HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_MP-18-01 & SD-18-29_1505 Dorset St_Dorset Meadow Assoc_Prelim_memo
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: MP‐18‐01 & SD‐18‐29 1505 Dorset Street Master Plan and Preliminary Plat
DATE: April 16, 2019 Development Review Board meeting
Dorset Meadows Associates LLC has submitted an application seeking master plan and preliminary plat approval
for a planned unit development on two lots developed with one (1) single family dwelling. The planned unit
development is to consist of 95 single family homes, 20 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 56 acres off‐site through the purchase of 67.4 Transfer Development Rights (TDRs), 1505 Dorset
Street.
At the January 29, 2019 hearing, the Board continued the hearings for the purpose of taking public comment. At
the March 19, 2019 hearing, the Board continued the hearings without discussion in order to allow certain
matters before the Environmental Court potentially affecting the application to develop. The Staff memorandum
of March 19, 2019 describes the related court matters. Since that date, there has been activity in each of the
court matters, as described below.
1. On February 28, 2019, the Environmental Court issued a Judgement Order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec,
which pertains to an appeal of a final plat application approved by the Board for a project referred to as
Spear Meadows. The Judgement Order concluded “the TDR Bylaw is invalid as it does not comply with
24 V.S.A. SS 4423,” and that “the TDR Bylaw is unconstitutionally vague.” The Judgement Order was
appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court on March 27, 2019. Staff considers the applicant may proceed
at risk, but if the project is approved with TDRs, the use of TDRs may be overturned in court.
2. On March 19, 2019, the Environmental Court issued a judgement order dismissing the appeal of the
Board’s decision #AO‐18‐01 that the current applications (MP‐18‐01 and SD‐18‐29) were complete on
September 26, 20181. This judgement order was appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court on April 4,
2019.
Should the Board determine to allow the applicant to proceed with the hearing at risk, and assuming the applicant
still wishes to do so on April 16, Staff has prepared a discussion of the modified plan submitted by the applicant,
which the applicant has indicated attempts to mitigate the risk associated with the use of TDRs.
1 Staff acknowledges this statement paraphrases the subject of the appeal, and refers those interested in the matter to
Board decision #AO‐18‐01 for a complete description of the decision.
#MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29
Master Plan & Preliminary Plat
2
Though circumstances have changed since the last hearing at which the application was discussed, Staff reminds
the Board that they continued the hearing for the purpose of receiving public comments, and therefore
recommends the Board reserve as much time as possible for robust public comment on the merits of the
application. The Board is not obligated to make a determination on how they would decide on the applicant’s
modified plan at the April 16 meeting, and may continue the hearing to allow deliberations or further discussion
with the applicant.
MODIFIED PHASING PLAN
On April 5, 2019, the applicant provided a revised phasing plan which includes a new Phase V. Both the previous
phasing plan and the April 5 plan are included in the packet. Phase V is proposed to include 71 units. Staff
previously calculated that the project needs to purchase 67.4 TDRs, conserving 56 acres of land off‐site, therefore
Phase V represents greater than the number of units which would require TDRs in order to be constructed.
The LDR allows phased approval of projects: 15.08C(2) The final plat application may be submitted in sections
in accordance with the preliminary plat and/or Master Plan approval for the property so that it shall only
include the phase of the approved preliminary plat that the applicant proposes to record and develop at that
time. There is no prohibition on including phases that are not intended for immediate construction in the master
plan or preliminary plat application, and in fact any master plan must indicate the full‐build conditions of the
following metrics:
1. Total number of residential dwelling units
2. Total site coverage
3. Location, layout, capacity and number of collector roadways
4. Permanent open space
5. Total PM peak hour vehicle trip ends
As stated in 15.08B(3)(b), an approval of the preliminary plat application must contain conditions specifically to
include
(i) Specific changes which the Board will require in the preliminary plat
(ii) The character and extent of required improvements which in the Board’s opinion may be waived
without jeopardy to public health, safety and general welfare.
1. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe in more detail the goals of their revised
phasing, then provide an opportunity for public comment on the merits of the application. Staff
recommends the Board consider, in deliberative session or at a continued hearing if necessary, whether
the applicant’s revised phasing continues to meet PUD standards described in 15.18, and limit Board
discussion during the April 16 hearing to allow time for public comment.
Staff considers the Board may find the following PUD standards applicable to phasing.
(3) The project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent
unreasonable congestion of adjacent roads. In making this finding the DRB may rely on the findings of a
traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review by City staff or
consultants.
The revised phasing plan does not affect the phasing or configuration of roadways, other than to indicate
that the multifamily homes accessed directly off Nowland Farm Road will be considered part of Phase V
rather than Phase XX which was designated to be stated at any time due to limited public infrastructure.
#MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29
Master Plan & Preliminary Plat
3
Staff has no concerns that this criterion continues to be met.
(5) The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development patterns in the area, as
specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the zoning district(s) in which it is located.
The purpose statement of the SEQ is as follows.
A Southeast Quadrant District (SEQ) is hereby formed in order to encourage open space preservation,
scenic view and natural resource protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and
well‐planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant. The natural
features, visual 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 design and layout of buildings and lots in
a manner that in the judgment of the Development Review Board will best create neighborhoods and a
related network of open spaces consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the Southeast Quadrant shall
be encouraged. Any uses not expressly permitted are hereby prohibited, except those which are allowed
as conditional uses.
The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Project area as designated for medium to lower intensity residential
to mixed used development. Previous discussion of this criterion considered the location of larger homes
along Nowland Farm Road as transitional to a denser neighborhood, and addressed the perception of duplex
units when viewed from the open spaces located to their rears.
2. The revised phasing plan takes homes from each of the previously proposed phases I through IV and
designates them for Phase V. Many of the phase V homes are around the perimeter of the development.
Phase V includes all of the duplex and multifamily homes. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether
they consider the revised phasing plan meets this criterion.
(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 revised phasing plan includes in Phase V some lots adjacent to interior open spaces, but does not
otherwise affect open spaces. The proposed open space infrastructure phasing is not affected; all open
spaces are proposed to be constructed as part of Phases I through IV.
3. Based on experience with other projects, Staff considers the developer may encounter opposition to
building out Phase V if it is significantly delayed as residents may come to perceive the Phase V lots as
part of the Project’s open space. While this concern would not affect the developability of Phase V, Staff
considers this issue worthy of discussion.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for the affected
district(s).
The Goals of the comprehensive plan are
1. Affordable & community Strong. Creating a robust sense of place and opportunity for our residents
and visitors.
2. Walkable. Bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure.
3. Green & clean. Emphasizing sustainability for long‐term viability of a clean and green South
Burlington.
#MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29
Master Plan & Preliminary Plat
4
4. Opportunity Oriented. Being a supportive and engaged member of the larger regional and
statewide community.
The project lies within the Southeast Quadrant of the city. Southeast Quadrant objectives In the
Comprehensive Plan adopted are:
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.
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.
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.
Staff previously considered this project strongly supports each of these goals and objectives through the
creation of contiguous open space areas, conservation of 56 acres of off‐site land, and providing additional
development and connectivity along Dorset Street. Should Phase V not be constructed, there would be no
off‐site conservation. Staff considers that while unfortunate, the removal of off‐site conservation would not
result in this project not meeting this criterion.
Other PUD standards pertain to water and wastewater capacity, grading and erosion control, wetland protection,
fire protection, and roadway layout. Should the Board wish to discuss these criteria, they may be found in 15.18
of the LDR. Staff considers the Project’s overall compliance with these standards to be not affected by the order
in which homes are built.
PACKET
Staff has included the following information on the packet for the Board. Public comments included in the March
19 packet are duplicated here, because the application was not discussed on its merits at that time. Additional
Court documents related to the appeal of Dorset Meadows are included the March 19 packet should the Board
wish to revisit any of those materials.
1. Phasing Plan (dated 3/18/2019, received 4/5/2019)
2. Previous Phasing Plan (dated 1/18/2019, received 1/18/2019)
3. Judgement order on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO‐18‐01, 3/19/2019)
4. Entry regarding motion on Docket No. 2‐1‐19 Vtec (Related to Decision #AO‐18‐01, 3/19/2019)
5. Judgement order on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2/28/2019)
6. Decision on Docket No. 114‐8‐17 Vtec (Related to Spear Meadows, 2/28/2019)
7. Interested Person Comments in order received since 1/29/2019 hearing
a. Louise Hammond (1/29/2019)
b. Natural Resources Committee (1/31/2019)
c. Ray Gonda (2/3/2019)
d. Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond,
Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman,
Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3/6/2019)
e. Atty Daniel Seff on behalf of Tom and Donna Anfuso, Robert Brinckerhoff and Louise Hammond,
Andrew Chalnick, Rosanne Greco and Higley Harmon, William and Kathy Hays, Noah Hyman,
Claudia J. Miller, Steven and Dunia Partilo, Darrilyn Peters (3/8/2019)
#MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29
Master Plan & Preliminary Plat
5
f. Louise Hammond (3/19/2019)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and take public comment on the merits of the
application, and continue the hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner