The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP-12-17 - Decision - 0052 Finch Court#SP-12-17 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING HOMESTEAD DESIGN, INC. — 52 FINCH COURT SITE PLAN APPLICATION #SP-12-17 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Homestead Design, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking approval to amend a previously approved plan for 18 residential units in 7 buildings. The amendment consists of replacing a previously approved deck with a patio, 52 Finch Court. Based on the plans and materials contained in the document file for this application, the Administrative Officer finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicant is seeking after -the -fact approval to amend a previously approved plan for 18 residential units in 7 buildings. The amendment consists of replacing a previously approved deck with a patio, 52 Finch Court. 2. The owner of record of the subject property is Homestead Design, Inc. 3. The subject property is located in the Residential 2 Zoning District. 4. The application was received on April 16, 2012. 5. The plan submitted is entitled, " Civil Site Plan Alder Hill Proposed Multi Family PUD Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated December 8, 2008, last revised on 4/13/12. DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. Building coverage is 13.73% (20% is maximum). Overall coverage is 34.65% (40% is maximum). Front yard coverage is not applicable. 7. Setback requirements are being met. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Vehicular access 8. Access is provided via a proposed City street called Finch Court. No changes proposed. -1— FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2012\SP_12_17_FinchCourt_HDI_ffd.doc #SP-12-17 Circulation 9. Circulation on the site is adequate. Parking 10. No changes to parking are proposed. 11. Pursuant to Section 13.01(G) (5) of the Land Development Regulations, bicycle parking shall be provided on the subject property. A bicycle rack is shown on the plans. 12. Pursuant to Section 13.01(B) of the Land Development Regulations, internal landscaping of the parking area does not apply to this application. Landscaping 13. No changes to landscaping proposed. 14. Pursuant to Section 13.06(B) (7) of the Land Development Regulations, snow storage areas must be shown on the plan. The plans indicate the snow storage areas. Outdoor Lighting 15. There are no changes to outdoor lighting proposed. Pursuant to Sections 14.06 and 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations, the following review standards shall apply to site plan applications: Traffic 16. Traffic will not be affected as a result of this application. (a) The relationship of the proposed development to goals and objects set forth in the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, 17. The Comprehensive Plan states that the City should encourage development while protecting natural resources and promoting a healthy and safe environment. The proposed project is in keeping with the recommended actions of the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas 18. This criterion will continue to be met. -2— FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2012\SP_12_17_FinchCourt_HDI_ffd.doc #SP-12-17 (c)Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings 19. Parking is located in driveways and garages, as consistent with residential dwellings. No changes are proposed. 20. As noted above, a bicycle rack location is noted on the plans. (d) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings, 21. No changes aaro proposed. (e) Newly installed utility service modiEcations necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 22. The plan does not indicate a change in utility service. (f) The combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings or different architectural styles shall be encouraged. 23. No changes are proposed. (g) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures 24. No changes are proposed. In addition to the above general review standards, site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards set forth in Section 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations: (a) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area, 25. The reservation of land is not necessary. (b) Electric, telephone, and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shaft be underground, Any utility installations remaining above -3- FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2012\SP_12_17_FinchCourt_HDI_ffd.doc #SP-12-17 ground shall be located so as to ha ve a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. 26. As noted above, there are no changes to utility service with this application. (c) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure, and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enclosure(s). 27. Pursuant to Section 13.06(C) (1) of the Land Development Regulations, screened dumpster locations must be shown on the plans. No dumpsters are proposed with this residential development. Residents are responsible for trash removal. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Administrative Officer herby approves Site Plan Application #SP-12-17 of Homestead Design, Inc., to amend a previously approved plan for 18 residential units in 7 buildings. The amendment consists of replacing a previously approved deck with a patio, 52 Finch Court. 1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plan and shall be on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning. 3. The plans shall be revised to show the changes below and shall require approval of the Administrative Officer. Three (3) copies of the approved revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer prior to permit issuance. a. The landscaping plan shall be revised to reflect the substitution of a patio for a deck. 4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section 17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Certificate of Occupancy/Compliance from the Administrative Officer prior to occupancy of the building. 6. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer. -4— FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2012\SP_12_17_FinchCourt_HDI_ffd.doc #SP-12-17 Signed on this day of / `-� , 2012 by ko Ra and 1. Belair, Administrative Officer PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to 24 VSA §4465, an interested person may appeal this decision by filing a Notice of Appeal with the secretary of the Development Review Board. This Notice of Appeal must be accompanied with a $233 filing fee and be filed within 15 days of the date of this decision. The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call 802.879.5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. -5— FAUSERS\Planning & Zoning\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2012\SP_12_17_FinchCourt_HDI_ffd.doc