Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-23-02 - Supplemental - 1200 Dorset Street (19) 180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4106 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner SUBJECT: #SD-23-02 1200 Dorset Street DATE: March 7, 2023 Development Review Board meeting PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-23-02 of Casey Douglass to subdivide an existing 1.29 acre lot developed with a single family home and barn, located within an existing 5.52 acre planned unit development, into two lots of 0.69 acres (Lot 6A) and 0.60 acres (Lot 6B) for the purpose of demolishing the existing single family home and barn and constructing a new single family dwelling on each lot, 1200 Dorset St. COMMENTS The Board began review of this project on February 22, 2023. There was a question of whether the project, as an existing PUD, is required to be reviewed as a PUD amendment or whether it could be reviewed as a separate and distinct subdivision within an existing PUD. In either case the project would be subject to the conditions of the prior PUD (which are extremely limited) and the current LDR. For a PUD amendment, it would be considered a minor amendment under 15.C.07, and the project would have to meet the general PUD standards as well as the PUD standards applicable to all PUD types. Many of the PUD standards applicable to all PUD types would be not applicable. The project could proceed directly to final plat. For a subdivision, it would be major subdivision since the new lot to be created would be more than 2x the min lot size of the zoning district. This would require sketch and combined preliminary and final plat. Staff considers noteworthy standards include that lots must have frontage or a 20-ft easement, meet RBES stretch code, and must allow for further subdivision of any remaining developable land. Staff recommends reviewing the project as a subdivision because it is simpler and avoids having to review the project against a number of PUD criteria for which Staff considers the conclusion would be “not applicable.” Staff is not aware of any requirement in the LDR that any change to a PUD be reviewed as a PUD, and in fact the Board has in the past reviewed projects on their own lots within an existing PUD as a stand-alone site plan. A PUD amendment would require elevations for the buildings, while a subdivision MAY not if the Board determined they were able to issue affirmative findings on 13.17 Building Design Standards without elevations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board deliberate on whether the LDR conclusively requires the proposed subdivision of a lot within a PUD to be reviewed as a PUD amendment, provide that feedback to the applicant, and close the hearing.