Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-03-48 - Decision - 0102 Ethan Allen DriveCITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT of PLANNING & ZONING WHITE ROCK ESTATES — FINAL PLAT AMENDMENT FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-03-48 FINDINGS of FACT AND DECISION White Rock Development, LLC, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is requesting approval of a Final Plat amendment consisting of a planned unit development application for encroachment in the rear of lots # 13, 14, and 15 pursuant to Section 12.01(C)(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, at 620, 636, and 654 Country Club Drive. The subject property contains 14.68 acres. The South Burlington Development Review Board (DRB) held a public hearing on September 2, 2003. David Burke 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 DRB finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a Final Plat amendment consisting of a planned unit development application for lawn encroachment in the rear of lots #13, 14, and 15 pursuant to Section 12.01(C)(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, at 620, 636, and 654 Country Club Drive. 2. The owner of record is White Rock Development, LLC. 3. The subject property contains 14.68 acres and is located in the Residential 4 (R4) District. 4. The plans consist of one (1) sheet entitled "White Rock Country Club Estates, South Burlington, VT, Site Plan", prepared by O'Leary -Burke Civil Associates on 12-13-00, last revised on 3-22-01 and two (2) sheets entitled "White Rock Landscape Plan Conservation Buffer", prepared by TK Landscape Architects on 1-24-03. 5. The DRB reviewed this application in April of this year, during the transition to the new South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The old Zoning Regulations did not provide for any encroachments into the buffer, even when precluding such an encroachment created a counter -productive situation. 6. The Final Plat application can now be considered under the new Surface Water Protection Standards in Article 12.01 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. 7. The Natural Resources Committee reviewed this application on March 6, 2003. Proposed Encroachment: The applicant proposes to create building envelopes, including yard areas, for lots 13, 14 and 15. Homeowners would be allowed to develop building and lawn areas extending 100 feet from the front property lines; the rest of the development has building and lawn envelopes roughly 110 to 125 feet from the front property lines. The rear yards created range from 22 feet to 30 feet from the rear of the units. This is consistent with the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement for the R4 District, and creates what staff considers a minimum usable yard area. The greatest encroachment into the required 100-foot setback from the edge of the channel of the Winooski River in 23 feet on lot # 13. Stated conversely, the buffer for the Winooski River ranges from 77 feet to 100 feet throughout the project. Proposed Plantings: At the 100 foot line, the applicant proposes to create a thick dogwood hedge. This is intended to deter mowing beyond the designated back yard areas. Beyond the dogwood hedge, the applicant proposes to seed the area with a specified mix of grasses and allow natural succession to fill in the area between the hedge and the existing tree line, which is to remain undisturbed. The NRC had requested that a mix of woody shrubs and trees be planted in the "no -mow" area. The applicant had not proposed to do this, for two stated reasons: 1) because succession is already occurring in the area and woody shrubs and vegetation have begun to establish themselves; and 2) because of the intensive nature and presumable expense of the dogwood hedge. Staff feels the dogwood hedge, as proposed, is an appropriate way to clearly delineate the boundary between the lawn areas and the "no -mow", successional regrowth area. Landscape architect Terry Krinksi has represented that in his professional opinion, additional plantings in the successional area are not necessary. What is required for this plan to be successful is vigilance on the part of staff to ensure that no mowing or removal of the dogwood hedge occurs. The longevity of the dogwood hedge is also a key factor in making this project work. Standards for Review: The lawn encroachment is considered under Section 12.01(C)(4) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulation, which provides for new uses and encroachments within stream buffers under specific circumstances. The applicable section is as follows: 12.01(C)(4) The encroachment of new land development activities into the City's stream buffers is discouraged. The DRB may authorize the following as conditional uses within stream buffers, subject to the standards and conditions enumerated for each use. The DRB may grant approvals pursuant to this section as part of PUD review without a separate conditional use review... (b)Clearing of vegetation and filling or excavating of earth materials, only to the extent directly necessitated for the construction or safe operation of a permitted or conditional use on the same property and where the DRB finds that: i. There is no practicable alternative to the clearing, filling or excavating within the stream buffer; and ii. The purposes of this Section will be protected through erosion controls, plantings, protection of existing vegetation, and/or other materials. Evaluation of Criteria: This application is the type of situation contemplated by this section of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. While it is clearly preferable to locate lots entirely outside the stream buffer, this is a pre -approved development with three lots that cannot be reasonably utilized without the encroachment. As stated in the memorandum dated April 15, 2003, the applicant has proposed a very aggressive landscaping and planting plan for the remainder of the buffer, including woody shrubs, plants, and seeding. This planting plan has been endorsed both by staff and the Natural Resources Committee as an excellent approach that will meet the standards of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations and protect the Winooski River. DECISION Motion by C-� t 4 +"� , seconded by �� to approve Final Plat Application #SD- 3-48, subject to the following conditions: 1. All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect, except as amended herein. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant, as amended by this decision, and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning & Zoning. 3. A construction erosion control plan that meets all standards of Article 16 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations shall be submitted prior to recording of the final plat plan. 4. Grading shall be done in such a manner that the slope of the bank behind the dogwood hedge shown on the plans does not undermine the viability of the hedge. 5. A revised seed list shall be submitted prior to recording of the final plat plan and shall not include Birdsfoot Trefoil. 6. Any failed shrubs within the hedgerow within a four-year period from the date of final approval shall be replaced. 7. A four-year landscaping bond shall be submitted prior to issuance of a zoning permit for any of the affected lots. 8. Prior to recording of the final plat plans, the City Attorney shall review the deeds fof the three affected lost to ensure that all deeds clearly state that (1) no herbicides or pesticides shall be used in the rear yards of these lots, and (2) no mowing or clearing is allowed between the 100 foot line and the Winooski River. 9. Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington Development Review Board. 10. The final plat plan shall be recorded in the land records within 90 days of the date of this motion, or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk prior to recording. Chuck Bolton nay/abstain/not present Mark Boucher - yea/abstain/not present John Dinklage e nay/abstain/not present Roger Farley - e nay/abstain/not present Michele Kupersmith - yea/nay/abstain/of presen Larry Kupferman e ay/abstain/not present Gayle Quimby - e nay/abstain/not present Motion Carried by a vote of 'S_ - I - I Signed this 16`h day of September, 2003, by Lt, Gayl uimby, Clerk