Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-23-035 - Supplemental - 0055 0025 Highland Terrace #SD-23-035 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD SD-23-035_25 55 Highland Terrace_Sample_SK_2023-09- 06.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: August 30, 2023 Application received: 8/2/2023 Eric Sample – 25 Highland Terrace Sketch Plan Application #SD-23-035 Meeting Date: September 6, 2023 Owner/Applicant Eric Sample 55 Highland Terrace South Burlington, VT 05403 Property Information Tax Parcel ID: 0850-00009 Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood Residential Zoning District, Parcel size: 2 acres Location Map #SD-23-035 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-23-035 of Eric Sample to subdivide an existing 1.37 acre lot developed with a single family home and detached accessory dwelling unit into two lots of 1.00 acres and 0.37 acres, for the purpose of establishing the existing single family home and accessory dwelling unit on Lot 1, and constructing a new single family or duplex home on Lots 2, 25 & 55 Highland Ter. 1. This project was warned to abutters as a three lot subdivision. Upon review, Staff determined that only two lots can be created therefore the applicant worked with Staff to revise the proposed plan and application. This report discusses the revised two lot subdivision. Staff recommends the Board determine whether they will require the meeting to be left open for the purpose of accepting public comment on the revised application. PERMIT HISTORY This sketch plan review is the first step in seeking approval for subdivision without Planned Unit Development approval. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and offer the following comments. As this is a Sketch Plan review, only criteria relevant for review at this stage are addressed. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. The application is subject to zoning district and dimensional standards, subdivision standards, the general regulations of Article 3 and the supplemental regulations of Article 13. A) ZONING DISTRICT AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS Dimensional standards include a minimum lot size of 9,500 sf for a single family home, 20% building coverage and 40% lot coverage, and 20 ft, 10 ft, and 30 ft front, side, and rear setbacks, respectively. Buildings are limited to two stories and 28-ft for pitched roofs. As corner lots, the proposed lots 1 and 2 will each have two front and two side lot lines. B) GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS This application will be considered a minor subdivision because the proposal is for two lots. Staff notes that the proposed Lot 2 is nearly large enough for 2 lots of the minimum lot size of 9,500 sf. While only a two lot subdivision is permitted under existing dimensional standards, the regulations may in the future be modified to allow a 3-lot subdivision with 9,500 sf minimum lots, therefore the applicant may wish to consider enlarging Lot 2 to 0.44 acres. If Lot 2 were 0.44 acres, it would be classified as a major subdivision. A major subdivision requires preliminary plat review in addition to final plat review (which may be combined). 15.A.10 Subdivision Standards A. Applicability Any subdivision of land subject to these Regulations must meet applicable subdivision standards under this Article unless modified or waived by the DRB under Section 15.A.01(B). #SD-23-035 (1) The DRB, in determining compliance with these standards, may require: (a) Disclosure of the intended use and development of all land to be subdivided, including subsequent development plans for any retained portion of the existing tract or parcel to be subdivided. The applicant has indicated their intention is to sell lot 2 for future development. The lot would be permitted to be developed with a single family home, a single family home with attached or detached accessory dwelling unit, or a duplex1. As a subdivision without PUD the applicant is not required to provide elevations for the potential buildings, though Staff recommends the Board keep in mind the potential types of development while reviewing the proposed subdivision. 15.A.11 General Standards A. Development Suitability. This section pertains to physical or regulatory constraints on certain portions of the land proposed for subdivision, including environmental protection restrictions. Staff considers no such constraints exist on the subject property. This section also addresses allowable number of building lots or dwelling units permitted within the subject property. The project is located in the SEQ-NR zoning district, which has an inherent density of 1.2 units per acre, which may be increased to 1.8 units per acre with the transfer of development rights or through the use of inclusionary zoning. The 1.37 acre lot has an inherent density of 1.64 units, which may be increased to 2.47 units through the use of transferred development rights or inclusionary housing. The applicant has indicated their intention to purchase development rights. The applicant therefore must demonstrate a purchase agreement for 1 transfer development right, or 0.83 acres, prior to final plat approval, and must record the purchase and use of the transferred development right prior to issuance of a zoning permit for a home on the subdivided land. The LDRs prohibit transfer of less than one full development right, or 0.83 acres. Transfer development rights are discussed in LDR Article 19. C. Development Context. This section pertains to compliance with overlay districts, with other regulations, and with the planned pattern of development. D. Development Connectivity. This section pertains to configuration of subdivision to maximize connections to adjoining parcels and neighborhoods. With a single-depth lot, Staff considers no additional connectivity to be necessary. 15.A.12 Resource Protection Standards In addition to protection of explicitly regulated natural resources, this section requires delineation of and design sensitive to existing natural features such as exceptional existing trees or geologic features. Staff notes this will be a requirement at the next stage of review. 15.A.16 Blocks and Lots A. Purpose. The layout and configuration of blocks and building lots in relation to the street network establishes the overall pattern of development, including the creation or extension of walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods and mixed use developments. As such, the configuration of blocks and building lots represent a fundamental component of subdivision design. Accordingly, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed subdivision incorporates: 1 It is a provision of the recently enacted Act 47 that duplexes are subject to the same dimensional standards as single family homes: “In any district that allows year-round residential development, duplexes shall be an allowed use with the same dimensional standards as a single-unit dwelling.” (24 V.S.A. § 4412 (1)(D)) #SD-23-035 (3) Block faces and building lots that, where feasible, are oriented to maximize solar access and gain; (4) Regularly shaped building lots that front on, and minimize lot frontage or width along abutting streets; Staff has included these elements of the Blocks and Lots purpose statement as a guide to the Board in their discussion of the specific standards outlined below. C. Lots. All lots must be laid out to logically relate to topography and their intended use or purpose. Building lots must be laid out within existing and planned street and block configurations, in such a way that they can be developed in full compliance with their intended use and these Regulations. Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations as applicable to the subdivision: (8) Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, building lots must have sufficient developable area to accommodate proposed building types, associated yard or other required open space areas, site drainage, utilities, or other improvements required under these Regulations, including site plan standards under Article 14. 2. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide an example lot layout for the proposed lots demonstrating that a home meeting setback and lot coverage limits could be placed with an appropriately located driveway and vehicle parking area. Given the location on a corner, Staff recommends the Board consider whether a shared driveway is necessary. The Director of Public Works in his comments of 8/25/2023 on the proposed subdivision also requested a proposed driveway configuration. (9) A building lot generally must be rectangular in shape, with side lot lines that are perpendicular or radial to the abutting street, and rear lot lines that parallel the street, except as necessary to accommodate existing rights-of-way or other physical site constraints (see Figure 2-1, Lots, Yards and Lot Lines). Irregular or oddly shaped building lots, including flag and through lots, are prohibited, except for: (a) A flag lot, with a minimum of fifteen (15) feet of frontage on the abutting street, as necessary to accommodate a back-lot subdivision and infill development within an existing subdivision, block pattern, or development; (b) A triangular or trapezoidal building lot defined by abutting streets that otherwise has sufficient street frontage and lot area to meet minimum lot requirements; or (c) A through lot with frontage on two parallel or intersecting streets that cannot be further subdivided under minimum lot requirements, provided that front setback requirements can be met on both streets. (10) Building lots should be oriented and configured to minimize lot width (frontage) along the street. The preferred building lot width to depth ratio is 1:2; however, a ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 may be allowed as necessary to accommodate physical site constraints, stormwater drainage, or rear lot access and parking. (11) Building lots must be configured to avoid or, where necessary, minimize rear lot lines that abut side lot lines. Unless otherwise specified under these Regulations, corner lots must be configured to meet lot frontage and front setback or build-to-zone requirements on all abutting streets. This comment applies to standards 9, 10, and 11 together. There are no lot frontage requirements in this zoning district. Lots 1 and 2 are proposed to be generally rectangular and have a ratio of approximately 1:2. In order to have the effect of a side lot line abutting a side lot lines, development on Lot 2 would have to be oriented to have the front of the home facing east. This would be consistent with adjoining lots to the north. #SD-23-035 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to restrict Lot 2 to having the front of the lot oriented to the east, keeping in mind the above discussion pertaining to the potential to subdivide lot 2 if it is slightly increased in size. 15.A.17 Mix of Dwelling Unit Types A. Mix of Dwelling Unit Types and Architectural Features. A mix of dwelling unit types (i.e. cottage, single family, two-family, small multi-family, townhouse, etc. etc.) and mix of architectural features and styles must be provided within neighborhoods and developments. These must be mixed within blocks, along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into sections of near- identical unit types. An applicant for a subdivision shall submit a plan demonstrating how this mix will be achieved for the Development Review Board’s consideration at the preliminary plat stage. Where a Planned Unit Development approved under Article 15C establishes standards for a mix of dwelling unit or building types, those standards shall supersede these herein. The proposed subdivision is for two building lots. The existing homes on Highland Terrace are generally one to two story with multi-pitch roofs the same architectural style. Given the small number of homes proposed, Staff considers no specific restriction on dwelling unit types or architectural features beyond those specified in 13.17 Residential Design for New Homes to be appropriate for this subdivision. 15.A.18 Infrastructure, Utilities, and Services B. Potable Water Supply and Wastewater Systems. The existing lot is served by a private water and wastewater system. This end of Highland Terrace is not served by municipal water, though the municipal sewer line is within 200 ft of the buildable area of Lot 2, therefore any development on Lot 2 would be required to connect to municipal sewer. 4. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to provide a proposed well location and demonstrate that the proposed location is designed in accordance with the State’s potable water supply program as part of the application for final plat review. C. Fire Protection. The subdivision must be laid out to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided in accordance with City specifications. Lot 2 is proposed to be within 150-ft of the public right of way, but not served by public water. The Fire Marshal reviewed the plans on August 29 and indicated any home on Lot 2 will require a NFPA 13D sprinkler system as the closest hydrant is more than 1000 feet away and cannot supply enough water to provide adequate fire suppression. D. Stormwater Facilities. Staff considers it to be unlikely that stormwater management standards will apply to this project. However, if the proposed development and existing development result in greater than ½ acre of total impervious surfaces, stormwater management in compliance with LDR 13.03 will be required. E. Utilities and Services. This standard requires provision of utility connections to each lot. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate how power and telecom will be provided to Lot 2 at the next stage of review. G. Renewable Energy Facilities. This standard requires layout to maintain access to and use of renewable energy resources. Staff considers that the available options for lot layout are relatively limited and the proposed lot configuration does not adversely affect the ability of the homes to maximize solar access and gain. 15.A.19 Required Improvements #SD-23-035 A. General Standards. All required improvements must be designed and installed in accordance with the design standards, development requirements, specifications and procedures set forth in these Regulations and other applicable City regulations and standards. Typical plans and sections are attached to these Regulations. Installation and design standards apply to both public and privately owned required improvements. Proposed privately owned streets and other improvements shall be marked as such on the final plat. 15.A.14C(2) gives the DRB the authority to require the upgrade or improvement of an existing street as necessary to serve the proposed subdivision. 15.A.15B(1) states that where a subdivision is proposed to front along an existing roadway, all elements of the Street Type from the curb inward shall be installed by the applicant where not present. 5. Highland Terrace has not been assigned a specific street type, but nonetheless Staff recommends the Board discuss whether to require the installation of street trees along the proposed frontage. Street trees were not required for recent approvals further north on Highland Terrace, but the applicable sections of the LDR did not exist at the time those PUDs were approved. It is also relevant to note that at that time PUDs were required whereas now simple subdivision is permitted. 13.17 Residential Design for New Homes C. Standards These standards will apply regardless of what type of home is built on Lot 2. They require buildings to be oriented to the street with a principal entrance facing on the street. Garages must be set back 8-ft from the front lot line (keeping in mind Lot 2 has two fronts). Garages must not exceed 40% of the front façade. Additional standards recommend buildings be oriented to maximize living space and windows to the south, east and west, and that buildings be oriented to maximize solar gain potential. At a later stage of review, Staff will ask the Board to determine whether to make these recommendations requirements of a zoning permit. 15.A.05 Sketch Plan Review - Classification Under LDR 15.A.05 regarding Sketch Plan Review, the Board must determine whether the project will require master plan review under Article 15.B or review as a PUD under article 15.C. 6. Based on the above analysis, Staff considers the project to be a simple subdivision and not require master plan or PUD review. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they agree with this recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner