Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIZ-89-0000 - Decision - 1565 Spear StreetCITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IN RE: Application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl This matter initially came before the South Burlington City Council pursuant to the provisions of 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(d) on the application of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl to construct improvements in the City of South Burlington which fail to comply with the "Interim Zoning Regulations for the Protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District" adopted by the Council on April 4, 1988. The City Council conducted public hearings on this application on May 2nd, May loth, May 23rd, May 26th and June 6th. The Hoehls were present at all these hearings and were represented by Ms. Leslie Linton, Esq. Numerous adjoining property owners and neighbors were also present at these hearings. At'at least two of these hearings some of these adjoining property owners and neighbors were represented by James Dumont, Esq. On May 7th this City Council viewed the site of the proposed development with the applicants and neighbors present. The May 2nd and May loth hearings on this matter were attended by the full City Council consisting of Mr. Farrar, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Mona, Mr. Murray and Mrs. Lambert. At the City election on May 17th, Mr. Dinklage was elected to fill Mr. Mona's position on the Council. Mr. Dinklage familiarized himself with the evidence presented to the Council at its hearings on May 2nd and May loth and thereafter participated in the proceedings of the Council. EXHIBIT "4" Mr. Mona did not participate in the Council's deliberation or decision in this matter. The Council issued its initial decision in this matter on June 14, 1988. This decision was appealed to the Chittenden Superior Court by Save the View, Inc. a Vermont non-profit corporation, and by Cynthia and Robert Hoehl. On November 23, 1988, the Honorable David A. Jenkins, Presiding Judge of the Chittenden Superior Court, issued a Memorandum and Notice of Decision declaring that the City Council approval was granted without authority. By Order dated December 8, 1988 and amended December 13, 1988, the Court reversed the City Council's June 14th decision and remanded the matter to the Council. The City Council, consisting of Mr. Farrar, Mr. Flaherty, Mrs. Lambert, Mr. Dinklage and Mr. Cimonetti (Mr. Cimonetti had been appointed to the Council on September 28, 1988 to replace Mr. Murray who resigned from the Council in August) met. on December 14, 1988 to consider the remand of this matter. The Council met again on December 22, 1988 at which time it announced that it would hold a public hearing on this matter on January 9, 1989 to receive any new evidence which the Council should consider before ruling on the Hoehls' application. Mr. Cimonetti announced that he would participate in the consideration of this matter and to aid such participation would review the tape recordings of all previous hearings and examine previously submitted 2 documents. The Hoehls did not object to Mr. Cimonetti's participation and Save the View, Inc., did not object provided he listened to the tape recordings of the previous hearings. Mr. Cimonetti did thereafter listen to the tape recordings of all previous hearings with the exception of the hearing held on June 6th for which the tape could not be located. The Council conducted a public hearing on this matter on January 9, 1989 at which all present were given an opportunity to summarize the evidence previously presented in this matter and offer new evidence. The Hoehls were present and offered comments on their own behalf. Save the View, Inc. was represented by Attorney Dumont who offered summary testimony through Mr. T. Boyle, a landscape architect. This hearing provided Mr. Cimonetti an opportunity to further review the evidence and issues presented in the previous proceedings. On January 11, 1989, the Council met at the Hoehl property on Spear Street for the purpose of viewing the improvements on the property. Following this site visit, the Council closed the public hearing on this matter. The Council notes that it requested and received certain documentation regarding the construction of a sewer line extension from the Hoehls during the site visit on January llth. With the exception of the two letters mentioned below, this documentation was not relied upon by 3 the Council in reaching its decision. The Council did rely on a letter from Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. to Ms. Jane Bechtel, dated June 13, 1985 and a letter from Ms. Jane Bechtel to Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn, Inc. dated June 27, 1985 as evidence that the City authorized the extension of a sewer service line across the subject property and other properties subject to the Interim Zoning Regulations. This decision is based upon the evidence submitted at the hearings mentioned above, the Council's observations from the site visit on January 11, 1989, and the Council's consideration of the Chittenden Superior Court's Memorandum and Notice of Decision dated November 23, 1988. It should be noted that in rendering this decision the Council is acting on a specific application which contains detailed plans. At the same time, the Council has carefully considered the effect of the improvements which have been constructed on the property, which improvements were observed by the Council during its site visit on January llth. This decision does not constitute a determination by this Council that the improvements located on the property at this time are in conformance with the Council's previous approval. However, the Council has been provided no evidence that the improvements differ in any way from the previously approved project plans. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Cynthia and Robert Hoehl are the owners of the 4 property which is the subject of this application. 2. The subject property is located on the westerly side of Spear Street, so-called. It has 160 feet of frontage on Spear Street and a depth of approximately 600 feet. 3. The subject property adjoins on its southerly sideline the overlook park owned by the City at the intersection of Spear Street and Deerfield Drive. 4. The subject lot has an elevation of approximately 374 feet above mean sea level on its easterly boundary where it adjoins the Spear Street right of way and approximately 314 feet above mean sea level at its westerly boundary where it adjoins lands presently owned by the University of Vermont and operated as a horticultural farm. 5. By their application to the City Council the Hoehls seek approval to construct a single-family residence on the subject lot. The Hoehls application with supporting plans dated March 28, 1988 and April 5, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Plan A") was filed with the City Zoning Administrator on April 12, 1988. The Hoehls submitted revised plans dated May 26, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Plan B") for their proposed residence to the Council on June 2, 1988. 6. The easterly building line of the proposed residence is approximately 120 feet from the westerly edge of the pavement of Spear Street. The house has an 5 approximate depth of 45 feet so that the westerly building line is approximately 165 feet from the westerly edge of the pavement of Spear Street. 7. The proposed house, not including porches, has a total width of approximately 85 feet. This width is composed of 3 sections: a northerly wing approximately 28 feet in width; a central section approximately 43 feet in width; and southern wing approximately 14 feet in width. 8. The ridge line of the roof over the northern wing is approximately 382 feet above mean sea level; the ridge line of the roof over the central section of the house is approximately 387.9 feet above mean sea level; and the ridge line of the roof over the southerly wing is approximately 376.5 feet above mean sea level. 9. The proposed house contains two chimneys, each of which extends above the ridge line of the central section of the house. 10. The finished grade for the proposed residence on its westerly side is at an elevation of approximately 350 feet above mean sea level on Plan A. The finished grade for the proposed residence on its westerly side is at an elevation of approximately 353.9 feet above mean sea level on Plan B. 11. The proposed structure contains approximately 4,000 square feet of living space located in an improved basement, and a first and second floor. The proposed n structure also contains an attic area located above the ',second floor and a two -car garage. 12. The Council has received no evidence that the improvements constructed on the property differ from the roposed structure described in Findings 7 through 11 above. ` 13. In 1985 the City authorized the construction of a a !sewer service line across the subject property to provide it I , and other properties sanitary sewer service. i 14. At the proposed house site, the Hoehls will be ble to view Shelburne Bay, Lake Champlain and the Adirondack Mountains from any floor of the proposed residence. 15. At a distance of 120 feet west from the westerly edge of the pavement on Spear Street, the roof structure of a single story residence would extend above the view line established by the Interim Zoning Regulations. See Section BB on drawing identified as Exhibit #7. 16. The City of South Burlington owns park land adjoining and immediately south of the Hoehl property. This park site has approximately 301 feet of frontage on Spear Street and extends westerly from Spear Street approximately 266 feet. 17. The Hoehl property fronts on a portion of Spear Street which is frequently used by bikers, joggers and - pedestrians. It is posted as a bike route and is not authorized for general use by through truck traffic. 7 i 18. The Hoehl property is located in a P p y portion of South Burlington which is primarily residential in nature and will likely experience further residential development i jin the future. 19. The Adirondack Mountains, Lake Champlain and portions of Shelburne Bay are visible while standing on the Hoehl property at a point approximately 500 feet westerly of Spear Street. At this point the Hoehl property has an elevation of approximately 330 feet above mean sea level. 20. The residence constructed by the Hoehls blocks views from that portion of Spear Street which lies directly Oast of the Hoehl residence. 21. At the location where the Hoehls have constructed their residence which is ten (10) feet north of the originally proposed location, the residence they have constructed does not interfere with views of the Adirondack Mountains, Lake Champlain and Shelburne Bay from the westerly portion of the City -owned park land. 22. It is not possible for the Hoehls to construct ,their proposed residence anywhere on their property in I conformance with the Interim Zoning Regulations. A residence of comparable size to the one proposed can be C ,constructed on the westerly portion of their property. Such a residence would, however, be readily visible in the immediate foreground from the City -owned park site. 8 23. If allowed to construct their residence in the location they propose, the Hoehls have agreed to maintain the westerly portion of their property in its open and natural condition to preserve the view across the westerly portion of their property. CONCLUSIONS The Interim Zoning Regulations for the protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District establish height limitations for structures and vegetation located in the District. At the location proposed by the Hoehls for the construction of their residence, the standard contained in the Interim Zoning Regulations prohibits construction above an elevation of 372 feet above mean sea level. Since the ridge line of the roof over all three sections of the proposed residence exceeds this elevation, the proposed construction fails to comply with the Interim Zoning Regulations. For this reason this Council must review and approve the proposed construction under the provisions of 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(d) and (e). 1. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(1) requires this Council to consider the effect of the proposed use of "the capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services or lands". The proposed residence will connect to public sewer and water services, both of which are available and contain an adequate capacity. The proposed residence may also 0j result in children being placed in the South Burlington school system which also has adequate capacity. Based on this, the Council concludes that construction of the proposed residence will not have an adverse impact on the capacity of existing or planned community facilities, services or lands. V 2. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(2) requires this Council to consider the proposed use with respect to "the' existing patterns and uses of development in the area". The proposed residence is a single-family structure and is located in a portion of the City developed with and zoned primarily for the construction of single-family residences. Based on this, this Council concludes that the proposed use is consistent with existing patterns and uses of development in the area. , 3. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(3) requires this council to consider the proposed use with respect to "environmental limitations of the site or area and significant natural resource areas and sites". Because -the proposed residence will be served by public water and sewer, this Council concludes that there are no environmental limitations on the site which preclude the development. However, this Council concludes that the proposed development will occur on lands which constitute a portion of a significant natural resource area because they offer spectacular._ panoramic views of the Lake Champlain Valley including Shelburne Bay, Lake 10 Champlain and the Adirondacks. The proposed residence will obstruct the views described above from a portion of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District, namely that portion of the District located directly east of the proposed residence. However, i the Council notes that because the Hoehl property immediately adjoins the City's overlook park, any residence constructed on the subject property will have an impact on the views available from this District. Based on this observation, the Council must determine whether the Hoehls' proposal is appropriate taking into consideration the entire District. If the Hoehls construct a single story residence in the presently proposed location on their lot (120 feet west of Spear Street), its height will obstruct views from a portion I of Spear Street. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the Hoehls construct a single story or multi -story structure at this location since either will obstruct views. The width of the. proposed structure, 85 feet, is slightly over half of the width of the Hoehls' lot. This does allow the preservation of view "windows" on either side of the structure. In addition, the Council is guided in this case by the fact that the width of the Hoehl structure represents only a small portion of the entire width of the district at its base of over 1140 feet. Based on these considerations, and taking into account the additional pal matters discussed below, the Council concludes that the width of the Hoehls' residence is consistent with the requirement that the views in this district be protected. The alternative to constructing a residence in the location proposed by the Hoehls' is to construct one on the westerly portion of the lot. However, any residence constructed in such location will create a significant visual distraction in the immediate foreground visible --------------------- the overlook park. Any such residence will also lie in the Line of view from Spear Street. To summarize, the Council concludes that any residence :onstructed on the westerly portion of the Hoehl lot will significantly detract from the views available from the )verlook park and impact the views available from Spear street. On the other hand, a structure constructed in the location where the Hoehls have constructed their residence will not detract from the views available from the overlook ,park. Indeed, it will enhance such views because it will enable the westerly portion of the- Hoehl property to be maintained in its natural and open condition, thereby maintaining an attractive foreground. Further, placement of the proposed structure on the eastern portion of the lot (will affect the views available from only a small portion of Spear Street. Therefore, considering the need to protect views within the entire district, the Hoehls' proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Interim Zoning 12 Regulations. 4. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(e)(4) requires this Council to consider the proposed use with respect to "municipal plans and other municipal by-laws, ordinances or regulations in effect". The Comprehensive Plan for the City of South Burlington recommends that the City act to preserve public access to views of Lake Champlain and the Adirondacks, with a strong emphasis on City acquisition of scenic turnouts. (Comprehensive Plan, dated 1985 - Aesthetics, History and Cultural Resources Chapter). While the proposed development does restrict views from Spear Street, it protects views from the City -owned Spear Street overlook park. Based on this, this Council concludes that the proposed development complies with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of South Burlington. Zoning regulations in effect for the subject property limit the maximum height of structures to 35 feet. Zoning Regulations Section 18.112(a). This structure initially proposed in this case '(Plan A) exceeds 37 feet in height, measured from the elevation of the finished grade to the elevation of the ridge line of the roof. For this reason this plan fails to conform to the Zoning Regulations of the City of South Burlington and is rejected. The structure proposed by Plan B is within the 35 feet height limitation based on a measurement from the elevation of the finished grade to the ridge line of the roof and for this reason this 13 Council approves construction in accordance with Plan B. 5. 24 V.S.A. Section 4410(d) requires this Council to determine whether the proposed construction is consistent with the "health, safety and welfare of the municipality and the standards contained in subsection e". For the reasons set forth in conclusions 1 through 4 above, this Council has concluded that the proposed development is in conformance with the standards set forth in subsection e. The Council is not aware of, and has not received other information indicating any impacts other than those already discussed on matters of public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, this Council concludes that the proposed project can be constructed consistent with the health, safety and welfare of the City of South Burlington. FA DECISION 1. The request of Cynthia and Robert Hoehl pursuant to 24 V.S.A. Section 4410 to construct a single-family residence on Spear Street, dated April 12, 1988, is approved subject to the conditions and restrictions set forth below: a. The residence shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submitted to the City, dated March 28, 1988 and April 5, 1988 as modified by the plans submitted to the City, dated May 26, 1988. 14 b. The proposed residence shall be relocated to the north on the subject property so that the building setback on the northerly side shall be reduced from 45' to 351. C. The Hoehls shall deliver to the City, as offered, an open space restriction subjecting the westerly portion of the Hoehl property to a requirement that it be maintained in "its existing natural and open state", this document to be reviewed and approved by the City attorney. That portion of the Hoehls' property subject to this open space restriction shall be all lands lying west of a north -south line which line shall commence, in the Hoehls' northerly boundary line at a point 200' west of the northeast corner of the property and proceed in a southerly direction to the point of intersection with the Hoehls' southerly boundary line at a point 150' west of the southeast corner of the property. d. This approval does not authorize any site work or landscaping which fails to comply with the "Interim Zoning Regulations for the Protection of the Spear Street Scenic Overlook District" adopted by this Council on April 4, 1988. 15 e. Any action taken by the Applicants in reliance on this approval before it becomes final shall be at the Applicants' sole risk. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this day of Tu/VC2eerY , 1989. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Paul A. Farrar, Chairman 16