HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-17-29 - Decision - 1580R Dorset Street#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
JJJ SOUTH BURLINGTON, LLC
1580 Dorset Street & 1699 HINESBURG ROAD
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION #SD-17-29
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Preliminary plat application #SD-17-29 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to amend a previously approved 258
unit planned unit development in two (2) phases. The amendment is to Phase II (Cider Mill II) of the
project and consists of increasing the number of residential units by 33 units to 142 units in Phase II and
291 overall. The 142 units are proposed to consist of 66 single family lots, 46 units in two (2) family
dwellings, and 30 single family units on shared lots, 1580 Dorset Street & 1699 Hinesburg Road.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on Tuesday January 2 and February 20, 2018. Brad
Dousevicz, Brian Currier and Paul O'Leary represented the applicant.
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 subdividing two parcels into 67 lots consisting of 66 single family residential
lots and one lot to be developed with 76 single family homes and duplex units and the remainder
to remain open space.
2. The owner of record of the subject properties is JJJ South Burlington, LLC.
3. The application was received on December 6, 2017, and was supplemented January 26 and February
9, 2018.
4. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant — Neighborhood Residential (SEQ-NR),
Southeast Quadrant — Village Residential (SEQ-VR), and Southeast Quadrant — Natural Resource
Protection (SEQ-NRP) sub -districts.
5. The plans submitted consist of a forty five (45) page set of plans. The cover page is entitled "The
Cider Mill Phase II A Planned Residential Development South Burlington, Vermont" prepared by
O'Leary Burke Associates, dated December, 2017 and last revised February 9, 2018.
6. The Master Plan application (#MP-17-02) for this project was reviewed by the Board on January
2 and February 20, 2018.
A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Article 9 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations stablishes the following general review
standards for all site plan applications located within the Southeast Quadrant.
The project is located in the SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR and SEQ-NRP sub -districts. The dimensional standards
outlined in Table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations were altered though the Master Plan approval
process for the subject property. The approved waivers are outlined in the decision and findings of fact for
Master Plan #MP-07-01 and duplicated below.
• Single family minimum lot size from 12,000 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft.
• Single family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%
• Single family maximum building lot coverage from 15%to 42%
• Multi -family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%
• Multi-familv maximum building lot coverage from 15% to 42%
o p i a o
PLANNING & Z0NfNG 1of28
#S D-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
• Multi -family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet
• Multi -family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet
The applicant has indicated on the provided plans what the maximum building coverage will be on each
of the single family lots, and has shown a building setback line. While the exact homes to be constructed
on each lot is not determined, the proposed single family homes all fall within the previously approved
waivers. There are no multi -family homes currently proposed. However, the applicant has requested that
the previously approved multi -family waivers be applied to two-family homes. Side yard setbacks are met
without reliance on waivers.
The applicant is proposing to address the issue of compliance with height criteria by raising the level of
the street and adjacent lots and obtaining Board approval for adjustment of pre-existing grade of the
development lots. The adjustment to raise the level of the street has created a layout which warrants
review under the PUD criteria of Article 14 Site Plan Review Standards.
Though the proposed building heights will require an alteration of existing grade permit in order to meet
the zoning district's height standard, the Applicant is proposing to meet the allowable number of building
stories, summarized in the table below.
Table 1: Number of Building Stories
B) MASTER PLAN
Pursuant to Section 15.07 D (3), the following applies:
Any application for amendment of the master plan, preliminary site plan or preliminary plat that
deviates from the master plan in any one or more of the following respects, shall be considered a new
application for the property and shall require sketch plan review as well as approval of an amended
master plan:
a) An increase in the total FAR or number of residential dwelling units for the property subject
to the master plan;
b) An increase in the total site coverage of the property subject to the master plan;
c) A change in the location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways on the property
subject to the master plan;
d) Land development proposed in any area previously identified as permanent open space in
the approved master plan application; and/or
lh'
PIANNr N1 x ZONING 2of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
e) A change that will result in an increase in the number of PM peak hour vehicle trip ends
projected for total build -out of the property subject to the master plan.
The property is presently subject to a Master Plan and this project will require an amendment to that plan.
All items related to the Master Plan amendment are discussed in the Master Plan Findings of Fact and
Decision.
C) DENSITY
The SEQ-NR and the SEQ-VR districts allow 1.2 units per acre or four (4) units per acre with Transfer of
Development Rights (TDRs). The acreage involved in the entire Cider Mill Development (Cider Mill I and
11) is 161.59 acres, therefore the development has 193 units of inherent density and 646 units of maximum
density. Cider Mill I included 149 units, therefore 44 units of inherent density remain. As part of the
Master Plan approval, the Applicant submitted the legal documents pertaining to the option to purchase
development rights for Cider Mill I and Cider Mill 11 for review by the City Attorney, up to a maximum of
326 units. The Applicant represents that they have secured 72 units of density from the Auclair Farm
based on 60.8 acres at a rate of 1.2 units per acre. Therefore the Applicant needs to secure an additional
26 units of density. The Applicant has not yet provided a proposal for the additional 26 units of density.
The Board finds that the applicant must submit documentation of the required 26 additional TDRs prior
to final plat approval.
D) PHASING
The project will be constructed in four phases as shown on Plan Sheet P. Phase 1 consists of Aurora Lane,
Senator Street north of Nadeaucrest Drive, and Nadeaucrest Drive. Phase 2 consists of Russett Road from
Station 10+00 to Station 18+15, Senator Street between Nadeaucrest and Liberty Lane, and Liberty Lane.
Phase 3 consists of Senator Street between Liberty Lane and Russett Road, Lindamac Drive and Russett
Road from Station 23+50 to 38+35.75. Phase 4 consists of the remainder of Senator Street between
Russett Road and Lindamac Drive, Pippin Lane, and the remainder of Russett Road between Station 18+15
and Station 23+50. The phasing plan takes into consideration the LDR's prohibition on greater than 50
units accessed via a single access point.
E) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, PUDs shall comply
with the following standards and conditions:
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
According to Section 15.13(B)(1) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the existing public
utility system shall be extended to provide the necessary quantity of water, at an acceptable pressure, to the
proposed dwelling units.
According to Section 15.13 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, the subdivider or
developer shall connect to the public sewer system or provide a community wastewater system approved by
the City and the State in any subdivision where off -lot wastewater is proposed.
PIANNiNG & ZONING 3of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
The Applicant obtained preliminary wastewater allocation for 109 units in July of 2015. The Applicant is
currently proposing 142 units, therefore needs allocation for an additional 33 units.
The Board finds the applicant must demonstrate that they have obtained preliminary water supply and
wastewater allocations prior to final plat approval.
(A)(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during and after construction to prevent soil
erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent
properties.
The Applicant has obtained a state construction general permit (permit no. 3144-9020.2) for Cider Mill 2,
which expires May 29, 2020. The permit addresses a 35.6 acre area encompassing 109 housing units. The
Applicant will need to amend their state permit to address the additional disturbance associated with
housing units in the Village Residential zone. The Board notes that the state construction general permit
prohibits discharge of visibly discolored stormwater from the construction site. The Board notes that the
provided EPSC plans do not show final proposed grading beyond the limits of the roadways and thus it is
difficult to know whether the proposed measures will provide sufficient erosion protection. The City has
the authority to enforce violations of the stormwater & sewer ordinance, specifically pertaining to illicit
discharges, should the Project result in sediment migrating beyond the limits of the construction site.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The Applicant has submitted a traffic impact assessment and a traffic addendum, both prepared by
Lamoureux & Dickinson. The Director of Public Works has reviewed these studies and has requested
additional information pertaining to directional distribution methodology and several adjoining intersections
for which information was not provided. Comments on the traffic impact assessment, traffic addendum and
supplemental technical memorandum are discussed under criterion A (9) below.
(A)(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
As discussed pertaining to Article 12 below, the Project design minimizes wetland impacts. The Open Space
Strategy identifies a north to south wildlife corridor located south of the Project and oriented between Cider
Mill and Cider Mill II. Cider Mill and the Master Plan pertaining to Cider Mill II were permitted before the
Open Space Strategy was developed and thus did not take it into consideration. At the narrowest point, the
wildlife corridor is 188-feet wide between the rear of an approved home on Sommerfield Ave. and the edge
of Stormwater Pond C. The Board finds that the stormwater pond shall not be fenced to help preserve the
wildlife corridor.
The Board finds that prior to final plat approval, the applicant must provide an open space management plan
to become part of the Home Owners Association documents, which must be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
PLANNIN x 1.aN Nc 4of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
The applicant must incorporate the following recommendations of the Natural Resources Committee
pertaining to the wetland crossing of Aurora Road connecting to Sommerfield Avenue, provided by
memorandum to the Development Review Board on November 12, 2017.
• The height and grade of the embankment of the road should ensure the safe passage of wildlife.
• The structure should be free of guardrails to allow wildlife to cross.
• Signage depicting "wildlife crossing" should be placed at both ends of the connector.
The area formerly occupied by neighborhood park E and currently identified on the plans as Unmanaged
Open Space must be retained as open space and remain unmanaged (i.e. not mowed or otherwise
developed).
(A)(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the
area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is
located.
Pursuant to Section 9.01 of the Land Development Regulations, the Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ)
is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resource
protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agricultural use, and well as 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 judgment of the Development Review Board will best preserve the open space character of this
area shall be encouraged.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as lower intensity principally residential and medium intensity
residential to mixed -use. The Board finds this Criterion to be met.
(A)(6) Open space areas on the site have been located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels and/or stream buffer areas.
The project will provide demarcation at the boundaries of the open space areas to prevent the open spaces
from becoming extensions of the adjacent back yards only where open spaces are immediately adjacent to
back yards. The project will include clear pedestrian access to neighborhood park D. The Board finds this
Criterion to be met.
(A)(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or (designee) to ensure that
adequate fire protection can be provided.
The Deputy Fire Chief has deferred review of the plans to Final Plat.
(A)(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting have
been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to
adjacent landowners.
On January 25, 2018, the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent indicated the stormwater design was
adequate with the exception of the following.
Assistant Stormwater Superintendent Comment: If you read LDR §12.03C.(3), it notes that site
southl')uri.'
PLANNiN' a M NG 5of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
balancing may be utilized if required control of stormwater runoff cannot be achieved. Can you
demonstrate that this is true? Additionally, in Definitions on page 2-33, Site Balancing is defined
for use where Stormwater control of certain limited areas are not possible.
Further, if I am not sure that the subject area of POI D even meets disconnection criteria as has
proposed. In the submitted materials, disconnection of rooftops, credit 3.2:
a. Question 5, "Is the length of the disconnection at least equal to the contributing
rooftop runoff?" The application indicates yes, but for the properties along the
southern -most leg of Russett Road (Units 7-21), it is unclear if sufficient
disconnection area is provided before runoff is recollected and channelized in a
Swale that runs behind the houses.
b. Question 6, where on the plans is it noted that downspouts must be 10 feet
away from the nearest impervious surface?
c. Question 8, "Have disconnections located on HSG C or D soils been evaluated to
determine if disconnection is appropriate?" The application indicates yes. Please
provide documentation of the evaluation that was conducted. As noted in the
VSMM, "In less permeable soils (HSG C and D), the water table depth and
permeability shall be evaluated by a professional engineer to determine if a
spreading device is needed to provide sheetflow over grass surfaces. In some
cases, dry wells (see Figure3.1), french drains or other temporary underground
storage devices may be needed to compensate for a poor infiltration capability."
Additionally, in the revised plan Sheet S1 revised on 1-23-18, it appears that there has been
regrading behind the units along Lindamac St. This slope appears to exceed the maximum slope
of the disconnection requirements.
The Applicant provided revised plans on February 9, 2018 to address this comment. The Assistant
Stormwater Superintendent considers that the provided plans do not conclusively address this question
and further coordination is needed. The Applicant has requested that they be allowed to complete final
coordination prior to final plat approval. The Board finds that the modifications required to the plans to
address these comments shall be addressed prior to final plat approval.
The Board finds that the Applicant shall be required to provide a 12-foot level area around the entire
perimeter of the stormwater ponds for maintenance access, and that 8 feet of that area shall be
maintained clear of landscaping.
The Board finds that the Applicant must regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance
infrastructure.
The Board finds that reducing the width of Russett Road between Liberty Lane and Lindamac Street to
18-feet to accommodate maintenance access to the stormwater pond is acceptable.
(A)(9) Roads, utilities, sidewalks, recreation paths, and lighting are designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility and roadway plans and maintenance standards.
The Public Works Director reviewed the plans on December 27, 2017 and offers the following comments.
1 have reviewed the various traffic analyses submitted by the applicant for the referenced
project. Materials that will be referenced in this email via footnote include:
xira &6of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
1. 12122117 Technical Memo from Roger Dickinson
2. 1214117 Technical Memo from Roger Dickinson
3. 7117117 Technical Memo from Roger Dickinson
4. 12128115 Supplemental Analysis Letter from Roger Dickinson
5. 612108 Traffic Impact Study from Trudell Consulting Engineers
6. State of Vermont Act 250 LU Permit #4C1128-4 Amendment issued 2129116
Land Use Code
The applicant correctly applies the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) LU Code 230, Single
Family Dwelling in their recent analyses'. Z, 3.
Dorset Street and Cider Mill Drive Intersection
The studies' conclude a southbound left -turn lane is warranted at this intersection. The
applicant's Final Plat Submission shall include this mitigation measure in its plans.
Hinesburg Road and Cheesefactory Road Intersection
This is the one section of adjacent roadway that is identified by VTrans as a High Crash Location
(actual crashes exceed the critical rate). One measure to improve safety as this intersection
would be to install a southbound right turn deceleration lane on Hinesburg Road at
Cheesefactory Road. The applicant has already been conditioned' that, "Prior to the construction
of the 261h unit in the Project, the Permittee shall prepare a scoping study of the [intersection],
prepare a cost estimate for any improvements and pay a fair share' impact fee to the City of
South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3% of the total cost of the improvement." This
condition should be incorporated into future City Conditions of Approval for this project so that
1) all mandated improvements are easily located in a single location and 2) to ensure improved
safety at the intersection.
Hinesburg Road and Van Sicklen Road Intersection
Traffic analysis' indicates the project will have a negative impact on this intersection's
operations, specifically the eastbound Van Sicklen Road approach at Hinesburg Road. This
intersection has previously been identified as a location in need of improvement by the City of
South Burlington and is incorporated into the City's Traffic Impact Fee. The applicant will
contribute $128,000 in Traffic Impact Fees to the City for this project. Those fees can be used by
the City to upgrade this intersection. No further mitigation is required by the applicant at this
location.
Hinesburg Road and (proposed) Nadeaucrest Drive
Traffic studies 1, Z indicate that neither a right turn lane onto or off of Hinesburg Road are
warranted as part of this project. The City agrees with this assessment.
Overall
The project greatly benefits from having access to two non -signal controlled high volume
Soul ,.i,din ,i
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
roadways in Dorset Street (Class 2 Town Highway) and Hinesburg Road (State Route 116), each
with approximate volumes of 6,000 cars per day. These roadways have high Levels of Service and
the ability to absorb additional traffic.
The above mentioned micro -improvements will ensure the project does not cause undue, adverse
conditions on existing and proposed roadways.
Additional detail -related comments will be provided at the time of Final Plot Submittal, which is
typically when specific design related details make their way into plan sets.
Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
Justin Robidoux
Director of Public Works
The Board finds that the applicant's Final Plat application must include a southbound left -turn lane at the
intersection of Dorset Street and Cider Mill Drive.
The Board finds that Condition #33(ii) of Act 250 Permit #4C1128-4, requiring that "prior to the construction
of the 26th unit in the Project, the Applicant shall prepare a scoping study of the Cheesefactory Road/Vermont
Route 116 Intersection, prepare a cost estimate for any improvements necessary and pay a "fair share"
impact fee to the City of South Burlington, which shall not exceed 21.3%," is incorporated as a condition of
this approval. The Board modifies the wording of this condition for the purpose of this approval to avoid
confusion with City Traffic Impact Fees by changing the words "impact fee" to "mitigation contribution."
The Board finds that condition #26 of the original approval (#SD-08-34) requiring the applicant to reassess
the northbound left turn lane warrant at the Hinesburg Road (VT 116) Nadeaucrest intersection prior to the
issuance of a zoning permit for the 501h and 1001" dwelling units is no longer needed.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
The objectives for the SEQ identified in the comprehensive plan are as follows.
Objective 60. Give priority to the conservation of contiguous and interconnected open space areas
within this quadrant outside of those areas [districts, zones] specifically designated for development.
Objective 61. Maintain opportunities for traditional and emerging forms of agriculture that
complement and help sustain a growing city, and maintain the productivity of South Burlington's
remaining agricultural lands.
Objective 62. Enhance Dorset Street as the SEQ's "main street" with traffic calming techniques,
streetscape improvements, safe interconnected pedestrian pathways and crossings, and a roadway
profile suited to its intended local traffic function.
The Board finds Objective 60 to be satisfied by supporting a corridor through open spaces and by limiting
the roadway connections to that necessary to achieve an east -west connection, which is another stated
City objective. Objective 61 is discussed in conjunction with SEQ Section 9.06 below. Objective 62 is
1.1t
�xra� ruin 8of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
addressed by the traffic study and discussed in response to standard (A)(9) above. The Board finds this
criterion to be met.
F) SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall
require site plan approval. The single family homes on individual lots are exempted from Site Plan
Review. Section 14.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following
general review standards for all site plan applications:
(A) Relationship of the proposed development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is described in conjunction with Planned Unit Development
Standard (A)(10) above.
(B)(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.
At the January 2, 2018 hearing, the Board requested the applicant provide grading, parking and
landscaping plans for the two family and single family dwellings on shared lots in order to facilitate site
plan review. Prior to the February 20, 2018 hearing, the applicant provided these plans and a Landscaping
Unit Plantings and Budget worksheet which describes that one small tree, five small and one large
evergreen shrub, and nine flowering shrubs will be planted for each two family unit, and two small trees,
six small and one large evergreen shrub, and 12 flowering shrubs will be planed for each single family unit
on a shared lot. Landscape planting is discussed further below.
The Board has no concerns with the grading or parking for the two family dwellings. The applicant is
proposing that the two units in a two family dwelling share a 25-foot wide driveway.
Based on the provided elevations, the applicant is proposing that the single family homes on shared lots
have the option to be constructed with a side -loaded garage. The single family homes on shared lots are
proposed to be spaced 10 feet apart. The applicant indicated that the side -loaded garages would only be
possible on the end units.
Driveways for the single family homes on shared lots are proposed to be approximately 35 feet long
measured from the back of sidewalk (or curb if there is no sidewalk) to the garage, and 18 feet wide. The
Board finds the parking to be adequate.
(B)(2) Parking:
a. Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a
public street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this
subsection.
b. The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or
more buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The
Board shall approve only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) — (ii) N/A
(iii) The parking area will serve a single or two-family home;
south'
w€ANNINi a ZONI 6 9of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
The applicant has provided elevations showing that the garages for the two family dwellings and
the single family dwellings on shared lots will be farther from the street than the front of the
building and will be located 8-feet behind the front of the porch. The Board finds this criterion
to be met.
(B)(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 adjoining buildings.
The applicant is proposing buildings with a height of 26-feet when measured from the base of the structure
to the midpoint of the roof. The Board finds that the heights are compatible with the adjoining structures,
but that the height standard is not met. Height is further discussed under criterion (C)(2) below.
(B)(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or
building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines
shall be underground. Plans submitted as part of this application show underground utility lines are
proposed.
The Board notes that a slope and utility easement is shown on the Nadeau Parcel at the intersection of
Senator Street and Nadeaucrest Drive. The Board finds that the applicant must submit documentation
of an easement prior to final plat approval. This must be included in the irrevocable offer of dedication
for the street.
(C)(1) The Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural
characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
The Applicant has submitted a set of model home plans and elevations for each of the single family,
duplex and single family on a shared lot homes. The applicant has proposed a Design Guidelines
document to ensure that the mixture of home models meet this standard, which the Board finds will be
incorporated as a condition of approval. This standard is discussed in greater detail as it pertains to
SEQ-NR Standard 9.07C (2) below.
(C)(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.
In order to avoid the need to install a sewer pump station and force main, the applicant is proposing to
raise a section of Lindamac Street by as much as five feet, and then grade the surrounding topography so
that it transitions smoothly to meet existing prior to the wetland buffer. The homes, which will be 26 feet
high from the base of the structure to the midpoint of the roof, are proposed to be placed on the new
grade, resulting in some cases in a height greater than the allowable height of 28 feet measured from pre-
existing grade. The applicant has requested that the Board grant permission for alteration of an existing
grade on Lindamac Street, and with that alteration, establish the new grade as preconstruction grade
under section 3.07 Height of Structures. In support of this request, the applicant has updated sheet SH 8
and SH 9 to show the proposed grading for Lots 18 — 34.
In response to other comments on Site Plan Review criteria, the applicant has provided grading plans for
all of the units on shared lots. In designing the grading for the other homes on shared lots, the applicant
southburlington
PLANNING ZONING 10of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
has identified the need to request permission for alteration of existing grade for all 76 homes on shared
lots.
The Board has reviewed the proposed grading for Lots 18-34 on Lindamac Street and the proposed grading
for the homes on shared lots. The applicant is proposing as much as nine (9) feet of fill along the rear of
the home lots on Lindamac Street. See Plan Sheet # 9.
The Board finds that the homes on shared lots on the south side of Liberty Lane are raised approximately
four (4) feet above existing grade. See Plan Sheet #7. Similar to Lindamac Street, the homes on the south
side of Liberty Lane are raised uniformly, but the Board finds there may be a design option which better
addresses the standards for desirable transition from structure to structure and for connectivity to natural
areas such as garden level basements. The homes on the north side of Liberty Lane and along both side
of the north segment of Russett Road better meet these standards. See Plan Sheet #6.
The applicant has indicated that they are looking into revisions to the design to smooth out elevations
and make more functional rear yards. This would also support neighborhood connectivity to the adjoining
natural areas.
The Board finds that the proposed grading for some of the single family homes on shared lots could
better satisfy this criterion and must be addressed during Final Plat review.
Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations:
(A) 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 of collector street, to
provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in
the area.
The Board finds that appropriate connections have been made in Cider Mill II to adjoining properties.
(B) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground.
Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site.
See discussion under Site Plan General Review Standards above.
(C) 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).
No dumpsters are proposed as part of the Project. The Board finds this criterion met.
(D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements
Pursuant to Section 13.06(A) of the proposed Land Development Regulations, landscaping and screening shall
be required for all uses subject to planned unit development review. The total cost of the building subject to
site plan review (the two family buildings and the single family buildings on shared lots) is estimated at
$11,400,000 by the applicant. The minimum landscaping budget, as shown below, is $121,500.
�'t.ANNIN I, & ZaNa NG 11of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
Total Building Construction or
Building Improvement Cost
% of Total Construction/
Improvement Cost
Cost of proposed project
$0 - $250,000
3%
$7,500
Next $250,000
2%
$5,000
Additional over $500,000
1%
$109,000
mi
Minimum Landscaping $
$121,500
Proposed Landscapingt___
$122,560
The applicant revised plans to comply with requests of the Arborist during the review period, and the
Arborist has indicated that he is satisfied with the resulting plans.
The applicant has provided typical landscape plans, which describes that one small tree, five small and
one large evergreen shrub, and nine flowering shrubs will be planted for each two family unit, and two
small trees, six small and one large evergreen shrub, and 12 flowering shrubs will be planed for each single
family unit on a shared lot. The Board finds this criterion to be met.
G) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT
This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is subject to the
provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts
The following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ:
A. Height. See Article 3.07.
Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the
maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers area not available for
structures with the SEQ zoning district.
The Project is located within the SEQ-NR and SEQ-VR districts. The applicant has not demonstrated
compliance with the height requirements of these districts, as summarized in the zoning district and
dimensional standards section above.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for
creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels
Open space areas are proposed throughout the development. The layout of the open spaces not
designated as park land are largely dictated by the wetland configuration on the Site. Many of the open
spaces are located at the perimeter of the development and are continued on adjoining parcels. A
discussion of the adequacy of the open space areas designated as parks is included under SEQ standard
9.06D: Public Services and Facilities below. The Board finds this criterion met.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the
Regulating Plan for the applicable sub -district allowing carefully planned development at the
average densities provided in this bylaw.
uiln�
�taxxr, r€rya€uc 12of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
The applicant is proposing to purchase Transfer Development Rights (TDRs) to allow the project to
have closer to the maximum density. Staff considers that the applicant has laid out the development
to facilitate the densities allowable and therefore considers the layout is consistent with the
regulating plan. The Board finds this criterion met.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall
be established by the applicant.
The Board finds that the applicant must submit an open space management plan prior to final plat
approval.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed 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 Development Review Board
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction
issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
See discussion under PUD Criteria A (2).
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect wetland, stream, or
primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with
the surrounding landscape. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be
prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is
encouraged.
The applicant has proposed post and rail fencing in some locations where the dwelling unit backyards
and neighborhood park lands abut wetlands. They have not proposed fencing where the wetland areas
are buffered from the development by stormwater features, nor have they proposed fencing where the
single family lots abut wetlands. In these locations, buffers are demarcated by landscaping.
The applicant has provided demarcation landscaping along the wetland boundary south of proposed
unit #83 as requested at the January 2, 2018 hearing.
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through
development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans
that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural
operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for
agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community -supported agriculture.
The proposed project includes a proposed community garden area for residents and is slated to include
the use of 98 Transferable Development Rights, which will be drawn from approximately 81 acres of land
in the SEQ-Natural Resource Protection District.
The land to the south and east of the project is farmland (though notably it is zoned residential). Homes
in the southern and eastern portion of this project were previously approved by the Development Review
Board, as noted above.
At the January 2, 2018 hearing, the applicant indicated that they would communicate the agricultural
nature of the adjacent lands and Vermont's Right to Farm statues into the development's HOA
aid
P.i.APUTNr & 1.0NI G 13of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
documents. In addition, the applicant has updated the plans to denote that "any existing hedgerow
along property line next to agricultural lands shall remain."
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review
Board 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.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs
of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a
City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater
Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
The Board finds that the applicant must obtain preliminary water and wastewater allocation prior to
final plat approval.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall
be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is
consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with
the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(9) above.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire
protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not 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.
See discussion under PUD Standard (A)(7) above.
E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies
sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for
pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between
neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board 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.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and
maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance
aInaraarac as zoNtNG 14of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
that has been approved by the City Council.
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and
neighborhoods shall apply.
See discussion under PUD Standards (A)(8) and (A)(9) above.
9.07 Regulating Plans
A. ...
B. General Provisions
(1) ...
(2) All residential lots created on or after the effective date of this bylaw in any SEQ sub -district
shall confirm to a standard minimum lot width to depth ratio of one to two (1:2), with ratios of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended
In the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD-16-01) similarly sized and proportioned single-
family lots in a near identical layout were approved by the Board in the southernmost section
of the project. In the present proposal, the south portion slightly reconfigures the single
family lots. The homes within the north portion of the project are significantly reconfigured
compared to the most recent decision of the DRB (#SD-16-01), though the units on the
northern portion of the project are not proposed to be on individual lots therefore this
standard does not apply. The reconfigured lots on the south portion of the project are of
similar proportion to the previously approved lots. The Board finds that the proposed single-
family lots do not all meet the ratio requirement of this standard. However, given that the
Board has previously permitted similarly sized and proportioned lots in the south section of
the project, the Board does not consider it appropriate to re -open a discussion on those lot
proportions.
C. ...
D. Parks Design and Development.
(1) General standards. The SEQ has an existing large community park, the Dorset Street Park
Complex. Parks in the SEQ may be programmed as neighborhood parks or mini -parks as
defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Mini parks in the SEQ should be a minimum of 10,000
square feet, with programming approved by the South Burlington Recreation Department.
Such parks are to be located through the neighborhoods in order to provide a car free
destination for children and adults alike, and to enhance each neighborhood's quality of
life. They shall be knitted into the neighborhood fabric as a focal point in the
neighborhood, to add vitality and allow for greater surveillance by surrounding homes,
local streets and visitors. Each park should be accessible by vehicle, foot, and bicycle and
there should be a park within a quarter -mile of every home.
(2) Specific Standards. The following park development guidelines are applicable in the SEQ-
NRT, SEQ-NR, SEQ-VR, and SEQ-VC districts:
a. Distribution and Amount of Parks:
i. A range of parks and open space should be distributed through the SEQ to
meet a variety of needs including children's play, passive enjoyment of the
outdoors, and active recreation.
southbudinown
ataaxi���air.areIac 15of28
#S D-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
The applicant is proposing four open space areas designated as parks. Of
these four areas, one is designated as a community garden, while the
remaining three are designated as neighborhood park land. The applicant has
verbally represented that the parks will be maintained as lawn without
amenities, though the proposed plan includes a gazebo in the southernmost
neighborhood park. At the January 2, 2018 hearing, the Board requested that
the applicant provide parking next to the community garden, and that a path
be provided to Neighborhood Park D. The applicant has made these changes.
The Board finds this criterion met.
ii. Parks should serve as the focus for neighborhoods and be located at the
heart of residential areas, served by public streets and fronted by
development.
The Board finds this criterion met.
iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of Z5 acres of developed parkland per
1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.
The applicant represents on their Overall Site Plan (Plan Sheet #2) that the open
spaces total 3.78 acres, or 3.64 acres when omitting the community garden.
The applicant has clarified on the Overall Site Plan the boundaries of the open
spaces included in the open space calculations and shown boulders demarcating
the open space where they are not otherwise demarcated by site features.
iv. A neighborhood or mini park of 10,000 square feet or more should be
provided within a one -quarter mile walk of every home not so served by
an existing City park or other publicly -owned developed recreation area.
The Board finds this criterion met.
b. Dedication of Parks and Open Space: Parks and protected open space must be
approved by City Council for public ownership or management, or maintained
permanently by a homeowners' association in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
The applicant has verbally represented that open spaces will be maintained by the
homeowners' association. The Board finds the applicant must submit
documentation of this agreement prior to recording mylars.
c. Design Guidelines
i. Parks should be fronted by homes and/or retail development in order to
make them sociable, safe and attractive places.
ii. Parks should be located along prominent pedestrian and bicycle
connections.
iii. To the extent feasible, single -loaded roads should be utilized adjacent to
natural open spaces to define a clear transition between the private and
public realm, and to reinforce dedicated open space as a natural resource
and not extended yard areas.
south
PtANNING a ZONING 16of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
The Board finds these criteria to be met.
9.08 SEQ-NR Sub -District; Specific Standards
The SEQ-NR sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 500 linear
feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks 500 feet or
longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path connections.
Lindamac Street and Senator Street both extend greater than 500 feet but both of these streets
have mid -block pedestrian connections. Other blocks are less than 500 feet. The Board finds
criterion met in the SEQ-NR sub -district.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See discussion immediately above.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) that are not constructed to an adjacent parcel to allow
for a future connection are strongly discouraged. Such dead end streets shall not exceed
200 feet in length.
The south end of Russett Road is proposed to be approximately 150 feet long and extend to
the property line to accommodate a future public connection to the Auclair property to the
south. The Board finds this criterion met.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5
to 1:5 recommended
See discussion under 9.07 above.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) are
intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are
safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Board finds this criterion to be met.
(2) Sidewalks.
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5-) in width with an additional
minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the
street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street.
south �.
FtANN'1WG' a ZONING 17of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
Plans show that the sidewalks will be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, will occur on
at least one side of the street, and will have a sufficient planting strip. The Board finds
this criterion to be met.
(3) Street Trees
(a) Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet
wide.
(b) Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory to the
City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size of 2.5 to
3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on center.
The Board found that street trees are spaced greater than 30-feet apart along the
east -west roadways in the two and single family on shared lots portions of the
development. During the January 2, 2018 hearing, the applicant agreed to adjust
the tree spacing.
The applicant responded as follows:
Where possible, the landscaping plan set was revised to add street trees to
meet the 30-feet standard. please ,note that in many uses along Aurora mood
the driveways are too close together to allow 30'street tree spacing along the
entire length of the roadway. tither limiting factors ore intersection sight
distance considerations and light pole locations.
Along the streets containing the single family homes on shared lots, the applicant
represents the following.
The driveways are spaced approximately 35 feet apart and do not allow 30'
street tree spacing unless trees are planted only a couple feet off the
driveways. The plans hone been revised to show ca street tree in between each
of the proposed driveway locations. As part of the revision 15 street trees
have been removed can Russett Road and Liberty Lane.
The Board finds that the street tree spacing along Aurora Road, Russett Road and
Liberty Lane meets the standard as closely as possible. The Applicant represented
at the February 20, 2018 hearing that there are 15 fewer street trees overall than
would be required if the trees were placed at 30 feet apart throughout the
development. The applicant is proposing 63 trees on the overall site outside of
the immediate vicinity of the homes and not included in the landscape budget.
The Board finds the additional trees on the overall site adequately meet this
criterion. Any tree spacing which is closer than 30-feet should be reviewed by the
City Arborist prior to final plat approval. This comment also applies to the SEQ-VR
district.
(4) On -street parking. Sufficient space for one lane of on -street parking shall be provided on
all streets except for arterials outside of the SEQ-VC and SEQ-VR sub -districts. This
requirement may be waived within the SEQ-NRN sub -district provided the DRB finds
sufficient off-street parking has been provided to accommodate the parking needs of the
uses adjacent to the street.
The Board finds this criterion met. This comment also applies to the SEQ-VR district.
uthbV
aiavrrr; taE 18of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
(5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic.
Intersections are 20-feet wide at pedestrian crossings except at the location where the
proposed recreation path crosses Senator Street at Nadeaucrest Drive and at two other
locations where there are mid -block pedestrian crossings. The Board finds that the
Applicant should adjust the mid -block pedestrian crossings to be 20-feet wide except at
the Senator Street at Nadeaucrest Drive pedestrian crossing. This comment also applies
to the SEQ-VR district.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g.,12' to 14') shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces. Overall
illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development patterns and
character of the SEQ with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots)
and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
The applicant is proposing twelve to fourteen foot high fixtures. Fixtures are spaced generally
so that light levels drop to zero for a brief space between light cones. There are lights
proposed at both wetland crossings. The applicant has adjusted the amount of lighting within
the two family and single family on shared lot home areas to be similar to the amount of
lighting in the single family home area. The Board finds this criterion met. This comment also
applies to the SEQ-VR district.
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi family buildings must face the street. Secondary building
entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to
arterial streets; see Section 9.11). A minimum of thirty-five percent (35%) of translucent
windows and surfaces should be oriented to the south. In the SEQ-NRN sub -district, residential
buildings should orient their rooflines to maximize solar gain potential, to the extent possible
within the context of the overall standards of the regulating plan.
The applicant has provided typical building elevations for each home type. Primary entries face
the street. Building orientation varies through the development and thus the translucence
standard cannot be evaluated at this time. The Board finds that translucence criteria shall be
evaluated at Final Plat review.
(2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades should be
varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies
that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged.
The applicant has provided six pages of typical elevations for a variety of home types, as well as a
set of design guidelines for each of the single family, two family, and single family on shared lots
style homes. These design guidelines also require variations between the home types. The Board
finds this criterion met. This comment also applies to the SEQ-VR district.
southburfington
PLAN i'kG a ZONING 19of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
(3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is
critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25') from the back of
sidewalk.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front setbacks.
The Board finds this criterion met.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front
lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum
of eight feet (8') behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling.
(a) For the purposes of this subsection:
(i) The building width of a single or two-family dwelling, not including the garage,
shall be no less than twelve feet (12'), except for a duplex with side -by -side primary
entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not
including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8')
(ii) The portion of the single or two-family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line
may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8') wide.
The Board finds this criterion met. This comment also applies to the SEQ-VR district.
(b) •..
(c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single-family houses, duplexes and townhouses.
The applicant is not proposing any alleys.
(5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and
affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be
mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than
compartmentalized into sections of near -identical units.
The applicant is proposing to arrange the development such that all of the single family homes
are grouped, all of the two-family home are grouped, and all of the single family on a shared
lot homes are grouped.
The proposed design standards ensure that within each grouping of homes that the home
styles be mixed. The Board finds this criterion met. This comment also applies to the SEQ-
VR district.
9.09 SEQ-VR Sub -District; Specific Standards
The SEQ-VR sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this
Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300 and 400
linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are unavoidable blocks
400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or recreation path
connections.
Aurora Road has a mid -block recreation path at station 13+50. This results in block lengths
1*1ANNINr & ZONING 20of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
of 350 feet and 725 feet.
The applicant represents that they located the recreation path at the west end of unit 109
instead of dividing the block into two equal segments for the following reasons.
Applicant response; In our opinion, the rec path will better serve the community by
maintaining a scenic feel along the stormwater pond and wetland buffer before
connecting back to the public roadways. If the path was located between units 110 and
111, unit 1091110 would have to be shifted 20-30 feet to the west to make room for the
path. The neighbors from Cider Mill/ and the DRB have had concerns about the wildlife
corridor in the area and the impact of a rec path seems preferable to the increased
encroachment of a building. Also, the change from a S' wide concrete sidewalk to a 10'
wide paved recreation path on Aurora Road, in front of a duplex unit, would not look as
uniform as the current configuration. If the City wants to make the rec paths location
between units 110 and 111 a requirement, we request it be made part of the final
application.
The Board finds that a uniform sidewalk width along the portion of Aurora Road lined by
homes is desirable and is ok with the applicant's configuration.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See discussion immediately above.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. cut de sac or hammer -head) that are not constructed to
an adjacent parcel to allow for a future connection are strongly discouraged.
Such dead end streets shall not exceed 200 feet in length.
Aurora Road has a cul-de-sac less than 200 feet long. The Board finds this
criterion met.
(3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of
1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended.
Lots in the SEQ-VR sub -district are proposed to be on one lot. The Board finds this
criterion met.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and local) in the
VR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that discourage
through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Aurora Road has a meandering centerline, and is connected to adjoining streets at right
angles. The Board finds this criterion met.
(2) Sidewalks
PtANNiNG A ZONING 21of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
(a) Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an additional
minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk from the
street.
(b) Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be connected in a
pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The DRB may
in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this
purpose.
The applicant is proposing a ten foot wide recreation path along Aurora Road.
The Board finds these criteria met.
(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
(4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
(5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14') shall be
provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from public spaces.
Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -intensity development
patterns and character of the SEQ with lower, smoother levels of illumination (rather
than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest level consistent with public safety.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary
entries for single family and multi family buildings must face the street. Secondary
building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design
guidelines apply to arterial streets).
The applicant has provided typical building elevations for each home type. Primary
entries face the street. The Board finds this criterion met.
(2) Building Facades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but facades
should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches,
stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are oriented to the street are
encouraged.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
southl) ul rlingion
FtANNINr & ZONi G 22of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
(3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between the
building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
(a) Buildings should beset back fifteen feet (15') from the back of sidewalk.
Buildings are set back ten feet from the back of sidewalk and fifteen feet from the
back of curb where there is no sidewalk. The Board finds this criterion met.
(b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front
setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be
enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials.
Porches are proposed to project six feet (6') into the front setback where there is
a sidewalk, and two feet (2') into the front setback where there is no sidewalk.
The Board finds this criterion met.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
(5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes,
and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should
be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than
compartmentalized into sections of near -identical units.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ-NR standards above.
H) SURFACE WATER PROTECTION STANDARDS
Section 12.02 Wetland Protection Standards apply to all lands within 50-feet of a wetland.
(1) Consistent with the purposes of this Section, encroachment into wetlands and buffer areas
is generally discouraged.
(2) Encroachment into Class 11 wetlands is permitted by the City only in conjunction with
issuance of a Conditional Use Determination (CUD) by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation and positive findings by the DRB pursuant to the criteria in (3) below.
(3) Encroachment into Class 11 wetland buffers, Class III wetlands and Class III wetland buffers,
may be permitted by the DRB upon finding that the proposed project's overall development, erosion
control, stormwater treatment system, provisions for stream buffering, and landscaping plan
achieve the following standards for wetland protection:
The applicant received State Wetland Permit #2210 in 2014. They are proposing two wetland
crossings, one on Aurora Road and one on Russett Road. They're also encroaching onto the wetland
and wetland buffer at three other locations throughout the development.
(a) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
The applicant is proposing a two 24" culverts at the Aurora Road crossing and two 24" culverts
at the Russett Road Crossing. The specific standard applicable to culvert design is as follows.
south 1, i nty to � I
Pt PINNING ZONING 23of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
12.04E(2) Drainage Structures To Accommodate Upstream Development — Culverts or other
drainage facilities shall be of sufficient size to accommodate potential runoff from the entire
upstream drainage area, whether or not all or part of the upstream area is on the applicant's lot or
the parcel subject to the application. In determining the anticipated amount of upstream runoff for
which drainage facilities must be sized, the applicant shall design the stormwater drainage system
assuming the total potential development of upstream drainage areas. All drainage structures shall
be designed to, at a minimum, safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain
event. The applicant's engineer shall provide such information as the Stormwater Superintendent
or his designee deems necessary to determine the adequacy of all drainage structures.
The applicant provided an analysis attempting to consider the maximum potential development
of the Nadeau parcel to the east. The maximum potential development would be 10 units without
triggering a stormwater permit, thus the maximum uncontrolled Stormwater discharge would be
that resulting from 10 residential units. The applicant modeled 30,000 square feet of impervious
surfaces based on the average impervious per unit in South Burlington and the nature of the
parcel, but failed to include the existing impervious in their calculation. Even without the
additional existing impervious, the analysis shows that ponding would occur on the adjacent
Nadeau parcel which is not controlled by the developer. Coordination to correct the analysis is
ongoing.
The Board finds that in addition to sizing the culvert to not overtop the roadway, the culvert
should be sized to limit flooding on the Nadeau parcel unless the adjacent landowner agrees to
it.
The Board notes that the criteria of Article 12 are not yet satisfied and finds that final sizing of this
and downstream culverts may be addressed during final plat approval.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed storm water treatment
system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
The Board finds this criterion to be met.
(c) The impact of the encroachment(s) on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the
field delineation and wetland report is minimized and/or offset by appropriate landscaping,
stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and/or other mitigation measures.
The supporting documentation which accompanied the state wetland permit application
identifies the wetland functions as surface and groundwater protection, storage for flood water
and Stormwater runoff, bird habitat, and wildlife habitat diversity. The Board finds this criterion
to be met.
Section 12.03 Stormwater Management Standards apply to projects generating greater than one-
half acre of impervious surfaces are proposed.
Compliance with the City's Stormwater Management Standards is discussed under Planned Unit
Development Standards above.
south o
PtANNI G & ZONtNc 24of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
1) OTHER
E911 Addresses
The applicant has not yet provided E911 addresses for the proposed homes. The Board finds that the
applicant must submit and receive Staff and State approval for an addressing plan in conformance with
E911 addressing standards prior to final plat approval.
Energy Standards
The Board notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15:
Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
DECISION
Motion by Matt Cota, seconded by Jennifer Smith, to approve Preliminary Plat Application #SD-17-29 of
JJJ South Burlington, LLC, subject to the following stipulations:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations will remain in full effect except as amended herein.
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. There shall be no use of herbicides, pesticides, and/or non -organic fertilizers within either the
wetlands or the associated buffers. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the first building on the
property, the applicant will be required to record a "Notice of Conditions" to this effect which has
been approved by the City Attorney.
4. There will be no mowing within 50 feet of the wetlands nor can the wetland buffers be turned into
lawn. Brush -hogging will be allowed no more than three (3) times per year. Prior to issuance of a
zoning permit for the first building on the property, the applicant will be required to record a
"Notice of Conditions" to this effect which has been approved by the City Attorney.
The plans must be revised to show the change below prior to final plat submission.
a. adjust the mid -block pedestrian crossings to be 20-feet wide except at the Senator
Street at Nadeaucrest Drive pedestrian crossing.
b. include E911 addresses for structures in the proposed project, in conformance with local
ordinances and Vermont E911 addressing standards.
c. The applicant's Final Plat application must include a southbound left -turn lane at the
intersection of Dorset Street and Cider Mill Drive.
d. The applicant must adjust the proposed grading to the rear of homes on Lindamac
Street and on the south side of Liberty Lane to result in fewer homes needing approval
for adjustment of pre -construction grade prior to final plat approval.
e. incorporate the following recommendations of the Natural Resources Committee pertaining
to the wetland crossing of Aurora Road connecting to Sommerfield Road, provided by
memorandum to the Development Review Board on November 12, 2017.
i. The height and grade of the embankment of the road should ensure the safe
passage of wildlife.
ii. The structure should be free of guardrails to allow wildlife to cross.
utl
PLAN INr a ZONING 25of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
iii. Signage depicting "wildlife crossing" should be placed at both ends of the
connector.
6. The final plat submission must include the following information.
a. The applicant must demonstrate that they have obtained preliminary water supply and
wastewater allocations prior to final plat approval.
b. The applicant must submit legal documents confirming options to purchase the required
26 additional TDRs for review by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval.
c. The applicant must submit an open space management plan prior to final plat approval.
d. The applicant must incorporate the approved open space management plan as part of the
Home Owners Association documents, which must be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney, prior to recording mylars.
e. The applicant must describe the agricultural nature of the adjacent lands and Vermont's
Right to Farm statues in the development's HOA documents.
The applicant must submit documentation that open spaces will be maintained by the
homeowners' association prior to recording mylars.
g. The applicant must submit documentation of any required off -site easements prior to
final plat approval. Where the easement will be conveyed to the City, the easement
must be included in the irrevocable offer of dedication for the street.
h. For each home which is proposed to have anew preconstruction grade for the purposes
of compliance with the height standard, the applicant must submit a table of the new
desired preconstruction grade.
i. The applicant must submit estimate project costs for public facilities and improvements
and estimated project costs for all other types of bonds required by these Regulations.
j. The final plat application shall be accompanied by a Certificate of Title showing the
ownership of all property and easements to be dedicated or acquired by the City, and
said Certificate of Title shall be approved by the City Attorney. All proposed legal
documents purporting to convey property or easements to the City shall also
accompany the final plat application for a minor subdivision or major subdivision, and
be approved by the City Attorney.
k. The applicant must provide sufficient information about the proposed buildings to
evaluate the percent of South -facing translucence.
7. The following waivers of Land Development Regulation standards are preliminarily granted
a. Multi -family maximum overall lot coverage from 30% to 60%
b. Multi -family maximum building lot coverage from 15%to 42%
c. Multi -family front yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet
d. Multi -family rear yard setback from 30 feet to 5 feet
P€ANNINr & ZOr ING 26of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
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.
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.
12. Fire hydrants must be installed and tested before construction of the combustible portions of
buildings are started pursuant to NFPA 1 Chapter 18.
13. Minimum hydrant flow must be based on NFA- NFF formula plus a safety margin of not less than
10%.
14. Fire Department access to these phases including temporary turn around must be installed when
construction begins to each phase.
15. All roads must comply with Fire Department apparatus turning radii (includes mutual aid apparatus).
16. Parking of construction vehicles will be restricted to one side of the road to maintain Fire
Department access during construction.
17. The Project must comply with NFPA 241— Safe Guarding buildings under construction, alteration or
demolition.
18. The area formerly occupied by neighborhood park E and currently identified on the plans as
Unmanaged Open Space must be retained as open space and not developed in the future.
19. The Applicant must address the comments of the Assistant Stormwater Superintendent prior to final
plat approval.
20. The Applicant must provide a 12-foot level area around the entire perimeter of the stormwater
ponds for maintenance access, and that 8 feet of that area shall be maintained clear of landscaping.
21. Prior to the construction of the 26th unit in the Project, the Applicant shall prepare a scoping study of
the Cheesefactory Road/Vermont Route 116 Intersection, prepare a cost estimate for any
improvements necessary and pay a "fair share" mitigation contribution to the City of South Burlington,
which shall not exceed 21.3%.
22. Condition #26 of the original approval (#SD-08-34) requiring the applicant to reassess the northbound
left turn lane warrant at the Hinesburg Road (VT 116) Nadeaucrest intersection prior to the issuance of
a zoning permit for the 50t" and 100th dwelling units is removed.
23. The following documents are incorporated as conditions of approval
a. Carriage Home Design Guidelines— revised 07/24/2017 Cider Mill —Phase II
b. Single Family Home Design Guidelines— revised 07/24/2017 Cider Mill —Phase II
PIANNINt ZONING 27of28
#SD-17-29
Findings of Fact and Decision
c. Duplex Units Design Guidelines— revised 07/24/2017 Cider Mill —Phase II
24. The applicant must provide physical boundaries to demarcate open space where they are not
otherwise demarcated by site features.
25. The proposed phasing plan found on plan sheet P is incorporated by reference.
Mark Behr
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Matt Cota
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Frank Kochman
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Bill Miller
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Jennifer Smith
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
John Wilking
Yea
Nay
Abstain
Not Present
Motion carried by a vote of 5 — 0 — 0
Signed this 21 day of March, 2018 by
Bill Miller, 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 with the Superior Court,
Environmental Division. See V.R.E.C.P. 5(b). A copy of the notice of appeal also must 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-
951-1740 or https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/environmental
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.
i i � s yc n
PLANNING &�ZONING 28of28