Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 06_SD-21-17_1700 Dorset St_Connolly_PP#SD-21-17 Staff Comments 1 1 of 11 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-21-17_1700 Dorset St_Connolly_PP_2021-07-06.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: June 16, 2021 Plans received: May 20, 2021 1700 Dorset Street/1 Johnson Way Preliminary and Final Plat Application #SD-21-17 Meeting date: July 6, 2021 Owner/Applicant Brendan & Alexandra Connolly PO Box 2577 Sag Harbor, NY 11963 Engineer O’Leary Burke Civil Associates 13 Corporate Drive Essex Junction, VT 05452 Property Information Tax Parcel 0570-01700 Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential (SEQ-NR) 7.98 acres Location Map #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 2 2 of 11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat application #SD-21-17 of Brendan Connolly to amend a previously approved planned unit development of three lots by subdividing an existing 8.0 acre lot developed with a single family home into three lots of 0.5 ac (Lot 4), 0.5 ac (Lot 5), and 9.0 ac (Lot 1) for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of lots 4 and 5, 1 Johnson Way. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner (“Staff”) have reviewed the plans submitted on 5/20/2021 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. CONTEXT The subject property is located in the SEQ-VR District in an area subject to Interim Zoning. The City Council approved application IZ-21-02 authorizing the development of single family homes on Lots 4 and 5. The applicant obtained approval for a 3-lot Planned Unit Development in 2017. This represents an application to modify the PUD by adding two lots, though the two lots will be accessed via a distinct driveway and may appear to be part of the Sadie Lane neighborhood rather than the Johnson Way neighborhood. The sketch plan was reviewed by the Board on March 3, 2021. ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Setbacks, Coverages & Lot Dimensions Dimensional standards are as follows. SEQ-VR Required Proposed Lot #1 Proposed Lot #4 Proposed Lot #5 Min. Lot Size 12,000 sf 7.04 acres 0.5 acres 0.5 acres  Max. Building Coverage 15% Calculated on an overall basis at 2% 1. Max. Overall Coverage 30% Calculated on an overall basis at 4% 1. Min. Front Setback 20 ft 29 ft 20 ft 10 ft  Min. Side Setback 10 ft 45 ft 30 ft 20 ft 1. Min. Rear Setback 30 ft > 30 ft 10 ft 9 ft 2. Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft < 28 ft, no change 24 ft 24 ft 1. It appears the applicant has misunderstood front and side lot lines. The front line is that which faces the street, the rear is that which is opposite, and the sides are the remainder. The Board should require the applicant to modify the building envelope to meet the required setbacks or the applicant should request a waiver. 2. The applicant has not provided a height measured from average preconstruction grade. Staff estimates that the proposed elevations combined with the proposed heights of 24-feet will meet this #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 3 3 of 11 criterion, but the Board should require specific proposed heights at the final plat stage of review. ARTICLE 9: SOUTHEAST QUADRANT 9.06 SOUTHEAST QUADRANT DIMENSIONAL AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL SUB- DISTRICTS. The following standards apply to development and improvements within the entire SEQ. A. Height. See Article 3.07. Article 3.07 states that the requirements of Table C-2, Dimensional Standards, apply for the maximum number of stories and the maximum height. Waivers are not available for structures with the SEQ zoning district. The Project is located within the SEQ-NR district. A summary of dimensional standards is above. B. Open Space and Resource Protection. (1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining parcels The LDR defines open space as follows. Land maintained in essentially an undisturbed, natural state for purposes of resource conservation, and/or maintaining forest cover; or that is enhanced and managed for outdoor recreation and civic use, working lands, or local food production. Open space must be of a quality and size that supports its intended function or use. Open space specifically excludes streets, parking areas, driveways and other areas accessible to motor vehicles. The property contains a large wetland area, with a handful of upland pockets. The proposed development occurs in one such upland pocket without further bisecting the wetland. Staff considers this criterion met. (2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub-district allowing carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw. The regulating plan, provided in 9.07 of the Land Development Regulations, pertains to lot ratios, street, block and lot patterns, and park design and development. Staff considers the only relevant criterion is that of lot ratios. Lot ratios are also addressed in 9.08A(3) below. (3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing management shall be established by the applicant. Such plan shall describe 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. Existing natural resources on each site shall be protected through the development plan, including (but not limited to) primary natural communities, streams, wetlands, floodplains, conservation areas shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and special natural and/or geologic features such as mature forests, headwaters areas, and prominent ridges. In making this finding the Development Review Board shall use the provisions of Article 12 of this bylaw related to wetlands and stream buffers. 3. At sketch, the Board directed the applicant to provide a written management plan for the resource areas at this stage of review. The applicant has not provided any such plan. Since the wetland #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 4 4 of 11 and wetland buffers are proposed to be part of private yard space, Staff recommends the Board require such a management plan prior to closing this preliminary plat hearing. A management plan should include physical as well as operational restrictions to wetland encroachment. Article 12 specifically pertains to wetland and wetland buffer encroachments. No encroachments are proposed. (4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed 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 Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Erosion prevention and sediment control plans are a requirement of the final plat stage of review. Staff considers this criterion will be addressed at that time. (5) 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. Chain link fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged. The applicant has included a plan note stating “SPLIT RAIL FENCE INSTALLED ALONG WETLAND BUFFER.” Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plan to show the fence and to provide a detail at the next stage of review. C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses (including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community- supported agriculture. There are no existing agricultural uses on this site or on adjacent sites. Staff considers this criterion not applicable. D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the Development Review Board 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. The Official Map includes a recreation path at the north boundary of the property, which was constructed as part of the Sadie Lane development. Staff considers this criterion met. (1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City requirement, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation, and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. The South Burlington Water Department reviewed the plans on 6/11/2021 and offers the following comments. #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 5 5 of 11 1. Construction and materials of all water infrastructure must comply with the CWD Specifications and Details. 2. If the service line to lot 5 is to be sized to support a residential fire sprinkler system, then the installation of an approved fire sprinkler system backflow device is required. 3. Location of the water main must be performed prior to tapping. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate the comments of the SBWD at the final plat stage of review. The South Burlington Water Quality department (wastewater) reviewed the plans on 6/11/2020 and offers the following comment. As a private sewage pump station, we need signage on the pumpstation that shows the owner’s emergency contact information and/or the emergency service contractor’s number. This would also be good to have listed on the signage, below the owner’s emergency contact information. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to incorporate the comments of the Water Quality department at the final plat stage of review. (2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. The applicant has proposed to connect to City utilities via Sadie Lane. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to show the proposed natural gas connection at the final plat stage of review. The Director of Public works reviewed the plans on 6/11/2021 and offers the following comments. Certainly a lot of details to focus on when Final Plat is submitted, but at this point my main question is how the driveway will interact with the rec path in terms of signage, drainage, striping, etc. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide detailed information, including fine grading and culvert meeting the City’s minimum size and depth standards, pertaining to the driveway/rec path intersection at the next stage of review. (3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. No public facilities are proposed as part of this project. The comments of the City Water Quality department are above. Additional review of the proposed pump station will be required at the final plat stage of review. (4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation including, but not 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. #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 6 6 of 11 The Fire Chief reviewed the plans on 6/11/2021 and comments that the driveway should be designed to accommodate a fire truck weight and width or the buildings should be equipped with residential fire suppression systems. Residential fire suppression systems are required for homes greater than 150 ft from the road, which means it will be required for the home to the rear. 4. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide residential fire suppression systems for both homes in lieu of designing the driveway to support a fire apparatus. E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on adjacent roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods. In making this finding the Development Review Board 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. (1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties. (2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council. (3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent streets and neighborhoods shall apply. Staff considers these criteria met. 9.09 SEQ-VR Sub-District; Specific Standards The SEQ-VR sub-district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as enumerated in this Section. A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern (1) N/A (2) N/A (3) Lot ratios. Lots shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended Lots shall have a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2. The applicant is proposing a width to depth ratio of less than 1:1. The proposed lots cannot be configured to meet the required ratio without encroaching further into the wetland. The applicant noted at sketch that they could meet the required ratio if they were to include wetland areas in the proposed lots. However, the applicant already is including wetland area in the proposed lots. 5. The applicant stated at sketch that protecting the wetland is a consideration leading to a need for waiver of this requirement, a goal Staff supports. Staff therefore recommends the Board require the applicant to fully remove the wetland and wetland buffer from the proposed lots 4 and 5. The wetland, in that case, would be fully contained on lots 1, 2 and 3, on which development is located far from the wetland and wetland buffer thus reducing the likelihood of encroachment and allowing the wetland feature itself to remain under single ownership and resource management. #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 7 7 of 11 B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards N/A C. Residential Design Section 9.08 of the SBLDR lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. The applicant has provided a design narrative in support of this criterion. (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street. Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special design guidelines apply to arterial streets; see Section 9.11). 6. At sketch the Board directed the applicant to orient the homes so they face west rather than facing Sadie Lane for consistency with the orientation of homes on Sadie Lane. While it appears the proposed site configuration can accommodate such a layout, the applicant’s elevations indicate the home on Lot 5 will face Sadie Lane. Staff recommends the Board determine whether they will require the applicant to modify their elevations to face west as directed at sketch. Staff notes that such a requirement represents a de-facto waiver of this requirement. (2) Building Façades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified, but façades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony. Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi-private space and are oriented to the street are encouraged. Staff considers the provided homes meet this criterion and that any modified elevation in response to criterion C(1) above should be required to continue to meet this criterion. (3) Front Building Setbacks. A close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment. (a) Buildings should be set back a maximum of twenty-five feet (25’) from the back of sidewalk. (b) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8’) into the front setbacks. 7. The home on lot 4 is not proposed to have a relationship to the street because of the Board’s direction to have it face west. Staff recommends the Board reconsider their direction and consider requiring this home to have the appearance of a front on both the west and north facades. Staff further recommends the Board require the home to be set back no more than 25-ft from the recreation path, and encourage the applicant to include a porch projecting into the front setback. (4) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the facade of the garage that includes the vehicle entrance must be set back a minimum of eight feet (8’) behind the building line of the single or two-family dwelling. (a) For the purposes of this subsection: (i) The building width of a single or two-family dwelling, not including the garage, shall be no less than twelve feet (12’), except for a duplex with side-by-side primary #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 8 8 of 11 entries, in which case the building width of each dwelling unit in the duplex, not including a garage, shall be no less than eight feet (8’) (ii) The portion of the single or two-family dwelling that is nearest the front lot line may be a covered, usable porch, so long as the porch is no less than eight feet (8’) wide. (b) The DRB may waive this provision for garages with vehicle entries facing a side lot line, provided that (i) the garage is visually integrated into the single or two-family dwelling; and (ii) the façade of the garage that is oriented to the street is no more than eight feet (8’) in front of the façade of the house that is oriented to the street. Staff considers the home on Lot 4 has a side facing garage relative to Sadie Lane and therefore the Board may waive this criterion for Lot 4. For Lot 5, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate, in the revised elevation recommended in C(1) above, that the garage is setback at least 8-ft from the façade facing Sadie Lane. The applicant indicated that the garages will face highland terrace and will be set back at least 8 feet from the building line of the house. (c) - (d) N/A (5) Mix of Housing Styles. A mix of housing styles (i.e. ranch, cape cod, colonial, etc.), sizes, and affordability is encouraged within neighborhoods and developments. These should be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near-identical units. Staff considers the proposed homes meet this criterion to the extent feasible for such a small PUD. 15.18 CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF PUDS, SUDVIDISIONS, TRANSECT ZONE SUBDIVISIONS AND MASTER PLANS (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. See discussion under 9.06D(1) above. (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. See discussion under 9.06B(4) above. (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. See discussion under 9.06E above. #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 9 9 of 11 (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. See discussion under 9.06B above. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of lot lines, streets and street types, and natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the planned development patterns for the Project area as medium intensity, residential to mixed use development. Lower intensity principally residential is defined as follows. These areas support an increased diversity of housing options, with increased building density and slightly increased building heights over lower density residential areas. Since this area allows 8 units per acre, Staff considers the proposed density compatible with the comprehensive 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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations and proposed open spaces to be dedicated to the City of South Burlington. See 9.06B(1) above. (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 standard shall not apply to Transect Zone subdivisions. See discussion of fire safety considerations under 9.06D(4) above. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. See 9.06D(2) above. (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. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall only apply to the location and type of roads, recreation paths, and sidewalks. #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 10 10 of 11 See 9.06D(3) above. (10) The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the municipal Plan for the affected district(s). The Goals of the comprehensive plan follow. 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. 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 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 considers this project, as a five-lot PUD, does not detract from any of the goals or objectives of the comprehensive plan. (11) The project’s design incorporates strategies that minimize site disturbance and integrate structures, landscaping, natural hydrologic functions, and other techniques to generate less runoff from developed land and to infiltrate rainfall into underlying soils and groundwater as close as possible to where it hits the ground. For Transect Zone subdivisions, this standard shall apply only to the location of natural resources identified in Article XII of these Regulations. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate at final plat that the total proposed impervious on Lots 1 – 5 does not exceed the half-acre threshold for requiring compliance with Section 12 standards pertaining to stormwater. It appears the applicant’s proposal approaches but may not exceed the threshold. Energy Standards All new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. #SD-21-17 Staff Comments 11 11 of 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the Project with the applicant and close the hearing. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner       &,9,/$662&,$7(63/&(7+$1/$7285 9,&725,$&$57213$5&(/,'-(5</ 6+(/$*+6+$3,523$5&(/,'-2+1 686$1-(:(773$5&(/,''256(767/27//&3$5&(/,'(;,67,1*/27'21$/'-2+1621 %5,77$1<0(/9,13$5&(/,'(;,67,1*/27.$7+(5,1(0$56(//$3$5&(/,'%52&. -(11,)(5/<0$13$5&(/,'7+(&,'(50,//+20(2:1(56$662&,$7,213$5&(/,'5       REGI STEREDBRYAW.CURRIER N(;,67,1*%8,/',1*>Žƚηϭ;ZĞŵĂŝŶŝŶŐ>ĂŶĚƐͿEĞǁ>ŽƚηϰϬ͘ϰϱĐƌĞƐEĞǁ>ŽƚηϱϬ͘ϰϳĐƌĞƐWZ>͗ϬϱϳϬͲϬϭϳϬϬKZ/'/E>Zсϳ͘ϵϴZ^&ODVV,,:HWODQG'HOLQHDWHGE\*LOPDQ %ULJJV(QYLURQPHQWDO        &,9,/$662&,$7(63/&RE GISTEREDBRYAW.CURRIER N May20,2021  UnitDesignGuidelines ConnollyParcel,SouthBurlington,VT ThefollowingrequirementsandguidelinesshallbeemployedfortheConnollyParcelproject, locatedsouthofSadieLaneintheSouthEastQuadrant.  ZoningRequirements:  HomesmustcomplywiththerequirementsofArticle9,SectionC,oftheCityofSouth BurlingtonLandDevelopmentRegulations,effectiveDecember19,2019:  (1) BuildingOrientation:Residentialbuildingsmustbeorientedtothewest.Secondary buildingentriesmayopenontogaragesand/orparkingareas.(Specialdesignguidelines applytoarterialstreets;seeSection9.11).AminimumofthirtyͲfivepercent(35%)of translucentwindowsandsurfacesshouldbeorientedtothesouth.  (2) BuildingFaçades:Buildingfacadesareencouragedtoemployathemeandvariation approach.Buildingsshouldincludecommonelementstoappearunified,butfaçades shouldbevariedfromonebuildingtothenexttoavoidmonotony.Frontporches, stoops,andbalconiesthatcreatesemiͲprivatespaceandareorientedtothestreetare encouraged.  (3) FrontBuildingSetbacks:Acloserelationshipbetweenthebuildingandthestreetis criticaltotheambianceofthestreetenvironment. a) Porches,stoops,andbalconiesmayprojectuptoeightfeet(8’)intothefront setbacks.  (4) PlacementofGaragesandParking:Forgarageswithavehicleentrancethatfacesafront lotline,thefacadeofthegaragethatincludesthevehicleentrancemustbesetbacka minimumofeightfeet(8’)behindthebuildinglineofthesingleortwoͲfamilydwelling. a) Forthepurposesofthissubsection: i. ThebuildingwidthofasingleortwoͲfamilydwelling,notincludingthe garage,shallbenolessthantwelvefeet(12’). ii. TheportionofthesingleortwoͲfamilydwellingthatisnearestthefrontlot linemaybeacovered,usableporch,solongastheporchisnolessthan eightfeet(8’)wide. b) TheDRBmaywaivethisprovisionforgarageswithvehicleentriesfacingasidelot line,providedthat(i)thegarageisvisuallyintegratedintothesingleortwoͲfamily dwelling;and(ii)thefaçadeofthegaragethatisorientedtothestreetisnomore thaneightfeet(8’)infrontofthefaçadeofthehousethatisorientedtothestreet. c) RearalleysareencouragedforsmalllotsingleͲfamilyhouses,duplexesand townhouses. d) MixofHousingStyles.Amixofhousingstyles(i.e.ranch,capecod,colonial,etc.), sizes,andaffordabilityisencouragedwithinneighborhoodsanddevelopments. Theseshouldbemixedwithinblocks,alongthestreetandwithinneighborhoods ratherthancompartmentalizedintosectionsofnearͲidenticalunits.  ArchitecturalGuidelines:  Inadditiontothezoningrequirements,buildingmodelsshallcomplywiththese architecturalguidelines:  (1) Architecturalvariablesthatdistinguishbuildingmodelsfromoneanotherincludesize (widthanddepth),rooflines,exteriorwallconfiguration,windows(size,location,grill pattern,trim),sidingtype,porches,trimdetailslikeshutterandlintels,andgarage orientation.Atleastthreeofthearchitecturalvariablesmustdiffertodeterminea givenbuildingmodelisdifferentfromanother.Thesamebuildingmodelmaynotbe constructedonadjacentsites.  (2) Variablesdeterminingtheexteriorcolorpalateofahomeareprimarysidingcolor, roofingcolor,trimcolor,andcoloredaccentssuchasdoors,shutters,andtrim.To determinethatagivenbuildingmodelhasadifferentcolorpalatethananother,the primarysidingcolorandatleastoneothervariablemustdiffer.Thesamecolorpalate shallnotbeusedbyadjacentbuildings.  (3) InordertoassisttheZoningAdministratorindeterminingcompliancewitharchitectural guidelines1and2,whenapplyingforabuildingpermit,theapplicantshallprovide: i. Aplanofthedevelopmentwithalreadypermittedhomeslabeled ii. Acolorelevation,orasͲbuiltphoto,ofthefrontelevationsofalready permittedhomes.