HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08A_SD-20-01_550 Park Rd_Blackrock Construction_SC1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐01_550 Park Rd_Blackrock Construction_SK_2020‐
01‐22.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: January 15, 2020
Plans received: December 13, 2019
550 Park Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐20‐01
Meeting date: January 22, 2020
Owner
Highlands Development Company, LLC
P.O. Box 132
Lyndon Ctr., VT 05850‐0132
Engineer
O’Leary Burke Civil Associates
13 Corporate Drive
Essex Jct, VT 05452
Property Information
Tax Parcel 0570‐01100
Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential North
4.42 acres
Applicant
Blackrock Construction
68 Randall Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Location Map
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐01 of Blackrock Construction for a planned unit development on an
existing undeveloped 6.91 acre parcel. The planned unit development consists of two lots containing 22
dwelling units in two‐family homes and 10 units in single family homes, 550 Park Road.
CONTEXT
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into two lots in preparation for development
of 32 homes on one lot and construction of a public roadway on the other lot.
This 6.91 acre parcel is part of the 8/24/2015 “Amended Agreement Among the City of South Burlington,
Highlands Development Company, LLC and JAM Golf, LLC” (“Amended Agreement”). The parcel itself
was the subject of a land exchange between the City and these parties. The Amended Agreement
incorporates the 9/28/2015 “Amended Consent Order and Decree” (“Consent Order”), which approves
at the Master Plan level up to 32 dwelling units for this “Wheeler Parcel” lot in buildings consisting of
between one and four dwelling unit each. The Amended Agreement determined that the preliminary &
final plat reviews for the Wheeler Parcel would take place under an amended set of Land Development
Regulations, established through a collaborative process between the City and property owner.
“6. New Land Development Regulations for Wheeler Parcel Project Area.
a. A portion of the City Parcel, specifically the +/‐6.91 acres currently in the Wheeler Nature Park
east of Dorset Street and north of Park Road, being the lands labelled ‘6.91 Acres CITY of SOUTH
BURLINGTON to JAM GOLF, LLC’ on the survey incorporated herein as Exhibit A also referred to
as the Wheeler Parcel Project Area, is not presently in a zoning district that allows the use
contemplated by this Amended Agreement. The City agrees to amend its Land Development
Regulations, including necessary maps, to allow the Wheeler Parcel Project Area to be developed
with a maximum of 32 dwelling units in structures consisting of 1‐4 dwelling units within the
intent of this Amended Agreement. The City and Developers agree to cooperate and to work
together to ensure that the amendments contain provision that allow development of residential
structure consisting of 1‐4 dwelling units similar in type and size to those presently existing in the
Project, that include site and building design standards similar to those applicable to the
Southeast Quadrant, Neighborhood Residential Subdistrict version of the Land Development
Regulations that took effect on May 7, 2012, and that include site design standards that require
compatibility with adjacent natural areas. Applications for preliminary and final plat and site
plan approval for the Wheeler Parcel Project Area that be reviewed under the amended Land
Development contemplated by this Paragraph 6 (the ‘Amendments’).”
The amended Land Development Regulations contemplated in the paragraph above were adopted by
the City Council and took effect January 11, 2016, and were subsequently amended effective January 25,
2016 to correct an error in the included maps. The parties agreed that the January 25, 2016 regulations
would satisfy condition #6 of the Amended Agreement above.
The project is located along Dorset Street, across from an existing residential development on Nicklaus
Circle which consists of two‐family homes. It is served by an existing recreation path on Park Road and
Dorset Street and is in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of very low intensity
development consisting principally of open space.
3
Staff has listed applicable subdivision and site plan standards from the June 19, 2017 LDR in order to
familiarize the Board with the applicable standards. Staff has not provided an exhaustive evaluation of
compliance with each of the presented standards at this sketch plan review. As is the case in the current
LDR, the June 19, 2017 LDR contains numerous sections outside of the specific subdivision and site plan
standards that describe how compliance with each specific standard is to be evaluated.
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.
A) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
Within the applicable LDR, SEQ setbacks are 20 ft front, 10 ft side, and 30 ft rear. Along Dorset street,
there is a minimum 50‐foot setback. At this time, Staff does not believe the applicant’s proposal
requires any waivers. Should waivers become necessary, the 2017 LDR allowed the DRB the same
authority as today’s LDR under 15.02A(4) and 15.06B(2).
B) SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
The general standards applicable to this subdivision are as follows.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity is available to meet the needs of the
project in conformance with applicable State and City requirements, as evidenced by a City
water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
This Criterion was found met at a master plan level.
(2) Sufficient grading and erosion controls will be utilized during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In making this finding, the DRB
may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for
Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases. Staff considers this criterion should be evaluated during preliminary and final
plat for this parcel.
(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.
4
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases. The applicant will be required to provide an estimate of vehicle trips at the
next stage of review.
1. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the applicant to perform an
evaluation of delay/LOS at the adjacent Park Road/Dorset Street intersection as part of the
next application.
(4) The project's design respects and will provide suitable protection to wetlands, streams, wildlife
habitat as identified in the Open Space Strategy, and any unique natural features on the site.
In making this finding the DRB shall utilize the provisions of Article 12 of these Regulations
related to wetlands and stream buffers, and may seek comment from the Natural Resources
Committee with respect to the project's impact on natural resources.
(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.
(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.
These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary
plat approval was also required. There do not appear to be wetland impacts. The open space is
proposed to be located along the center of the development and consists of a community
recreation path and community garden.
Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for
compliance with these criteria.
(7) The layout of a subdivision or PUD has been reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to
insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for approval
including, but not be limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width, vehicular
access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water flow and pressure,
and number and location of hydrants. All aspects of fire protection systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with applicable codes in all areas served by municipal water.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases. Staff considers the applicant will need to submit additional dimensional and
utility information at the next stage of review in order to allow evaluation of this criterion.
(8) Roads, recreation paths, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines and lighting
have been designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and
infrastructure to adjacent properties.
The sidewalk connections to the existing recreation path on Park Road create a pedestrian‐
oriented environment. The applicant is required to install a landscape buffer as shown, which is
discussed in more detail under SEQ standards below.
5
(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.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases. Staff considers this criterion will need further review at the next stage of
review.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary
plat approval was also required. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with
the Project’s potential for compliance with these criteria.
C) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT
The following general requirements are applicable to all sub‐districts.
(A) Height
The applicant appears to have met the relevant height requirements.
(B) Open Space and Resource Protection
A plan for open spaces and their ongoing management is required. The Board typically
implements this standard by requiring the applicant to provide an open space management
plan to be recorded as a notice of conditions. This standard also requires erosion control
measures and landscaping and fencing to protect natural resource areas. Staff considers the
specific standards applicable to the SEQ‐NRN address this element of the open space
standards.
(C) Agriculture
The master plan considered continuation of agriculture not an issue.
(D) Public Services and Facilities
These criteria are duplicates of the subdivision criteria above.
(E) Circulation
Staff considers these criteria will be addressed when the subdivision criteria above are
addressed.
The following additional standards apply in the SEQ‐NRN.
(A) Street, block and lot pattern
Development blocks should be between 300 and 500 linear feet. Where unavoidable,
blocks longer than 500 feet should include mid‐block public sidewalk or recreation path
connections. The applicant has described that the proposed road will be 1,020 ft long. It is
approximately bisected by a recreation path.
2. Staff recommends the Board review with the applicant how the proposed recreation path
will be demarcated to ensure it is perceived as open to the public.
Lots must have a minimum width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5
recommended.
6
3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant their planned distribution of land,
whether all units will be on common land or whether there will be individual lots.
(B) Street, Sidewalk and Parking Standards
Local streets should have a pavement width of 20 feet in the NRN if the Board finds that
sufficient off‐street parking is provided to accommodate the parking needs of the uses
adjacent to the street. The applicant is proposing 24‐feet of pavement width. 26 feet is the
minimum requirement considered able to accommodate on‐street parking.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to either provide 26‐feet
of pavement or reduce the pavement width to 20 feet.
Sidewalks should be 5’ wide, which is met. Street trees must be planted no greater than 30’
on center. The applicant should demonstrate compliance with street tree requirements at
the next stage of review.
(C) Residential Design
Buildings must be oriented to the street, and should have 35% of translucent windows
oriented to the south. Building facades should appear unified but varied to avoid
monotony. Front porches, stoops and balconies are encouraged. Buildings with rear
facades oriented towards a public recreation path should employ rear porches, balconies or
other features to enhance their architectural detail. Buildings should be set back no more
than 25‐feet from the back of sidewalk, with porches, stoops and balconies projecting up to
8 feet into the front setback. Within the NRN, at least three housing styles and/or
affordability is required, and must be mixed. The applicant has provided footprint sketches
for the duplexes which may support these criteria, but has not yet provided sketches for the
single family homes.
5. Staff recommends the Board invite the applicant to describe how their elevations, which
will be required at the next stage of review, will meet these criteria.
6. Garages must be set back a minimum of eight feet behind the building line of the dwelling,
with some exceptions for side‐facing garages. This criterion does not appear to be met by
the provided sketches. Staff recommends the Board discuss this criterion with the applicant.
7. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the design of the homes on the
corner of Dorset Street and Park Road as they will be gateways to the neighborhood.
(D) Landscaping and Fence Buffer Standards
These standards are unique to the SEQ‐NRN, whose extent includes only the subject parcel.
Existing vegetation must be retained where it can serve as a landscape buffer, which
accommodating the permitted level of development. Additional landscape buffers as shown
in Table 9‐2Aand Figure 9‐2A are a required element. The applicant appears to be proposing
the required fencing and buffering in the required areas. The width of the required
buffering is described in Table 9‐2A, and varies depending on the location and the buffer
type. Specific standards for buffers are excerpted below for the Board’s benefit.
7
Landscape Buffer Types
(a) Type 0 – Low Height Vegetation. A Type 0 landscaping typically includes grass or
meadow area with foundation screening at the buildings. This type of buffer is intended
to provide separation between new buildings and the existing land uses.
(b) Type I ‐ Dense Plantings. A Type I landscaped buffer must be composed primarily of
continuous dense screening vegetation / hedge that will be at least five (5) feet in width
and grow to at least six (6) feet in height.
(c) Type II – Informal Plantings. A Type II landscaped buffer must be composed of a split
rail fence (or equivalent approved by the DRB), major trees, a partial understory of small
trees, and a berm with a mixture of shrub type plantings. The minimum amount of
planting per 100 horizontal feet of buffer shall be a full ground cover, two trees of at least
3” caliper, three ornamental or understory trees of at least 2” caliper, and any
combination of shrubbery that occupies at least 50% of the area at the time of planting,
all of which shall be distributed throughout the minimum buffer width described in Table
9‐2A. With approval of the City Council, up to 10 feet of the green space between a
recreation path and a property line may be used to enable the installation of the split rail
fence and a portion of a berm.
Table 9‐2A Supplemental landscape buffer and setback requirements, SEQ‐NRN sub‐district
Adjoining Use Minimum Buffer Widths Minimum setback (5)
Type 0 Type I (5) Type II
High Use Rec Path (1) n/a n/a 30' 50'
Lower Use Rec Path (2) 70' n/a 27' 30'
Resource Protection Area (3) 40' 5' 27' 35'
% Reduction for Use of Berm (4) 25% n/a 25% n/a'
(1) The section of recreation path running along the west side of the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, as shown on Figure
9‐2A.
(2) The section of recreation path running along the south and east sides of the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, as shown
on Figure 9‐2A.
(3) The area located at the north boundary line of the SEQ‐NRN sub‐district, as shown on Figure 9‐2A
(4) Plantings are to be placed on top of berm for added vertical screening effect. Reduction not applicable to
High Use Recreation Path.
(5) Setbacks apply to all principal structures.
The applicant may substitute an earthen berm for a portion of the required landscaping
height. It does not appear the applicant is proposing an earthen berm.
The applicant has elected to provide Type I plantings at 5‐feet wide along the east buffer,
and Type II plantings between 27 and 30 feet wide along the west and north buffer areas.
8. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the narrower, 27‐foot
option with a mixture of plantings, is preferred over the 70‐foot, less planted option along
the western buffer. Staff notes the requirements for the narrower option will more fully
screen the proposed development area from the future development area on the south side
of Park Road and may interrupt the cohesive neighborhood feel.
8
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to provide a specific
landscaping planting plan at the next stage of review.
D) SITE PLAN STANDARDS
General Site Plan Review Standards
A. Relationship of Proposed Development to the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Due attention by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land
use policies for the City of South Burlington as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
The project is identified in the comprehensive plan as an area of very low intensity to lower
intensity land use. However, the above referenced settlement agreement resulted in this
property being approved for development of up to 32 units. Therefore Staff considers the Board
obligated to respect this agreement regardless of the land use policies of the comprehensive
plan assuming the land can carry the approved development density outside of protected areas.
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.
(2) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable.
(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.
(4) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior
alterations or building expansion shall, to the extent feasible, be underground.
Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for
compliance with these criteria.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(1) The Development Review Board shall encourage the use of a combination of common
materials and architectural characteristics (e.g., rhythm, color, texture, form or detailing),
landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions
between buildings of different architectural styles.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to
existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed
structures.
As discussed above, the applicant has not provided much information about the proposed home
appearances therefore Staff considers these criteria cannot be evaluated at this time.
However, the SEQ standards, if met, should result in these criteria being met.
9
Specific Site Plan Review Standards
(A) Access to Abutting Properties. The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of
access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto
an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to
improve general access and circulation in the area.
Staff considers no such access is necessary for the subject property, as it is bounded on all sides not
facing a street by a public park.
(B) Utility Services. Electric, telephone and other wire‐served utility lines and service connections shall
be underground insofar as feasible and subject to state public utilities regulations. Any utility
installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to
neighboring properties and to the site.
(C) Disposal of Wastes. All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance
with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with
opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). Small receptacles
intended for use by households or the public (ie, non‐dumpster, non‐large drum) shall not be
required to be fenced or screened.
Staff considers these criteria can be discussed at a later stage of review.
(D) Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening,
and Street Trees.
Section 13.06 standards do not apply to single and two family homes on their own lots. However, if the
applicant is proposing shared lots, these standards do apply, including minimum landscape budget.
10. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the required minimum landscape budget, as
this may affect the applicant’s desired planting in compliance with requirements in 9.07 above.
E. Modification of Standards. Where the limitations of a site may cause unusual hardship in
complying with any of the standards above and waiver therefrom will not endanger the public
health, safety or welfare, the Development Review Board may modify such standards as long as
the general objectives of Article 14 and the City's Comprehensive Plan are met. However, with the
exception of side yard setbacks in the Central District 1, in no case shall the DRB permit the
location of a new structure less than five (5) feet from any property boundary and in no case shall
be the DRB allow land development creating a total site coverage exceeding the allowable limit
for the applicable zoning district in the case of new development, or increasing the coverage on
sites where the pre‐existing condition exceeds the applicable limit.
As discussed above, it does not appear the applicant will require any modification of standards at this
time.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
10
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner