HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-23-08 - Supplemental - 1170 1180 Dorset Street#SD-23-08
worksCITY OF SOUTH
BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW BOARD
SD-23-08_1170 1180 Dorset St_Rivers Edge_FP_2023-06-
20.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: June 14, 2023
Plans received: May 10, 2023
1170-1180 Dorset Street
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-23-08
Meeting Date: June 20, 2023
Owner
Highlands Development Company, LLC
P.O. Box 132
Lyndon Ctr., VT 05850-0132
Engineer
O’Leary Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel: 0570-01170 & 0570-01180
Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential
3.6 acres
Applicant
Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC
41 Gauthier Dr, Suite 1
Essex, VT 05452
Location Map
#SD-23-08
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD-23-08 of Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC for the 3.6 acre “Park Road
Area” phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre Golf Course and 354-unit residential
development. The planned unit development consists of consolidating three existing lots for the
purpose of constructing fourteen dwelling units in two-family homes on two private roads, 1170 &
1180 Dorset Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The 2015 stipulated master plan approval for the Golf Course allows a maximum of fifteen (15) dwelling
units in the Park Road development area, provides that the Development Review Board (“DRB”) shall
review the Park Road development proposal under the Land Development Regulations (“LDR”) adopted
on May 12, 2003, and requires a preliminary plat application as the next level of review for the Park
Road development area.
The Board reviewed the related sketch plan application #SD-21-20 on August 3, 2021, and approved the
ensuing preliminary plat application #SD-22-03 on May 18, 2022.
CONTEXT
The City Council reviewed an application (#IZ-20-01) received under the Interim Bylaws adopted in
November 2018 and issued a jurisdictional opinion on July 24, 2020 stating that the development
proposed shall be reviewed under the LDRs adopted on May 12, 2003.
The subject property comprises a portion of the Vermont National Country Club Golf Course Planned
Unit Development (PUD). In 2015, the City of South Burlington and the two owners of the undeveloped
and/or golf course portions of the PUD, Highlands Development Company, LLC, and JAM Golf, LLC
reached a settlement approving a master plan for the PUD. The parties agreed to, and the Vermont
Superior Court approved, an Amended Consent Order and Decree approving a master plan application
for the PUD (the “2015 master plan approval”), which includes these parcels totaling 3.65 acres.
The project is located along Dorset Street, south of an approved 32-unit development at Zoey Circle
(550 Park Road, #SD-21-06) and north of a five-unit development at Foulsham Hollow Road. The
development at Zoey Circle is approved to consist of single and two-family homes, while the
development at Foulsham Hollow Road consists of single-family homes. It is served by an existing
recreation path on Park Road and Dorset Street and is in an area identified in the 2001 Comprehensive
Plan as an area of lower intensity, principally residential development.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marty Gillies and Senior Development Review Planner Marla Keene,
hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the
following comments. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
Within the applicable LDR, SEQ setbacks are 20 ft front, 10 ft side, and 30 ft rear. Along Dorset Street,
there is a minimum 50-foot setback. Building coverage is limited by the 2015 master plan approval to
#SD-23-08
3
15% and lot coverage to 30%. At this time, the applicant has indicated they are proposing 18.7%
building coverage and 36.5% lot coverage.
The master plan approval addressed the topic of overall coverage and building coverage as follows:
“Building and impervious coverage: A total building coverage of 7% and a total impervious
coverage of 15% are approved for the VNCC PUD. These are overall limits for the entire VNCC
PUD subject to this approval. Within individual development areas as described and approved in
this application, these overall limits may be exceeded provided the applicable SEQ zoning
district limitations of fifteen percent (15%) for buildings and thirty percent (30%) overall are
met.”
In previous approvals, the Board has allowed individual development areas to exceed 15% building
and 30% overall lot coverage, provided the overall PUD meets the coverages. The applicant is
reporting that coverage for the overall PUD is 5.7% building coverage and 11.9% lot coverage. The
Board approved this proposed coverage at preliminary plat.
As per the 2003 LDRs, height is limited to 40 ft, measured from average preconstruction grade to the
apex of the roof structure for pitched roofs. The Board has the authority to grant a waiver for a taller
structure, with specific review requirements for such a waiver request.
Specific zoning district standards of the May 12, 2003 LDR follow.
3.07 Height of Structures
A. General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided under Article 4, Section 4.08, Queen City
Park District, Article 8, Central District, Article 10, Scenic View Overlay Protection District, and
Article 15, Subdivision and Planned Unit Development Review of these Regulations, structure
in all districts shall comply with the building height standards presented in this section.
Maximum allowable building heights are illustrated in Figure 3-1, Height of Structures.
B. Pre-Construction Grade. For the purpose of regulating height under this section, pre-
construction grade shall be defined as the grade existing on the property on the date of an
application under the South Burlington Land Development Regulations for any development
approval (variance, conditional use approval, zoning permit, site plan approval), unless
another grade has been established as the pre-construction grade pursuant to Section 3.12,
Alteration of Existing Grade below. Where land receives subdivision approval from the
Development Review Board, the grade shown on the approved subdivision plat shall
constitute the pre-construction grade, unless modified in accordance with Section 3.12,
Alteration of Existing Grade below.
The applicant is requesting the Board to approve an alteration of the pre-existing grade as
described under 3.12.B(2)(d) below. The applicant is specifically requesting the Board to
approve an adjustment of the pre-construction grade from 402 feet to 403.5 feet for units 9-10.
The applicant has testified that a pre-construction grade of 403.5 feet will relate to the
elevation of the proposed private road ‘Brookfield Drive’, allowing units 9-10 to be level with
the east side of the road and not causing them to look out of place in relation to neighboring
units on the same street or in relation to units on the other proposed private street, ‘Trails End
Drive’, while still measuring equal to or less than 40 feet in height when measured from the
pre-construction grade. Without the requested alteration of pre-construction grade, the
proposed building would be 41.5 feet in height.
C. Residential Structures. For any single-family or duplex residential structure, there shall be
#SD-23-08
4
no more than three stories exposed on any side. Fourth-story vertical extensions (i.e.,
dormers) may be allowed provided a) they do not exceed the height of the roof peak and b)
the total width of the extensions does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the horizontal
distance of the roof line. Vertical extensions that exceed fifty percent (50%) of the horizontal
distance (i.e., step dormers) are limited to a maximum height of five (5) feet.
The applicant is not proposing to expose more than three stories on any side of any proposed
structure, including units 9-10. The dormers shown on the provided elevations and renderings
do not exceed the height of the roof peak and are less than fifty percent of the horizontal
distance of the roofline. As such, Staff considers the applicant to be in compliance with this
criterion.
D. Maximum Height. Except as allowed below in this section, no point of any pitched roof
structure shall rise more than forty (40) feet, and no point of any other structure shall rise
more than thirty-five (35) feet, above the average pre-construction grade adjoining such
structure.
The applicant is not requesting a waiver of maximum building height for units 9-10. With the
requested adjustment of the pre-construction grade, the proposed building height will be
exactly 40 feet, which is approval as the maximum height of a pitched roof structure.
3.12 Alteration of Existing Grade
A. Permit Required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam,
topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic
yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the
same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development
Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection
with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section
does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction
operation (see Section 13.16, Earth Products.)
B. Standards and Conditions for Approval.
(1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for
compliance with the standards contained in this sub-Section 3.12(B). and Section 3.07,
Height of Structures of these regulations. An application under Section 3.12(A) above
shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision
plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and
proposed grade created by removal or addition of material.
The applicant has submitted the required materials.
(2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions
it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following:
(a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time.
Staff considers that no limit to the duration of the altered grade is
required for the proposed project.
(b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the
conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting,
fencing, drainage, and other appropriate measures.
#SD-23-08
5
Staff considers the proposed conditions plans shall constitute the
approved rehabilitation plans.
(c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security in accordance with Section
15.15 adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of these
Regulations.
Staff considers no additional sureties beyond that otherwise required for
the project to be required.
(d) Determination of what shall constitute pre-construction grade under
Section 3.07, Height of Structures.
The applicant has requested that the pre-construction grade for units 9-
10 be measured as 403.5 feet. These units are proposed to be walk-out
units and will be on the newly constructed ‘Brookfield Drive’. The
applicant has testified that the adjustment of the pre-construction grade
will not cause the proposed units to look out of place in relation to the
other homes on either ‘Brookfield Drive’ or ‘Trails End Drive’. If approved
by the Board, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the
maximum building height of 40 feet as measured from the approved pre-
construction grade at the time of application for each zoning permit.
1. Staff recommends that the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate that the adjustment of
pre-construction grade will not cause proposed units 9-10 to look out of place in relation to
Brookfield Drive or Park Road.
15.18.B Southeast Quadrant District
The 2015 master plan approval found 15.18.B(1) through (4) should be evaluated for individual
compliance for each development project.
(1) Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic values
of the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the
open character, natural areas and scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned
development.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that maximizes the
protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully planned developments at the overall base densities
provided in these Regulations.
The Board at preliminary plat found the location of the project adjacent to Dorset Street, between two
other development areas, supportive of compliance with these criteria.
(3) Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan,
including streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat and corridors including those areas
identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic
features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges.
The project contains a mapped river corridor and the applicant’s plan shows the limits of a Class II
wetland, and associated buffer. The applicant indicates on their erosion prevention and sediment
control plan that the limit of the delineated wetland buffer will be the project limits of work. The
proposed project impacts are extremely close to the wetland buffer (and proposed limits of work
#SD-23-08
6
line) but the applicant is proposing a silt fence and construction tape along the limits of work line to
protect the wetland from the impacts of runoff during the construction process. The Board at
preliminary plat found the applicant must, at final plat, provide plans for grading, utilities and
seeding with sufficient detail to demonstrate that impacts are avoided. Staff considers this
condition to have been addressed.
In terms of post-construction preservation, the applicant has provided a split-rail fence along the
wetland buffer, permanently demarcating the wetland buffer from area that could be used as lawn.
However, the provided plans do not include signage associated with that split-rail fence that
indicates it is demarcating a “Wetland Buffer” – the inclusion of this signage is a required plan edit
as per the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update their plans to include periodic signs
indicating “Wetland Buffer” along the wetland buffer, as per Condition 3.a of preliminary plat
approval #SD-22-03.
(4) Consistent with (1) through (3) above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed and
located to maximize the potential for combination with other open spaces on adjacent
properties.
The project involves very little open space. As noted above, the master plan approved this as a
development area, therefore at preliminary plat the Board found this criterion met.
(5) The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the SEQ is
encouraged through development planning that avoids impacts on prime agricultural soils as
defined in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing
agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure.
The 2015 master plan approval found continuation of agriculture to be not an issue for this proposal.
(6) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be established by the
applicant describing the intended use and maintenance of each area. Continuance of
agricultural uses or enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and
maintenance is encouraged.
The 2015 master plan approval establishes open space and natural areas for the PUD as a whole. At
preliminary plat the Board found no plan is needed for this project area.
(7) In the absence of a finding by the DRB 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.
The 2015 master plan approval found this criterion met.
B) 15.18.A SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
The general standards applicable to this subdivision are as follows.
1. Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The 2015 master plan approval found that the PUD held a valid water and wastewater allocation
#SD-23-08
7
for a sufficient capacity to serve all proposed development. In order to prevent the undue
appearance of limited capacity, the City’s general practice is that preliminary allocations expire
after 10 years, so the Board directed the applicant at sketch to obtain preliminary water and
wastewater. The Department of Public Works issued preliminary allocation #WWA-22-100 on
January 6, 2022, for flows of 3,420 gallons per day. The Water Department issued a preliminary
allocation on March 15, 2022, for flows of 6,300 gallons per day.
3. Given how different the water and wastewater flows are, Staff recommends the Board ask the
applicant to confirm these numbers are correct.
The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the proposed plan on June 8, 2023, and
provided the following comments.
Regarding Existing Conditions Plan, Sheet #2:
1. The water line shown on Park Road has not yet been installed and will be necessary prior to
construction of this project. At the time of construction on Park Road, anchor tees and
valves must be installed for this project’s water lines since size-on-size taps are not
permitted.
2. If possible, move the electric line to the other side of the road to prevent any interference
with future water line or appurtenance work.
3. The water lines for this project located outside the City ROW are considered private and
shall not be owned by the City. The proposed 10’ easement to the City of South Burlington
shall only be for access to the fire hydrant for routine maintenance, access to all curb stops
for routine maintenance and disconnections, and for the Water Department to oversee
repairs in accordance with conditions set forth in the City of South Burlington Water
Ordinance.
4. This information is provided for information and engineering purposes. Per the Vermont
Department of Public Safety Division of Fire Safety, the current adopted code is the
International Plumbing Code (IPC), 2015 Edition. The 2015 IPC requires 20 psi minimum for
toilets (“water closet, tank, close coupled or one piece), which is the controlling factor for
establishing the minimum required pressure for internal plumbing (assuming the toilets do
not have flushometer valves). Site plans indicate that the preconstruction grades of the
proposed homes range between 402’ and 429’. The SBET low operating level is 515’, and
the highest elevation in the City that can still provide 35psi is 435’. The upper floors of some
homes are likely to experience lower water pressures than what customers are accustomed
to. Additional data from the applicant will be required to confirm there are adequate
pressures for second floor plumbing fixtures. Furthermore, if residents intend to install
water booster pump stations within the proposed units, approval must be obtained by the
Secretary in accordance with the VT Water Supply Rule.
Regarding the Plan and Profile Plan, Sheet #4:
5. The fire hydrant at the end of Trails Bend Drive should be directly attached to the end of the
main, without a bend. The hydrant isolation valve should be at least one full pipe length
away from the hydrant. Ne service connections can be installed between the hydrant
isolation valve and the hydrant.
6. The hydrant isolation valve on the hydrant at the end of Brookfield Drive should be located
on the water main side of the road.
#SD-23-08
8
Regarding the Landscaping Plan, Sheet #L1:
7. No plantings can be installed near (within 5’) water appurtenances including curb stops,
gate valves and fire hydrants. Plantings should not be placed over water mains whenever
possible.
4. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the South Burlington
Water Department prior to closing the final plat hearing.
2. Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction
issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
The provided EPSC plan includes silt fencing on the downslope side of the limit of work line and
orange construction tape on the upslope side of that limit of work line, from before construction
work starts until the disturbed areas have been stabilized. The City Stormwater Section reviewed
the provided EPSC plan and found that the proposed grading and erosion controls are not sufficient
to prevent soil erosion and recommended specific improvements to the plan.
5. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update this EPSC plan to incorporate the
comments from the City Stormwater Section referenced below.
3. The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to
prevent unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB 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.
The 2015 master approval approved 350 trips for the overall PUD, but was found to need further
review under applications for individual phases.
Pertaining to access and circulation, at sketch the Board discussed that it is the City’s general policy,
as evidenced by 15.12E, that entrances to PUDs and subdivisions be separated by a minimum
distance of four hundred (400) feet on either side of a public street and substantially aligned with
entrances on the opposite side of the public street. The applicant is proposing to align the private
road named ‘Trails Bend Drive’ with the eastern leg of Zoey Circle, which has been approved but
not yet constructed. The second proposed private road, named ‘Brookfield Drive’, is proposed to be
located roughly 120 feet from ‘Trails Bend Drive’.
At preliminary plat, the Board engaged BFJ to provide review of trip generation and project design.
BFJ recommended the Board consider requiring the applicant to reconfigure the layout as either a
U-shaped loop or one longer dead-end roadway.
At preliminary plat, the Board considered BFJ’s recommendations and also considered requiring the
applicant to swap the location of the eastern private road with the units 9 through 14 in order to
improve the alignment with the eastern leg of Zoey Circle and increase the distance between the
two private roads from 115 ft to 300 ft and to provide a roadway separating the homes (and
associated lawn areas) from the stream, wetland, and wetland buffer. The Board at that time
considered the alternatives of moving ‘Brookfield Drive’ farther east or creating a single teed
driveway. The applicant provided the following testimony against changing the roadway
configuration:
#SD-23-08
9
• Swapping units 9-14 and ‘Brookfield Drive’ would result in more ledge removal.
• The applicant does not want the back of homes to face west.
• Stormwater treatment for the proposed development is located on the far east side of the
project area.
The applicant addressed BFJ’s comment about service vehicles at preliminary plat by providing a
turning movement plan.
Ultimately, the general sense of the Board was that modest improvements to safety on Park Road
could be gained by reconfiguring the roadways, but that such an improvement would have a
negative impact on the layout of the neighborhood. Some members expressed that given the small
number of homes, the layout of the neighborhood should be given precedence over the modest
safety improvements. As part of the preliminary plat decision, the Board required a ledge removal
plan (both map and narrative plan) to be submitted with the final plat application in order to
substantiate the applicant’s claims the proposed configuration results in less ledge removal, a claim
the Board preliminarily relied on to accept the proposed roadway configuration. The applicant has
submitted only a ledge removal map; no narrative has been submitted.
6. The applicant has provided a Ledge Removal Plan that indicates that no ledge removal will be necessary
for foundation excavation of units 9-14 in their currently proposed location. There is no explicit
indication that swapping these proposed homes and ‘Brookfield Drive’ would result in an increased
amount of ledge removal. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to demonstrate that the
swapping of these two elements would indeed result in increased ledge removal requirements, since
that is not clear from the provided Ledge Removal Plan.
7. The Board’s preliminary plat decision required provision of a ledge removal plan, including a plan and
narrative. No narrative has been provided. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require
the applicant to provide a robust ledge removal plan, to include proposed blast duration, hours, and
mitigation.
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. In
making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations related
to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources Committee
with respect to the project's impact on natural resources.
SEQ Standard #3 above addresses the applicant’s proposal to construct immediately adjacent to
the wetland. The applicant has testified that there will be no temporary or permanent wetland
impacts as part of this project and has provided a draft HOA Notice of Conditions enumerating
what can and cannot be done in the wetland buffer area.
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.
This criterion was found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat
approval was also required.
The purpose of the SEQ is to “encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural
resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well-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
#SD-23-08
10
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 judgement of the Development Review Board will best
preserve the open space character of this area shall be encouraged.”
The applicant has provided one elevation sketch for one proposed home type. However, on the
site plan provided as part of this application, there appear to be at least two footprints for the
proposed units, and at preliminary plat the applicant had indicated there would be three home
types in addition to the corner duplex.
8. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide elevations and floor plans for each of the
proposed homes and record a notice of conditions that they will construct two of each of the three side
by side models as approved at preliminary plat.
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.
This criterion was found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat
approval was also required. At preliminary plat, the Board found the location of the project
supportive of compliance with this criterion.
7. The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and
pressure, and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be
designed and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal
water.
The Fire Marshal reviewed the plans on 6/12/2023 and had no comments for this application.
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 properties.
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.
See above for discussion of roadway configuration.
The Director of the Department of Public Works reviewed the plans on 6/8/2023 and offered a number
of comments. Because these comments cover a wide range of topics, Staff has responded to each
individually.
1. Please confirm appropriate sight distances for proposed crosswalk.
2. Install pedestrian warning signs on both sides of signposts to improve visibility.
9. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to address these comments #1 & #2 of the
Director of Public Works prior to closing the hearing.
3. There is no sidewalk between this project and Golf Course Road to the east. I recall discussion of
this sidewalk connection in the past. Is anyone currently responsible for construction of this
sidewalk and when will it be put in place?
#SD-23-08
11
4. Was there a discussion of adding sidewalk from this project to Dorset St. on the south side of
Park Road?
Staff recommends the Board consider these comments #3 & #4 while considering the context
of this project’s preliminary approval, in which the Board specifically did not require sidewalk
on the south side of Park Road beyond what is shown on the submitted plans.
5. Install stop signs on side streets.
10. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to address this comment #5 of the Director of
Public Works prior to closing the hearing.
6. Sheet #3 is very busy and difficult to read.
11. Wire-served utilities are shown on the provided Sheet 3; however, that sheet contains an excess of
information so that the location of all proposed transformers is not immediately apparent. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to break the utility plans out onto individual sheets so that
Staff and the Board can better review the proposed locations of these features.
7. Based on the plat, it is our understanding that the wastewater pump station will remain private.
8. Who owns the force main that the project is proposing to connect into? Plat shows that there is
an easement to south Burlington, but I don’t think that the City ever accepted this easement.
9. The project proposes a berm with landscaping as a visual barrier to Dorset Street. This will add
4-5 of material and landscaping over the existing force main. What other screening options are
available? This condition is not acceptable if the City is to accept ownership of this force main
(see above note).
12. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to address these comments #7, #8 & #9 of the
Director of Public Works prior to closing the hearing.
10. Shared use paths are 10’ wide. Detail shows 8’. However, I don’t see any new paths proposed so
this detail may be moot.
Staff recommends the Board consider this comment #10 while considering the context of this
project’s preliminary approval, in which the Board specifically required an 8’ wide asphalt path
connecting ‘Trails End Drive’ to the existing rec path on Dorset Street.
11. Ensure access to SW forebay for maintenance is possible without having to remove trees.
12. The plans reference a pump station and easement to the City east of unit 12. I do not believe
that the City ever accepted this easement? Will the pump station be removed and proposed
easement eliminated?
13. Staff recommends that the Board require the applicant to address these comments #11 & #12 of the
Director of Public Works prior to closing the hearing.
At sketch, the Board directed the applicant to provide a sidewalk on the eastern roadway, provide
parking on the eastern roadway by making the pavement surface 26-ft wide, and by adding a crosswalk
on Park Road. The applicant has met all of these requests and has provided an 8’ wide asphalt path
connecting the western road to the rec path on Dorset Street. Pursuant to Condition 5 of the
preliminary plat approval, the applicant is proposing the 5’ sidewalk along ‘Brookfield Drive’ to remain
private, even when located in the City ROW.
Landscaping is discussed under 14.07D below.
#SD-23-08
12
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the provided plans on June 13, 2023 and offers the following
comments.
1. EPSC Plans should be updated to show silt fence running along contours, rather than
perpendicular to contours. Silt fence is not effective at the top of slopes and can be removed
from areas with no contributing disturbed area. Spacing of silt fence should be consistent with
common practice outlined in the Vermont Standards and Specifications of Erosion Prevention
and Sediment Control, rather than simply placing silt fence around the perimeter of the
property. Finally, J-hooks should be utilized where silt fence terminates, or as needed on slopes.
2. The DRB should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater
treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
14. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the South Burlington
Water Department prior to closing the final plat hearing.
10. The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the
affected district(s).
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases. The goals and objectives of the 2001 Comprehensive Plan (adopted April 16, 2001)
for the Southeast Quadrant that were effective May 12, 2003 (the date of the master plan approval)
are as follows. A copy of the comprehensive plan is available to Board members upon request.
Subject areas of Goals:
Regional Cooperation City Identity & City Center
Population & Balanced Rate of Growth Quality Environment
Land Use Distribution An Open Planning Process
Open Space Planning Housing
Schools Recreation
Economic Development Transportation
Public Utilities and Services Land Use through Zoning
2001 Southeast Quadrant Objectives
a. Preserve and enhance the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the
Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.
b. Maintain a rate, location, intensity, and timing of future development in the
Quadrant that is in accord with the physical characteristics of the land and the
availability of municipal services and facilities, and which is consistent with the
City’s population growth objectives and land use recommendations.
c. Promote a variety of residential patterns and styles, including a fair share of
affordable housing, while preserving the special character of the Quadrant.
d. Provide a safe and efficient transportation system within and through the Quadrant.
The Board at preliminary plat found that this criterion will be met when other criteria of the applicable
LDR are met.
#SD-23-08
13
C) SITE PLAN STANDARDS
14.06 General Site Plan Review 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.
At preliminary plat, the Board found this standard met as the 2015 master plan approval
approved up to 15 units for this development.
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.
The Board found this standard met at preliminary plat.
(2) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent
practicable.
This criterion does not apply to single and two-family homes.
(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 anticipated
adjoining buildings.
Height is discussed above as it pertains to the layout of units 9-14. The other homes are
proposed on a more level area and should have less issues with the appearance of height.
The Board found this standard met at preliminary plat.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
As discussed above, it is difficult for Staff to ascertain whether this criterion is met. As
such, Staff reiterates Comment #11 recommending the Board to require the applicant to
provide cleaner plan sheets showing only the aboveground utility infrastructure so that
Staff and the Board can better review the proposed locations of these features.
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 buildings of different architectural styles.
(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.
At preliminary, the Board found the proposed homes compatible with one another and
with homes on adjoining development parcels. The applicant is not proposing screening
to the south where the development is adjacent to existing homes. There is a small
landscaping berm provided to the west, consistent with the Board’s direction at sketch.
#SD-23-08
14
14.07 Specific Site Plan 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.
Staff supports the applicant’s provision of a pedestrian path to the shared use path on Dorset Street.
Staff considers no additional access is necessary for the subject property. To the south there are no
complementary easements on Foulsham Hollow Road, and there is a wetland to the east.
(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.
As mentioned above in Staff Comment #11, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to provide a cleaner plan sheet showing only the aboveground utility infrastructure so that Staff
and the Board can better review the proposed locations of these features.
(C) Disposal of Wastes. 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).
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.
At preliminary, the Board found that this criterion did not apply to the proposed development.
(D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
Section 13.06 standards do not apply to single- and two-family homes on their own lots. However, since
the applicant is proposing shared lots, these standards do apply, including minimum landscape budget.
The applicant estimates the building cost of the project to be $2,600,000, requiring $33,500 in
landscaping.
The applicant has proposed $34,496 in trees and shrubs. The City Arborist reviewed the proposed
landscaping plan on 6/2/2023 and offers the following comments.
1. The applicant should add some tree protection measures to protect the Arborvitae hedge that is
being retained on the south border of the property.
2. The applicant is advised that amending backfill with fertilizer is not recommended.
3. Webbing straps should be used for staking, instead of wire in rubber hose.
4. Tree should be set so the root flare is even with finish grade, not the top of the root ball.
15. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Arborist prior to
closing the hearing.
(E) Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in
complying with any of the standards above and 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,
with the exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB
#SD-23-08
15
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.
Staff considers no modification of standards to be necessary.
D) OTHER
15.12.C – CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROADWAYS
(3) The DRB shall require a roadway to be built to City standards in Table 15-1 and Figure 15-1
and dedicated to the City as a public roadway if:
(a) The proposed roadway will provide a future extension to an adjoining property.
(b) The right-of-way or proposed alignment of the proposed roadway is consistent
with the right-of-way for a proposed City street shown on the Official Map; the City
Council shall have the authority to determine if a proposed right-of-way with a
similar location and/or alignment to a right-of-way on the Official Map must be
required to be a public roadway.
(c) The Development Review Board determines that the proposed length of a
roadway or the significance of the roadway within the City’s street network warrants
public ownership.
(d) The proposed roadway serves one (1) or more commercial lots.
(e) The proposed roadway serves four (4) or more separate developable residential
lots or single-family detached units.
(f) The proposed roadway has only one (1) point of access on another existing or
proposed public roadway and serves ten (10) or more dwelling units in any
configuration (i.e., single-, two-, or multi-family).
(g) The proposed roadway has two (2) or more points of access on another existing or
proposed public roadway and serves twenty (20) or more dwelling units in any
configuration.
(h) The proposed roadway has the potential to be extended to serve significant
additional development.
The proposed roads will each serve zero commercial lots and fewer than ten dwelling
units. The proposed roadways are not on the Official Map and do not have the
potential to be extended to serve significant additional development. Since that the
applicant is proposing fewer than four lots to be served by each road, the DRB does not
have to require these roads to be public.
16. Staff considers it appears the applicant is proposing a single lot with footprint lots for the
individual homes. Footprint lots are not recognized by the City of South Burlington. Staff
recommends the Board include a condition of approval indicating that footprint lots are not
recognized or relied upon in this decision and that the applicant must record a notice of
condition to that effect prior to recording the mylar.
#SD-23-08
16
At preliminary, the Board found the request for ‘Brookfield Drive’ and ‘Trails End Drive’
to be private to be in the interest of the City, and further found that any decision on
this project should include a clear statement to the effect that these two proposed
roads are to remain private.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Marty Gillies
Development Review Planner