HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 07A_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: June 4, 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 December 4, 2018 and January 29, 2019 hearings, the Board took testimony and then 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. At the April 16, 2019 meeting, the Applicant indicated they wished to
proceed with the hearing understanding that depending on what happened with related court matters1, the
conclusions of the DRB may not stand. The applicant presented a phasing plan which they felt provided a
backstop in the event that the courts invalidated the City’s TDR regulations. The Board continued the meeting in
order to deliberate on whether the applicant’s presented phasing plan represented a material change requiring
the applicant to go back to sketch plan. The Applicant has represented verbally to Staff that their intention is to
abandon the phasing plan proposed at the April 16, 2019 meeting.
On May 24, 2019, the applicant submitted two revised plan sheets. In the first, the applicant demonstrates that
they are reverting to their previously discussed phasing plan, eliminating the phasing that would allow a backstop
in the event the City’s TDR regulations are invalidated. This phasing is consistent with the phasing presented by
the applicant at the 1/29/2019 hearing. The Board did not express any concerns with the proposed phasing at
that time.
The second revised plan sheet shows minor revisions from the plans presented on 1/29/2019. The four‐family
home located on Dorset Street has been modified so that all parts of the home, including the front porches, are
set back at least 20‐feet from Dorset Street. The five‐family homes located on Nowland Farm Road have also
been modified so that all parts of the home are set back at least 20‐feet from Nowland Farm Road. Section
9.11B(1) of the LDRs states that new developments with frontage on Dorset Street and Nowland Farm Road shall
1 At the time of this writing, no significant actions have occurred in either of the related court matters since the
April 16 hearing.
#MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29
Master Plan & Preliminary Plat
2
maintain a setback of twenty feet from the edge of the planned street right of way. Section 9.11A states that the
minimum front setback from Dorset Street and Nowland Farm shall be as set forth in Section 3.06B(1), which lists
a 50‐foot setback from those streets. Staff considers there are two factors which should influence the DRB in
their interpretation of these sections. First, when the LDR is internally contradictory, the DRB should give
precedence to the section that is more site‐specific. Second, in the case of a PUD, as this project is, the DRB has
the authority to grant setback waivers to a minimum of five feet, therefore the matter of which section of the
LDR governs is somewhat moot except as a point of guidance.
The applicant has verbally indicated to Staff that they would like to address any outstanding concerns the Board
has that may influence their decision on whether to approve the two applications, and should there be no
outstanding issues, to close the hearing. Therefore in preparation for this hearing, Staff has reviewed the
materials from previous hearings and has summarized outstanding topics below.
MASTER PLAN
Split Lots: Where a district boundary line divides a lot which was in a single ownership at the time of
passage of these regulations, the Development Review Board may permit, as a conditional use, the
extension of the regulations for either portion of the lot but not to exceed fifty (50) feet beyond the district
line into the remaining portion of the lot (See Article 14 for Conditional Use Review). This provision shall
not apply to the boundary lines of any overlay or floating district.
At the 1/29/2019 hearing, the Board discussed the location of units 88‐91 in relationship to the area where
the SEQ‐NRP regulations apply. The homes and lots directly abut but do not cross into the area where the
applicant is requesting the SEQ‐NRP regulations apply. The applicant indicated they would be willing to orient
the homes so the porches did not step directly into the SEQ‐NRP. The applicant further indicated all homes
would participate in the homeowners association. The homeowners association documents could include a
statement as to the undeveloped status of SEQ‐NRP lands. The Board seemed split on whether they were
concerned about the location of the homes, with some members suggesting a partial physical barrier to
demarcate the boundary. Staff considers that any shift in the district standards should result in no net loss
to the protected areas within the City. Staff reminds the Board that the applicant is proposing conservation
areas with an equivalent acreage to the shifted boundary. Any such shift requires conditional use review, as
follows.
14.10E General Review Standards The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect
on any of the following:
(1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities.
(2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district
within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan.
(3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
(4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect.
(5) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they need any additional information to make a determination
on whether to grant the applicant’s request for conditional use to extend the regulations of the SEQ‐NR 50‐
feet into the SEQ‐NRP.
#MP‐18‐01 & #SD 17‐29
Master Plan & Preliminary Plat
3
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Based on a review of staff comments and minutes from the previous hearings, there are no topics that Staff
considers outstanding. Staff notes the Board has not indicated the project is perfect as designed, but that the
items that remain to be satisfied may be satisfied at final plat.
PACKET
Staff has included the following information on the packet for the Board. Additional plans and renderings are
available in the January 29, 2019 packet should the Board wish to revisit any of those materials.
1. Phasing Plan (dated 5/22/2019, received 5/24/2019)
2. Overall Site Plan (dated 5/22/2019, received 5/24/2019)
3. Interested Person Comments in order received since 4/16/2019 hearing
a. Roseanne Greco (4/23/2019)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearings.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner