HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-22-03 - Decision - 1170 1180 Dorset Street#SD-22-03
1
1 of 14
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
RIVERS EDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
1170 & 1180 DORSET STREET
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-22-03
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
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.
The Development Review Board held public hearings on March 15, 2022 and May 4, 2022. The applicant
was represented by Dan Heil, Peter Sheppard, Paul Brogna, and David Burke.
Based on testimony provided at the above-mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting
materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds,
concludes, and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The project consists of 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 no two private roads, 1170 & 1180 Dorset Street.
2. The project is located in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
3. The owner of record of the subject property is Highlands Development Company, LLC.
4. The application was received on February 3, 2022.
5. The Board reviewed the related sketch plan application #SD-21-20 on August 3, 2021.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
#SD-22-03
2
2 of 14
9. 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.
10. The plans submitted consist of the following:
Sheet
No
Plan Description Prepared by Last Revised Date
1 Overall Plan O’Leary-Burke 04/08/2022
2 Existing Conditions & Erosion Control
Plan
O’Leary-Burke 01/20/2022
3 Subdivision Plan O’Leary-Burke 04/08/2022
4 Plan and Profile O’Leary-Burke 04/08/2022
5 Photometric Plan O’Leary-Burke 01/20/2022
6-10 Details and Specifications O’Leary-Burke 01/20/2022
11 Stormwater Management Plan O’Leary-Burke 01/20/2022
L-1 and
L-2
Landscape Plan O’Leary-Burke 01/03/2022
PL1 Subdivision Plat O’Leary-Burke 01/25/2022
Ledge Plan O’Leary-Burke undated
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
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, the Board approves 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 applicant has provided a computation demonstrating that the proposed
#SD-22-03
3
3 of 14
building heights are all below 40-ft as measured from average pre-construction grade. Some buildings
will have 2 stories on front facades and 2 to 3 stories on the rear facades. These configurations have
been taken into account in the applicant’s computations.
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.
The Board finds 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
line). The Board finds the applicant must, at final plat, provide plans for grading, utilities and seeding
with sufficient detail to demonstrate that impacts are avoided. Further, the applicant must provide a
split rail fence along the wetland buffer, supplemented by periodic signs indicating “Wetland Buffer,”
and incorporate a list of allowed and prohibited uses of the wetland buffer into the homeowner’s
association documents, to be provided at final plat.
(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 the Board finds 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
#SD-22-03
4
4 of 14
maintenance is encouraged.
The 2015 master plan approval establishes open space and natural areas for the PUD as a whole.
Therefore, the Board finds 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
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.
#SD-22-03
5
5 of 14
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.
Comment #2 refers to the Zoey Circle development area. That application is undergoing Act 250 review.
Since it is possible this project might proceed to final plat before the Zoey Circle project receives Act 250
approval, the Board finds this project shall include the needed water line on Park Road to supply this
project. The remaining comments of the SBWD shall also be addressed as part of the application for final
plat.
(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.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for individual
phases. Provision of an erosion prevention and sediment control plan is a requirement of final plat,
therefore the Board defers 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, the Board considered requiring the applicant to swap the location of the eastern private road
#SD-22-03
6
6 of 14
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.
BFJ’s comment about service vehicles was not considered at sketch by the Board.
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 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 geology, ledge
removal will likely 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.
The Board finds 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.
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.
#SD-22-03
7
7 of 14
The Board finds the applicant must 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.
There are a number of factors both in favor and against the proposed access, circulation, and traffic
management strategies. Ultimately, Board finds modest improvements to safety on Park Road could be
gained by reconfiguring the roadways, but such an improvement would have a negative impact on the
layout of the neighborhood. The Board approves the applicants proposed roadway configuration.
(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 temporary construction impacts will be necessary, the applicant will need to demonstrate
that the standards for wetland protection of 12.02E are met.
(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 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. The Board finds 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. The Board finds 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.
#SD-22-03
8
8 of 14
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
with mountable curb. They indicated satisfaction with other elements of the design as represented
by the revised plans submitted on April 13. The Board finds the applicant shall include the revised
turnaround configuration on all sheets at final plat.
(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. The Board finds this path shall be 8-ft wide and asphalt.
The applicant requested the City take responsibility for maintenance of the sidewalk on the south side of
Park Road. The Deputy Director of Operations indicated that the City will not perform plowing of that
sidewalk. The Board is supportive of a shared arrangement whereby the City may perform periodic
repair but not regular maintenance of the sidewalk, and finds the Applicant shall coordinate with the
Department of Public Works prior to application for final plat if they wish to pursue such an
arrangement.
Landscaping is discussed under 14.07D below.
Wire-served utilities are not shown on the provided plans. The Board finds the applicant must show the
location of wire-served utilities at final plat, including locations of transformers.
The applicant has provided a photometric drawing indicating their intention to provide a street light at
each corner. 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.
The Board finds the applicant shall to comply with the comments of the Deputy Director of Operations
as part of the application for 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.
#SD-22-03
9
9 of 14
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.
The applicant testified that they believe the site layout and elevations support the stormwater
treatment system generally as designed. The Board finds the applicant may address the comments
of the City Stormwater Section at final plat, but if addressing the stormwater comments necessitates
relocation of the homes or creates impacts to the wetland buffer, the applicant must submit a new
preliminary plat application.
(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.
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
#SD-22-03
10
10 of 14
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.
The Board finds this criterion will be met when other criteria of the applicable LDR are met.
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.
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 the Board this criterion to have been met, given the applicant’s
demonstration that 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.
The Board finds 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
#SD-22-03
11
11 of 14
appearance of height.
The applicant provided 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. There is a hedge on the adjoining property to the south, but the
continued presence of vegetation on an adjoining property not subject to site plan review
cannot be relied upon. The applicant’s provided rendering shows that the back of units 3
& 4 look enough like a front of a home to satisfy this criterion.
(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
proposed structures.
As discussed above, the Board finds 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. The Board finds these criteria 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.
The Board supports the applicant’s provision of a pedestrian path to the shared use path on Dorset
Street. The Board finds 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, the Board finds wire served utilities must 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
#SD-22-03
12
12 of 14
drum) shall not be required to be fenced or screened.
The Board finds 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.
The Board finds the applicant must 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.
The Board finds 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.
The Board finds that the request for these two roads to be private is in the interest of the City, and that
the roads are to remain private. The applicant must provide a notice of conditions, or incorporate such
restriction into the Homeowners’ Association Documents, as part of the application for final plat.
DECISION
Motion by Mark Behr, seconded by Dan Albrecht, to approve preliminary plat application #SD-22-03 of
Rivers Edge Building Development, subject to the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.
#SD-22-03
13
13 of 14
2. This project must be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and on file in the
South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. The plans must be revised to show the changes below prior to final plat submission:
a. provide a split rail fence along the wetland buffer, supplemented by periodic signs
indicating “Wetland Buffer
b. include the needed water line on Park Road to supply this project
c. incorporate the comments of the South Burlington Water Department, included herein
d. 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
e. incorporate the turnaround approved by the Fire Department on all plan sheets
f. the path connecting the western road to the recreation path on Dorset Street shall be 8-
ft wide and asphalt
g. relocate the proposed crosswalk on Park Road to the west to align with the sidewalk along
Zoey Lane.
h. show wire served utilities, including locations of transformers
i. replace light fixtures with City standard fixtures
j. place the western light fixture closer to the crosswalk to allow for more light for the
crossing and better vehicular view of pedestrians crossing the street
4. The final plat submission must include the following information:
a. plans for grading, utilities and seeding with sufficient detail to demonstrate that impacts
are avoided
b. Homeowners’ association documents that include a list of allowed and prohibited uses of
the wetland buffer
c. A ledge removal plan (both map and narrative plan)
d. Address the comments of the City Stormwater Section, included herein
e. Address the comments of the City Arborist, included herein
f. A draft notice of conditions that the roads are to remain private, or incorporate such a
requirement into the homeowners’ association documents
5. The applicant shall coordinate with the Department of Public Works prior to application for final plat
regarding maintenance of the proposed sidewalk on the south side of Park Road.
6. If addressing the comments of the City Stormwater Section necessitates relocation of the homes or
creates impacts to the wetland buffer, the applicant must submit a new preliminary plat application.
7. The applicant must provide a proposed street name to the planning commission prior to submission of
a final plat application.
8. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services,
and service modifications must be underground.
9. The proposed project must adhere to standards for erosion control as set forth in Section 16.03 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. In addition, the grading plan must meet the
standards set forth in Section 16.04 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
#SD-22-03
14
14 of 14
10. The final plat application must be submitted within 12 months from the date of this decision.
11. The applicant must regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Dan Albrecht Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Mark Behr Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Frank Kochman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
James Langan Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Quin Mann Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Dawn Philibert Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Stephanie Wyman Yea Nay Abstain Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 6 - 0 - 0.
Signed this ____ day of May, 2022, by
_____________________________________
Dawn Philibert, Chair
Please note: An appeal of this decision may be taken by filing, within 30 days of the date of this
decision, a notice of appeal and the required fee by certified mail to the Superior Court, Environmental
Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal must also be mailed to the City of South
Burlington Planning and Zoning Department at 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403. See
V.R.E.C.P. 5(b) (4)(A). Please contact the Environmental Division at 802-828-1660 or
http://vermontjudiciary.org/GTC/environmental/default.aspx for more information on filing
requirements, deadlines, fees and mailing address.
The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state
permits for this project. Call 802.477.2241 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist.