HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06A_SD-19-21_1075 Hinesburg Rd_Rye Assoc_SC#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
1
1 of 8
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐21_1075 Hinesburg Rd_Rye Assoc_2019‐08‐20.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 9, 2019
Plans received: July 24, 2019
1075 Hinesburg road
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐21
Meeting date: August 20, 2019
Owner/Applicant
Rye Associates, LLC
21 Carmichael Street Suite 201
Essex, VT 05452
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc
10 Mansfield View Lane
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0667‐00XXX
Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential District
0.81 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐21 of Rye Associates LLC to amend a previously approved planned unit
development consisting of 36 single family dwellings, four 4‐unit multi‐family dwellings, and three
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
2
2 of 8
commercial buildings. The amendment consists of an after the fact request to reduce the rear yard
setback for Unit #35 on Fall Street from 20‐feet to 13‐feet, 1075 Hinesburg Road.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project most recently received a final plat amendment on June 8, 2019 (#SD‐16‐07). The project
also has master plan approval, which includes conditions allowing the applicant to go directly to final
plat for this requested amendment.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”)
have reviewed the plans submitted on 7/24/2019 and offer the following comments. Numbered items
for the Board’s attention are in red.
CONTEXT
At the present time, one home has been constructed on Fall Street. Fall Street forms the northern
border of a park to be dedicated to the City. The existing home was constructed with a rear deck which
encroaches 7‐feet into the approved rear setback of 20‐feet. Previous approvals specifically address the
rear setback of homes on Fall Street as it pertains to preserving the character of the public park.
1. The unit at 35 Fall Street is one of seven homes approved for construction on Lot 7 of the Rye Meadow
PUD. Since the unit is located on a multifamily lot, the Applicant’s request for a setback waiver for 35
Fall Street alone is not valid. The Board may only grant a setback waiver for Lot 7 as a whole. Staff has
written the remainder of these notes as though the Board is considering a setback waiver for Lot 7 as a
whole.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
SETBACKS, COVERAGES & LOT DIMENSIONS
SEQ‐NR Zoning District Previously
Approved*
Proposed
Min. Lot Size (Single Family) 9,937 sf No change
Max. Building Coverage 20% No change
Max. Overall Coverage 42% No change
Min. Front Setback 20 ft. No change
Min. Side Setback 10 ft. No change
@ Min. Rear Setback 20 ft.
1 13 ft.
Height (pitched roof) 28 ft. No change
* Required dimensions reflect approved waivers
@ Waiver Requested
1. 20 ft. rear setback waiver approved for units on Lot 7 only. Remainder of PUD must adhere to
standard rear setback of 30 ft.
2. Staff notes that the provided plan shows a light dashed line around the buildings on Lot 7. The previous
approvals showed no such line. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the dashed
lines in order to prevent it being accidentally interpreted as a footprint lot or a building envelope.
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
3
3 of 8
SOUTHEAST QUADRANT STANDARDS
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub‐Districts
A. Height
B. Open Space and Resource Protection
C. Agriculture
D. Public Services and Facilities
E. Circulation
Staff consider compliance with these five criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
9.07 Regulating Plans
A. Description and Regulatory Effect
B. General Provisions
C. Street, Block and Lot Patterns
Staff consider compliance with these three criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
D. Park Design and Development
3. While the applicant is not proposing to change the park, Staff recommends the Board consider
the below park standards when evaluating the applicant’s waiver request and its impact on the
park.
(1) 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.
(2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ‐
NRT, SEQ‐NR, SEQ‐NRN, SEQ‐VR, and SEQ‐VC sub‐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.
(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.
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
4
4 of 8
(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.
SEQ‐NR Sub‐District Specific Standards
A. Street, block and lot pattern
(1) Development Blocks
(2) Interconnection of Streets
Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5
to 1:5 recommended.
4. As discussed above, the initial final plat approval waived the required minimum lot width to
depth ratio of 1:2, resulting in homes being located on relatively shallow lots. Staff recommends
the Board consider this criterion in evaluating the applicant’s waiver request.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
C. Residential Design
Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
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.
(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.
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
5
5 of 8
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
(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.
Staff consider compliance with these four criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
(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 district(s) in which
it is located.
The applicant has previously received approval for a reduction in the standard rear yard setback
from 30 feet to 20 feet in this location. The applicant is asking for a further reduction of the rear
yard setback to 13 feet.
5. Staff considers the requested setback will not be visually compatible with the other homes
abutting the public park which are required to maintain a rear setback of 30 ft. Staff further
recommends the Board consider whether the visual impacts of allowing the reduced setback
will encroach on the available active use area of the approved public park.
6. If the Board does wish to grant the requested waiver, Staff recommends the waiver be
limited to porches only and include a provision limiting the height and size of porches within
the previously‐approved 20‐foot setback.
(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 initial final plat approval for the property, SD‐14‐15, included provision for granite posts 3‐feet
in height spaced 30‐feet on center to separate the back yards of the lots abutting the park from the
public park/open space. This provision applies to all the homes abutting the park. The initial final
plat approval also waived the required minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, resulting in homes
being located on relatively shallow lots. The 2016 amendment (SD‐16‐07) granted the applicant
approval to place boulders instead of granite posts. The applicant has installed boulders, but based
on a field visit, Staff notes the boulders are not set at the perimeter of the open space. Location
varies, but many are set more than 10‐feet from the edge of the open space, effectively reducing
the size of the open space. Further, the approved drainage ditch appears to have been installed
inside the public park rather than centered on the western boundary as shown on the approved
plans.
7. While the size of approved open space area is not quantitatively impacted by the requested
waiver, Staff considers the quality of the open space is reduced by the waiver request. Staff also
considers the installation of the boulders and drainage ditch inconsistent with the previous
approval, as discussed above. Staff recommends should the Board wish to grant the applicant’s
waiver request, the Board require the applicant to address the misplaced boulder and drainage
ditch and consider enhancing the demarcation to include split rail fencing on the private property.
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
6
6 of 8
(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.
(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, absent a specific
agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City
Council.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
(A)(11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate
structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff
from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as
possible to where it hits the ground.
Staff consider compliance with these five criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. Due
attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies
for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Compatibility with the comprehensive plan is discussed above under PUD standards.
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(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.
See discussion of transition under PUD criterion 5 above.
Staff considers the other elements of this criterion unaffected by the proposed change.
(2) Parking:
Staff consider compliance with parking criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback
waiver.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
7
7 of 8
buildings of different architectural styles.
Staff consider compliance with this criterion not affected by the requested rear yard setback waiver.
(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.
8. Staff recommends the Board consider whether the requested waiver will have an adverse impact on
the visual relationship between the approved homes on Lot 7 and the park. Staff reminds the Board
that they are considering a waiver request for all the homes on Lot 7, not just the currently
constructed unit.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
A. Access to Abutting Properties. 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve
general access and circulation in the area.
B. Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections
shall be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site. Standards of Section 15.13, Utility Services, shall also be met.
C. Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including
compliance with any recycling, composting, 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).
Small receptacles intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall
not be required to be fenced or screened.
Staff consider compliance with these three criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback waiver.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
13.06C. Screening or buffering. The Development Review Board will require landscaping,
fencing, land shaping and/or screening along property boundaries (lot lines) whenever it
determines that a) two adjacent sites are dissimilar and should be screened or buffered from each
other, or b) a property’s appearance should be improved, which property is covered excessively with
pavement or structures or is otherwise insufficiently landscaped, or c) a commercial, industrial, and
multi‐family use abuts a residential district or institutional use.
The approved landscaping plans for the residential lot and for the park are included in the packet for the
Board. There is limited landscaping proposed in the rear setback.
9. Staff considers the requirements of 13.06C a tool available to the Board should they elect to grant
the applicant’s waiver request.
E. Modification of Standards. Except within the City Center Form Based Code District, where the
limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in complying with any of the standards above and
#SD‐19‐21
Staff Comments
8
8 of 8
waiver therefrom will not endanger the public health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board
may modify such standards as long as the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive
Plan are met. However, in no case shall the DRB permit the location of a new structure less than five
(5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall be the DRB allow land development creating a
total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit for the applicable zoning district in the case of new
development, or increasing the coverage on sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the
applicable limit.
Compliance with this criterion is discussed under dimensional and PUD standards above.
F. Low Impact Development. The use of low impact site design strategies that minimize site
disturbance, and that integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and various other
techniques to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces and to infiltrate precipitation into underlying
soils and groundwater as close as is reasonable practicable to where it hits the ground, is required
pursuant to the standards contained within Article 12.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
Staff consider compliance with these two criteria not affected by the requested rear yard setback waiver.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner