HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 08_SD-24-07_25 Highland Terr_Sample_SK #SD-24-07
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
SD-24-07_25 55 Highland Terrace_Sample_SK_2024-05-
21.docx
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
Report preparation date: May 15, 2024
Application received: May 3, 2024
Eric Sample – 25 Highland Terrace
Sketch Plan Application #SD-24-07
Meeting Date: May 21, 2024
Owner/Applicant
Eric Sample
25 Highland Terrace
South Burlington, VT 05403
Property Information
Tax Parcel ID: 0850-00009
Southeast Quadrant-Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District,
Parcel size: 1.37 acres
Location Map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Sketch plan application #SD-24-07 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 Lot 2, 25 & 55 Highland Ter.
#SD-24-07
PERMIT HISTORY
The Board reviewed a sketch plan application for the same proposal on September 6, 2023. Sketch
plans expire after six months if a complete preliminary plat application is not submitted within that
time. This application is unchanged from that review.
The Board and applicant are reminded that a sketch plan is non-binding, and in particular feedback
provided in relation to the expired sketch plan need have no bearing on the current application. Staff
has updated this report to reflect minor modifications to the land development regulations that have
occurred since the initial sketch plan review as well as recommendations reflecting accommodating
anticipated upcoming regulatory changes.
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.
CONTEXT
The Planning Commission is contemplating a major overhaul to the land development regulations
which would modify the applicable dimensional standards and standards for subdivision review.
At this time, it is anticipated that the changes could be warned for City Council hearing as early as
the first week of July. Any application submitted after the changes are warned is considered
subject to those regulations.
Since this application may be subject to the amended regulations, Staff has noted in this report
amendments which are likely to have the largest impact on review of the application. If the applicant
desires to be reviewed under the current standards, a complete application for subdivision review
must be submitted prior to the amendments being warned.
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.
These dimensional standards may change. At this time, the Planning Commission is reviewing a
proposal to consolidate zoning districts. The SEQ-NR is currently proposed to be consolidated into
the “Low-Scale Neighborhood District” to have a minimum lot size of 5,000 sf for single family and
two family homes and 7,000 sf for small multifamily buildings. This is nearly half of what is
currently required. Assuming a single family or two family home, building coverage would be
limited to 30% and total lot coverage to 50%. Front setback would be unchanged at 20-ft, while
side setback would be reduced to 5-ft and rear setback to 15-ft. All of the above is subject to
change by the Commission or City Council and may further be affected by the 2024 Legislative
Session’s H.687.
The applicant’s conceptual plan appears to meet the proposed dimensional standards.
#SD-24-07
B) GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
This application will be considered a minor subdivision because the proposal is for two lots. Staff
notes that the lot is large enough for 11 lots under the potential future lot size of 5,000 sf per SFH
or duplex, barring physical constraints due to the existing development and lack of municipal
water service which may reduce the development potential to something more like 7 – 8 lots.
Nonetheless, Staff considers it likely that there is far more development potential than that
proposed by the applicant.
The Board may require a master plan where they consider future development potential to exist.
Specifically, 15.B.02A(4) specifies “The DRB may also require the submission of a Master Plan for
any tract or parcel of land where there exists clear potential for future growth and development
beyond that presented in an application, as necessary to establish physical and functional
connections between areas of proposed and potential future development.” The purpose of a
master plan in the case of this application would be to require the subdivision to be laid out in
such a manner as to permit future infill development.
In the draft LDR being contemplated by the Planning Commission, the master plan submission
requirements are proposed to be somewhat simplified, but nonetheless a master plan requirement
for this project would require significant analysis of potential for future development, taking into
account the development context, the need for private water and sewer, and access to individual
sites.
Staff recommends the Board review this report and then discuss whether they will require master
plan.
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).
(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 not specifically enumerated their intention for Lot 2 but has shown a
potential development plan. The lot would be permitted to be developed with a single family
home, or a single family home with attached or detached accessory dwelling unit, or a
duplex. 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 under the current rules
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
#SD-24-07
development rights or inclusionary housing. This calculation is unaffected by the passage of Act 47
since this lot is not in an area served by municipal water and sewer1.
1. At the previous expired sketch, the applicant indicated their intention to purchase development
rights, but has made no such statement with the current application. Staff recommends the
Board discuss with the applicant whether they will increase the allowable density using transfer
development rights, inclusionary housing, or by waiting until the LDR changes.
Under the current LDR, the applicant must demonstrate a purchase agreement for 1 transfer
development right, representing 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.
The applicant has provided an existing tree location plan. No other resources appear to be present
on the subject property. Staff recommends as an existing medium sized single family home lot,
the Board not require a specific tree preservation plan.
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:
(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
1 Act 47 does permit a duplex to be built everywhere a single family home would be permitted.
How this is affected by maximum density and transfer development rights is as yet untested.
#SD-24-07
required open space areas, site drainage, utilities, or other improvements required under
these Regulations, including site plan standards under Article 14.
The applicant has shown that the proposed Lots can be developed to meet current setback
and lot coverage limits.
The contemplated future LDR amendments include an additional related standard that
permits the DRB to require configuration that allows for further subdivision and infill
development for lots that are larger than the minimum lot area. If the applicant submits
their next application after the amendment is warned and is therefore subject to those
rules, demonstration of how future development could occur will be a required component
of master plan and accommodating future development would be required.
(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.
2. The applicant has instead proposed a potential home configuration in which the home on lot 2
faces south. Staff recommends the Board discuss this choice with the applicant. Factors beyond
15.A.16C(9) through (11) above that may be relevant to the conversation are the allowable septic
and well locations (as a distinct concept from the desired septic and well locations), and potential
future subdivision of the lot as discussed above.
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
#SD-24-07
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.
Under the draft regulations, which would require consideration for additional building lots, a mix of
two or more dwelling unit types would be required.
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.
3. Staff recommends the Board direct the applicant to 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 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 as currently proposed. However, in a master plan scenario, it is
likely the proposed development and existing development result in greater than ½ acre of total
impervious surfaces, and therefore an appropriately sited location for stormwater management in
compliance with LDR 13.03 must be provided.
E. Utilities and Services. This standard requires provision of utility connections to each lot. A
general concept of how power and telecom will be provided to Lot 2 will be required 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
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
#SD-24-07
shall be installed by the applicant where not present.
4. 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.
Based on the above analysis and discussion, Staff considers PUD review to be unnecessary under
both existing LDR and potential amendments.
Staff considers that the proposal is relatively consistent with the current rules and therefore if the
next application is submitted before the draft regulations are warned, no master plan would be
necessary. If, however, the next application is submitted after the draft regulations are effective,
the project would need to be modified to accommodate an increase in future development
potential and therefore a master plan should be required.
5. Staff recommends the Board review, discuss, and provide feedback on their determination to
the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board discuss the project with the applicant and conclude the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
S
S
S
S
S
OH
P
&
T
&
C
OH
P
&
T
&
C
OH
P
&
T
&
C
OH
P
&
T
&
C
OHP&T&C
OHP&T&C
OHP&T&C
Gas Mtr
El Mtr
LP Mtr
25 & 55 Highland Terrace
Eric Sample
Vol. 1334 Pg. 18
Ref. Plat A
LOT 2
0.370± Ac.
LOT 1
0.980± Ac.
# 25
# 55
11
4
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
n/
f
J.
M
a
k
i
to
V
a
n
S
i
c
k
l
e
n
R
d
.
to
B
u
t
l
e
r
D
r
.
t
o
D
u
b
o
i
s
D
r
.
N 82°06'51" E
200.29'
N 81°51'06" E
166.32'
S
0
5
°
4
8
'
5
8
"
E
73
.
1
9
'
S 63°1
2
'
5
7
"
W
1
6
5
.
2
8
'
S <- 82°58'35" W
201.49'
N
0
7
°
3
2
'
1
4
"
W
1
5
2
.
3
1
'
S
1
1
°
1
2
'
1
4
"
E
-
>
12
6
.
1
2
'
1450 Hinesburg Road
Scott & Kelly Moser
Vol. 1615 Pg. 312
Map Slide 535-2
123 Highland T
e
r
r
a
c
e
J. R. Lavanwa
y
et al.
Vol. 1223 Pg.
3
7
Map Slide 547
60
'
RI
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
14
2
5
H
i
n
e
s
b
u
r
g
R
o
a
d
n/
f
P.
&
L
.
M
c
G
a
r
g
h
a
n
1
4
7
5
H
i
n
e
s
b
u
r
g
R
o
a
d
n/
f
E
.
&
E
.
H
o
r
t
o
n
8 Highland Terrace
n/f
F. Sadowski
88 Highland Terrace
n/f
E. & J. Hendley,
L. Joyce
10
4
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
n/
f
E.
G
.
S
a
n
d
b
e
r
g
et
a
l
.
W
CRF
0.2' BG
LS #719
1" IPF
0.4' AG
12" IRF
FLUSH
DISTURBED
100 Highland Terrace
n/f
W.N. Baker
Trust
34" IPF
0.1' AG
DISTURBED
Swale
-
>
Swale
-
>
We
l
l
N 81°51'06" E
80.00'
S 63°1
2
'
5
7
"
W
9
2
.
0
0
'
CRP
CRP
CRP
POTENTIAL
HOUSE
1250± SF
POTENTIAL
DRIVEWAY
2
0
'
20' FR
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
10'
10' SIDE YARD
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
20' FRONT YARD S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10' SIDE YARD
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
20
'
F
R
O
N
T
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
10
'
10'
10
'
S
I
D
E
Y
A
R
D
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
W
POTENTIAL
WELL LOCATION
20
'
20' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT
IN FAVOR OF LOT 1. TO BE
CENTERED ON EXISTING
SEWER LINE.
22171
1" = 40'
April __, 2024CEA
802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.com
10 MANSFIELD VIEW LANE, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.
A
C
E P1
Eric Sample
25 & 55 Highland Terrace, South Burlington, VT
PROPOSED 2 LOT SUBDIVISIONRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ON THE ______ DAY OF
__________, 20_____.
ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERK
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE _____ DAY OF _____________,
20____, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID
RESOLUTION. SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______.
BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSON
To the best of my knowledge and
belief this plat depicts the results of
a survey conducted by me as
described in "Survey Notes" above,
based upon our analysis of land
records and evidence found in the
field. Existing boundaries shown
are in substantial conformance with
the records, except as noted. This
plat is in substantial compliance
with 27 VSA 1403, "Recording of
Land Plats". This statement valid
only when accompanied by my
original signature and seal.
_________________________________
Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597
- Survey Notes -
1.Purpose of this survey is to retrace, subdivide, monument and document an
existing parcel of land deeded to ERIC SAMPLE by warranty deed dated July
20, 2016 and recorded in Volume 1334 at Page 18 of the City of South
Burlington Land Records. Other neighboring property lines and buildings
shown MAY be approximate only, and are shown for information purposes only.
2.Field survey was conducted June 2022 and consists of a closed-loop traverse
utilizing an electronic total station instrument. Bearings shown are from Grid
North, Vermont Coordinate System of 1983, based upon our GPS observations
on or adjacent to the site (Reference Frame NAD83 (2011, Epoch 2010)).
3.Iron pipes shown as “found” are typically labeled with inside diameter, rods
with outside diameter, unless otherwise indicated. Condition of pipes, rods
and markers found are “good” or "fair" unless otherwise noted. Corners
denoted “Set” typically consist of 5/8” diameter rebar capped with aluminum
disks stamped “Civil Engineering Assocs. - VT LS 597 & VT LS 109314”,
typically set flush with existing grade.
4.Not being within the scope of this survey, Civil Engineering Associates, Inc. has
conducted no investigation whatsoever respecting whether or not the property
and each component thereof is in compliance with state or local permits.
5.Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon
or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate
only. Buried utilities shown are depicted based solely on surface indications.
Actual locations may vary. Contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any
construction.
6.Parcels lie in the Southeast Quadrant Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
7.Vermont Agency of Transportation Highway Project NRS-140, October 1933.
- Referenced Plats or Plans -
A."Plan of Land Belonging to C.B. Hoskam", by James R. Ogden,
dated July 26, 1969. Map Slide 93, South Burlington Land
Records.
B."Survey of the Lands of Algimantis & Neringa Shalna" by McCain
Consulting, Inc. dated April 18, 2008. Map Slide 535-2, South
Burlington Land Records.
C. "Survey and Subdivision of the Lands of Algimantis & Neringa
Shalna" by McCain Consulting, Inc. dated August 12, 2010.
Map Slide 547, South Burlington Land Records.
Existing Fence
Existing Gravel
Existing Well
Existing Sewer Manhole
Existing Utility PoleExisting Setback Line
Subject Property Line
Iron Rod/Pipe Found
W
S
SO
.
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
WIL
L
I
S
T
O
N
Above / Below Grade
Now or Formerly
Capped Rebar Proposed
AG/BG
n/f
- Legend -
Proposed Lot Line
Proposed Setback Line
IRF/IPFProposed Easement Line
CRP
Capped Rebar SetCRS
DRA
F
T
4/16
/
2
4
S Approx. Existing Sewer
LOCATION MAP
NOT to SCALE
PROJECT
LOCATION 116
116
W POTENTIAL WELL
CATEGORY ZONING
STANDARDS
EXISTING
STANDARD SETBACKS
REAR YARD
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
ZONING DISTRICT:SOUTHEAST QUADRANT NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL - SEQ-NR
30'
FRONT YARD 20'
LOT SIZE
SIDE YARD 10'
9,500 S.F. (MIN.)
N/A
23'±
25'±
58,820± S.F.
PROPOSED
N/A
23'±
25'±
42,700± S.F.
SITE COVERAGE
BUILDING ONLY 20% (MAX.)
TOTAL 40% (MAX.)
4%
9%
5%
12%
LOT 1
PROPOSED
LOT 2
16,120± S.F.
N/A
56'±
12'±
8%
18%
AS-SHOWNAS-SHOWN
P:
\
A
u
t
o
C
A
D
D
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
2
0
2
2
\
2
2
1
7
1
-
S
a
m
p
l
e
\
1
-
C
A
D
D
F
i
l
e
s
-
\
d
w
g
\
2
2
1
7
1
-
P
L
A
T
.
d
w
g
,
4
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
4
1
1
:
3
9
:
3
9
A
M
,
g
c
a
r
t
e
r
Eric Sample25Highland TerraceTrees and Plantings
lot lines
Lot 1
June6,2022
Eric Sample
Eric Sample
Willow Willow
Locust
Maple
Pin Oak
Apple
Birch
Maple
MapleMaple
Maple
Maple
Lilac
Native Perennials
PeonesHosta Heuchera
Lorem ipsum
Drawing 2 Trees and Plantings
Rose Garden Willow
Eric Sample Location Map
25 Highland Terrace
Natural Resources Map