The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCU-04-15 - Decision - 0194 Laurel Hill DriveCITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT of PLANNING & ZONING GARRET & LISA HUYER - 194 LAUREL HILL DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-04-15 FINDINGS of FACT AND DECISION Garret & Lisa Huyer, hereinafter referred to as the applicants, are seeking conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is for permission to construct a 9' x 14' deck to encroach nine (9) additional feet into the front yard for a total encroachment of 13 feet into the required front setback, 194 Laurel Hill Drive. The deck, for which permission is being sought, has already been constructed. The Development Review Board held a public hearing on April 5, 2005. The applicants were present at the meeting. 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 are seeking conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations. The request is for permission to construct a 9' x 14' deck to encroach nine (9) additional feet into the front yard for a total encroachment of 13 feet into the required front setback, 194 Laurel Hill Drive. The deck, for which permission is being sought, has already been constructed. 2. The subject property is located in the Residential 4 (R4) Zoning District. 3. The owners of record of the subject property are Garret & Lisa Huyer. 4. The plans submitted consist of a hand drawn plan showing the relationship of the house and the proposed deck to the center of the street, and a plan of lots for a portion of the Laurel Hill Development dated 10/6/61. 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 addition is not in conflict with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. - 1 - 2. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. According to Section 4.03(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the Residential 4 Zoning District is formed to encourage residential use at moderate densities that are compatible with existing neighborhoods and undeveloped land adjacent to those neighborhoods. The proposed addition will not affect density in the neighborhood, so it is not in conflict with the stated purpose of the R4 Zoning District. However, the Land Development Regulations require that structures in the R4 Zoning District maintain a 30' setback, which this project would be in conflict with. 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 create the potential to adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. Currently, the existing dwellings on this streets share a common setback that creates a neighborhood feel. An encroachment into this setback will allow other dwelling units in this neighborhood to encroach into the established setback, under Section 3.06(J) of the Land Development Regulations. The "domino effect' that could result from the proposed project would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. (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 not in keeping with applicable regulations, specifically the front yard setback requirements outlined in table C-2 of the Land Development Regulations. (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 -2- Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: The Development Review Board, in granting conditional use approval, may impose conditions of the following: 1. Size and construction of structures, quantities of materials, storage locations, handling of materials, and hours of operations. It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed project. 2. Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards. It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed project. 3. Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting. It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed project. 4. Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety. It is not necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed project. Pursuant to Section 3.06(J)(3) of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: Encroachment of a structure into a required setback beyond the limitations set forth in (a) and (b) 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. In addition, the Development Review Board shall determine that the proposed encroachment will not have an undue adverse affect on: (a) views of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the views of adjoining properties. (b) access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the access of sunlight of adjoining properties. (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. -3- The proposed addition will not have an undue adverse affect on the safety of adjoining properties. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Sections 14.06 and 14.07 of the Land Development Regulations the proposed conditional use shall meet the following standards: (a) The site shall be planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement, and adequate parking areas. The proposed project has been planned to accomplish a desirable transition from structure to site and to provide for adequate planting and safe pedestrian movement. However, the project's encroachment creates the potential for undesirable transitions amongst structures along Laurel Hill Drive in the future. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. The parking spaces on this property are at an acceptable location for a single-family dwelling- (c) Without restricting the permissible limits of the applicable zoning district, the height and scale of each building shall be compatible with its site and existing or adjoining buildings. The height of the building is in compliance with the Land Development Regulations and no changes are proposed. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. The applicant is not proposing any additional utility lines. (e) The DRB shall encourage the use of a combination of common materials and architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens and visual interruptions to create attractive transitions between buildings of different architectural styles. No additional architectural characteristics, landscaping, buffers, screens, or visual interruptions are necessary for the proposed project. (f7 Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain, and to existing buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures. The proposed addition will not relate harmoniously to existing buildings in the area. (g) The reservation of land may be required on any lot for provision of access to abutting properties whenever such access is deemed necessary to reduce curb cuts onto an arterial of collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. It is not necessary to require any additional access easements as part of the proposed project. (h) Electric, telephone and other wire -served utility lines and service connections shall be underground. Any utility installations remaining above ground shall be located so as to have a harmonious relation to neighboring properties and to the site. The applicant is not proposing any additional utility lines. (i) All dumpsters and other facilities to handle solid waste, including compliance with any recycling or other requirements, shall be accessible, secure and properly screened with opaque fencing to ensure that trash and debris do not escape the enc/osure(s). A dumpster is not part of the proposed project. 6) Landscaping and Screening Requirements Pursuant to Table 13-9 of the Land Development Regulations, the proposed project will require a minimum of $90 of landscaping. The applicant is proposing to plant $200 worth of landscaping as part of this project. /� /J DECISION MIl62q Motion by E� seconded by to approve Conditional Use Application #CU-04-14 of Garret & Lisa Huyer. Chuck Bolton — yea/na /abstain of presen Mark Boucher — ye na bstain/no present John Dinkiage — ye na abstain/not present Roger Farley — yea/nay/abstain of presen Larry Kupferman — y&ay/ abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea/stain/not present Motion failed by a vote of: 0 - q - -5- Signed this 2_ day of April, 2005 by John Dinklage, Chair Please note: You have the right to appeal this decision to the Vermont Environmental Court, pursuant to 24 VSA 4471 and VRCP 76 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). M