Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-23-03 - Supplemental - 0000 Long Drive (7)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-23-03_Long Drive #0_Allen setback_SC_draft.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: February 28, 2022 Plans received: January 20, 2023 0 Long Drive – Civil Engineering Associates Site Plan Application #SD-23-03 Meeting date: March 7, 2023 Owner/Applicant Amy & Jon Allen 80 Long Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Engineer Civil Engineering Associates 10 Mansfield View Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel 1062-00080 Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential Zoning District Location Map #SP-23-03 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat application #SD-23-03 of Civil Engineering Associates to amend a previously approved plan for a 10 unit planned unit development. The amendment consists of reducing the front setback for Lot 8 (80 Long Drive) from 30 feet to 20 feet, 0 Long Drive. CONTEXT This project is subject to General Planned Unit Development Review Standards and the standards of the Southeast Quadrant – Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. This project most recently received approval in 2021, when JAM Golf, LLC, obtained an amendment to a previously approved 11-lot Planned Unit Development via final plat application #SD-21-15. The application at hand proposes to modify this approval and alter the PUD by reducing the front yard setback for Lot 8 only from 30 feet to 20 feet. Given the scope of the proposed change, Staff has determined this application constitutes a minor amendment to an existing PUD per Article 15.C.07.C(3). A minor PUD is defined as one which does not significantly alter the overall intent or scale of the PUD, or the relationship of the approved PUD to its surroundings. Staff has accordingly limited the scope of this review to criteria relevant to the minor amendment being sought. As a minor PUD, this application is not required to be preceded by a sketch plan or a preliminary subdivision and has proceeded directly to final plat. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Development Review Planner I Marty Gillies (‘Planning Staff’) have reviewed the plans submitted on 1/20/2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered comments for the Board’s attention are indicated in red. A) ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS SEQ-NR Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 9,500 sf No change  Max. Building Coverage 20% No change  Max. Overall Coverage 40% No change @ Min. Front Setback 30 ft 20 ft  Min. Side Setback 10 ft No change  Min. Rear Setback 30 ft No change  Building Height (pitched roof) 28 ft No change  Meets requirement @ The subject PUD, as previously approved, includes 30-foot front setbacks for all lots. The applicant is proposing to amend the PUD with respect to Lot 8 only, reducing the front setback for that lot from the 30-foot setback approved as part of the original PUD approval to 20 feet. #SP-23-03 3 B) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN The subject PUD is governed by a Tree Preservation Plan that was established by the State of Vermont Environmental Court. The Tree Preservation Plan allows for the clearing of trees located outside of the Tree Preservation Zone, and for the clearing of trees within the Tree Preservation Zone that are within twenty (20) feet of the edge of the original building footprints submitted and approved along with the initial version of the Tree Preservation Plan. As such, a significant portion of this lot is permitted to be cleared via existing approvals. The applicant is not proposing to construct their single-family home exactly within the previously approved original building footprint. As such, they are only entitled to clear trees that are both within 20 feet of the original building footprint and within 20 feet of the proposed building footprint (in addition to all trees outside of the Tree Preservation Zone limits). In moving the location of the proposed home forward, towards the front lot line, the applicant shrinks the area in which they are able to clear trees and does not gain any additional clearing ability towards the front of the lot. 1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the impacts on the Tree Preservation Zone of their proposed building footprint with and without the modification of the front setback. C) REVIEW STANDARDS 15.C.04 PUD Standards Applicable to All PUD Types (A) Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (B) Conformance with the Master Plan (C) Compliance with Regulations (D) Development Density (E) Transition Zone (F) Allowed Uses Staff considers that by its nature, this minor amendment does not affect compliance with overall PUD review criteria A – F. (G) PUD Dimensional Standards The applicant is proposing a modification of the front setback dimensional standard previously approved as part of this PUD for Lot 8. This proposed alteration is discussed in 15.C.07 below. (H) Street, Building, and Civic Space Types (I) Solar Siting Preferences (J) PUD Design Standards Staff considers that by its nature, this minor amendment does not affect compliance with overall PUD review criteria H - J. 15.C.07 General PUD G. General PUD Dimensional Standards #SP-23-03 4 Since this PUD is located in an area without underlying zoning (it is in a conservation area) and is instead governed by a court decision based on a prior zoning district, Staff considers the applicable dimensional standards are those described in the previously approved PUD. (1) Relevant subdivision, site plan, zoning district, and applicable