Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-90-0000 - Decision - 0635 Hinesburg RoadFINDING OF FACT t STATE OF VERMONT COUNTY OF CHITTENDEN '/ CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON v Dot DECISION & FINDING OF FACT On the 23rd day of April 1990, the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment- heard evidence regarding the appeal of CPA Partner- ship, Daniel O'Brien, 635 Hinesburg Road based on the following facts and findings: 1) This project addresses the need for elderly affordable hous- ing. 2) Will not alter the general character of the area, medical and residential uses abut this property. 3) Least modification, badly needed and will not require much of City services. 4) Density of 17 units per acre is very low compared to similar elderly housing projects in other communities. 5) Hardship created by State mandate stating that communities or should provide for elderly and affordable housing. Based upon the above st e facts and findings the appellant's request for a variance speby�►�p�� of the South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment i rl BUR�I�Vu Urr, J UN 1 i 1%0 '77 N. FRkrS OFF-7 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 23, 1990 The South Burlington Zoning Board of Adjustment held a meeting on Monday, April 23, 1990 at 7:00 PM at the City Hall'Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Fred Blais, Chairman, Don Graf, Terry Sheahan, Maureen Bouchard, Joe Randazzo, Dan King Member Absent George Chamberland Others Present Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator, Sid Poger, The Other Paper, Daniel O'Brien, Bob Penniman, Tom Adler, John Hollenbach, Frank Mazur, David Austin, J. C. Oppenlandor, Gene Cenci, Gail LeBlanc, Roger LeBlanc, Bill Simendinger, David Simendinger No. 1 Appeal of C.P.A. Partnership, Daniel O'Brien agent Appeal of C.P.A. Partnership, Daniel O'Brien agent, seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Density requirements and Section 19.25 Off Street parking requirements. Request is for permission to construct an additional fifty (50) elderly housing units (presently 76 units existing) on a parcel containing 7.2 acres, also requires a variance from the off-street parking requirements, request to set-off 106 spaces in conjunction with the apartment complex located at 635 Hinesburg Road. Mr. Ward informed the board that the area in question is zoned R-7 District. Section 18.00 Area, density and dimensional requirements. Maximum density 7 units per acre. Lot size 7.26 acres. Maximum allowed 51 units. Existing density 76 units (10 per acre), variance granted 12/6/76. Final plat plan approved 6/27/78. Proposed additional 50 units (17 per acre). Section 19.25 off-street parking. Table I - Multi -family units - 2 spaces per unti plus 1 additional guest space per four units. Total required parking 283 spaces. Proposed parking 106 spaces. Mr. Blais said that Maureen Bouchard would have to step down as being related to the applicant there would be a conflict of interest. Mr. O'Brien told the board that this project is about 11 years old and was originally approved for 100 units. At that time we were able to build 76 units, one being the manager's unit. At this time we are here to ask your permission to obtain a variance so we can expand by 50 units. Even though we are in excess of the density, the real measure of density is the impact that the development has on a piece of land and on the neighborhood. We will use less than if we had built the original 50 units. Mr. O'Brien explained the project showing the unused portion of the lot and the neighborhing buildings adjoining this lot. -2- Mr. O'Brien said if the board would take a position that this is similar to an institution as defined in the Planning Ordinance Table I page 77 - Minimum Parking Space Requirements then our requirements would be only 62 spaces, if you feel justified in calling this a similar situation. Mr. Randazzo asked this is a project for elderly. Mr. O'Brien said overall it is for elderly. With the original program one had to be 62 years old. The age limit on this one is 55 years old - some will be at the low rate and some will be subsidized. Some people will be able to go in at the market rate. These are going to be rentals. 40% of the units will rent for 60% of the fair market rate. The other 60% will rent at market rates. Mr. O'Brien handed the board a file showing that the uses there now are subsidized rents where people pay only 30% of their adjusted gross income for rent and said that program doesn't exist any more. Each apartment has an emergency call system and we have a rental manager on duty 24 hours a day, community activities and recreation room. There is a sense of community involved here. One reason we have attached the new section to the old section is that we want to build it into one community. Mr. Randazzo asked are all these new units going to be the same size. Mr. O'Brien said 20% will be 2 bedroom units and 80% will be 1 bedroom units. Mr. Graf asked are there any restrictions for income on the 60% that will rent at market value. Mr. O'Brien said there will be no restrictions. 40% of the total must be reserved for those who qualify. Mr. O'Brien gave the board members a list showing Income Limits and Rent Limits for Vermont by County. (see attached). Mr. King asked what kind of demand do you have at this time. Mr. O'Brien said we operate a number of these in the area and we have a waiting list of approximately 4 years. It's discouraging. Mr. King said there's a big demand out there. Mr. O'Brien said yes there is. There was some discussion about the parking and Mr. Ward said this is a multi -family residential unit which does not need to provide the kind of parking required for multi -units. Mr. Blais asked what percentage of the parking spaces are needed on the basis of those you have there now. Mr. O'Brien said currently we have 64 parking spaces and these are more than adequate. We're proposing to have the same for the new units. Mr. Sheahan said isn't it conceivable that because of the age of the people in the new unit that you will need more parking. Mr. O'Brien had a chart showing the different housing in the area and the parking spaces in those places. Heineberg have 45 spaces for 80 units, Cathedral Square have 25 spaces for 100 units. Winchester with 166 units will have an impact of 680 people living in that project. They require 296 parking places an average of 4.1 person per unit. Ours is 1.17 per unit. -3- After more discussion Mr. Ward said I feel that given this type of project we don't have anything like this and we don't have any institutions other than community care. In my opinion we have to compare this to Pillsbury Manor strictly bedroom, bath, closet and dining area. What Dan is proposing is one and 2 bedroom family unit. Mr. Randazzo said I feel that I've got to agree with this. Mr. King said I agree with that. Mr. Graf asked is there a medical facility on the premises. Mr. O'Brien said no. We do employ a full time social worker and it's her job to network and make the connections for the services that any of our tenants might need. We also have a visiting nurse that comes in and meals -on wheels. Mr. O'Brien said there does exist in the community an overwhelming need for affordable housing in the area. Mr. O'Brien addressed the 5. criteria as follows: There are unique physical circumstances - there is no need to alter or extend utility services. The lot is flat and there is no wetlands. This is located near a pharmacy, dentists, doctors, etc. The shape of the building is unique for the number of units. There are people who need this type of housing and others who need community housing regardless of their income. Failure to permit it would cause the continuing shortage of this type of housing and would create an undue hardship on the community in planning and providing for all Vermonters. It's impossible to expand and conform to the density requirements. We have r documentation of existing traffic and projections for the new building and have the information which shows the density and the parking in the other projects in the area. I have the letter from R. Dickinson who did the traffic survey at peak hours with 76 units the tripend it generates was only 17 in the morning, by noon it would get up to 27 and in the evening was at 22. With the proposed the morning peak hours would be 28.18 tripends, noon - 36 and evening - 35. We gave documentation as to how this is arrived at. We have a memo from our staff person who has indicated that she has done an analysis of the water consumption for 200 units which we manage over a 3 year period which is 68.76 gals. which compares to State standard. We have the study of impact of elderly housing on density. The lack of housing for a wide variety of Vermonters has been generated by others not the applicant. The fact that the applicant could not finance on any other piece of property is due to economics. This won't alter the character of the neighborhood. It is comparable to the medical facilities. This project will not impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property or its value. This is locally owned by local people. As far as the public welfare - it's very clear that this variance will be completely beneficial to the community. This is the minimum variance needed for this project. We have already received a variance on 100 - the present proposal is for only 26 more elderly units. The only variance we need in this case is density and parking. This is the only way enabling the City to meet the need to provide efficient housing. tj -4- Mr. Graf said the allowable limit was 51 units. Mr. O'Brien said we're going to 126 units. Lot coverage only 12% not 29%. We want this to continue looking like a residential project not an institutional one. Mr. Blais said is the enabling of this project to expand as a result totally the economic and social need. Mr. O'Brien said social need. You have to get a variance before you can get anything from Vermont Housing and Finance Agency. Mr. Sheahan said the merits of the project are good. I am concerned about some of the things that we are going to allow if this project goes through. My concerns are density of 17 per acre. Does this represent the minimum variance. Mr. O'Brien said it is. You can't make the project work. The old units are subsidizing the new units. Mr. Blais said when we get these requests there is no clear cut way that they can meet the zoning. St. Paul, Franklin Square, Fern Hill, Riverside Ave, etc. all exceed density requirements. There is no other way. Mr. O'Brien said this will still be the least dense project of this whole group. Mr. Frank Mazur said I would like to compliment Mr. O'Brien on his proposal. The community needs this kind of housing. This type of housing provides dignity to these people. I speak in favor of it. Mr. O'Brien said there is public transportation to this project with CCTA from a parking standpoint. Mr. Sheahan said if we do grant the appeal we are approving 2 variances - one for the parking and one for the density. The appeal was approved 4 - 1. No. 2 Appeal of Edward Austin, Jr. Appeal of Edward Austin Jr. seeking a variance from Section 18.00 Dimensional requirements —Request is for permission to construct a 520 square foot addition and a 24' x 26' attached garage to within fifteen (15) feet of the southerly side yard, also removing a 15' x 24' detached garage presently located to within five (5) feet of the southerly side yard, located at 54 Bartlett Bay Road. Mr. Ward informed the board that the area in question is zoned R-1 District. Section 18.00 Dimensional requirements. Minimum side yard 25 feet - existing 43 feet. Proposed 15 feet (southerly property line). Proposed addition 520 square feet plus 24' x 26' attached garage. Existing detached 15' x 24' garage within 5 feet of southerly property line to be removed. The Austin property was appraised at $350,000. The addition as proposed is $98,000. Mr. Hollenbach said this property has been in the Austin family for approximately 70 years. 10 years ago they obtained a permit to convert this