HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11_SD-20-32_1840 Spear St_South Village_Lot 48N_sk1
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD‐20‐32_1840 Spear St_South Village_Lot 48N_sk_2020‐
09‐01.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: August 26, 2020
Plans received: July 21, 2020
1840 Spear Street Lot 48N
Sketch Plan Application #SD‐20‐32
Meeting date: September 1, 2020
Owner/Applicant
South Village Communities, LLC
P.O. Box 2286
South Burlington, VT 05407
Engineer
Civil Engineering Associates
10 Mansfield View Ln
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel 1640‐01840
Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential
1.94 ac
Location Map
2
PROJECT DESCRPTION
Sketch plan application #SD‐20‐32 of South Village Communities, LLC to subdivide an existing 1.92 acre
lot into five lots ranging from 0.21 acres to 0.67 acres for the purpose of developing a two‐family home
on each of lots 92 to 95 and establishing the fifth lot as permanent open space, 1840 Spear Street.
CONTEXT
Staff has prepared a cover memo describing the context of the application. The proposal for this lot
operates largely independently from the proposals for Lots 11, 11A, 11B, and 11C.
The Board, in #MS‐19‐30, approved an overall affordability plan for South Village. A findings of #MS‐19‐
30 relevant to this application is:
The Board approves Lot 48N for up to 9 units, subject to site plan review. The applicant must
include at least 3 and no more than 4 units of affordable housing in triplex, duplex or single
family homes, and those affordable units must be built at a ratio of one affordable to one market
rate until all affordable units on Lot 48N are constructed.
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 offer the following
comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red.
A) DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS
The dimensional standards outlined in Table C‐2 of the Land Development Regulations were altered though
the Master Plan approval process for the subject property. The approved waivers are outlined in the
decision and findings of fact for Master Plan #MP‐05‐02 and duplicated below.
• Single‐family minimum lot size from 12,000 square feet to 3,600 square feet
• Single‐family maximum building coverage from 15% to 42% (Increased to 50% in MP‐09‐01)
• Single‐family maximum lot coverage from 30% to 61%
• Single‐family front yard setback from 20' to 10'
• Single‐family rear yard setback from 30' to 10' (5' for rear lanes)
• Multi‐family maximum building coverage from 15% to 50%
• Multi‐family maximum lot coverage from 30% to 65%
• Multi‐family front yard setback from 20' to 10'
• Multi‐family rear yard setback from 30' to 5'
On Lot 48N, the applicant is proposing duplexes on individual lots. The master plan approval
did not allow waiver of lot size or setbacks for two‐family homes. The applicant obtained DRB
approval to apply the allowed waivers for single family homes to two family homes in Phase III,
but this project is not in Phase III.
1. Staff supports a minimum lot size and coverage waiver for duplexes, and recommends the Board
ask the applicant to propose a specific waiver request.
3
B) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DISTRICT
General requirements applicable to all sub‐districts pertain to height; open space and resource
protection; agricultural resources; public services and facilities; and circulation. Requirements
applicable to the SEQ‐NR pertain to block length; interconnection of streets; lot ratios; streets
sidewalks and parking including street trees and lighting; and residential design.
The design of this lot is strongly restricted by SEQ‐NR restrictions on street layout. Dead end streets
shall not exceed 200 feet in length. Lot ratios shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2.
Homes must face a street or a common space. The proposed roadway should be private, and therefore
is restricted to no more than five single family, duplex, or multi‐family buildings, in any combination,
and may serve no more than 9 units of housing.
The applicant has provided a layout drawing where they show one shading color for the first 200‐feet of
proposed dead end roadway, and a second color for the remaining segment. They have also included a
hammerhead turnaround at the end of the first 200‐feet. Staff infers the applicant is proposing that the
segment after the first 200‐feet be a driveway. Two multifamily buildings with a shared driveway would
allow the roadway requirements to be met. Further, a configuration with one triplex facing Preserve
Road and two triplexes with a shared driveway would also meet the roadway requirements.
2. Though Staff considers the exact cross sections do not create a roadway followed by a driveway, Staff
recommends the Board first consider whether the conceptual configuration may meet the required
standard and intent. The Board may not approve a dead end roadway greater than 200‐feet in length.
It appears the applicant is proposing a 200‐foot roadway and a shared driveway for the remaining two
buildings. If the Board considers this configuration to be conceptually acceptable, and Staff notes they
are under no obligation to do so, then Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to better
demarcate the change from roadway to driveway, including a reduced width, change in surface, and
change in street trees and lighting.
The northern most homes are proposed to front on Preserve Road, and the remaining homes are
proposed to front on a newly created proposed open space. The creation of this open space, and the
trigger for master plan amendment, is discussed in the cover memo for this application. In Phase 1,
there are locations (east and west Fisher Lane and Flanders Lane) where the homes front on a common
space and are backed by alleys, which it appears this configuration is attempting to mimic. In Phase 1,
all homes face the common space. On Lot 48N, the applicant has proposed to face the homes towards
the east, with walkways extending to a new sidewalk located on private land, a short length of fence,
and then a recreation path through the edge of the open space. The fences are located in the open
space, and the open space is located in the back yards of existing homes on North Jefferson Road.
To continue the comparison to Phase 1, Phase 1 assured that all space was clearly defined – private yard
vs organized public space. If there was a leftover corner, it was demarked and assigned to public space
(example: corner of Frost Street & South Jefferson Road. The location of the recreation path at the edge
of the open space may result in the perception that the area west of the path is private and fail to
provide visual cues as to the width of the open space on the east. Staff considers that both a sidewalk
and rec path are unnecessary, and that the sidewalk location on private land will result in it being
unmaintained in winter. A better option may be to mirror phase 1 and provide a sidewalk on but within
the common space and a rec path on the far side. The official map does require a north‐south recreation
path in this location.
3. Staff recommends the Board first discuss whether the proposed home orientation may be acceptable,
and if so, that they require the applicant to better delineate the open space on both sides so that it
functions as useable open space for all residents.
4
The overall configuration of the homes, the driveways, and the lane appear to be more space‐
consumptive than the arrangement of the adjacent phase 2 on North Jefferson Road. Since this is
effectively a rectangular lot, Staff considers reducing the size of the lots in both dimensions would result
in the creation of a more significant and functional common space at the front of the lots without
necessitating any alteration to the general configuration.
4. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to consider lot size reduction as they incorporate
feedback on configuration.
Residential design is addressed in the Residential Design Guidelines document applicable to all of South
Village.
C) 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 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.
(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.
This criterion was found at the master plan level to need further review under applications for
individual phases.
Staff considers the traffic impacts of this project will be minimal.
(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.
This criterion was found to be met at master plan.
5
(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.
This criterion was found to be met at master plan.
(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.
This criterion was found to be met at master plan. As discussed in the cover memo, the
applicant may be proposing to modify open space, but this modification is not associated with
Lot 11.
(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. The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on August 11, 2020 and indicated that
homes greater than 200‐feet from the right of way would need to have a residential sprinkler
system.
(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.
(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.
See discussion above pertaining to roads, recreation paths and lighting.
Staff notes the project will be required to provide water quality treatment using a Tier II
practice.
(10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for
the affected district(s).
This criterion was found to be met at master plan level.
6
D) SITE PLAN STANDARDS
General site plan review standards relate to relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, relationship of
structures to the site (including parking), compatibility with adjoining buildings and the adjoining area.
Specific standards speak to access, utilities, roadways, landscaping, and waste disposal.
Staff considers concerns related to these criteria are discussed elsewhere in this document.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner