Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSK-09-16 - Decision - 1499 Hinesburg RoadCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: April 3, 2009 drb\sub\marceaumeadows\sketch09_seq.doc Plans received: March 5, 2009 MEADOWLARWMARCEAU MEADOWS 1499 HINESBURG ROAD SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION #SD-09-16 enda # 7 Owner/Applicant John Larkin Larkin Realty 410 Shelburne Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Meetina date: April 7. 2009 Engineer/Surveyor Property Information Llewellyn -Howley, Inc. Tax Parcel 0860-01499 20 Kimball Avenue, Ste. 202N SEQ Zoning District - So. Burlington, VT 05403 Village Residential Neighborhood Residential Natural Resource Protection 61.2 acres Location Map CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\marceaumeadows\,s*etch09 sea John Larkin, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking sketch plan review for a planned unit development to develop a 61.2 acre parcel with 298 multi -family dwelling units in 74 buildings, 1499 Hinesburg Road. Associate Planner Cathyann La Rose and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to herein as staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on March 5, 2009 and have the following comments. The most pressing issues that seem to present themselves at this stage of the project are density, access, lot layout, and street configuration. A full review of the standards will be outlined at the preliminary and final plat plan level. - The total acreage of the subject parcel is 61.2 acres. The density of right, generated by the land, at 1.2 units per acre, allows for 73 units. The maximum units allowed, per the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and in accordance with Chapter 9, the Southeast Quadrant, and determined by the various sub -districts included in the very large parcel and to be achieved with transfers of development- rights, is 271 units. With a 25% bonus for affordable housing, the maximum allowable density would be 338 units, of which, 33 must be affordable, and provided in accordance with Section 13.14 of -the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The applicant is proposing a total of 298 units. It is unclear how many of these are proposed to be affordable. Furthermore, the Land Development Regulations govern how those units may be divided based on the southeast quadrant sub -districts. Southeast Quadrant Sub- Zone Maximum Units -,.Maximum Units, with affordability bonus Proposed, Village Residential 123 153 102 Neighborhood Residential 148 185 196 Total 271- 338 298 As evidenced in the table above, the density in the Neighborhood Residential sub -zone exceeds that which. is permitted, even with an affordability bonus. The applicant is aware of this and has stated that they will be making small modifications to the plans to bring them into compliance. These plans should be availableat the hearing. 9. The plans shall be revised so that the density respects the maximums permitted in the SEQ and the SEQ sub -districts. The applicant has stated that they already own, or will have a legal option to purchase enough development rights to build the project as proposed. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to submit the legal documents pertaining to the options for review by the City CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 3 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING &ZONING drb\sub\marceaurneadows\sketch09 seq Attorney prior to Master Plan approval. Staff further recommends that the development rights be purchased by the applicant prior to issuance of zoning permits for any units beyond the 73 units allowed by the property's inherent density. 2. The applicant shall submit legal documents pertaining to the options to purchase Transferred Development Rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to Master Plan approval. 3. The applicant shall submit legal documents showing clear ownership of the remaining 141 development rights to the City Attorney for approval, prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the 74th unit. ACCESS Access is proposed via two constructed entrance points: a 36 foot wide access from Hinesburg Road, as well as a 24 foot wide road located in an existing 60 ROW to the north (Butler Drive). The plans also reflect two easements to properties to the west, one connecting to Cider Mill Road to the south, and one to Old Cross Road to the north. It is not necessary that a road be constructed at both of these locations. Given the choice, the more southern connection is the preferred one. However, because this connection would need to cross an abutting piece of land not currently owned by the applicant or otherwise encumbered by any public easements, it is not clear if this connection will be possible. Conversely, the connection to the northwest would link directly to a 60 foot right of way already owned by the City. The actual pavement of one of these connections will be discussed at the next level. At this point, the locations of the easements to both are sufficient. Additional pedestrian easements and connections are also outlined on the plans. LOT LAYOUT & ROAD CONFIGURATION Staff has been working with the applicant to provide a lot layout in accordance with the Regulating Plan illustrated in Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. Staff finds that the project meets the design standards for lot layoutandroad configuration. The Fire Chief and the Director of Public Works .have reviewed the plans on a preliminary basis and finds the general layout to be acceptable. AVAILABILITY OF PARKLAND The applicant is proposing a fair amount of open areas. However, these areas are predominantly wetlands and will not be useable by the residents of the area or by the residents of the City. They do help to accomplish the goal of open space areas: The applicant should prepare a plan for the ongoing maintenance and management of these areas as part of the master plan process. Still, Staff is concerned that the park lands are not appropriately sized and well -located so as to serve as an amenity for all residents of the PUD. Section 9 of the SBLDR states that "a range of parks should be distributed through the SEQ to meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the outdoors, and active recreation." Furthermore, "parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 4 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD PLANNING & ZONING drb\sub\marceaumeadows\sketch09 seq per 1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program" and "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 recreation area." The applicants are proposing a small "tot" lot on site. This is a great idea and should be encouraged. Still, staff does not find that the requirements of this section are adequately met. The applicant should work with the Planning Staff and the Recreation Staff to better achieve compliance with these criteria. Furthermore, the note on the plans which reflect an "anticipated park" should be removed from the plans. At this point, there have been no commitments for that property and the note is misleading. The proposed project shall be subject to the design guidelines pursuant to Section 9.08 of the SBLDRs. Staff has already addressed the project's compliance with the lot layout and road configuration. The applicant should also address the Residential Design, pursuant to Section 9.08(C) of the Regulations, including building orientation, building facades and front building setbacks, placement of garages and parking, and mix of housing types. The Board has the authority to delegate review of the design standards to Planning Staff after Subdivision Approval. However, given the size of the project and the possibility that some waivers of the design standards may be sought, staff strongly recommends that the applicant submit building elevations to address these criteria,- particularly for those designs whereupon waivers may be sought, prior to final plat approval. The Board should discuss this matter and render a decision. As more than 100 units are being proposed, the applicant shall be required to submit a master plan application in accordance with Section 9.13 (D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. This may be concurrent with the preliminary plat review. Staff recommends that the applicant work address these major issues and proceed to part of the preliminary plat application. Respectfully submitted, nylFr �.u..-In LaRose, Aiso-ciate Planner with Staff and the Development Review Board to a more detailed, engineered plan to be submitted as Copy to: John Larkin, Applicant Skip McLellan, Llewellyn Howley Inc 1. rMZ dtlN _�..•-- -IQ A'W nPrJ *-d P—!1VY �'" —srx s+ N.w!L� sJI4'tw�4 c�ma�r w+FnP°d •• f -�•4+i iH'otrsNms•a VVAWdAMuY P"w! a" —H 4'44d'aP4 Pad Pw.^d aP+ m DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 APRIL 2009 PAGE 2 Ms. Quimby moved to approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-02 of Diemer Properties, LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion as amended above. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Continued Site Plan Application #SP-09-19 of Ninety Nine Swift Street Associates, LLC, to amend a previously approved plan for a 22,500 sq. ft. general office building. The amendment consists of converting 7,500 sq. ft. of general office use to medical office use, 99 Swift Street: The applicant indicated there will be a slight change in coverage. The dumpster will be moved because they discovered it is over the property line. Mr. Belair said staff had no issues. The parking waiver is not changed. Ms. Quimby moved to approve Site Plan Application #SP-09-19 of Ninety Nine Swift Street Associates, LLC, subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Sketch Plan Application #SP-09-16 of John Larkin for a planned unit development to develop a 61.2 acre parcel with 298 multi -family dwelling units in 74 buildings,1499 Hinesburg Road: Ms. LaRose noted that new plans were received today which change the distribution of density. Mr. McClellan said this is the Meadowlark project on what was the Marceau property. He showed the location of the property in relation to other developments. They are proposing 298 units which will fall into three zoning areas: a strip in the VR (Village Residential), the NR (Neighborhood Residential), and NRP (Natural Resource Protection). There will be 2 access points, the first at Van Sicklen & Hinesburg Road, the second from Butler Farms. There is a potential for 2 additional access points, one off Old Cross Road and the other via a right-of-way from the Cider Mill. The plan is to have the less dense development closer to Butler Farnis-(2 and- units -buildings). There will be an internal sidewalk and a "boardwalk" across the wetland. Amenities include play areas with connections to a walking path, and gardens near the NRP area. Ms. Dufresne showed potential building design types. All buildings would have garages. Mr. McClellan said there would be one covered parking space under the building per unit. All parking would be off- street although street parking would be allowed. Mr. Behr asked if the plan complies with SEQ guidelines. Mr. Belair said it does a very good job. Mr. Behr felt the plan seemed to be maxing out with not much in the way of amenities. Mr. McClellan disagreed. He said there would be 50 feet between buildings. Ms. Dufresne also showed a large area that would be mowed and available for kids to play ball. Mr. Behr said he would like to see a more defined space. Ms. LaRose said there seems to be a confusion between "open space" and "park land." There is a l � ' DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 7 APRIL 2009 PAGE 3 calculation for the amount of park land that has to be provided. She asked the applicant to work with the Recreation Department on that. Park land must be a public park. Mr. Belair said that 7.5 acres of developed park space would be appropriate for a development of this size. Mr. Behr said he liked the circulation pattern through the development. A resident cited the number of accidents at the Van Sicklen/Hinesburg Road intersection. Mr. Behr said the planning process will require a traffic analysis and technical review. A neighbor was concerned with the number of units which he felt was not compatible with the single family homes in Butler Farms. He also felt high density development should be on a public transportation route and there is no public transit on Hinesburg Rd. A resident asked where children from the development would go to school. Ms. LaRose said that would be up to the School Department. Mr. McClellan said the project would be phased. They don't have a specific plan as yet. They also have to complete a transfer of density process to get all the units. Mr. Belair suggested that Preliminary Plat show the phasing plan. He also reminded the applicant that the connection to Butler Farms would have to be built before the 5 1 " housing unit is allowed. Mr. Behr noted an area with a little cul de sac and suggested the possibility of a loop road with a green area in the center. Mr. McClellan said they would consider that. Mr. Bresee reminded the Board and the applicant that the Rec Path Committee is very interested in Rec Path connections to all the neighborhoods. Mr. Cooper said he would like a buffer between his home and this development. Mr. McClellan said there is almost 100 feet of space from the closest unit. Mr. _Behr _asked aboutwarrants_for a_traffic light. Mr.--Belair-said that's what the traffic study should address. A neighbor asked about storm water. Mr. McClellan showed where storm water will be treated in 3 separate areas. He also showed the direction of sewage flow to the pump station at Village at Dorset Park. Mr. Conner stressed that any land designated as "park land" must be open to residents of other neighborhoods as well. 8. Site Plan Application #SP-09-18 Of Nate Hayward for re -approval of a residential development consisting of eight two-family dwelling units, 61 IDX Drive: Mr. Belair said this is a re -approval of a plan that was approved.