Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS-07-03 - Decision - 0005 Lyons Avenue#MS-07-03 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MARCEL BEAUDIN — 5 LYONS AVENUE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION #MS-07-03 FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Marcel Beaudin, hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking miscellaneous approval to raze a single family dwelling with a building footprint of 1625 sq. ft. and replacing it with a new single family dwelling with a building footprint of 1872 sq. ft., representing a 15.2% footprint increase, 5 Lyons Avenue. The Development Review Board held public hearings on Tuesday, April 10, 2007, April 17, 2007, May 1, 2007 and May 15, 2007. Marcel Beaudin was present at the meetings, 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 miscellaneous approval to raze a single family dwelling with a building footprint of 1625 sq. ft. and replacing it with a new single family dwelling with a building footprint of 1872 sq, ft., representing a 15.2% footprint increase, 5 Lyons Avenue. 2. The owners of record of the subject property are Richard & Rebecca Cassidy. 3. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park (QCP) Zoning District and the Floodplain Overlay District. 4. The plans submitted consist of a three (3) page set of plans, page one (1) entitled, "Proposed Building Addition Lyons Avenue South Burlington Vermont", prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, Inc., dated Jan, 2005. - 1 - #MS-07-03 Table 1. Dimensional Reauirements QCP Zoning District Required Proposed Min. Lot Size 7,500 SF 10,730SF �l Max. Building Coverage 20% 17.4% Max. Overall Coverage 40% 30.8% 4 Min. Front Setback 10 ft. 8 ft � Min. Side Setback 5 ft. 5 ft. Min. Rear Setback 10 ft. 15 ft. zoning compliance 4 zoning non-compliance due to inadequate frontage to provide 20 feet of access along Lyons Avenue. This lot is being treated as a lot with no frontage pursuant to Section 3.05(13)(2)(iv) of the Land Development Regulations. The line that abuts the right-of-way (front line) is only eight (8) feet from the proposed house. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations the proposed structure shall be reviewed as a conditional use and shall meet the following standards: 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 project is consistent with the planned character of the area, as defined by the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use shall conform to the stated purpose of the district in which the proposed use is located. The proposed project is consistent with the stated purpose of the Lakeshore Neighborhood District, which is "to encourage residential use at densities and setbacks that are compatible with the existing character of the lake shore neighborhoods located in the vicinity of Bartlett Bay Road and Holmes Road. " 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 project will not adversely affect municipal services. This addition will have no impact on educational facilities. (b) The essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor ability to develop adjacent property for appropriate uses. -2- #MS-07-03 The proposed project will not have an adverse affect on the character of the neighborhood or zoning district that this property falls within. (c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity. It is extremely unlikely that this proposed addition will generate any additional traffic. Any traffic that is generated by this addition will be negligible in its effect on the neighborhood. (d) Bylaws in effect. The proposal is not in compliance with the bylaws. The required front setback is not being met for the house. (e) Utilization of renewable energy resources. The proposed project will not likely affect renewable energy resources. (0 General public health and welfare. The proposed project will not likely have an adverse affect on general public welfare. 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, from structure to structure, and to provide for adequate planting, safe pedestrian movement. (b) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings to the greatest extent practicable. Parking is to the front building. However, given that the nature of the project as a single- family residential use, this layout acceptable and in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. (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. -3- #MS-07-03 The applicant has stated that the proposed structure will be two stories and 18 feet in height, which is in compliance with Section 4.07(E) and 4.08(F) of the Land Development Regulations. (d) Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (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. The applicant has submitted building elevations. (f) 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 applicant has submitted building elevations. (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. Any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (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 enclosure(s). As this is a single-family residential lot, it is unlikely that this criterion would apply. U) Landscaping and Screening Requirements M #MS-07-03 The proposed project does not require additional landscaping or screening under the SBLDR. Furthermore, no trees or shrubs are proposed to be removed in order to accommodate the dwelling and so none are required to be replaced. Pre -Existing Structures along Lake Champlain and within Queen City Park This proposed construction shall be reviewed under Section 12.01(D) of the SBLDR which includes all lands within one hundred fifty feet horizontal distance of the high water elevation of Lake Champlain. The expansion and reconstruction of pre-existing structures on these lands may be approved by the DRB as a conditional use provided the requirements of the underlying zoning district and the following standards are met: a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on or before April 24, 2000. The existing structure meets this criterion. b) The expanded or reconstructed structure does not extend any closer, measured in terms of horizontal distance, to the applicable high water elevation or stream centerline than the closest point of the existing structure. The proposed structure is no closer to the lake than the existing structure. c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure shall not be more than fifty percent larger than the footprint of the structure lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. The proposed expansion meets this criterion: the expansion is 15.2% of the existing structure. d) An erosion control plan for construction is submitted by a licensed engineer detailing controls that will be put in place during construction or expansion to protect the associated surface water. The applicant has submitted an erosion control plan. The plans contain notes for erosion control measures on the adjoining properties. Given the dense nature of the area, this is not unusual. The applicant has provided evidence that the adjoining property owners have given consent. e) A landscaping plan showing plans to preserve maintain and supplement existing trees and ground cover vegetation is submitted and the DRB finds that the overall plan will provide a visual and vegetative buffer for the lake and/or stream. The plan indicates that all trees will remain and meets this criterion. -5- #MS-07-03 22 DECISION MAW /�&-81 Motion by LC �'J seconded by I�UTA!\/� to approve Miscellaneous Application #MS-07-03. Mark Behr — yea/O'rjq abstaint present Matthew Birmingham — ea�n&stain/not present John Dinklage — yea abot present Roger Farley — y na abstain/not present Eric Knudsen — e na abstain/not present Peter Plumeau — yea abstain/not present Gayle Quimby — yea"/abstain/not present Motion failed by a vote of —L-� - G> Signed this day of 2007, by Z74�4 John Dink age, 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).