The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMS-10-04 - Decision - 0054 Central Avenue#MS-10-04 ` CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING CLAUDIA BERGER AND SHELDON KATZ - 54 CENTRAL AVENUE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-10-04 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Claudia Berger and Sheldon Katz, hereafter referred to as the applicants, seek approval to expand a non -complying single family dwelling by: 1) enclosing existing front porch, 2) constructing 6' x 10' covered front porch, 3) converting rear deck to 2-story addition, 4) adding 8'x12.5' screened in rear deck, and 5) adding two (2) shed dormers, 54 Central Avenue. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on May 4 and 18, and June 1, 2010, and a site visit on June 1, 2010. The applicants represented themselves. Based on testimony provided at the above mentioned public hearing and the plans and supporting materials contained in the document file for this application, the Development Review Board finds, concludes, and decides the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The applicants seek approval to expand a non -complying single family dwelling by: 1) enclosing existing front porch, 2) constructing 6' x 10' covered front porch, 3) converting rear deck to 2-story addition, 4) adding 8'x12.5' screened in rear deck, and 5) adding two (2) shed dormers, 54 Central Avenue. 2. The application was received on April 12, 2010. 3. The owners of record of the subject property are Claudia Berger & Sheldon Katz, the applicants. 4. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District. 5. The plan submitted consists of a hand drawn plan prepared by the applicants. 6. The adjacent property to the north is owned by Bruce and Janet Alvarez (52 Central Avenue). 7. Bruce and Janet Alvarez submitted written testimony including a two (2) page narrative, eight (8) photos and a site plan showing 52 and 54 Central Avenue. Applicants submitted a written response, including eight (8) photos. 8. The homes at 52 and 54 Central Avenue are just over eight (8) feet apart at the rear and 9.5 feet apart at the front. 1 CADocuments and Settings\ray\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK131\son10-005 Katz_MS1004_ffd.doc #MS-10-04 l C 9. Construction of an addition to the rear of 54 Central Avenue in place of a deck requires the removal of a tree on the property of 52 Central Avenue. This tree shades the home at 52 Central Avenue in the summer. 10. The view out of the southeast kitchen window (Photo #1) of 52 Central Avenue currently overlooks the deck of 54 Central Avenue. Similarly, the view from the mudroom of 52 Central Avenue overlooks the yard and rear deck of 54 Central Avenue (Photos #2 and 3). 11. The current angle view (Photo #5) from the dining room at 52 Central Avenue looks through the front porch of 54 Central Avenue to the park. The current angle view (Photo #6) from the living room window on the south wall of 52 Central Avenue looks through the front porch of 54 Central Avenue to the lake. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: QCP Zoning District Re uired Proposed �► Min. Lot Size 7500 S.F. 4350 S. F Max. Building Coverage"" 40% 34% Max. Overall Coverage" 60% 47% Min. Front Setback loft 19 ft Min. Side Setback 5 ft. Approx 5 ft. .6 Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. Approx 30 ft. � Max. Building Height 25 ft. <25 ft �► Pre-existing non-compliance; will be reviewed under SBLDR section 4.08 (G) Zoning compliance ****Many of the homes in the Queen City Park neighborhood are eligible for relief from coverage limitations under Section 3.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations for pre-existing non -compliant lots which existed prior to February 28, 1974. Lots smaller than 5000 square feet in size may exceed the maximum allowed for the district up to a maximum of forty percent (40%) for buildings and sixty percent (60%) for overall coverage. The Board has further reviewed the application under Section 4.08 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (SBLDRs). C. Permitted Use A single family dwelling is a permitted use in the QCP district. D. Conditional Uses The proposed project requires conditional use review per Section 4.08(G)(2) of the SBLDRs. E. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements 2 CADocuments and Settings\ray\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK131\son10-005 Katz_MS1004_ffd.doc #MS-10-04 ****Many of the homes in the Queen City Park neighborhood are eligible for relief from setbacks and coverages under Section 3.06 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations for pre-existing non -compliant lots which existed prior to February 28, 1974. Lots smaller than 5000 square feet in size may exceed the maximum allowed for the district up to a maximum of forty percent (40%) for buildings and sixty percent (60%) for overall coverage. F. Height of Structures The maximum height for all structures shall be no more than twenty-five feet above the average pre -construction grade adjoining such structure. The existing and proposed height of the roof is less than 25 feet to the midpoint of the eave. This is within the limitation for the district. Conclusions of Law G. Non -Complying Structures Structures in the Queen City Park District are not subject to all provisions of Article 3. Non -complying structures shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions: (1) Any non -complying building or structure may be altered provided such work does not: a. Exceed in aggregate cost thirty-five percent for residential properties and twenty five percent for non-residential properties of the fair market value as determined by the City Assessor or by a separate independent appraisal approved by the Administrative Officer; or b. Involve an increase to the structures height or footprint, or otherwise involve an increase to the square footage of the building or structure. As the applicants proposes to increase the square footage of the building, Section 4.08(G)(2) applies: (2) The Development Review Board may approve any alteration which exceeds the thirty-five and twenty-five percent rule described above or which involves an increase to the structure's height, footprint, or square footage subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. The Board has evaluated compliance with the criteria in the section of this report titled 'Conditional Use Review' below. (3) In addition to the provisions set forth above, the DRB shall determine that the proposed alteration or expansion will not adversely affect: a. Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; b. Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and c. Adequate on -site parking. The Board heard testimony and received photographic evidence demonstrating that the view from the dining room and living room windows of the house at 52 Central Avenue will be negatively impacted by the rear 2-story addition and the enclosure of the front porch at 54 Central Avenue. The Board therefore concludes that the proposed 3 C \Documents and Settings\ray\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fites\OLK131\son10-005 Katz_MS1004_ffd doc #MS-10-04 alterations at 54 Central Avenue will adversely affect the views toward the park and lake from 52 Central Avenue. The Board heard testimony and received photographic evidence demonstrating that access to sunlight of the home at 52 Central Avenue would be significantly reduced by the construction of a 2-story addition at the rear of 54 Central Avenue. The Board therefore concludes that the proposed alterations at 54 Central Avenue will adversely affect the access to sunlight of 52 Central Avenue. The proposed project will not adversely affect the adequacy of on -site parking for 54 Central Avenue. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 14.10(E) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: 1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the City of South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed additions are consistent with the planned character of the area as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning District is formed in order to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the Queen City Park neighborhood. It is designed to promote the area's historic development pattern of smaller lots and reduced setbacks. This district also encourages the conversation of seasonal homes to year round residences. Again, the proposed additions conform with the purpose of the district to promote the historic development pattern of smaller lots and lesser setbacks than other residential districts. 3. The Development Review Board must find that the proposed uses will not adversely affect the following: (a) The capacity of existing or planned municipal or educational facilities. The proposed additions will not adversely affect municipal services. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. The proposed additions do not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The QCP district is historically a very dense neighborhood. One of the proposed additions is 4 CADocuments and Settings\ray\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\0LK131\son10-005 Katz_MS1004_ffd doc #MS-10-04 to the rear of the property and will be largely unseen. The Board considered testimony from the adjacent property owners with respect to any impact on access to sunlight which could result from the proposed addition. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. The proposed additions will not affect traffic in the vicinity. (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposed additions adhere to the applicable regulations except for Section 4.08(G)(3)(a) and (b). (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed additions will not affect renewable energy resources. DECISION Motion by seconded by to approve Miscella eous Applicatio6 #MS-10-04 of Claudia Berger and Sheldon katz Mark Behr - yea0/abst in/not present Matthew Birmingham - e nay/abstain/not present John Dinklage - ye na abstain/not present Roger Farley - yea na abstain/not present Eric Knudsen e a abstain/not present Gayle Quimby - ye a abstain/not present Bill Stuono -yea na abstain/not present Motion failed by a vote of The request is hereby denied Signed this SO day of June 2010, by John Dinklage, Chairmagel- Please note: You have t rerig/ht 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). 5 CADocuments and Settings\ray\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK131\son10-005 Katz_MS1004_ffd.doc