overlay district dimensional standards shall form the basis of the design of a General PUD and shall apply unless modified, reduced, or waived by the DRB under (2) below. (a) The DRB must find an application meets the requirements of 15.C.07(G)(2) in order to modify, reduce, or waive Site Plan requirements using 14.04(A)(3), Site Plan application requirements using 14.05(G), Subdivision requirements using 15.A.01(B)(3), Scenic Overlay District requirements using 10.02(I)(2), (J), and/or (K). (b) The DRB has authority to allow alternative compliance under 15.C.04(C)(3). As noted above, the applicant is not proposing to modify a dimensional or design standard found in Article 15; as such, this criterion does not apply. (c) Height restrictions may be modified, reduced, or waived in underlying zoning districts identified in 3.07(D)(2) by the DRB under (2) below, except as noted in 15.C.07(C)(2)(b) above. The standards of review in 3.07(D)(2) shall apply. No such modifications, reductions, or waivers are requested as part of this application. (d) The DRB cannot modify, reduce, or waive standards as listed in 15.C.07(A)(3). No such modifications, reductions, or waivers are requested as part of this application. (2) In response to the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area, the DRB may modify, reduce, or waive one or more applicable dimensional standards as necessary. The applicant is requesting a modification, reduction, or waiver of a dimensional standard. Specifically, the applicant is requesting a modification of the front yard setback for Lot 8 of the subject PUD. As a point of comparison, the standard front yard setback for the SEQ-NR zoning district, a similarly situated residential zoning district, is presently 20 feet. The applicant is proposing to match that dimensional standard by adjusting the front setback approved for this lot to also be 20 feet. Staff considers that the impacts to the approved PUD, and the Tree Preservation Zone, to be negligible and recommends the Board approve the requested modification. (3) Context shall be determined by the existing or planned Development Context in the Planning Area under Section 15.C.07(F) and (G). Staff considers that by its nature, this minor amendment does not affect this criteria. I. General PUD Design Standards (1) Design Standards, Generally. The design for a General PUD shall comply with existing Site Plan, Subdivision, and Overlay District regulations and standards, but may allow for variations from applicable regulations that respond to and incorporate the development context within the Planning Area and under the specific circumstances listed in Section 15C.09(G)(4). The previously approved design of this PUD includes 30-foot front yard setbacks. Based on the limited impacts to the tree preservation plan, Staff considers that the proposed modification to #SP-23-03 5 reduce the front setback on Lot 8 does not have an adverse effect on the approved design of the PUD. Staff considers the remainder of the General PUD Design Standards to be unaffected by this proposed amendment. D) SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS 13.17 Residential Design for New Homes (B) Applicability This section applies to all new residential buildings except buildings approved as part of an existing, unexpired subdivision or Planned Unit Development approval. The current PUD approval for the Long Drive subdivision is existing and unexpired. However, by amending that approval, this final plat application is subject to all applicable sections of the current Land Development Regulations. As such, the proposed single-family home on Lot 8 is not being applied for under the existing, unexpired PUD approval; rather, it is being applied for under an amended PUD approval. Therefore, the following section is applicable to the single-family home proposed to be constructed on Lot 8. (C) Standards (1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street, to an approved civic space, or to a courtyard. Primary entries for single family and multi-family buildings must face the street, civic space, or courtyard. The proposed amendment to the PUD does not alter the proposed orientation of the single- family home proposed to be constructed on Lot 8. The proposed building is oriented towards Long Drive. As such, Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Placement of Garages and Parking. For garages with a vehicle entrance that faces a front lot line, the face 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. The proposed amendment to the PUD includes a footprint for the proposed single-family home. This rough architectural plan shows an attached garage that projects slightly beyond the front building line of the single-family dwelling. This standard requires garages with a vehicle entrance that face a front lot line to be recessed at least eight feet behind the building line. 2. Staff considers that the proposed footprint for the single-family home to be constructed on Lot 8 is not in compliance with this criterion of the recently adopted standards regulating design of new homes. Staff further considers that the other houses under construction in this subdivision were approved under the LDRs that were in effect when the PUD was last re- approved, in 2018, and therefore are not subject to the above standards. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they will require the applicant to comply with the residential design criteria of 13.17. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board discuss the project with the applicant and close the hearing. #SP-23-03 6 Respectfully submitted, Marty Gillies, Development Review Planner I