HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-22-03_1170 1180 Dorset St_Rivers Edge_PP#SD-22-03
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-22-03_1170 1180 Dorset St_Rivers Edge_PP_2022-03-
15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: March 9, 2022
Plans received: February 3, 2022
1170-1180 Dorset Street
Preliminary Plat Application #SD-22-03
Meeting Date: March 15, 2022
Owner
Highlands Development Company, LLC
P.O. Box 132
Lyndon Ctr., VT 05850-0132
Engineer
O’Leary Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Jct, 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-22-03
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Preliminary plat application #SD-22-03 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.
Staff notes the master plan approved 15 units, but did not guarantee such a unit count would be
achieved; it identified a number of criteria that needed to be satisfied for a project to be approved.
The Board reviewed the related sketch plan application #SD-21-20 on August 3, 2021.
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 a recently 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 Comprehensive Plan
as an area of lower intensity, principally residential development.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, 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
#SD-22-03
3
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
15% and lot coverage to 30%. At this time, the applicant has indicated they are proposing 17% building
coverage and 33% 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 recent approvals, the Board has allowed individual development areas to exceed 15%
building and 30% overall lot coverage, provided the overall PUD meets the coverages. At sketch,
the Board asked the applicant to provide an update to the coverages for the VNCC PUD. The
applicant reports that coverage for the overall PUD is 5.7% building coverage and 11.9% lot
coverage. Since the overall PUD is well under the allowed 7% building and 15% lot coverage, Staff
recommends the Board allow the requested lot coverages.
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. The applicant has indicated they intend to have
2 stories on front facades and 2 to 3 stories on the rear facades, but has not provided any information
about building height other than to say it will be below 40-ft.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate the height maximum is not
exceeded prior to closing the preliminary plat, since the units are built into hillside and the required
maximum height may be greater than 40-feet as designed.
Specific zoning district standards of the May 12, 2003 LDR follow.
15.18B Southeast Quadrant District
The 2015 master plan approval found 15.18B(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.
Staff considers 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
#SD-22-03
4
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.
However, the proposed project impacts are extremely close to the wetland buffer (and proposed
limits of work line) and insufficient information (grading, utilities, seeding) is provided to
demonstrate that impacts are avoided. Further, the applicant’s plans do not provide any
permanent demarcation of the wetland buffer or provide any indication that the wetland buffer will
be prohibited from being turned into lawn. The homes proposed along the wetland are only 13-ft
from the wetland buffer boundary, leaving functionally no back yard]
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland buffer is not
impacted by the proposed development prior to closing the preliminary plat, either during
construction or by encroachment over time. Preliminary approval is intended to indicate a project
is generally approvable with a few minor modifications.
(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 Staff considers 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.
Therefore, Staff considers 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) 15.18A 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
#SD-22-03
5
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The 2015 master plan approval found that the PUD holds a valid water and wastewater allocation 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. At
sketch, the Board directed the applicant to obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocations prior
to preliminary plat approval. The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the proposed plan on
March 2 and provided a number of comments.
1. The Preliminary Application for Water Allocation already requested has not yet been
approved for this project. The SBWD will provide information on the water allocation
request forthwith. Preliminary allocation approvals are dependent on available storage in
the City of South Burlington’s defined storage areas.
2. There is currently no water line on Park Road that would supply this project. Coordination
with the developer of the parcel to the north will be needed depending on timing of
construction for these two projects.
3. The water mains and services for Private Roads A & B will be considered private and subject
to all conditions stated in the City of South Burlington Water Ordinance, including private
hydrant fees. An easement providing the SBWD access for routine repairs and maintenance
must be provided to the SBWD. HOA contact information must also be provided to the
SBWD upon project build-out.
4. Private Road A: The three proposed service lines located in front of unit 5 will be subject to
water hammer and pressure fluctuations due to their proximity to the end of the proposed
water main and nearby hydrant. The water main shall be extended to the end of the drive,
in front of unit 3.
5. Private Road B: The three proposed service lines located in front of unit 12 will be subject to
water hammer and pressure fluctuations due to their proximity to the end of the proposed
water main and nearby hydrant. The water main shall be extended to the end of the drive,
in front of unit 14.
6. The proposed main line gate valves on Park Road are too close to the proposed light pole.
Please refer to the CWD Specifications for utility separation requirements.
7. Note that fire hydrants must be installed with a 4” Storz connection on the pumper nozzle.
Please refer to the CWD Specifications for more C-900 water main and fire hydrant
information.
8. Please review and apply all comments provided in the SBWD Technical Review Comments
dated July 22,2021.
Staff calls the Board’s attention to comment #2, which refers to the Zoey Circle development area.
That application is undergoing Act 250 review.
3. Staff anticipates this project might proceed to final plat before the Zoey Circle project receives Act
250 approval and therefore recommends the Board require this project to include the needed water
line on Park Road to supply this project prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing. Staff considers
the remaining comments of the SBWD can be addressed as conditions of preliminary plat approval.
(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
#SD-22-03
6
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction
issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases. Staff considers the applicant’s erosion prevention and sediment control plan to
contain insufficient information to determine whether this criterion is met. Provision of an erosion
prevention and sediment control plan is a requirement of final plat, therefore Staff considers it would
be appropriate for the Board to defer evaluation of this criterion to the final plat stage of review.
(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. This geometry is not provided.
BFJ, providing traffic review for the City, reviewed the provided trip generation and project design on
March 2, 2022 and offers the following comments.
We are in agreement with Lamoureux & Dickinson’s Park Road Commons trip generation
findings.
BFJ also reviewed the roadway alignment sketch plan in consideration of traffic safety and
circulation. BFJ utilized Google Earth aerial and Street View to review sight distances and we are
in agreement that there are no sight distance conflicts at the proposed roadways. BFJ concurs
with previous staff comments that the proposed distance between westerly “Road A” and
easterly “Road B” (approx. 115’ apart) could be enhanced from a traffic safety perspective by
swapping the location of the eastern private road with the location of units 9 through 14. More
importantly, BFJ feels that the short dead end streets are very inefficient from a traffic
circulation point of view, especially for service vehicles (mail, FedEx, garbage, snow plow) and
should be avoided. The applicant should reconfigure the layout either as a U-shaped loop road
or one longer dead-end roadway. Either of these scenarios would increase circulation
efficiencies and could improve traffic safety.
At sketch, Staff recommended swapping 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 also
considered the alternatives of moving the eastern road farther east, and provision of a single teed
driveway. The applicant provided the following testimony against changing the roadway configuration.
• Swapping the homes and road would result in more ledge removal.
• They don’t want the back of homes to face west
• Stormwater treatment for the proposed development is located on the far east of the project
area.
#SD-22-03
7
BFJ’s comment about service vehicles was not considered at sketch by the Board.
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.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the following in order to substantiate the
claims the Board is relying on to accept the proposed roadway configuration.
4. The applicant has not provided a ledge plan substantiating their claim that swapping the homes
and road would result in more ledge removal. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to
require a ledge plan at this preliminary plat stage of review. Staff considers a ledge removal plan
(both map and narrative plan) will be a necessary component of final plat review regardless.
5. The applicant indicated in their cover memo that the eastern road has been shifted east 20-ft to
provide additional separation between the two private roads. Based on a side by side comparison,
the applicant has actually moved the eastern road approximately 20 feet west, thus decreasing
separation between the two private roads from approximately 115 ft to 90 ft. Staff recommends
the Board require the applicant to clarify why this change, which is contrary to the LDR cited above,
was made.
6. The former Director of Public Works indicated acceptance of the current roadway configuration on
January 7, 2022, though they asked that the applicant be required to substantiate that sight
distance standards are met. It does not appear the applicant has done so. Staff recommends the
Board require the applicant to demonstrate that sight distance standards are met prior to closing
the hearing.
7. BFJ notes that service vehicles will be challenged in servicing the neighborhood. The applicant
should address how this concern will be addressed.
(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. If, as Staff anticipates, temporary construction impacts will be necessary, the applicant will
need to demonstrate that the standards for wetland protection of 12.02E are met. The May 12, 2003
standards are analogous to the standards of 2020 LDR with which the Board is familiar.
(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 special and unique resources
in the City and worthy of protection. The location and clustering of buildings and lots in a manner
#SD-22-03
8
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 elevation sketches for each of the two proposed home types. There are
three models of side by side duplex homes, each of which is proposed to have garages which are
recessed behind the front of the covered porch by eight feet. This is consistent with the current
provisions of the LDR. The applicant is proposing to construct two of each of the three models of side
by side duplexes. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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. As noted above, Staff considers 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
insure 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.
8. The Fire Chief has not had the opportunity to review the plans. Given the configuration issues
above, Staff recommends that the Board continue the application to allow for review.
(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.
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 also provided a “cinder or asphalt path” connecting the western road
to the rec path on Dorset Street.
9. Staff recommends the Board require this path to be 8-ft wide and asphalt. Staff further
recommends, based on comments of the Deputy Director of Operations provided on March 9, 2022,
that the Board require the applicant to permanently maintain the sidewalk on the south side of Park
Road.
At sketch, the applicant expressed concern about providing parking on the western road due to
concerns about lot coverage. Based on the above-discussed values, the applicant is well under
allowable lot coverage for the master plan.
10. Given the short driveway lengths, Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require the
applicant to provide additional parking on the western roadway. Staff considers there is the
#SD-22-03
9
potential to add two additional parking spaces. Staff supports the inclusion of on-street parking
demarcated by bump-outs rather than a wider overall cross section.
Landscaping is discussed under 14.07D below.
11. Wire-served utilities are not shown on the provided plans. Though this is a requirement of
preliminary plat, Staff considers it would be acceptable for the Board to accept a verbal description
of the proposed wire-served utility services at this stage and require them to be detailed on the
plans at the final plat stage of review.
The applicant has provided a photometric drawing indicating their intention to provide a street light at
each corner. The provided lights do not meet City standards, and Staff considers they are not located
correctly relative to the sidewalk. The Deputy Director of Operations reviewed the provided plans on
March 9, 2022 and offers the following comments.
- The lighting fixtures should be replaced with City standard fixtures
- The western light should be placed closer to the crosswalk to allow for more light for the
crossing and better vehicular view of pedestrians crossing the street.
12. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the comments of the Deputy
Director of Operations prior to final plat.
The City Stormwater Section reviewed the provided plans on March 4, 2022 and offers the following
comments.
1. The project proposes to create greater than 1 acre of impervious area and disturb greater than
1 acre of land. It will therefore require a stormwater permit and construction permit from the
Vermont DEC Stormwater Division. The applicant should acquire these permits before starting
construction.
2. As the project proposes to create more than one-half acre or more of impervious surface, the
project is subject to the requirements of section 12.03 of the LDRs.
3. In a future application, the applicant should ensure that the following are submitted:
a. Type, material, size, elevation data, and specifications for all proposed collection
systems, culverts, and treatment practices
b. Results of infiltration testing completed using methods identified in the VSMM.
c. Brief written description of proposed stormwater treatment and management
techniques
d. Maintenance plan for treatment practices
4. In the HydroCAD for the WQv storm, it looks like only a small portion of the rain event is
infiltrated in the infiltration basin, while the majority discharges through the control structure to
a downstream gravel wetland. Could the bottom elevation of the infiltration basin be lowered in
order to provide for more storage and infiltrate a larger amount of the water quality storm
event?
5. In the HydroCAD file provided, it appears that the 1” outlet orifice is located 2 feet below the
top of storage of the gravel wetland – it also appears that the 1” orifice may be located in the
outlet structure of the dry pond. The gravel wetland portion of the treatment practice should
contain its own low flow orifice in order to allow the WQv to filter through the stone media over
24 hours. The outlet configuration should arranged so that there is a permanent pool of water
within the voids of the stone.
#SD-22-03
10
6. The applicant should submit a more detailed site plan. The submitted plan does not have
enough detail to verify feasibility. Does the western sub-basin also flow to the gravel wetland on
the east side of the property? How will runoff from the roofs of unit 13 and 14 be conveyed to
the gravel wetland?
7. In a future application, the applicant should submit a downstream analysis for the 25-year
storm event in accordance with the City’s Land Development Regulations.
13. Staff calls the Board’s attention to comment #6 of the City stormwater section and recommends the
Board require it to be addressed prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing. Preliminary approval
is intended to indicate a project is generally approvable with a few minor modifications; if the
stormwater treatment system is not feasible, Staff considers preliminary plat should not be closed.
(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
Southeast Quadrant Objectives
1. preserve and enhance the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the
Quadrant, while allowing carefully planned development.
2. 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.
3. promote a variety of residential patterns and styles, including a fair share of
affordable housing, while preserving the special character of the Quadrant.
4. Provide a safe and efficient transportation system within and through the Quadrant.
Staff considers that if the Board finds other criteria within the applicable LDR to be met, then this
criterion is also met.
C) SITE PLAN STANDARDS
14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards
#SD-22-03
11
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.
A portion of this criterion is addressed above.
Pertaining to future land use policies, the project is identified in the comprehensive plan as
an area of residential and open space. The 2015 master plan approval approved up to 15
units in this area, therefore Staff considers this criterion to have been met, assuming the land
can carry the approved development density while meeting other required standards such as
wetland impacts, access and circulation.
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.
Staff considers the structures to be compatible with structures on adjoining sites.
Planting is discussed under 14.07E below. Parking and pedestrian movement are
discussed above.
(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 homes 9 through 14. The other
homes are proposed on a more level area and should have less issues with the
appearance of height.
14. Staff considers the proposed scale of the buildings generally compatible with adjoining
developments, but recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a rendering
from south of the project area showing the development as viewed by a person traveling
north on Dorset Street.
(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, no information pertaining to compliance with this criterion is
available.
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
#SD-22-03
12
proposed structures.
As discussed above, Staff considers 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. Staff considers this criterion met.
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
complimentary 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 discussed above, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to describe how wire served
utilities will be provided, and require them to be incorporated into the plans at final plat.
(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.
Staff considers this criterion to not be an issue for the provided duplex homes.
(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 3/1 and offers the following comments.
• Tree and Shrub Planting Details should be included with Landscape Plans
• Should require a Tree Protection Plan with Tree Protection zones delineated on plans for all
existing trees to be retained
• The large Sugar Maple that they are proposing to retain is pretty compromised structurally. I
wouldn’t recommend retention and would not grant landscape credit if they are seeking it for
this tree.
#SD-22-03
13
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to address the comments of the City Arborist at final
plat. Unfortunately, the sugar maple proposed for retention should not be saved.
(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
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
15.12C – CRITERIA FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RPOADWAYS
Pursuant to subsection 3, the Development Review Board may approve a private roadway with a single
access serving no more than 10 dwelling units.
Staff considers that the request for these two roads to be private is in the interest of the City, and
further recommends that any decision include a clear statement to the effect that the roads are to
remain private.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner