HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-09-05 - Decision - 0066 Central AvenueC
#MS-09-05
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
PERKINS SMITH DESIGN BUILD - 66 CENTRAL AVENUE
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-09-05
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Perkins Smith Design Build, hereafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking approval to
construct a 2,250 sq. ft. expansion to a single family dwelling, 66 Central Avenue.
The Development Review Board held a public hearing on July 7, 2009. Laurie Smith
represented the applicant.
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 applicant is seeking approval to construct a 2,250 sq. ft. expansion to a single
family dwelling, 66 Central Avenue.
2. The application was received on June 22, 2009.
3. The owner of record of the subject property is Doug Goodman and Lauren Goodes
4. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District.
5. The plans submitted consist of a two (2) page set of plans, page one (1) consisting of
a site plan and page two (2) depicting the west elevation of the building with the addition.
A. Purpose:
A Queen City Park District is herby 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 conversion of
seasonal homes to year round residences.
The proposed addition is in compliance with the purpose of the QCP Zoning District.
D. Conditional Uses
The proposed height of the roof is 32'8". As this is higher than the standard allowable
use in the district, the application shall be reviewed under Article 14, Conditional Use
Review. These standards are outlined below in this report.
E. Area, Density, and Dimensional Requirements
1
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\PerkinsSmith_MS0905_ffd.doc
#MS-09-05
Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements:
ueen Ci Park Zonin District
Required
Proposed
4 Min. Lot Size
7,500 SF
11,761 SF
q Max. Building Coverage
40%
17%
Max. Overall Coverage
60%
26%
�IMin. Front Setback Shelburne Rd)
10 ft.
21 ft.
Min. Side Setback (Baldwin Ave)
5ft.
5 ft.
Min. Rear Setback
10 ft.
Approx. 147 ft.
4Max. Building Height
25 ft.
32 ft. 8 inches
4 zoning compliance
4 The applicant is requesting a height waiver pursuant to Section
4.08F(2) of the SBLDR.
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 applicant has proposed a height of 32'8" and thus is not in compliance with this
criterion. However, Section 4.08 (F)(2) allows that the maximum height of a structure
may be increased to thirty five (35) feet if approved by the Development Review Board
subject to Article 14, Conditional Use Review. Again, the standards for this review are
outlined below.
G. Non -Complying Structures
Structures in the Queen City Park District are not subject to all provisions of Article 3,
Section 3. 11, non -conforming uses and non -conforming structures and lots. 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.
The lot and the related structure are entirely complying. Therefore,
this criterion is not applicable.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
Pursuant to Section 14.10CE) of the Land Development Reaulations. the DroDosed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
1. The proposed use, in its location and operation, shall be consistent with the
planned character ofthe area as defined by the City ofSouth Burlington
Comprehensive Plan.
2
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings Decisions\2009\PerkinsSmith_MS0905 ffd.doc
#MS-09-05
The proposed addition is not in conflict 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.G8(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 Board finds the proposed addition to be in compliance with the proposed use
of the district. This is a particularly large lot for the neighborhood and the addition of a
second story and garage still leaves the site with less building and overall coverage than
most of the surrounding neighborhood.
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 addition 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 addition does not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. The
QCP district is historically a very dense neighborhood. The addition of a second story
addition or garage will not impact this criterion. As already stated, the subject property
remains more open than most of the surrounding properties.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed addition will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
The proposed addition is completely in keeping with the applicable bylaws.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
The proposed addition will not affect renewable energy resources.
(0 General public health and welfare.
The proposed addition will not have an adverse affect on general public welfare.
3
I:\Development Review Boa rd\Findings_Decisions\2009\PerkinsSmith_MS0905_ffd.doc
#MS-09-05
Pursuant to Section 3.060)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed
building expansion shall meet the following standards:
(a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
It is difficult to assess how this proposal will affect the views of adjoining and/or nearby
properties. This neighborhood is located across the street from Lake Champlain and is
not directly in between any other homes and the Lake. It is somewhat possible that
some favorable views exist. However, from Staffs site visit to the property, it does not
appear that this addition would impact those views. The Board has carefully considered
testimony on this matter presented from neighboring property owners who appeared at
the meeting.
(b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
It is also difficult to assess this criterion. This neighborhood is very dense and homes are
very close together. However, from Staffs site visit to the property, it does not appear
that this addition would deny neighboring property owners' access to sunlight as this is a
large lot comparable to the neighborhood. The Board has carefully considered testimony
on this matter presented from neighboring property owners who appeared at the
meeting.
(c) adequate on -site parking; and
The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on adequate on -site
parking.
(d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property.
The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the safety of adjoining
properties.
DECISION d
Motion by6A1 L� 04114 , seconded by 6E o to
approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-09-05 of Perkins Smith Design B ild subject to
the following conditions:
1. All previous approvals and stipulations which are not superseded by this approval
shall remain in effect.
2. This project shall be completed as shown on the plans submitted by the applicant
and on file in the South Burlington Department of Planning and Zoning.
3. Pursuant to Section 4.08(F)(2) of the Land Development Regulations, the DRB
hereby approves a maximum height for the addition of 32'8" from the average pre -
construction grade.
4
I:\Development Review Board\Findings_Decisions\2009\PerkinsSmith_MS0905_ffd.doc
#MS-09-05
4. The applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months pursuant to Section
17.04 of the Land Development Regulations or this approval is null and void.
5. Any change to the site plan shall require approval by the South Burlington
Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer.
Mark Behr Qyenay/abstain/not present
Matthew Bih —yea/nay/abstain of present
John Dinklage yea ay/abstain/not present
Roger Farley y ay/abstain/not present
Eric Knudsen nay/abstain/not present
Gayle Quimby — e nay/abstain/not present
Motion carried by a vote of-� -�
Signed this �— day of 2009, by
John Dinklage, Chairman
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 $225.00. 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
I:\Development Rev;ew Board\Findings_Decisions\2009\PerkinsSmith_MS0905_ffd.doc