Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCU-23-01 - Supplemental - 0011 White Place (10)CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD CU-23-01_11 White Pl_Cosentino Manning_2023-07- 18.docx DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING Report preparation date: July 12, 2023 Application received: June 14, 2023 13 White Place Conditional Use Application #CU-21-04 Meeting date: July 18, 2023 Applicant/Owners Maryse Cosentino & Ryan Manning 11 White Place South Burlington, VT 05403 Architect Hinge Architecture 431 Pine Street, Suite 314 Burlington, VT 05401 Property Information Tax Parcel ID: 1790-00011 Residential 4 Zoning District 5,000 sf lot CU-23-01 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use application #CU-23-01 of Cosentino and Manning to construct a two story addition to an existing single family home. The addition is proposed to be set back 3 ft from the side lot line, 11 White Place. Staff made an error in the public notice by stating that the addition was proposed to be set back 3 ft 2 ½ inches from the side lot line. This is the measurement at the mid-point of the east side addition. While the Board generally considers additional encroachment beyond what was warned in the public hearing to require re-warning, this error was made by Staff and not by the applicant and Staff considers it to be minor. The Board should determine whether the hearing needs to be re-warned. CONTEXT The Project is located within the Residential 4 zoning district. The property may be reviewed under 3.06J, which allows exceptions to setback and lot coverage requirements for lots used for single family residential and existing prior to February 28, 1974. The Board may approve a side yard setback of 3 ft with conditional use review. This project is subject to review under the LDRs covering the R4 zoning district and Section 14.10 conditional uses. The project consists of removing the existing garage and deck, constructing a one story addition on the east and a two-story addition to the west and rear, adding a front porch, adding an outdoor stair on the west, and reconfiguring and enlarging the rear deck and patio. The screenshot below shows the existing home in blue with the proposed project in black/grey. The existing deck and patio to be removed are not shown. The building includes an existing ramp for the disabled which is proposed to be reconstructed in a different configuration. Ramps for the disabled are exempt from calculation of setbacks. COMMENTS Development Review Planner Marla Keene and Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner have reviewed the plans submitted on June 14, 2023 and offer the following comments. Numbered items for the Board’s attention are in red. Zoning District & Dimensional Requirements: CU-23-01 R4 Zoning District1 Required Existing Proposed @ Min. Lot Size 9,500 SF 5,000 SF No change √ Max. Building Coverage 30 % 20% 30% X Max. Overall Coverage 50 % 26% 56% @ Min. Front Setback 30 ft. 24 ft. 24 ft. √ Min. Front Setback, Porch 10 ft. N/A +/- 16 ft. X Min. Side Setback 5 ft. +/- 1.25 ft. 3 ft. √ Min. Rear Setback 15 ft. +/- 42.3 ft. +/- 37 ft √ Max Height, pitched roof 28 ft. 24.75 ft 24.75 ft √ Zoning Compliance @ Existing nonconforming X Not met; see discussion below. 1. The “required” values in this table have been modified to reflect the additional coverage and reduced setbacks allowed under 3.06J and discussed below. 2. In the R4 district, an open porch or deck that is less than 12-feet deep and no wider than the building face to which it is attached may have a minimum setback of 10 feet, and steps no greater than 5-feet wide may encroach a further 5-feet into the front setback. The applicant is proposing access steps but they are farther than 5-ft from the front lot line. 3.06(J) EXCEPTIONS TO SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS EXISITNG PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 28, 1973 The following exceptions to setbacks and lot coverages shall be permitted for lots or dwelling units that meet the following criteria: the lot or dwelling unit was in existence prior to February 28, 1974, and the existing or proposed principal use on the lot is a single-family dwelling or a two-family dwelling. In addition to the modifications allowed by right for this lot and described above in the notes to the table of dimensional standards, an applicant may request additional encroachment approval of the DRB. (1) Side and Rear Setbacks. A structure may encroach into the required side or rear setback up to a distance equal to 50% of the side or rear setback requirement of the district. In no event, however, shall a structure have a side setback of less than five (5) feet unless approved by the Development Review Board in accordance with subsection (3) below. This provision reduces the side setback to 5-ft and the rear setback to 15 ft. The Board may approve additional encroachment in subsection (3) below. The applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 3 ft, therefore subsection (3) applies. (2) Front Setbacks. A structure may encroach into a required front setback up to the average distance to the building line of the principal structures on adjacent lots on the same street frontage. In no event, however, shall a structure have a front setback of less than five (5) feet unless approved by the Development Review Board in accordance with subsection (3) below. The applicant has provided a diagram of front setbacks on adjacent lots on page 5 of their application narrative. However, the diagram measures front setback incorrectly by using steps and porches, not the building line. A review of historic permits for 9 White Place indicate that the porch is 10 ft x 14 ft. Using the applicant’s provided measurement of the porch setback, Staff calculates the building is set back 24.75 ft from the front lot line. Similarly, a recently approved conditional use permit for 13 White Place indicates the approved CU-23-01 front setback is 22.5 ft from the front lot line. Therefore the average front setback of adjacent lots is 23.63 ft. The applicant is proposing a front setback of 24 ft. Staff considers the proposed front setback encroachment to be allowable under this provision. (3) Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval. Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (1) and (2) above may be approved by the Development Review Board subject to the provisions of Article 14, Conditional Uses, but in no event shall a structure be less than three (3) feet from a side or rear property line or less than five (5) feet from a front property line. On the east side of the building, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing garage which is set back approximately 1.33 ft from the side lot line and construct a one-story addition which will be set back 3 ft from the side lot line. It also appears the applicant is proposing to add an external staircase to the west side of the building, which will be set back 3 ft 11 inches from the side lot line, though this is not shown on the provided elevations. Review of conditional use criteria is provided under 14.10. Additional applicable criteria follow immediately below. No such additional encroachment shall be approved unless the Development Review Board finds that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse effect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties or principal buildings located thereon; (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The applicant has provided elevation drawings of the proposed modified structure. Below is a street view image of the existing structure. The proposed one story encroachment is on the left side of the image, while the proposed external stair encroachment is on the right side of the image. This criteria only applies to the proposed encroachment and not to the proposed addition outside the side yard encroachment. Since the reconstruction on the east will be the same height as the portion of the structure to remain, Staff considers that impacts on views and access to sunlight on the west (the one story encroachment) will be minimal. 1. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to describe the height, construction, and use of the proposed external stair encroachment on the west, and to modify the plans to more clearly CU-23-01 identify this feature. Once this information is provided, Staff recommends the Board consider the impacts of the proposed west encroachment in terms of this criterion. (c) adequate on-site parking; and 2. The portion of the building to be removed is a one-car garage. It appears to be proposed to be replaced by habitable space but is labeled as a garage. Staff recommends the Board ask the applicant to clarify the proposed use of the east one-story addition. The driveway will be approximately 28 feet long and 7 feet wide at its narrowest point where it is encroached by stairs. 3. Staff considers 7 ft is inadequate parking width and recommends the Board direct the applicant to remove or reconfigure the stairs to provide at least 9-ft of driveway width to meet this criterion. Staff notes there are other stairs from the porch. (d) safety of adjoining and/or nearby property. Staff considers the proposed expansion does not impact safety of adjoining properties. (4) Processing of a Request. Any request under subsections (1) - (3) above to expand an existing structure, or place a new structure, to within less than ten (10) feet of any property line shall include the submission of survey data prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the location of affected property lines, existing and/or proposed structures, and any other information deemed necessary by the Administrative Officer. 4. The applicant has not provided a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the location of affected property line, existing and proposed structures; the plans have been prepared by the project architect. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to provide a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor showing the required information above. (5) Lot Coverage. For lots that are five thousand (5,000) square feet or greater in size, but less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet, lot coverage may exceed the maximum allowed for the district up to a maximum of thirty percent (30%) for buildings and fifty percent (50%) for total lot coverage. For lots that are less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size, lot coverage may exceed the maximum allowed for the district up to a maximum of forty percent (40%) for buildings and sixty percent (60%) for total lot coverage. These coverages are reflected in the above dimensional table for this 5,000 sf lot. The applicant’s proposed coverage exceeds the maximum allowable lot coverage of 50%. The applicant is proposing 56% lot coverage, or 2,805 sf. 50% lot coverage for this 5,000 sf lot is 2,500 sf. The project includes a 100 sf ramp for the disabled. Staff considers it would be appropriate to exclude the ramp from calculation of lot coverage under section 3.17 Reasonable Accommodation to Ensure Reasonable Access to Housing. Accordingly, Staff recommends the Board include a condition of approval indicating that 100 sf of lot coverage is only permitted because it consists of a ramp for the disabled, and that portion of coverage shall not be permitted to be converted to another use. 5. Excluding the ramp, there is still 205 sf more lot coverage than is permissible in this zoning district. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to modify the plans to remove at least 205 sf of lot coverage in order to meet the maximum lot coverage of 50%. The applicant could also ask their licensed surveyor to confirm the reported lot size. CU-23-01 3.06K. Front Setback for Front Decks and Porches in the R4 District In the R4 District, an open porch or deck that shall not exceed the width of the building face to which the porch or deck is attached and that shall not have a depth greater than 12 feet as measured from the building face, shall have a minimum front setback of 10 feet. Access steps not greater than 5 feet in width may project no more than 5 feet in front of the porch or deck, but in no case shall be located closer than 5 feet from the front property line. An enclosed porch, or an open porch or deck exceeding 12 feet in depth, shall be considered part of the principal building and subject to standard front setbacks. 6. The porch encroaches into the 30-ft front setback and is set back approximately 16.1 ft from the front lot line. A portion of the porch is wider than the width of the building face to which it is attached, which is prohibited. The portion of the porch that is wider than the building face to which it is attached consists of the upper landing for the ramp. The remainder of the ramp is uncovered. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant to remove the roof over the ramp landing so that it does not appear to be part of the porch. The applicant is proposing 5-ft wide access steps. They project less than 5-ft in front of the porch. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 3.06J(3) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations (Additional Encroachment Subject to DRB Approval), the proposed structure shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards of Section 14.10(E): 14.10(E) General Review Standards. The Development Review Board shall review the proposed conditional use for compliance with all applicable standards as contained in these regulations. The proposed conditional use shall not result in an undue adverse effect on any of the following: (1) The capacity of existing or planned community facilities. Staff considers this project will have no adverse effect upon community facilities. (2) The character of the area affected, as defined by the purpose or purposes of the zoning district within which the project is located, and specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan. The “specifically stated policies and standards of the municipal plan” is statutory language which refers to the LDR and Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the R4 district is “to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods.” This property is located in an area with predominantly like-sized lots, with the lot immediately across the street being larger than the average. The proposed building expansion on this lot is comparable to adjacent homes, though as discussed above the total lot coverage is too high. Nearby homes are a mixture of one and two stories. Most but not all have single car garages. The property is located in an area characterized in the Comprehensive Plan as lower intensity, principally residential. Relevant excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan are as follows. Lower intensity, principally residential. Fostering a strong sense of neighborhood, these areas are primarily residential in use, with number of units and size of buildings to be among the lowest in the City. Open spaces are accessible and thoughtfully arranged as community gathering places, and roadways should be largely limited to local traffic with low volumes. While residential dwellings need not be all detached, the general character and appearance is that of a single family neighborhood. Building heights reflect this character. Small lots and CU-23-01 small buildings are encouraged. Commercial uses are limited to those serving a small or local population. More intense commercial or industrial uses should be avoided. Southwest Quadrant Objective 54. Promote higher-density, mixed use development and redevelopment along Shelburne Road and foster effective transitions to adjacent residential areas. Objective 4. Support the retention of existing and construction of new affordable and moderate- income housing, emphasizing both smaller single family homes and apartments, to meet demand within the regional housing market. Objective 5. Build and reinforce diverse, walkable neighborhoods that offer a good quality of life by designing and locating new and renovated housing in a context-sensitive manner that will facilitate development of a high-density, City Center, mixed used transit corridors, and compact residential neighborhoods. Staff reminds the Board that the application must not result in an undue adverse effect on the character as defined by the purpose statement of the regulations and specific policies of the Comprehensive Plan; it does not necessarily have to match the remainder of the neighborhood. Staff considers this criterion met. (3) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. Staff considers this project will have no adverse effect on traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. (4) Bylaws and ordinances then in effect. Consistency with the land development regulations is described in this document. Staff considers the project consistent with other applicable bylaws. (5) Utilization of renewable energy resources. This project will not affect renewable energy resources. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board work with the applicant to address the issues identified herein Respectfully submitted, Marla Keene, Development Review Planner