Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 05_SD-19-35_1420 Hinesburg_Staff Report Responses CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10 Mansfield View Lane Phone: 802-864-2323 South Burlington, VT 05403 Fax: 802-864-2271 E-Mail: dmarshall@cea-vt.com January 2, 2020 Ms. Marla Keene, PE Development Review Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont Re: Preliminary and Final Site Plat Application #SD-19-35, Donald and Lois Kerwin 1420 Hinesburg Road, South Burlington, Vermont Staff Report Comments 1-7-20 Dear Ms. Keene: Thank you for your overview on the staff report for the #SD-19-35 Preliminary and Final Site Plat Application for Donald and Lois Kerwin and their project at 1420 Hinesburg Road in South Burlington. In support of the project, we offer the following responses prior to the January 7th meeting date in hopes to help all parties be up to speed with the project. The original staff comments are provided in red, our responses to the comments are provided in blue. 1. The applicant’s plans state in some places that lot 1 will be 51,700 sf and 51,690 in other places. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant which number is correct and require the applicant to revise their plans to reflect the correct number. Lot 1 will be 51,700 SF. 2. The applicant has self-reported setback equal to the required minimum setback on both lots. Staff notes pertaining to SEQ-NR design standards address the setback for Proposed Lot #2. As a required PUD, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to update these numbers. Please see the updated dimensional summary on the next page. Ms. Marla Keene, PE Page 2 of 4 January 2, 2020 3. The applicant has declined to provide information on building height. As a required PUD, Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide these numbers. The nature of this project is a subdivision for future development. As such, the architectural plans including the information on the building height are not available at this time. We can offer that the building height will be less than the 28’ maximum and that compliance be demonstrated at the time of submission of the zoning permit application 4. Staff notes for the Board’s benefit the references to well-planned residential use, design and layout of buildings and lots, and creation of neighborhoods. Though this subdivision does not necessarily detract from this purpose, Staff considers the application fails to demonstrate compliance with these aspects of the purpose statement. This is discussed further in the Article 9 standards. The nature of this project is a subdivision for future development. The first goal being to create a lot for the house so that it can be sold. As stated “The SEQ standards are formed to encourage open space preservation, scenic view and natural resources protection, wildlife habitat preservation, continued agriculture, and well-planned residential use in the area of the City known as the Southeast Quadrant.” This project area does not have areas defined as significant open spaces, there is minimal wildlife habitat opportunities and no significant wildlife habitats on the project site, there is no existing farming of the area, and it is a continuation of the existing neighborhood use with existing infrastructure in place to support the future residence. 5. Without any testimony on height, Staff considers compliance with this and other related standards cannot be evaluated. The nature of this project is a subdivision for future development. As such, the architectural plans including the information on the building height are not available at this time. We can offer that the building height will be less than the 28’ maximum. Ms. Marla Keene, PE Page 3 of 4 January 2, 2020 6. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate preliminary wastewater allocation prior to closing the hearing. 420 GPD of Wastewater allocation has been secured from Justin Rabidoux who reviewed and approved the allocation request on 11-1-2019. A copy of which is attached. A copy was emailed to Dalila Hall at the time. 7. Staff recommends the Board discuss from where electrical will be served, and if Highland Terrace, require the applicant to update their plans to reflect this connection. Electrical lines must be underground. The location of the electrical will be per that depicted on sheets C1.0 Overall Proposed Conditions Site Plan, sheet P1 and Sheet C1.3. The electrical service line is shown to be from the existing utility pole near the entrance of the Lot 1 driveway and ran underground to the northside of the existing house and garage buildings. A stub would be located in the northwest corner of proposed Lot 2. The location of the electrical service to the future residence would be determined when architectural plans are developed for the building. 8. The proposed lot 1 has a width to depth ratio of approximately 1:1.3. The proposed lot 2 has a width to depth ratio of greater than 1:1. Staff considers this criterion not met. Though 9.07A describes this criterion as an illustrative guide, this standard is required under 9.08A(3) below. Staff considers there are at least two potential solutions to this problem. In the first potential solution, the applicant has laid out the proposed lot 2 such that the lot is divided into roughly thirds by a drainage easement and a sewer easement to the benefit of Lot 1. If the applicant modifies the proposed lot 2 boundaries to be limited to the area defined by the easements, the required lot ratios will be met for both lots. The second potential solution is for the Board to grant a waiver as a PUD. The existing home is laid out in a way that is not supportive of a 1:2 lot ratio in the case of any subdivision, and the Board may wish to grant that consideration. When presented to the City Council, the interim zoning application or this project considered a four-lot subdivision, with the three new lots meeting the 1:2 minimum and the remaining lot with the existing home not meeting the ratio. The later of the two options is most consistent with the short and long-term goals for the property. Ms. Marla Keene, PE Page 4 of 4 January 2, 2020 9. Building Orientation - The applicant has declined to provide information supporting compliance with this criterion. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate this criterion is met prior to closing the hearing. The nature of this project is a subdivision for future development of the lot for a single-family home. As such, the architectural plans including the information on the building placement, orientation and design are not available at this time. We are committed to indicating that the long dimension of the building will be along the east- west access and that compliance be demonstrated at the time of submission of the zoning permit application. 10. Front Building Setbacks - Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to meet this criterion, but that the Board discuss whether it should apply from the roadways or from the ROW, based on the 20-foot frontyard setback. Acknowledged. 11. Placement of garages and parking - The applicant has declined to provide information supporting compliance with this criterion. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to demonstrate this criterion is met prior to closing the hearing. The nature of this project is a subdivision for future development for a single-family home. As such, the architectural plans including the information on the garage placement, orientation and design are not available at this time. Compliance will be demonstrated at the time of submission of the zoning permit application. This completes our responses to the SD-19-35 Staff Report for this project. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 864-2323 x310. Respectfully, David S. Marshall Project Engineer P:\AutoCADD Projects\2018\18232\3-Permitting\1-Local Applications\3-Final\Staff Report Responses 1-7-20.doc