HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11A_SD-19-17_20 Foulsham Hollow Rd_Rivers Edge_SK_SC1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-19-17_20 Foulsham Hollow Rd_Rivers Edge_SK_2019-
08-20.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 9, 2019
Plans received: May 28, 2019
20 Foulsham Hollow Road
Sketch Plan Application #SD-19-17
Meeting date: August 20, 2019
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 0293-0000A
Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential
4.42 acres
Applicant
Rivers Edge Building Development
41 Gauthier Drive, Suite 1
Essex, VT 05452
Location Map
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-19-17 of Rivers Edge Building Dev. to subdivide a 4.42 acre parcel into 9 lots
for the purpose of constructing seven single family homes and four dwelling units in two-family homes,
20 Foulsham Hollow Rd.
CONTEXT
This application was continued without being heard from July 2, 2019.
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide one existing parcel into nine lots in preparation for development
eight of the lots and construction of a public roadway on the ninth lot. On September 25, 2003, the DRB
approved Master Plan MP-03-01 for the property, elements of which were appealed. The Master Plan
was most recently amended on March 27, 2017 by a second amendment to a settlement agreement for
the proposed subdivision between the City of South Burlington and the owner of the subject property.
The agreement allows construction of up to eleven dwelling units on the property, and establishes the
Land Development Regulations effective May 2003 as the governing regulations for the parcel.
The project is located along Dorset Street, directly across from the existing golf course clubhouse and
south of Foulsham Hollow Road. It is located across a fairway from an existing residential development
on Fairway Drive, which consists primarily of two-family homes. It is served by an existing recreation path
on Dorset Street and is in an area identified in the Comprehensive Plan as an area of low to very low
intensity development consisting principally of open space.
Staff has listed applicable subdivision and site plan standards from the May 2003 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 May 2003 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.
Prior to the hearing, the Applicant has met with Staff to discuss the proposed project. The largest
differences between the May 2003 LDR and the current standards affecting this review are the addition
in the current standards of design review standards for projects in the Southeast Quadrant. Based on
feedback from Staff, the applicant has adjusted their proposed project to generally meet the goals of the
current SEQ standards. Staff has provided a brief discussion of conformity with the current SEQ standards
below.
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
3
Within the 2003 LDR, SEQ setbacks are 20 ft front, 10 ft side, and 30 ft rear. Along Dorset street, there is
a minimum 50-foot setback. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the Dorset Street setback to
approximately 30 feet.
1. Staff considers the applicants requested setback wavier as supportive of the SEQ purpose of street-oriented
neighborhood development and recommends the Board provide feedback on whether they will support
this request at subsequent stages of review.
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.
(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.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases.
(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.
4
These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary
plat approval was also required. The Project has proposed a narrower street and buildings
closer to Dorset Street in order to increase setback from the wetlands buffer for lots 1 to 7.
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.
(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 and direct access from units on Dorset Street to the existing recreation path creates
a pedestrian-oriented environment.
(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.
(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
A Master Plan or PUD in the Southeast Quadrant District shall comply with the following standards:
(1) Open space and development areas shall be located so as to maximize the aesthetic values of
the property in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan goal of preserving and enhancing the
open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant, while allowing carefully
planned development.
5
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner that maximizes the
protection of the open character, natural areas, and scenic views of the Quadrant identified in
the Comprehensive Plan, while allowing carefully planned development at the overall base
densities provided in these Regulations.
(3) Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan,
including streams, wetlands, floodplains, wildlife habitat and corridors including those areas
identified in the South Burlington Open Space Strategy, and special natural and/or geologic
features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges.
(4) Consistent with (1) through (3) above, dedicated open spaces shall be designed and located to
maximize the potential for combination with other open spaces on adjacent properties.
These criteria were found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat
approval was also required.
Staff considers the applicant has laid out the property with consideration for contiguous open
spaces, natural resources, aesthetics from Dorset Street, and aesthetics from adjacent development
areas. Based on the provided information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for
compliance with these criteria.
(5) The conservation of existing agricultural production values on lands in the SEQ is encouraged
through development planning that avoids impacts on prime agricultural soils as defined in
the South Burlington Open Space Strategy and provides buffer areas between existing
agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure.
The master plan considered continuation of agriculture not an issue.
(6) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas shall be established by the applicant
describing the intended use and maintenance of each area. Continuance of agricultural uses or
enhancement of wildlife habitat values in such plans for use and maintenance is encouraged.
This criterion was found to be met at master plan level but additional review at preliminary plat
approval was also required.
2. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant the need to provide a maintenance plan for
open spaces and natural resources within the project limits at the next stage of review.
(7) In the absence of a specific finding by the DRB 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.
In its proposed configuration, there are no conflicts with the official map.
CURRENT SEQ STANDARDS
The applicant is not required to meet the current SEQ standards but has indicated they are willing to
consider these standards in laying out the subdivision. The purpose of the SEQ encourages the
6
design and layout of buildings and lots in a manner that will best create neighborhoods and a
related network of open spaces. Specific standards not addressed elsewhere in the current or 2003
LDR include the following.
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. The use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is
encouraged.
3. Given the presence of homes with backyards abutting a wetland, Staff recommends the
Board discuss with the applicant options for discouraging wetland encroachment.
9.08A Street, block and Lot Pattern
Criteria in this section pertain to block lengths less than 500 feet, and lot ratios having a minimum
width to depth ratio of 1:2. Dead-end roads more than 200 feet long are prohibited. This project
addresses these criteria through the connection to both Foulsham Hollow Road and to Dorset Street,
and with the proposed lot configuration.
9.08B Street, Sidewalk and Parking Standards
Streets are intended to be low-speed streets for local use that discourage through movement and are
safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. Sidewalks must be 5-feet wide. Street trees are required at 30-
foot spacing. Sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking should be provided.
The applicant has not proposed on-street parking. On-street parking was not required in the May
2003 LDR.
4. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant how the proposed layout
accommodates visitors while preventing congestion on adjacent streets.
9.08C Residential Design
Residential buildings should be oriented to the street, have a close relationship to the street, and have
a garage that is set back beyond the building line by at least eight feet.
5. Staff considers the proposed layout creates a street oriented neighborhood and recommends
the DRB encourage the applicant to place restrictions on homes such that “snout” homes, or
homes with garages protruding, cannot be constructed.
D) SITE PLAN 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 eleven units. Therefore Staff considers the Board
obligated to respect this agreement regardless of the land use policies of the comprehensive
plan.
7
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.
The proposed lot configuration results in lots which are generally similar to one another and
compatible with the existing configuration on Foulsham Hollow Road. Based on the provided
information, Staff has no concerns with the Project’s potential for compliance with these
criteria.
14.07 Specific 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.
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).
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping,
Screening, and Street Trees.
8
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner