HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_SD-19-27_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow_SC #SD‐19‐27
1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐19‐27_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow_2019‐10‐
15.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: October 10, 2019
Application received: August 22, 2019
1505 Dorset Street
Final Plat Application #SD‐19‐27
Meeting date: October 15, 2019
Owner/Applicant
Dorset Meadows Associates, LLC
44 Park Street
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Engineer
O’Leary Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Dr.
Essex Junction, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0570‐01475, 0570‐01505
SEQ Zoning District‐ Neighborhood Residential, SEQ Zoning District‐ Village Residential,
SEQ Zoning District‐ Natural Resource Protection
69.86 acres
Location Map
#SD‐19‐27
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Final plat application #SD‐19‐27 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC for a planned unit development on
two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 94
single family homes, 24 dwelling units in two‐family homes, 35 dwelling units in multi‐family homes, one
existing single family home, conservation of 15.80 acres on‐site and conservation of approximately 55
acres off‐site through the purchase of 711 Transferable Development Rights, 1505 Dorset Street.
PERMIT HISTORY
The Project received preliminary plat and master plan approval on June 28, 2019. The approvals were
appealed to the Environmental Court July 26, 2019. The Environmental Court issued a Stipulated Order
of Dismissal without Prejudice on September 27, 2019. This order states that the appealing bodies may
raise all matters raised in their original appeal in an appeal of the currently pending application (SD‐19‐
27).
The preliminary plat and master plan stipulated certain matters to be reviewed further and decided at
Final Plat. The following document notes where matters were decided at master plan or preliminary
plat, and whether any changes affecting those criteria have been made in the current submission. In
general, the project is consistent with the preliminary and master plan approvals, with changes as
necessary to address outstanding items from those approvals. The development is subject to
subdivision standards, site plan standards, and the Southeast Quadrant standards, including design
review.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed project includes the purchase and use of Transferable Development Rights (TDR). In a
separate case, In re: Snyder Development Company, the Environmental Court issued a decision in March
2019 invalidating a portion of the City’s Land Development Regulations pertaining the TDR provisions.
That Court decision has been appealed by both the appellant and the applicant to the Supreme Court
and therefore the status of the TDR provisions has not been ultimately decided. Oral arguments before
the Supreme Court took place in that case last month and a decision is expected to be issued at some
point during the winter of 2019‐2020.
In the meantime, the applicant for this project has elected to proceed to preliminary plat and now final
plat at their own risk. Without a final decision on the status of the TDR provisions, the Board determined
that it should continue with its review under the Regulations in effect at the time of submittal of the
preliminary plat application.
Preliminary & Final Plat
Having issued a preliminary plat decision, the Board’s review at final plat is narrowed to those issues not
yet decided at preliminary plat, those topics reserved in the Regulations for final plat, and changes or
1 It appears an error was made in calculation of TDR requirements at preliminary plat. All of the input data was
correct (lot coverage and unit count) but the required number of TDRs was erroneously reported to be 68. The
applicant needs 70.2 TDRs. Since TDRs can only be purchased in whole increments, the applicant needs 71 TDRs.
#SD‐19‐27
3
modifications in the plans from the preliminary plat submission. Staff notes herein reflect those
narrowed subject areas.
COMMENTS
Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Planning and Zoning Director Paul Conner, hereafter
referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following
comments.
Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
DENSITY
At preliminary plat, the Board approved the applicants’ request that the boundary of the SEQ‐NR sub‐
district be adjusted 50 feet to the west in the SEQ‐NRP sub‐district, as allowed under LDR Section 15.03C,
and approved replacement of the lands removed from the SEQ‐NRP with conserved lands adjacent to the
NRP within the SEQ‐NR district. Including the area of the NRP where the regulations of the NR apply, the
Board approved construction of 35 dwelling units within the 14.97‐acre SEQ‐VR sub‐district, and 120 units,
including the existing single family home, within the 38.89‐acre SEQ‐NR sub‐district. As approved at
preliminary plat (and as presented in this application), the project proposes to use 71 TDRs. As required
at preliminary plat, the Applicant has provided proof of an option to purchase sufficient TDRs as part of
this application.
1. Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring that the zoning permit for the 83rd dwelling
unit not be approved unless and until the applicant records the conservation easement and density
transfer documents approved by the City Attorney.
DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
At master plan and preliminary plat, the board approved the following dimensional standard waivers.
Standard SEQ‐NR
Requirement
SEQ‐VR
Requirement
Requested Revised
Standard
Min. Lot Size, Single Family 12,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. 4,600 sq. ft.1
Max. Building Coverage,
Single, Two and Multi‐
Family
15% 15% 30%
1
Max. Overall Coverage,
Single, Two and Multi‐
Family
30% 30% 45%
1
Min. Front Setback, Single,
Two and Multi‐Family
20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft.
Min. Side Setback, Single
and Two Family
10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft.
Min. Rear Setback, Units 88
to 91
30 ft. N/A 10 ft.
1. Lot size and coverage waivers were approved in master plan MP‐18‐01.
#SD‐19‐27
4
Aside from units 88 to 91, no waivers are requested for rear setbacks or for side setbacks for the multi‐
family homes. The Board preliminarily found the front setback waiver request supports the goal of an
activated street presence with open spaces interwoven throughout the development and recommends
the Board accept the front setback waiver request. No changes to the requested setback waivers have
been presented in this application. The applicant has revised the plan to show how the 10‐foot rear
setback waiver could be met by units 88‐91.
Regarding side setbacks and as discussed at preliminary plat, the narrowest lots are located in the interior
of the development and appear to have a minimum width of 46 feet. Based on the provided elevations,
it appears that only two of the provided single family home types would fit within the remaining 36 feet
on the interior lots. For the exterior lots, it appears the widest home types (the ranch‐style single family
homes) will use the entire available width within the requested setback but the other home types will not
require a setback waiver. With these considerations regarding width, the Board required the applicant to
record a notice of conditions requiring that no more than two homes of the same type be located adjacent
to one another. The applicant has incorporated this as an element of their design guidelines.
2. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to record the Unit Design Guidelines document as
a condition of approval.
Preconstruction Grade
At preliminary plat, the Board approved the applicant’s request for an adjusted preconstruction grade as
allowed under Section 3.12 to minimize the amount of fill while still allowing for sewer and drainage flows
without the need for pumps.
3. Staff notes it does not appear the applicant has made any modifications to the approved adjusted
grades but recommends the Board confirm this with the applicant.
Dorset Park View Protection Zone D
Much of the subject acreage is located within the Dorset Park View Protection Zone D. The maximum
elevation is based on an equation taking into consideration the distance of the building from the baseline,
located on Golf Course Road. Within the limits of the area proposed for development, the limiting
maximum elevation is 433.6 feet. This maximum elevation is in the area where single family homes are
proposed to have an adjusted preconstruction grade in the range of 397 feet, resulting in a maximum
total height at the peak of the roof of 36.6 feet.
4. Buildings meeting the allowable height of 28 feet at the midpoint of the roof will likely fall below the
maximum allowable elevation. The applicant has stated in their cover letter their willingness to
demonstrate that each proposed structure is compliant with the View Protection Zone prior to the
issuance of the zoning permit for each building. Staff recommends the Board include this as a condition
of approval.
B. 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:
#SD‐19‐27
5
(A)(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project.
The Applicant obtained preliminary water allocation for 164 units on August 8, 2018. The Applicant is
currently proposing 154 units.
The Applicant obtained preliminary wastewater allocation for 154 units on July 15, 2019. At preliminary
plat, the Applicant has proposed to provide a $350 per unit fee to cover their share of upgrades to the
Vermont National pump station. The applicant has provided a payment schedule and inflation adjustment
methodology in their cover letter for this application. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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 Project will require either an individual or general State construction stormwater permit. The
Applicant has submitted a detailed erosion control plan as part of this application, which was not part of the
previous application. Staff notes the plan appears to meet the requirements of Article 16, but has some
concerns about the proposed location of soil stockpile areas in the open spaces for each phase. Staff notes
that soil stockpiles are typically present until a phase is fully built‐out and that this could preclude use of the
open space associated with each phase until the end of construction of that phase.
5. Staff recommends the Board impose timelines on when the open spaces must be constructed, perhaps at
a percent completion or unit count for each phase.
(A)(3) The project incorporates access, circulation, and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. The Fire Inspector reviewed the plans on
September 19, 2019 and requested the applicant widen Bellflower Court to 20‐feet. The applicant
provided a revised plan set on October 4, 2019 reflecting this change. Other Fire Inspector comments are
discussed below. Staff considers no other changes have been made affecting compliance with this
criterion. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
Compliance with this criterion is discussed in the findings for MP‐18‐01. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. The only changes at the perimeter
of the development are a five‐foot shift to the east of the two eastern multifamily structures on
Nowland Farm Road, and a 10‐foot shift to the east of the two multifamily buildings on the south side of
Trillium Street. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
6
(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 Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
In an email to staff dated September 18, 2019, the Fire Inspector provided the following comments.
Upon review of the Dorset Meadows proposed overall site plan dated July 2019, the SBFD FMO
has the following comments.
1) WB 40 1990 driving template. All trees, street signs, light post or any other obstructions shall
support the template. Mountable curbs maybe required at all intersections at the discretion of
the SBFD FMO.
2) Fire hydrants shall remain clear of any obstructions at a minimum of 36" in all directions.
3) Parking allowed only on one side of a street that is less than 20' wide.
4) Bellflower Court shall be increased to a minimum of 20' wide.
If there are any changes to the plan we received from The Planning and Zoning Office dated July
2019, we would review those plans for further comment.
We highly recommend that the developer meet with the SBFD FMO prior to construction to clarify
the plans and expectations.
The applicant made the requested changes to the plans on 10/4/2019. Staff provided the revised plans
to the Fire Inspector, who provided the following follow‐up comment on 10/9/2019.
I took a look, just want to repeat the comment of having signs, trees, light poles or any other
obstructions to be pushed back at all the intersections.
6. An additional comment from the Fire Chief is that the turning movement plan at the multifamily homes
on Nowland Farm Road should be revised to show whether a WB‐40 can go behind the western homes
without hitting the curb. The Fire Chief has also requested signage indicating no parking between the
designated parking areas on this driveway. Staff recommends the Board consider whether to require
a slightly enlarged area to allow intermittent parking of service vehicles, so that service vehicles do
not end up parked in the area needed for emergency vehicle movements.
(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.
#SD‐19‐27
7
At preliminary plat, the Board noted concerns of the Stormwater Services Division related to compliance
with this criterion. The applicant made requested changes to the plans and the stormwater services
division reviewed the plans on September 6, 2019 and considered their comments addressed.
7. The Stormwater services recommends the DRB include a condition requiring the applicant to
regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure.
Otherwise Staff considers this criterion met.
(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, absent a specific agreement
with the Applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. For Transect
Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and
sidewalks.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
8. The Public Works Director reviewed the plans and indicated by email on 10/10/2019 he has no
additional comments. They have addressed all earlier concerns and everything appears in order.
(A)(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
This criterion was discussed extensively at preliminary plat and the Board ultimately found this criterion
met. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
C. 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. Excluded from site plan review are one and two family dwellings on a single lot.
This means that the two family dwellings and the single family dwellings on shared lots within the Proposed
development are subject to these standards, because they are not located on single lots. Section 14.06 of
the South Burlington Land Development Regulations establishes the following general review standards
for all site plan applications:
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.
Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is described in conjunction with Planned Unit
Development Standard (A)(10) above.
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.
#SD‐19‐27
8
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
See also section 9.08C and 9.09C for a discussion of SEQ housing styles
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed
layout of site utilities, including electric cabinets, as part of the final plat application. The applicant
has done so, generally locating the utility cabinets to the rear of the sidewalk. Utilities are
proposed to be underground. Staff considers this criterion met.
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.
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
Staff recommends the Board incorporate the Unit Design Guidelines as a condition of
approval.
In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific
standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations:
#SD‐19‐27
9
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 applicant has proposed a street and recreation path connection to the south adjacent
property for future connection and a pedestrian trail easement to the west. At preliminary plat,
the Board required the applicant to update their plat plan to reflect the pedestrian trail easement.
The applicant has done so.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether to require the applicant to
clear a pedestrian path within the proposed easement. On one hand, the easement dead‐ends
at a different property (which is controlled by the applicant), which may create conflicts. On
the other hand, the Board requested the easement in order to set up the project for long‐term
pedestrian connectivity to the Underwood parcel, and if walking trails are left to develop
naturally they may not be located within the proposed easement.
B. Utility Services. 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. 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).
The applicant has proposed a dumpster location for the multifamily units. At preliminary plat, the
Board required the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for complete
enclosure of the solid waste areas as part of the final plat application. The applicant has provided
a 6‐foot tall enclosure constructed of wood privacy slats and matching gates. Staff considers this
criterion met.
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (See Article 13, Section 13.06)
The Board found this criterion preliminarily met at preliminary plat. The applicant had to make
updates to the landscaping plan and budget based on other plan changes. The applicant
estimates the total minimum required landscape budget to be $150,887 based on a total
building cost of $14,058,750 (excluding single family homes2, which are exempt from minimum
landscape budget standards). The applicant has proposed to provide $1,500 to $1,600 in
landscaping for each duplex or townhome, and $2,100 to $2,500 for each mutilfamily building.
They are also proposing additional plantings around the townhome and duplex areas, for a total
provided landscaping of $151,400. They are also proposing additional $140,200 in site
landscaping in the open spaces, wetland buffers and stormwater treatment areas, which Staff
considers can be considered as contributing to the minimum required landscape value.
2 Duplexes on their own lot are also exempt from landscape budget standards, but none are proposed.
#SD‐19‐27
10
10. Staff recommends the Board confirm the above‐referenced values represent the value of
trees and shrubs only, and excludes perennials and grasses. If it does not, then Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to update their provided landscape values to
evaluate whether the minimum required landscape value is provided.
11. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to bond for the total $291,600 landscape
value if this is the value the Board considers necessary to meet the landscaping requirements
of 13.06. Staff recommends the Board give the applicant the opportunity to provide a
breakdown of landscape costs by project phase in order to allow landscape bonding to run
by phase rather than overall.
12. The City Arborist provided comments on the plans in an email dated September 3, 2019. It
appears the applicant addressed these comments in a submission on October 4, 2019. Staff
has forwarded the revised plans to the City Arborist and anticipates receiving confirmation
by the time of the hearing.
The provided Utility Screening Primary Transformer and Secondary Pedestal details on sheet L‐
205, showing that the front of the transformers will face the sidewalk and not be screened from
the sidewalk, though they will be screened on the sides and the side facing the homes. 13.06C
requires all utility improvements such as transformer(s) to be effectively screened. Such
screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of evergreen and
deciduous trees and shrubs, or a solid fence.
13. Staff recommends the Board review whether the provided landscaping meets the screening
standard of 13.06C.
D. SOUTHEAST QUADRANT
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‐NRP, SEQ‐NR, and SEQ‐VR sub‐districts. The Board
found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting compliance
with this criterion have been made.
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
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
11
(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.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management
shall be established by the applicant.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide an open space and tree
management plan to be incorporated into the HOA documents and as a condition in the event of
final plat approval. The open space and tree management plan is required to have wetland
buffers clearly delineated, and should indicate that open spaces and trees shall be maintained as
designed, including language allowing for appropriate maintenance of the recreation trail
easement located within the Natural Resource Protection zone.
14. The applicant provided a new sheet, L‐206 Open Space & Vegetation Management Plan. It
does not appear to include specific language for maintenance of the recreation trail easement
located within the Natural Resource Protection zone, other than to note its existence. Staff
recommends the Board require the applicant to amend this plan.
In the wetland buffer area, the applicant is proposing the following maintenance plan:
Buffer area are to be planted using a matrix of grassland/shrubland community plant
species, as well as several native tree species. Upon establishment of plantings, buffer
areas are to be left to vegetate naturally, except in height management area.
The wetland buffer occurs at the toe of a proposed slope which ranges in height from three to
approximately eight feet. The applicant is proposing a moderately dense row of trees along the
buffer, which staff estimates will mark approximately 50% of the line. Staff considers wetland
buffers adequately delineated.
There are some existing trees located within the development. At preliminary plat, the Board
approved the applicant to preserve approximately 3 maples and 9 pines during development of
the parcel but that the HOA shall not be required to retain them should management become
an issue in the future.
15. Staff notes those trees do not appear to be shown on the current planset and recommends
the Board require the applicant to show those trees on both the erosion control plans and
the landscaping plans.
(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
#SD‐19‐27
12
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.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to provide a plan as part of their final plat
application for additional landscaping and/or fencing that will protect the conservation areas
adjacent to units 88 to 91 in a manner that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding
landscape. It appears the applicant has revised the footprint of units 88 to 91 slightly to meet the
10‐foot rear yard setback, but was unable to locate any information pertaining to landscaping and
fencing.
16. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a well‐thought‐out buffering
plan prior to closing the 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 Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
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 applicant has obtained preliminary water and wastewater allocation as discussed above.
Staff considers this criterion met.
(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.
#SD‐19‐27
13
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.
D. 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 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 conform 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
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes affecting
compliance with this criterion have been made.
C. …
D. Parks Design and Development.
#SD‐19‐27
14
(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.
See discussion under SEQ Criterion 9.06B above.
