HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-10-22 - Decision - 0133 0123 0141 Highland Terrace#SD-10-22
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
SHALNA - 45 HIGHLAND TERRACE - 3 LOT SUBDIVISION
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION #SD-10-22
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Algimantas & Neringa Shalna, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking final
plat approval to subdivide a 39, 450 sq. ft. parcel into three (3) lots of 13,320 sq. ft. (lot
#2A), 13,150 sq. ft. (lot #213), and 13,070 sq. ft. (lot #2C), Highland Terrace. The
Development Review Board held public hearings on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 and
Tuesday, July 20, 2010. Gunner McCain represented the applicant.
Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and
supporting documents contained in the document file for this application, the
Development Review Board finds, concludes and decides the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The applicants are seeking final plat review to subdivide a 39, 450 sq. ft. parcel
into three (3) lots of 13,320 sq. ft. (lot #2A), 13,150 sq. ft. (lot #213), and 13,070
sq. ft. (lot #2C), Highland Terrace.
2. The owners of record of the subject property are Algimantas & Neringa Shalna.
3. The subject property is located in the Southeast Quadrant - Neighborhood
Residential (SEQ-NR) Zoning District.
4. The application for this project was received on June 14, 2010.
5. The plans submitted consist of a five (5) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled,
"Survey and Subdivision of the Lands of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna Highland
Terrace South Burlington, Vermont", prepared by McCain Consulting, Inc., dated
April 26, 2010, last revised on 7/13/10
Post -it® Fax Note 7671
Date Q
v
# of
pages
To L'
/'
C
From
Co./Dept.
Co.
Phone #
Phone #
Fax #
Fax #
-1-
PADevelopment Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements
Table 1. Dimensional Requirements
SEQ Neighborhood
Residential
Zoning District
Requirement/Limitation
Proposed
Min. Lot Size
12,000 SF
13,070 SF
4 Max. Density-NR
1.2 units/acre base density
max of 4/acre with TDR
3.3 units/acre**
Max. Building Coverage
15%
**
Max. Total Coverage
30%
**
Min. Front Setback
30 ft.
**
�l Min. Side Setback
10 ft.
**
�l Min. Rear Setback
30 ft.
**
+ The acreage of the lot will not support a home on each lot as the density will exceed
the maximum base density allowed in the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District. Only one
dwelling unit shall be permitted on the lots without the transfer of at least two additional
development rights, per the stipulations of Article 9 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations (SBLDRs).
** The application does not propose to locate actual structures. Actual structures will be
sited with respect to setbacks on the lots as part of a zoning permit, within the limitations of
the district and within the restrictions of the design criteria imposed by the DRB as a result
of this decision.
SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 15.18 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations,
subdivisions shall comply with the followina standards and conditions:
The project is designed to be visually compatible with the planned development
patterns in the area, as specified in the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the
zoning district(s) in which it is located.
The standards for this criterion are found below in a review of the regulations of the
Southeast Quadrant.
The project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan
for the affected district(s).
The proposed subdivision of this property is in conformance with the South Burlington
Comprehensive Plan.
-2-
P1Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
Southeast Quadrant District
This proposed subdivision is located in the southeast quadrant district. Therefore it is
subject to the provisions of Section 9 of the SBLDR.
9.06 Dimensional and Design Requirements Applicable to All Sub -Districts. The
following standards shall apply to development and improvements within the
entire SEQ Zoning District.
A. Height.
(1) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-NRP, SEQ-NRT, or
SEQ-NR sub -district shall not exceed forty-five feet (45'); the waiver provisions
of Section 3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts.
(2) The maximum height of any occupied structure in the SEQ-VR or SEQ-VC
sub -district shall not exceed fifty feet (50'); the waiver provisions of Section
3.07(E) shall not apply to occupied structures in these sub -districts.
The structures shall not exceed the height limitations of the district.
B. Open Space and Resource Protection.
(1) Open space areas on the site shall be located in such a way as to maximize
opportunities for creating usable, contiguous open spaces between adjoining
parcels
The proposed lots would consume the majority of what is already a small lot. There are
very little opportunities for open space on this small lot.
(2) Building lots, streets and other structures shall be located in a manner
consistent with the Regulating Plan for the applicable sub -district allowing
carefully planned development at the average densities provided in this bylaw.
The proposed subdivision is in compliance with this criterion with the exception of the
density limitations noted above. Additional units may be permitted on the subject lots with
the appropriate transfers of development right(s).
(3) A plan for the proposed open spaces and/or natural areas and their ongoing
management shall be established by the applicant.
Again, there are no natural areas or open spaces proposed on this small lot.
(4) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction
and after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy
or dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties. In
making this finding, the Development Review Board may rely on evidence that the
project will be covered under the General Permit for Construction issued by the
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
-3-
PADevelopment Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and after
construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or dangerous
conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties.
(5) Sufficient suitable landscaping and fencing shall be provided to protect
wetland, stream, or primary or natural community areas and buffers in a manner
that is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding landscape. Chain link
fencing other than for agricultural purposes shall be prohibited within PUDs; the
use of split rail or other fencing made of natural materials is encouraged.
There are no wetlands or streams on the subject property.
C. Agriculture. The conservation of existing agricultural production values is
encouraged through development planning that supports agricultural uses
(including but not limited to development plans that create contiguous areas of
agricultural use), provides buffer areas between existing agricultural operations
and new development, roads, and infrastructure, or creates new opportunities for
agricultural use (on any soil group) such as but not limited to community -
supported agriculture. Provisions that enhance overall neighborhood and natural
resource values rather than preservation of specific soil types are strongly
encouraged.
This criterion is not applicable to this application.
D. Public Services and Facilities. In the absence of a specific finding by the
Development Review Board that an alternative location and/or provision is
approved for a specific development, the location of buildings, lots, streets and
utilities shall conform with the location of planned public facilities as depicted on
the Official Map, including but not limited to recreation paths, streets, park land,
schools, and sewer and water facilities.
(1) Sufficient water supply and wastewater disposal capacity shall be available to
meet the needs of the project in conformance with applicable State and City
requirements, as evidenced by a City water allocation, City wastewater allocation,
and/or Vermont Water and Wastewater Permit from the Department of
Environmental Conservation.
The final plat plans detail the proposed water and sewer connections, which have been
reviewed by the City Engineer and Superintendent of the Water Department. Comments
are dated May 27, 2010 from Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works.
(2) Recreation paths, storm water facilities, sidewalks, landscaping, utility lines,
and lighting shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of
such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
Hinesburg Road is included among several corridors on the Official City Map for a
proposed recreation path. Several properties along the road have already dedicated
easements to the City. The South Burlington Recreation Path Committee previously
reviewed the plans for the adjacent lot on Hinesburg Road and an easement is now
included on that property. Nothing further is necessary for this property.
-4-
PADevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
(3) Recreation paths, utilities, sidewalks, and lighting shall be designed in a
manner that is consistent with City utility plans and maintenance standards,
absent a specific agreement with the applicant related to maintenance that has
been approved by the City Council.
The Board discussed the possibility of adding a sidewalk along Highland Terrace as part
of this application and delayed a decision on the subject pending input from the Director
of Public Works. Staff has spoken with the Director who has stated the following:
I looked at Highland Terrace, specifically to see if a sidewalk on the west
side from Dubois Drive to the project site would work. There is substantial
tree, shrub and undergrowth screening on the west side of Highland that is
of significant value to Highland residents. Installing sidewalk would result
in the loss of that buffer. That fact, combined with a small 3-unit
development proposal that is a minor pedestrian generator, leads me to not
recommend making it a condition of the project to install the sidewalk.
No additional recreation paths or sidewalks are practicable as part of this application.
(4) The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Chief or his designee to insure that
adequate fire protection can be provided, with the standards for evaluation
including, but not limited to, minimum distance between structures, street width,
vehicular access from two directions where possible, looping of water lines, water
flow and pressure, and number and location of hydrants.
The Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and provided comments in a letter dated May 26,
2010 . He does not recommend any changes.
E. Circulation. The project shall incorporate access, circulation and traffic
management strategies sufficient to prevent unsafe conditions on of adjacent
roads and sufficient to create connectivity for pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles,
school transportation, and emergency service vehicles between neighborhoods.
In making this finding the Development Review Board may rely on the findings of
a traffic study submitted by the applicant, and the findings of any technical review
by City staff or consultants.
No new roads are proposed. All lots will have access directly from Highland Terrace.
(1) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is compatible with the extension of
such services and infrastructure to adjacent properties.
There are no new roads proposed. All three lots will have access directly from Highland
Terrace.
(2) Roads shall be designed in a manner that is consistent with City roadway
plans and maintenance standards, absent a specific agreement with the applicant
related to maintenance that has been approved by the City Council.
There are no new roads proposed. All three lots will have access directly from Highland
Terrace.
-5-
PADevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
(3) The provisions of Section 15.12(D)(4) related to connections between adjacent
streets and neighborhoods shall apply.
This criterion is not applicable in this application. There are no new roads proposed. All
three lots will have access directly from Highland Terrace.
9.09 SEQ-NR Sub -District; Specific Standards
The SEQ-NR sub -district has additional dimensional and design requirements, as
enumerated in this Section.
A. Street, Block and Lot Pattern
(1) Development blocks. Development block lengths should range between 300
and 400 linear feet; see Figure 9-2 for example. If longer block lengths are
unavoidable blocks 400 feet or longer must include mid -block public sidewalk or
recreation path connections.
The proposed development is too small to warrant such blocks, and no new roads are
proposed. Therefore this criterion is not applicable.
(2) Interconnection of Streets. Average spacing between intersections shall be 300
to 400 feet. Dead end streets (e.g. culs de sac) are discouraged. Dead end streets
may not exceed 200 feet in length. Street stubs are required at the end of dead end
streets to allow for future street connections and/or bicycle and pedestrian
connections to open space and future housing on adjoining parcels per section
15.12(D)(4).
There are no new roads proposed. All three lots will have access directly from Highland
Terrace. Therefore this criterion is not applicable.
(3) Street Connection to Adjoining Parcels. Street stubs are required to be built to
the property line and connected to adjacent parcels per section 15.12(D)(4) of
these Regulations. Posting signs with a notice of intent to construct future streets
is strongly encouraged.
There are no opportunities to connect in a meaningful way to adjacent properties.
(4) 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 lots meet this criterion.
B. Street, Sidewalk & Parking Standards
(1) Street dimensions and cross sections. Neighborhood streets (collector and
local) in the VR sub -district are intended to be low -speed streets for local use that
discourage through movement and are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists.
-6-
PADevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
Dimensions for public collector and local streets shall be as set forth in Tables 9-3
and 9-4, and Figures 9-8 and 9-9 below.
(2) Sidewalks. Sidewalks must be a minimum of five feet (5') in width with an
additional minimum five-foot planting strip (greenspace) separating the sidewalk
from the street. Sidewalks are required on one side of the street, and must be
connected in a pattern that promotes walkability throughout the development. The
DRB may in its discretion require supplemental sidewalk segments to achieve this
purpose.
There are no new roads proposed. All three lots will have access directly from Highland
Terrace.
(3) Street Trees; see Section 9.08(B)(3)
Street trees are required along all streets in a planting strip a minimum of five feet
wide. Street tress shall be large, deciduous shade trees with species satisfactory
to the City Arborist. Street trees to be planted must have a minimum caliper size
of 2.5 to 3 inches DBH, and shall be planted no greater than thirty feet (30') on
center.
There are no new roads proposed. All three lots will have access directly from Highland
Terrace.
(4) On -street parking; see Section 9.08(B)(4).
The applicant is not proposing any on -street parking
(5) Intersection design. Intersections shall be designed to reduce pedestrian
crossing distances and to slow traffic; see Figure 9-6 and Section 9.08(B)(5).
This criterion is not applicable to this application.
(6) Street and sidewalk lighting. Pedestrian -scaled light fixtures (e.g., 12' to 14')
shall be provided sufficient to ensure pedestrian safety traveling to and from
public spaces. Overall illumination levels should be consistent with the lower -
intensity development patterns and character of the SEQ, with lower, smoother
levels of illumination (rather than hot -spots) and trespass minimized to the lowest
level consistent with public safety.
There are no new roads proposed. All three lots will have access directly from Highland
Terrace.
C. Residential Design
(1) Building Orientation. Residential buildings must be oriented to the street.
Primary entries for single family and multi -family buildings must face the street.
Secondary building entries may open onto garages and/or parking areas. (Special
design guidelines apply to arterial streets).
-7—
PADevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
The applicant has submitted only one proposed building type for Lot 2a which meets this
criterion. There are three lots. The Board discussed this and agreed to review each
building lot for design review as they are submitted. The decision herein would only
approve the building type for the home on Lot 2a.
(2) Building Fagades. Building facades are encouraged to employ a theme and
variation approach. Buildings should include common elements to appear unified,
but facades should be varied from one building to the next to avoid monotony.
Front porches, stoops, and balconies that create semi -private space and are
oriented to the street are encouraged.
The applicant has submitted only one proposed building type for Lot 2a which meets this
criterion. There are three lots. The Board discussed this and agreed to review each
building lot for design review as they are submitted. The decision herein would only
approve the building type for the home on Lot 2a.
(3) Front Building Setbacks. In pedestrian districts, a close relationship between
the building and the street is critical to the ambiance of the street environment.
Buildings should be set back fifteen feet (15') from the back of sidewalk.
The applicant has submitted only one proposed building type for Lot 2a which meets this
criterion. There are three lots. The Board discussed this and agreed to review each
building lot for design review as they are submitted. The decision herein would only
approve the building type for the home on Lot 2a.
(4) Porches, stoops, and balconies may project up to eight feet (8') into the front
setbacks. Porch, stoop and balcony areas within the front setback shall not be
enclosed or weatherized with glazing or other solid materials.
The applicant has submitted only one proposed building type for Lot 2a which meets this
criterion. There are three lots. The Board discussed this and agreed to review each
building lot for design review as they are submitted. The decision herein would only
approve the building type for the home on Lot 2a.
(5) Placement of Garages and Parking. See Section 9.08(C)(4) and Figure 9-7. The
front building line of the garage must be set behind the front building line of the
house by a minimum of eight feet.
The applicant has submitted only one proposed building type for Lot 2a which meets this
criterion. There are three lots. The Board discussed this and agreed to review each
building lot for design review as they are submitted. The decision herein would only
approve the building type for the home on Lot 2a.
(6) Mix of Housing Types. A mix of housing types is encouraged within
neighborhoods and developments. Housing types should be mixed within blocks,
along the street and within neighborhoods rather than compartmentalized into
sections of identical housing types.
-8-
PADevelopment Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
The applicant has submitted only one proposed building type for Lot 2a which meets this
criterion. There are three lots. The Board discussed this and agreed to review each
building lot for design review as they are submitted.
DECISION Motion by G�C� �� Y seconded byk6at �A(y 'to
approve Final Plat Application #SD-10-22 of Algimantas & Neringa Shalna to subdivide
a 39, 450 sq. ft. parcel into three (3) lots of 13,320 sq. ft. (lot #2A), 13,150 sq. ft. (lot
#2B), and 13,070 sq. ft. (lot #2C), Highland Terrace.
1) All previous approvals and stipulations shall remain in full effect except as amended
herein.
2) This project shall be completed as shown on the plat submitted by the applicant and
on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3) The plans shall be revised to show the changes below. Three (3) copies of the
revised plans shall be submitted to the Administrative Officer for approval prior to
recording:
a) The plans shall be revised to comply with the requests of the Director of Public
Works as outlined in a memorandum dated May 27, 2010.
b) The final plat plan, survey plat, shall be revised to include the seal and signature
of the land surveyor.
c) The plans shall be revised to include the 911 address for each lot.
4) The applicant shall comply with the comments of the Director of Public Works, per the
memorandum dated May 27, 2010.
5) The applicant shall comply with the requests of the Fire Chief as outlined in a letter
dated May 26, 2010.
6) No dwelling unit shall be permitted on the lots without the transfer of additional
development rights, per the stipulations of Article 9 of the South Burlington Land
Development Regulations. The option for purchase of the development right documents
for Lots 2b and 2c must be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and recorded in
the South Burlington Land Records prior to recording the mylar of the final plat plan.
7) Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for Lot 2A, the applicant shall record the document
entitled, "Density Reduction Easement and Transfer of Development Rights" and a
survey of the area from which the transferable development rights have been
severed as required under 24 V.S.A § 4423(b)(4), upon approval of the City Attorney
in the South Burlington land records.
-9—
PADevelopment Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
8) No development shall occur on Lots 2b and 2c without prior approval by the
Development Review Board for residential design.
9) All new homes in the development shall comply with the Residential Design
requirement under Section 9.08(c) of the Land Development Regulations. Compliance
with the criteria shall be determined by the Administrative Officer at permit issuance.
10) Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility
lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground.
11) The structures shall not exceed the height limitations of the district.
12) Sufficient grading and erosion controls shall be employed during construction and
after construction to prevent soil erosion and runoff from creating unhealthy or
dangerous conditions on the subject property and adjacent properties.
13) The houses shall be located within the proposed building envelopes and shall face
Highland Terrace.
14)Any changes to the final plat plan shall require approval of the South Burlington
Development Review Board.
15) The final plat plan (survey plat) shall be recorded in the land records within 180 days
or this approval is null and void. The plan shall be signed by the Board Chair or Clerk
prior to recording. Prior to recording the final plat plan, the applicant shall submit a
copy of the survey plat in digital format. The format of the digital information shall
require approval of the South Burlington GIS Coordinator.
Mark Behr yea ay/abstain/not Nresent
Matthew Birmingham — yea/na anot present
John Dinklage — ea/nay/abstainese
Roger Farley ea nay/abstain/nsen
Eric Knudsen — yea/nay/abstain no presen
Gayle QuimbJy2aoy/abstain/not
nay/abstain/not present
Bill Stuono — present
Motion carried by a vote of
Signed this dayo/ 2010, by
/'9a& Behr, Vice -Chair
-10—
PADevelopment Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc
#SD-10-22
Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental
Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRECP 5 in writing, within 30 days of the date this
decision is issued. The fee is $250.00. If you fail to appeal this decision, your right to
challenge this decision at some future time may be lost because you waited too long.
You will be bound by the decision, pursuant to 24 VSA 4472 (d) (exclusivity of remedy;
finality).
-11—
PADevelopment Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2010\shalna_sd1022_ffd.doc