HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-03 - Supplemental - 1170 1180 Dorset Street (2)
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: #SD-22-03 1170 & 1180 Dorset St Preliminary Plat Application
DATE: May 4, 2022 Development Review Board meeting
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
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 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.
The Board opened the hearing on this application on March 15, 2022. The Board requested the applicant
address some of the outstanding staff comments in order to demonstrate the viability of the project
prior to closing the hearing.
The applicant provided revised materials on April 13. Review of these revised materials is incorporated
herein; criteria which Staff considers to have been addressed (or have been determined to be able to be
addressed at final plat) have been removed from this report.
#SD-22-03
2
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) 15.18A SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
(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.
Discussion of this criterion centered on the proposed roadway layout. Generally speaking, the Board,
Planning and Zoning Staff, and other City departments expressed a preference for a looped or singular
access to this property, for a number of reasons, including improved traffic safety and circulation both
internally and relative to Park Road, improved compliance with 15.12E requiring 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, and
increased separation from the wetland. The Board engaged in a robust discussion of roadway layout,
considering:
• 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 to provide a roadway separating
the homes (and associated lawn areas) from the stream, wetland, and wetland buffer
• moving the eastern road farther east
• 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.
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.
On March 15, the Board directed the applicant to address the following in order to substantiate the
claims the Board is relying on to accept the proposed roadway configuration.
Provide a ledge removal plan
The Applicant has not yet provided a ledge removal plan though they provided a test pit plan
showing depth to ledge at eleven locations, and five locations where ledge was not encountered
on April 13. Test holes where ledge was not encountered were only dug to a depth of 6-ft
maximum. In the locations of homes, an excavation depth of greater than 6-ft will be necessary.
Based on an approximate extrapolation of ledge depth and with consideration for overall
#SD-22-03
3
geology, Staff anticipates ledge removal will be necessary for all of the proposed home
locations, with the possible exception of homes 9 through 12 (the two north eastern most
buildings) where no explorations were conducted.
Staff considers insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that ledge removal
would be greater if homes 9 through 14 were swapped with the road serving those homes.
As noted on March 15, Staff considers a ledge removal plan (both map and narrative plan) will
be a necessary component of final plat review.
The applicant provided the following supplemental testimony on April 13 regarding orientation
of the site, ledge removal, privacy, and aesthetics.
Please see attached ledge plan depicting the approximate depths to ledge throughout the
parcel. We understand that a formal blasting and ledge removal plan will be required for our
Final Plat submittal. Per the attached plan, the depths to ledge generally become shallower
as you make your way from the lower area (where Private Road ‘B’ is located) to the upper
area (Units 8-5), and we anticipate more blasting would be required if the Private Road ‘B’
and Units 9-14 were flipped. As stated at the 3/15/22 Preliminary hearing and at Sketch, the
main reason for not flipping Private Road ‘B’ and Units 9-14 has to do with privacy and
aesthetics, not ledge removal. If Private Road ‘B’ was flipped with units 9-14 the back of
units 9-14 would abut the back of units 5-8 creating minimal back yards with units looking
into one another, which is a privacy concern. In addition, when driving east down Park Road
the back façade of units 9-14 would be visible, rather than the front.
Staff remains unconvinced that privacy and aesthetics would be significantly diminished by
swapping the homes and the road. In particular, one drives both directions down a street,
therefore aesthetics from one direction are balanced by aesthetics from the other. As
previously discussed, wetland protection and road separation distance would be improved by
mirroring the eastern roadway. However, Staff defers to the Board’s ultimate conclusion on this
matter.
Substantiate that sight distance standards are met.
The applicant’s traffic study concludes that a sight distance of 275 ft is necessary for a vehicle
traveling at 35 mph on a 6% downgrade. The applicant provided a plan on 3/15 showing the
required sight distances. Sight distance is not obstructed by the proposed structures or roadway
geometry. However, the sight distance to the eastern roadway from the east does appear to be
restricted by the proposed street trees.
1. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to relocate the proposed street trees to be
outside of the required line of sight for traffic safety, which may involve locating them outside
the right-of-way.
(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.
The Fire Department reviewed the plans on 3/25/2022 and directed the applicant to modify the
geometry of the turnarounds at each street end. The applicant has provided some plan sheets
showing the requested configuration, though not all sheets have been updated to reflect this
change. The Fire Department commented that the throats of the roadways need to be equipped
#SD-22-03
4
with mountable curb. They indicated satisfaction with other elements of the design as represented
by the revised plans submitted on April 13. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
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.
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.
On March 15, Staff called the Board’s attention to comment #6 of the City stormwater section.
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. The applicant indicated on March 15 that they believe they are showing the
#SD-22-03
5
design to be feasible, though Staff continues to be unable to identify roof drains on the provided
plans. The provided overall plan only shows 10-ft contours, while the detailed plans omit the
relevant portion of the site. The Board asked the applicant to look at detailed design of the roof
drains.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to show feasibility of the stormwater
management system prior to closing the preliminary plat.
B) SITE PLAN STANDARDS
14.06 General Site Plan Review Standards
1. 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.
(2) 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.
On March 15, the Board directed 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 to allow these criteria to be evaluated. The applicant testified on that date that
they would make the back of units 3 & 4 look more like a front of a home. Staff reminds
the Board that here is a hedge on the adjoining property to the south, but that the
continued presence of vegetation on an adjoining property not subject to site plan review
cannot be relied upon.
3. Staff recommends the Board review the provided rendering, and the other provided
renderings (unchanged but provided in this packet nonetheless), and determine if they
consider these criteria to be met.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein. If the
applicant is able to address the issues during the hearing by provided any necessary supplemental
hearing as (virtual) handouts, Staff considers the Board may wish to close the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, P.E.
Development Review Planner