
b. Cottage units w/ garages: $18,969
c. Cottage units w/o garages: $14,775
d. Four-plex buildings: $28,210
31
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
e. Professional building: $16,000
24. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first lot or start of utility or road construction, all
appropriate legal documents including easements (e.g. irrevocable offer of dedication and
warranty deed for the proposed public road, and utility, sewer, drainage, and water, etc.)
shall be submitted to the City Attorney for approval and recorded in the South Burlington
Land Records.
25. Prior to start of the improvements described in #24 above, the applicant shall post a
$94,592 landscape bond for the street trees, which shall remain in effect for three (3) years.
26. Prior to start of construction of the improvements described in condition #24 above, the
applicant shall post a bond which covers the cost of said improvements, the amount of which
must be approved by the City Engineer.
27. Street trees must be in place along the street prior to adding the final layer of the
pavement.
28. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
29. The mylars shall be recorded prior to any zoning permit issuance.
30. In accordance with Section 15.14(E) (2) of the Land Development Regulations, within 14
days of the completion of the required improvements, the developer shall submit to the City
Engineer "as -built" construction drawings certified by a licensed engineer.
31. Any proposed utility cabinets must be approved by the Development Review Board prior to
installation.
32. The final plat plans (sheets P1, P2 & C1.0) shall be recorded in the land records within 180
days or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior
to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a copy of the
survey plats in digital format. The format of the digital information shall require approval of the
South Burlington GIS Coordinator.
Tim Barritt—
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Mark Behr—
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Art Klugo —
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Bill Miller—
yea
nay
abstain
not present
David Parsons
yea
nay
abstain
not present
Jennifer Smith —
yea
nay
abstain
not present
John Wilking-
yea
nay
abstain
not present
32
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc
#SD-14-15
Motion carried by a vote of 7 — 0 — 0
l
Signed this � � day of 2014, by
Tim Barritt, Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court,
Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed
to the City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South
Burlington, VT 05403. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at
802-828-1660 or http://vermontiudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more
information on filing requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant
state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.
33
SD_14_15_1075 Hinesburg Road_Rye Associates_ffd.doc