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 found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
iii. Parks should be provided at a rate of 7.5 acres of developed parkland per
1,000 population per the South Burlington Capital Budget and Program.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
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 found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
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.
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to submit a draft of the
homeowners’ association agreement describing the management of open spaces as part
of the final plat application, which clarifies which if any of the proposed open spaces are
#SD‐19‐27
15
proposed to be public and which are proposed to be maintained by the homeowners’
association.
17. The provided homeowners’ association documents state that the open space parcels
are common elements which will be owned and shared by members of the HOA. It
does not appear the pedestrian easement to be dedicated to the City within the NRP
zoning district is explicitly excluded. Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to exclude the pedestrian easement to be dedicated to the City from the
common elements.
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.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
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. If it is unavoidable, blocks 500 feet or longer must include mid‐block public
sidewalk or recreation path connections.
At preliminary plat, the Board found the finds the designed functionality of the mid‐block
public sidewalk and recreation path connections exceeded the minimum of this criterion.
Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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 Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
16
(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 found this criterion met at preliminary plat. The applicant has, at the request of
the Fire Inspector as discussed above under PUD criterion #7, widened Bellflower Court to
20‐feet from 18‐feet. No other changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been
made. Staff considers 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.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
As discussed above, the City Arborist provided comments on the final plat
application which have been addressed. Staff considers this criterion met.
(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 preliminarily found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no
changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(5) Intersection Design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian crossing
distances and to slow traffic.
#SD‐19‐27
17
At preliminary plat, the Board required the applicant to work with the fire department to
assure emergency vehicle access while meeting this standard prior to final plat approval.
The applicant has provided a vehicle turning movement plan using the City fire truck
template.
18. The Fire Chief reviewed the plan on October 8, 2019 and requested verbally that the
applicant make minor modifications to the driveway entrance to the multifamily
homes on Nowland Farm Road to allow a fire truck to better make the turn, and to
add no parking signs along the central section of the driveway to the rear of the units.
Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to comply with the Fire Chief’s
request.
(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.
At preliminary plat, proposed fixtures were mounted at a 13‐foot pole height and
concentrated around pedestrian crossings. The Board found the overall illumination
levels appropriate for the lower intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ
with minimum trespass.
Minor modifications to the lighting plan have been made since preliminary plat approval.
Specifically, the applicant has removed one fixture from the driveway on Nowland Farm
Road, and one fixture at the entrance to the open space across from Unit 91.
19. Staff recommends the Board review the proposed lighting at the entrances to the
interior open spaces and make a determination on whether lighting should be
provided. Staff does not consider the change at the driveway on Nowland Farm Rd to
be detrimental. This comment also applies to the SEQ‐VR sub‐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.
At preliminary plat, the Board granted that for buildings where the side is oriented to the
south, only 20% of the translucent windows must be located on the south facing wall, and
found the applicant must submit sufficient information to allow translucence criteria to be
evaluated by the administrative officer at the time of zoning permit application. Staff
recommends the Board include this as a condition of final plat approval as well.
#SD‐19‐27
18
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades 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 discussion of building elevations under Site Plan Review standard above.
(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 found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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 found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(b) …
(c) Rear alleys are encouraged for small lot single‐family houses, duplexes and
townhouses.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(d) 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 Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made. This comment also applies to
the SEQ‐VR sub‐district.
#SD‐19‐27
19
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.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff this criterion met.
(2) Interconnection of Streets
(a) Average spacing between intersections shall be 300 to 500 feet.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this
criterion met.
(b) Dead end streets (e.g. cul 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.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
Buildings in the SEQ‐VR sub‐district are proposed to be on one lot and therefore at
preliminary plat the Board found the lot ratio described in this criterion, intended for
single family home lots, to be not applicable.
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.
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers this criterion
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, 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.
#SD‐19‐27
20
See comments under Section 9.08 SEQ‐NR standards above. Staff considers 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).
See discussion under Site Plan Review standard above.
(2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation
approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades
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.
(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 be set back fifteen feet (15’) from the back of sidewalk.
The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff considers no changes
affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
#SD‐19‐27
21
(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.
Within the SEQ‐VR, porches are proposed to project into the setback by
approximately 6‐feet. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat.
Staff considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been
made.
(4) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9‐7.
Section 9.08C(4) does not apply to multi‐family homes. Site Plan general review standard
B addresses parking for multi‐family buildings and is addressed 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.
E. 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 II 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 II 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 is proposing one wetland crossing and has provided documentation of communication
with the US Army Corps of Engineers and State Wetlands program indicating they are generally
supportive of the applicant’s proposed configuration as long as the existing driveway crossing is
removed and the remaining wetlands and buffers are demarcated and set aside as no mow zones,
which they are on the provided plans. The applicant is also proposing a small amount of
encroachment into Class III wetland buffers which are not regulated by either the State or the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
i. The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store
flood waters adequately;
At preliminary plat, the Board found the required stream alteration permit will result in
compliance with this criterion and found the Applicant must demonstrate that they have obtained
#SD‐19‐27
22
that permit prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project. Staff recommends the
Board incorporate this as a condition of final plat approval.
(b) The encroachment(s) will not adversely affect the ability of the proposed stormwater
treatment system to reduce sedimentation according to state standards;
The Stormwater Services Division has reviewed the proposed plans and has not expressed any
concern about this criterion. The Board found this criterion met at preliminary plat. Staff
considers no changes affecting compliance with this criterion have been made.
(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.
At preliminary plat, the Board found the Applicant must obtain their State wetland permit prior
to issuance of the first zoning permit for the Project. Staff recommends the Board incorporate
this as a condition of final plat approval.
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.
F. ENERGY STANDARDS
All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and
Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs.
G. PROJECT & INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING AND BONDING
The Applicant proposes to apply for a Phase I zoning permit within 1‐year, following the issuance of
all State and Local approvals, and all appeals have been exhausted. Following the start of the warranty
period for the Phase I roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase II
roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for the Phase II roadway, a zoning permit will be
applied for within 5‐years for the Phase III roadway. Following the start of the warranty period for
the Phase III roadway, a zoning permit will be applied for within 5‐years for the Phase IV roadway. A
zoning permit for Phase XX may be applied for at any time during the 4 phases of the project, due to
the lack of public infrastructure.
Staff considers the applicants proposed timeline to not be adequately connected to dates, as there is
no limit for how long the applicant may take between requesting the first zoning permit and the start
of the warranty period for the roadway.
20. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant a timeline that provides a final date for
application for the roadways in the final phase. If the applicant does not meet the agreed upon
timeline, Staff recommends the Board include a condition requiring the applicant to reapply for
final plat approval for any of the phases which have not yet been issued their first zoning permit.
#SD‐19‐27
23
21. Staff recommends the Board require the applicants proposed timeline include a maximum number
of units which can be built prior to completion of the amenitized open spaces (ie the playground,
the basketball court, and the trail network)
Staff notes that the proposed phasing results in a second entry point to the development prior to 50
units being constructed, and it precludes the construction of dead‐end streets, so compliance with
15.12J is not a concern.
The applicant has requested in their application narrative that they would like to provide a detailed
estimate of public infrastructure cost immediately prior to the construction of each proposed roadway
segment in lieu of having bonding amounts set at final plat.
22. Staff recommends the Board evaluate the applicant’s request to have infrastructure bond amounts
set at the time of zoning permit application for each phase or roadway, as discussed in the
following staff comment. Should the Board wish to grant the applicants’ request, and in order to
reduce conflicts at time of zoning permit application, Staff recommends the Board establish
bonding amounts for each phase or roadway, and provide a condition which allows the zoning
administrator to adjust bonding amounts based on updated costs. The applicants’ estimated
infrastructure costs are below.
#SD‐19‐27
24
23. Staff further recommends the Board ask the applicant if their intent in discussing roadway segments
individually (rather than phases as a whole) is to ask for a certificate of occupancy (CO) for each
roadway segment. Staff considers that without an affirmative decision of the Board to consider each
roadway segment, the Zoning Administrator may only issue a CO for entire phases. If the applicant
wishes to receive COs for less than entire phases of infrastructure, Staff recommends the Board require
them to provide a specific bonding/CO phasing for discussion. Staff notes the applicants preliminarily
approved phasing provides excellent access and open space distribution, and suggests that should the
applicant request smaller bonding phases, those factors be taken into consideration.
H. Homeowners Association Declaration and Bylaws
The applicant has submitted the proposed homeowners’ association declaration and bylaws as part
of their application package. Staff considers it appears the only relevant information to the DRB’s
decision in those documents are the elements relating to open space maintenance, including wetlands
and wetland buffers.
24. Staff considers the applicant may amend other elements of the homeowners’ association documents
without City review or approval, and therefore instead recommends the open space management plan
be the subject of a separate Notice of Conditions to be recorded.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the
issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner