Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-17-02 - Supplemental - 1700 Dorset StreetCITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD Report preparation date: February 17, 2017 SD_17_02_1700DorsetStreet_Hoehn_subdivision_sketch_F Plans received: January 6, 2017 eb_21_2017 Owner/Applicant Edward G. Hoehn III 600 Sea Oak Dr. Vero Beach, FL 32963 1700 Dorset Street Sketch Plan Application #SD-17-02 Meeting date: February 21, 2017 Engineer Dean A. Grover Grover Engineering PC 2044 Main Rd. Huntington, VT 04562 Propertv Information Tax Parcel 0570-01700 SEQ Zoning District- Neighborhood Residential 10.2 acres Location Map •T � ti ,• ., . E Autum��H'll Ref I� G: Windswept Lane 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Sketch plan application #SD-17-02 of Edward G. Hoehn III to subdivide a 10.2 acre parcel developed with a single family dwelling into six (6) lots ranging in size from 6.0 acres to 0.46 acres, 1700 Dorset Street. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Lindsey Britt and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, hereafter referred to as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted by the applicant and have the following comments. A. Density and Dimensional Requirements The SEQ-NR district allows 1.2 units per acre and the minimum lot size for a single family unit is 12,000 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed four (4) lots (Lots #2-5) as developable for single family houses and all four (4) lots are greater in size than the minimum of 12,000 sq. ft. Lot #6 is proposed to be offered to the City as a location for public open space or natural area. Staff received comments from Maggie Leugers, Recreation & Parks Director, indicating the applicant should make a presentation to the Recreation & Parks Committee. The applicant has stated that the existing single family house will remain on a lot (Lot #1) of six (6) acres. 1. Staff recommends the applicant contact Maggie Leugers, Recreation & Parks Director, to get on a future Recreation & Parks Committee agenda to present their project and discuss the possibility of offering Lot #6 to the City. B. Access The existing house on proposed Lot #1 is accessed by a driveway from Dorset Street. This driveway is proposed to become a shared driveway with the proposed single family dwellings on Lots #2 and #3. Lots #4 and #5 are proposed to be accessed via one (1) shared driveway from Sadie Lane, which is currently a private street that is intended to be granted to the City in the future. There is no access proposed to Lot #6 and the applicant has stated the intent for this lot to be permanently undeveloped. 2. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant that the status of Lot #6 as permanently undevelopable will need to be established prior to the next stage of the development review process, because the Board is not able to create a lot without access (Section 3.05 of the Land Development Regulations). Access to the proposed lots is complicated by a Planning Commission decision from 1977 that stated "any subdivision of lot 1 shall have access only from the 60' right-of-way, from the north or south, and not directly from Dorset Street." The applicant is requesting that the accesses described above be considered acceptable in place of the stipulation from the 1977 decision. The applicant contends that at the time of the 1977 decision it was believed Autumn Hill Road would become a public street; however, that has not occurred and the road has not been made available to adjacent property owners for access when they have developed their own properties. This is best exemplified by the development of Windswept Lane, which is very close and parallel to Autumn Hill Road, but which had to be built because Autumn Hill Road was not an access option. Staff considers that the access arrangement proposed by the applicant is suitable and would limit curb cuts on Dorset Street, just as the 1977 Planning Commission decision would have done. 3. Staff recommends the Board discuss with the applicant whether the access arrangement proposed by the applicant is acceptable. C. Building Orientation and Design 2 Section 9.08 of the SBLDR lays out particular standards related to the orientation of housing, mix of housing styles, setbacks, and parking/garages. Staff inferred from the submitted sketch plan that the proposed housing units on Lots #2 and #3 will have entrances facing a public street —a requirement of the regulations —and garages set back from the front of the house by at least eight (8) feet, which is also a requirement of the regulations. The proposed houses on Lots #4 and #5 do not appear to staff to be oriented towards Sadie Lane, which would be a public street in the future. 4. Staff recommends the Board remind the applicant of the building orientation standards in Section 9.08(C) and discuss the need for the houses on Lots #4 and #5 to be oriented towards Sadie Lane. The proposed houses on Lots #2 and #3 are set back from Dorset Street more than 140 feet. The regulations state that buildings "should be set back a maximum of" 25 feet from the sidewalk and that a "close relationship between the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment." Staff considers the proposed houses to be set back too far from the street and that each house should be placed closer to the front lot line. Staff notes that the existing house on Lot #1 is set back less than 40 feet from Dorset Street and less than 20 feet from the front lot line. 5. Staff recommends the Board request the applicant place each proposed house a maximum of 25 feet from their respective front lot lines, which would place them in a similar position to the existing house and more in alignment with the Land Development Regulations. D. Lot Ratios Section 9.08.A.4 states that lots "shall maintain a minimum lot width to depth ratio of 1:2, with a ratio of 1:2.5 to 1:5 recommended." The applicant has stated that all of the proposed lots fall within the lot width to depth ratio. 6. Staff requests the applicant provide those calculations at the next stage of the development review process. E. Energy Standards Staff notes that all new buildings are subject to the Stretch Energy Code pursuant to Section 3.15: Residential and Commercial Building Energy Standards of the LDRs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the applicant work with Staff and the Development Review Board to address the issues herein. Respectfully submitted, Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 3