HomeMy WebLinkAboutCU-04-07 - Supplemental - 0099 Central AvenueFebruary 1, 2005
Mr. Ray Belair
Zoning Administrator
City of South Burlington
Dear Mr. Belair:
In my capacity as architect, this letter is to certify that construction currently underway
on the Griffin residence, 99 Central Avenue, South Burlington, conforms with the grade,
bulk, height and roof pitch represented in the zoning permit submittal and subsequently
issued permit and permit conditions.
Sincerely,
-T
Ro i Tones
� legals
PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVEL-
OPMENT REVIEW BOARD
The South Burlington
Development Review Board will
hold a public hearing at the
South Burlington City Hall
Conference Room, 575 Dorset
Street, South Burlington,
Vermont on Tuesday, August 17,
2004, at 7:30 P.M. to consider
the following:
1. Application #CU-04-07 of
Robert & Susan Griffin for condi-
tional use approval under
Section 14.10 of the South
Burlington Land Development
Regulations. Request is for per-
mission to: 1) expand the foot-
print of the dwelling by 540 sq.
ft., 2) increase the height of the
structure to 26.5 ft., 3) replace
concrete staircase to lake with
wood staircase, and 4) remove
trees and other vegetation
between the dwelling and the
lake, 99 Central Avenue.
2. Final plat application #SD-04-
57 of Thomas & Pamela Meaker
to resubdivide two (2) lots
developed with single-family
dwellings. The resubdivision
consists of transferring 7601 sq.
ft. of the lot at 15 Gilbert St. to
21 Gilbert St.
Copies of the applications are
available for public inspection at
the South Burlington City Hatt.
John Dinklage, Chairman
South Burlington Development
Review Board
July 28, 2004
CITY OF SOUTH BURL,INGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
September 14, 2004
Robert & Susan Griffin
99 Central Avenue
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Minutes
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Griffin:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the minutes from the August 17, 2004
Development Review Board meeting.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
q�c
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 AUGUST 2004
Ms. Quimby moved to approve Final Plat Application #SD-04-57 of Thomas & Patricia
Meaker subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Farley seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
5. Sketch plan application #SD-04-52 of Danial & Elspeth Tolan and Veronique
Dobson for a boundary line adjustment (minor subdivision) between 9 Tabor Place
and 165 Holbrook Road:
Ms. Tolan said they want to "pivot" the boundary line between the 2 properties. One
property gains a bit in the front yard and the other gain a bit in their backyard.
Mr. Belair said staff has no issues with the plan.
6. Sketch Plan Application #SD-04-56 of Paul & Linda Effel to subdivide a 0.58 acre
lot developed with a single-family dwelling into two lots:
Ms. Effel said this had been kept as a double lot and they now want to subdivide it and
put another dwelling on the back lot.
Ms. Effel said she had a problem with staff comments. She felt the minimum lot size
should be stated at 9500 feet, not 10,890 as staff said. Mr. Belair explained that 9500 is
the minimum lot size but the applicant would need at least half an acre in order not to
exceed density. In order to avoid this, they would have to apply as a PUD.
Mr. Kupferman asked if they applicant would consider combining driveways to avoid
having 2 curb cuts. Ms. Effel said they would. Mr. Bolton said there could be a problem
with the garage if they did this. Ms. Effel noted it would also require an easement.
7.pplication #CU-04-07 of Robert & Susan Griffin for conditional use approval
under Section 14.10 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
Request is for permission to: 1) expand the footprint of the dwelling by 540 sq. ft., 2)
increase the height of the structure to 26.5 feet, 3) replace concrete staircase to lake
with wood staircase, and 4) remove trees and other vegetation between dwelling and
the lake, 99 Central Avenue:
Mr. Griffin said they were told by the arborist that it was OK to create a narrow view
corridor 12-15 feet wide, running toward the lake. He gave members photos to illustrate
the area. The birch tree that will be removed is leaning out over the lake.
-5-
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
17 AUGUST 2004
The lot has about 60 trees over 6 inches in girth. They would take out "suppressed" trees
(those under the canopy). The canopy won't be changed by what they do.
Mr. Bolton was concerned with setting a precedent. Mr. Griffin noted most of the
neighbors have clear cut their trees.
Mr. Kupferman asked if they are tearing down the house. Mr. Griffin said they will keep
the foundation.
Mr. Belair felt the plan will not adversely affect anyone's views of the lake and that what
is proposed is very minor.
Ms. Quimby moved to approve Application #CU-04-07 of Robert & Susan Griffin
subject to the stipulations in the draft motion. Mr. Bolton seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
8. Sketch plan application #SD-04-54 of Patrick Malone for a planned unit
development for a project consisting of. 1) removing a 3600 sq. ft. section in the
center of the building to create two separate buildings, 2) developing the 358 Dorset
Street building with 8000 sq. ft. of retail space, and 3) developing the 55 San Remo
Drive building with 5200 sq. ft. of indoor recreation use:
Mr. DeWolf said the project goes from Dorset St. back to San Remo Drive.
They are asking for a 4 parking space waiver and feel this is justified because the peaks of
the 2 uses are not the same. This is a 17% reduction request.
There will be a new sidewalk along the face of the building. They will also add
landscaping and update exterior lighting. There will be a new dumpster enclosure.
Ms. Quimby asked about timing for dumpster servicing. She noted there is a lot of noise
at 5 a.m. when dumpsters are emptied. Mr. Belair said that since this is adjacent to a
residential neighborhood, there are noise performance standards that must be met. Mr.
DeWolf said they will address that.
A third handicapped parking space will be added.
"I
•� � W ,fir • , ##"' j�`y��a�,. ';,�. "�"r' f
'� A jyg►t
qw
a • r apt"�`
V /
Il
o
LL
U)
W
0
^.'�'�i its s7� � "���' a « �e .t t1L . �~ L '..� •
LLI
1 r LU
co
1 I ra `� W J
ra * 3 U) J
W =
CO I"
; apt 'j 1�
LU
Ir
'S.• �'� 1�•+M� w. n �.' r • CO
Lli
., AD O > --'
Lu
1) 0i 00
x
I
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
August 23, 2004
Robert & Susan Griffin
99 Central Avenue
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: Conditional Use Application #CU-04-07
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Griffin:
Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision of the above
referenced project approved by the South Burlington Development Review Board
on 8/17/04 (effective 8/20/04). Please note the conditions of approval, including
that the applicant shall obtain a zoning permit within six (6) months of this
approval or this approval is null and void.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Betsy Mcbonough, Add- iniltrative Assistant
Encl.
Certified Mail- Return Receipt Requested - #7003 2260 0002 8773 4179
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURUNGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
August 13, 2004
Robert & Susan Griffin
99 Central Avenue
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: 99 Central Avenue
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Griffin:
Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting
and staff comments to the Board. Please be sure that someone is at the meeting
on Tuesday, August 17, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Conference Room,
575 Dorset Street.
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
&Gq wee"', [(.)
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
CITY OF SOUTH BURL,INGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONE4G
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
July 29, 2004
Gary & Irene Bourne
414 W. Grove Street
Middleboro, MA 02346
Dear Property Owner:
Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an
application for development on property located near your property. This is being
sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the
proposed development.
If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call
this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing.
Sincerely,
�Cl
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
CITY OF SOUTH BIJRLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
July 29, 2004
John Stephen & Elizabeth Caflisch
8116 Kerry Lane
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Dear Property Owner:
Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an
application for development on property located near your property. This is being
sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the
proposed development.
If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call
this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing.
Sincerely,
-&�--q 1
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNE"4G & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101
July 29, 2004
Candice J. Parker
1724 Kenyon Road
Richmond, VT 05477
Dear Property Owner:
Enclosed is a copy of a public notice published in Seven Days. It includes an
application for development on property located near your property. This is being
sent to you to make you aware that a public hearing is being held regarding the
proposed development.
If you would like to know more about the proposed development, you may call
this office at 846-4106 or attend the schedule public hearing.
Sincerely,
`�*
1
Betsy McDonough
Administrative Assistant
Encl.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
Report preparation date: August 4, 2004
\drb\misc\griffin\conditional_use.doc
Application received: July 22, 2004
CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION #CU-04-07
99 CENTRAL AVENUE
Agenda # 7 Meeting Date: August 17,2004
Owners/Applicants
Robert and Susan Griffin
4 Moss Glen Lane
S. Burlington, VT 05403
Engineer
Property Information
Civil Engineering Associates, Inc.
Tax Parcel 0330-00099-R
PO Box 485
Queen City Park (QCP) Zoning District
Shelburne, VT 05482
Robert and Susan Griffin, hereafter referred to as the applicants, are requesting
conditional use approval under Section 14.10, Conditional Use Review, of the South
Burlington Land Development Regulations. Request is for permission to: 1) expand the
footprint of the existing single family dwelling by 540 sq ft, 2) increase the height of the
structure to 26.5 ft., 3) replace concrete staircase to lake with wood staircase, and 4)
remove trees and other vegetation between the dwelling and the lake, 99 Central
Avenue. The subject property is located in the Queen City Park Zoning District. In
addition, the subject property falls within 150' of the high water elevation of Lake
Champlain, so the proposed project shall comply with the Surface Water Buffer
Standards outlined in Section 12.01(C) of the Land Development Regulations.
Associate Planner Brian Robertson and Administrative Officer Ray Belair, referred to
herein as Staff, have reviewed the plans submitted on July 22, 2004 and have the
following comments.
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 to the existing single-family dwelling is in keeping with the
planned character of the area as identified in 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 4.08(A) of the Land Development Regulations, the QCP Zoning
District is formed to encourage residential uses at densities and setbacks that are
compatible with the existing character of the QCP neighborhood. It is designed to
promote smaller lots, and reduced setbacks.
Staff feels that the proposed addition to the existing single-family dwelling is keeping in
with the purpose of the QCP Zoning District.
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.
Staff believes that the proposed structure 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.
Staff believes that the proposed structure is in keeping with the character of surrounding
properties and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the ability to develop
adjacent properties.
(c) Traffic on roads and highways in the vicinity.
The proposed structure will not affect traffic in the vicinity.
(d) Bylaws in effect.
The proposed structure is in keeping with applicable regulations.
(e) Utilization of renewable energy resources.
The proposed structure will not affect renewable energy resources.
(0 General public health and welfare.
Staff does not believe that the proposed structure will have an adverse affect on general
public welfare.
Pursuant to Section 3.13(F) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
2
I
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.
Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed
project.
2. Warning systems, fire controls, and other safeguards.
Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed
project.
3. Provision for continuous monitoring and reporting.
Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed
project.
4. Other restrictions as may be necessary to protect public health and safety.
Staff does not feel it is necessary to impose any of these conditions to the proposed
project.
Pursuant to Section 4.08(F) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
The applicant is proposing to increase the height of the existing dwelling unit to 26.5'
above average pre -construction grade. The standard allowable height in the QCP
Zoning District is 25', thus the applicant is seeking approval for an additional 1.5' above
average pre -construction grade. The maximum height of a structure may be increased to
thirty-five (35) feet if approved by the Development Review Board subject to the
provisions of Article 14, Conditional Use Review. In addition, the Development Review
Board shall determine that the proposed increase in height will not affect adversely:
(a) Views of adjoining and/or nearby properties;
The subject property is located on the Lake Champlain side of Central Avenue, which is
a visually sensitive area in the Queen City Park area. However, the property directly
across the street from the subject property is currently vacant, so direct views to the
Lake will not be impacted. It does not appear that the property directly across the street
can be developed, due to development constraints, such as grade and water. The only
view that the additional height may impact would be the dwelling units to the southeast
of the subject property. However, it is staff's opinion that these views will not be
significantly impacted by the additional 1.5' in height the applicant is requesting.
(b) Access to sunlight of adjoining and/or nearby properties; and
The additional 1.5' to the height of the building will not interfere with the access of
sunlight to adjoining or nearby properties.
3
(c) Adequate on -site parking.
The additional 1.5' to the height of the building will not impact on -site parking for the site.
Pursuant to Section 12.01(D) of the Land Development Regulations the proposed
conditional use shall meet the following standards:
(a) The structure to be expanded or reconstructed was originally constructed on
or before April 24, 2000. For purposes of these Regulations, expansion may
include the construction of detached accessory structures including garages and
utility sheds.
The existing single-family dwelling on the subject property was in existence prior to April
24, 2000.
(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 addition will not extend any closer to the applicable high water elevation
than the closest point of the existing structure. The closest point of the existing structure
is 82' from the high water elevation, and the closest point of the proposed addition is 85'
from the high water elevation.
(c) The total building footprint area of the expanded or reconstructed structure
shall not be more than fifty percent (50%) larger than the footprint of the structure
lawfully existing on April 24, 2000. For purposes of these regulations,
reconstruction may include razing the existing structure and/or foundation and
constructing a new structure in accordance with the provisions of the underlying
zoning district regulations and this section.
The existing structure is 1,385 square feet. The proposed addition is 540 square feet,
which is 39% 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.
An erosion control plans and an erosion control details were submitted by the applicant.
These plans and details were prepared by Civil Engineering Associates, and are on
sheets C2 and C3 of the plans.
(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.
Landscaping is a major issue with the proposed project. The applicant is proposing to
remove existing vegetation on the property, within 150' of the high water elevation of
4
Lake Champlain. The applicant submitted a letter to the Development Review Board
that explains the proposed project and provides an explanation to the proposed
landscaping plan (attached). The landscaping plan, prepared by Michael Lawrence
Associates, indicates the location, species, and number of trees to be removes as a part
if the proposed project. Additional plans prepared by the applicant show the "before"
and "after" effect of the proposed tree removal (attached). Some of the reasons cited for
tree removal are suppression, disease, death, and risk of disturbance during the
construction of the proposed addition. Staff feels that the removal of some vegetation is
justified on the subject property, but needs a more detailed landscaping plan to
determine an acceptable level of vegetation removal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Development Review Board approve Conditional Use
application #CU-04-07 as submitted.
Res
ministrative
Copy to: Jeff Rand, applicant
5
eal't p
;'Te
YX
Ow'Y-
J'd 711
l
0 va
pip v AMR
A�A
3.
4 4A.
(Xj
A -LA 91f pf 4 ft&)PIP
'N L
PNL
1" 00
1.211 "� w tu—I'S
AV,
�k rRF'
,vt 7
-5"RA Lill"
MQ
23
�27 6) 27
(3
( 3
a- 34
36
(37.8) L
LL4 A
IF7'
0
xisting
ouse
9
Ex EU0 ymus
Ground over Lawn
5L Pale
No Text
Summary of actions re: Trees on property & planting
Number Kept % Kept
Trees > 6' 66 58 88%
Plus the ones not kept are in accordance with rules
Sector A: Southwest corner on lake
Number Kept % Kent
Trees > 6' 27 27 100%
Trees < 6' 8 0 0% All of these trees are suppressed
Dead Trees 2 2 0%
Plant: Plant 10 daylilies per year after until total = 50
Sector B: Center lake region below terrace
Number KeDt % Kept
Trees > 8" 11 10 91 % Not kept, red pine w/disease
Trees < 8" 8 0 0% All of these trees are suppressed
Dead Trees 0 0 0%
Plant: Plant 10 daylilies per year after until total = 50
Sector C: Proposed View Corridor
Removing 4 trees -
Birch: 10" Birch growing towards lake & light at severe angle, ready to fall
Will tear out bank when it does fall & currently supressing next 3 trees
Pine: 5 inch - suppressed by birch
Elms: Two 5-inch elms two feet apart, suppressed by birch
Replant: Mixture of day lilies (20) and shrubs (5 dogwood/viburnum/rhododendron)
Sector D: North Property Line
Number Kept % Kept
Trees > 6" 15 15 100% Not kept, red pine w/disease
Sector E: Left of staircase above terrace:
Number Kept % Kept
Trees > 6" 5 5 10010/0
Dead Trees 0 0 0%
Remove small red oaks 1.5-3" to release largest tree in group (5")
Plant: 5 hostas per year for 10 years to improve erosion control
Sector F: Steep bank wlsumiight
Plant with daylilies &: other perennials. Clear out invasive species.
This area substantially clear of any trees except several seedlings
in middle of bushes. One 3-4" towards north property line.
Sector G: Around House
Construction will necessitate taking down all trees within 12-15 feet on
west and south side of property where costruction vehicles compress soil.
Also due to safety reasons. Removing tree in front growing into utiliEity lines.
Number Kept % Kept
Trees > 6" 8 1 13%
Planting/Other: Build a low stone wall at edge of bank, plant low
growing junipers on other side of wall to hold bank in place.
Plant flowering crab in front that won't grow into utility lines.
CITY OF SOUTH BUI3LINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
(802) 846-4106
FAX (802) 846-4101_
Permit Number—b�-F/—
APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD
All information requested on this application must be completed in full. Failure to provide the requested information either
on this application form or on the site plan will result in your application being rejected and a delay in the review before the
Development Review Board.
I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). Also
that hearings are held twice a month. That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the
hearing. I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to off -set the cost of hearing.
Type of application check one:
( ) Appeal from decision of Administrator Officer (includes appeals from Notice of Violation)
( Request. for a conditional use
( ) Request for a variance
( ) Other
OF RECORD Q jame as shown on deed, mailing_kddress, phone and fax #)
V7 KLb
2) LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED (Book and page 3)
3)^APPLICANT (N rne, mailing address�pho%,and fax #) w _ ^
4) CONTACT PERSON (Name, mailing address,phonk and fax #) �6a v
5) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:
6) TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) �K e)
7) PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a) Existing Uses on Property (including description d size of each separate use)
b) Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain)
c) Total building square lbotajge on prope4 (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain)
d) Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement
e) Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing units to remain)_*&
f) Number of employees & company vehicles (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees)
g) Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above,
please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): S� aAy�
8) LOT COVERAGE
a) Building: Existing `' . % Proposed .
b) Overall (building, parking, outside storage, etc)
Existing ' • , % Proposed 12 , / %
c) Front yard (along each street) Existing _% Proposed %
(does not apply to residential uses)
9
N
9) COST ESTIMATES
a) Building (including interior renovations): $ ,U<56 46
b) Landscaping: $ �� �a r � w 11 (, I �%oe-,, � cry f,� . �.� d ��"�(Z
c) Other site improvements (please list with cost): _ `� �� r ► �� '��S""
10) ESTIMATED TRAFFIC
a) Average daily traffic for entire property (in and out):
b) A.M. Peak hour for entire property (in and out):
c) P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out):
11) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION:
12) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION:
13) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE:
14) LIST ABUTTERS ( List names and addresses of all abutting property owners on a separate sheet
of paper).
I hereby certify that all the information requested as part of this application has been submitted and is
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER
Do not write below this line
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
REVIEW AUTHORITY: TA<velopment Review Board ❑ Director, Planning & Zoning
I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be:
2Complete ❑ Incomplete
lete
Vatef
i orof Planning & Zoning or Designee
91zJl� y
A
EXHIBIT A
SITE PLAN
The following information must be shown on the plans. Please submit five (5) copies and one reduced
copy (I I" x 17") of the plan. Failure to provide the following information will result in your application
being rejected and a delay in the review before the Development Review Board.
o Lot drawn to scale (20 feet scale if possible).
o Survey data (distance and acreage).
o Contours (existing and finished).
o Proposed landscaping schedule (number, variety, and size) as required in Section 13.06(G) of the
Land Development Regulations.
o Location of streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings, existing landscaping.
o Existing and proposed curb cuts, pavement, walkways.
o Zoning boundaries.
o Number and location of parking spaces (as required under Section 13.01(b) of the Land
Development Regulations).
o Number and location of handicapped spaces (as required under Section 13.01(I) of the Land
Development Regulations).
o Location of septic tanks (if applicable).
o Location of any easements.
o Lot coverage information: Building footprint, total lot, and front yard.
o North arrow.
o Name of person or firm preparing site plan and date.
o Exterior lighting details (cut sheets). All lights should be down casting and shielded.
o Dumpster locations (dumpsters must be screened).
o Bicycle rack as required under Section 13.01(G)(5) of the Land Development Regulations.
o If restaurant is proposed, provide number of seats and square footage of floor area provided for
patron use but not containing fixed seats.
APPLICATION FEE
❑ Appeal of Administrative Officer $ 110.00*
❑ Conditional Use $ 135.00*
❑ Miscellaneous $ 85.00*
❑ Variance $ 135.00*
*includes $10.00 recording fee
Application of Robert and Susan Griffin
Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to renovate an existing property at 99 Central Avenue.
The project consists of additions to the east and south of the existing structure. The total footprint square
footage added per the attached plans is 540 sq. ft., which equals a net addition to the existing footprint of
39%.
All additions conform to the setback requirements of the applicable regulations. No additions extend closer
to Lake Champlain.
Applicants request approval to exceed the 25 ft. height limit from the average pre-existing grade by 1.5
feet. This additional height will allow slightly steeper pitch of the new roof structure, which improves the
aesthetics of the residence and is more in keeping with the neighborhood.
To: City of S. BurlingtonRce fd
From: Bob & Sue Griffin
Re: Approval of Plans for 99 Central Avenue
..s, Fri,.:,
Susan and I have made our home in S. Burlington for the past 15 years, and grew up in
Chittenden County. Our eldest son has graduated from S. Burlington High School and
we have another son currently in the high school. We've enjoyed bath the educational
and civic opportunities afforded by this city, and appreciate being part of such a
community. The property which we just purchased really fulfills a long-term desire to
live on or near the water. It has a wonderful stand of pines that we wish to maintain. We
are submitting plans for a home with approximately 2,000 square feet above grade,
substantially less than the largest home on the strtcet. While we have no neighbors across
the street from us and are creating no obstructions for any of our new neighbors, we also
don't want to change the character of the neighborhood. Our home will fit in with the
homes adjacent to us, most of which have multiple gables.
The gables result in a roof height in excess of 25 feet, but well below the 35 foot
maximum under allowable standards. Given that we have no neighbors across the street
and that we are in no way obstructing anyone's view or opportunity to enjoy their
p opmy, and that the Board has previously granted our neighbors similar authorization to
build above the 25 foot limits, we ask for the same consideration in this case. Unlike my
neighbor's lakeside houses, my house won't be visible from the lake because of the
numerous tree cover and the height of the trees (70-90 feet in many cases).
As you know, the community standards for this area protect trees, and with good- reason.
Nearly all of my neighbors live on properties where the trees have been clear-cut or have
never been allowed to grow. In any case, most of those properties may have only 2 or 3
trees in total, so we agree it was a good idea for the community to try and preserve or add
to that total. My property on the other hand is unique for the neighborhood in that on my
tiny parcel (A acres), I have more than 100 trees. It is hard to conceive that 100 trees
could occupy such a small area, and as you would suspect, a number of trees in such
habitat are either infected from the close quarters or suppressed by larger trees. There are
so marry trees on my parcel that I could not attempt to count them all, but the landscape
plan we've developed identifies most of them. I do propose removing some trees below,
but believe my requests, while not adding to an already overstocked tree farm, are
consistent with maintaining the property. Maintaining or adding in the case of my lot
reverts to an emphasis on maintaining, and most of you who deal with perennial gardens
and other organic situations understand that you have to thin things out sometimes to
allow the stronger plants to thrive. It is no different with the trees on my property
I also respectfully submit that the community is less worried about my potential removal
of a few trees from the 100+ trees on my plot than it would be were someone to cut dawn
A of their 2 or 3 trees. In fact, what I suggest below is geared towards not being
noticeable by the community at all. The truth of the matter is that the interior of my
property is not visible to my neighbors due to the number of trees along the perimeter of
the property.
I identify the following requests in the order most important to us from the standpoint of
enjoying our property. We've limited the list below to what we believe protects the
property way beyond the neighborhood standard (instead of 50 times the number of trees
that others have we might end up with 40 times the number of trees that other properties
have). We would have requested more, but our meetings with both the arborist in S
Burlington and Warren Spinner, whom we hired to develop a plan that would meet
stringent standards were contacted and we've amended our plans to comply with these
experts' recommendations. The following are listed in order of importance to us.
1. We wish to secure one narrow western view corridor so the house has some
modest view of the lake. The corridor has been identified by an arborist, Warren
Spinner, as having minimal impact on the property's natural state, It would
require removing a birch and 2 or 3 other trees on the property. The birch is
growing at a severe angle and will when it falls, rip out the soil in the area that it
is in. It is harmful to the long-term erosion control on the property. Another of the
trees is suppressed right beneath it. The corridor would only be about 12 or 15
wide and I would keep it clear prospectively to maintain that one view. For
comparisons, we have 116 feet of lakefront so this opens up about 13% of the
West facing property to a view and leaves the ogler 87'/e of the property
unchanged. The percentage opened up is really overstated since other trees will
try and fill in the breach cutting down on the view. We would plan to plant
dogwoods, viburnems or lilac as both a screen and erosion control in the spots
where the birch and the 2 or 3 trees are removed. Please recognize that I'm not
creating a big view of my house from the take. My house will still be
camouflaged by the trees even from that sliver of the lake that corresponds with
my view corridor. However, the rest of the neighborhood will be readily visible
fiorn the lake as everyone else has removed nearly all of their trees,
2. We plan to remove the trees within 15 feet around the back of the house. Most of
these trees are already damaged , construction (our foundation is compromised)
will harm the root systems further and they pose a significant threat to the safety
of people in the house. A couple of birches with storm damage are included, a
pine that is ridden with weevil infestation, a couple of pines that appear ok but
won't tolerate the construction are also included There is also a tree on the
northwest corner within a few feet of the house that will be impacted as we create
a patio area behind the property. I think that removal on account of construction
is accepted and acknowledged by the community standards. We also plan a small
wall to stabilize where we take down any trees, though our engineer believes the
bank to be stable as is.
3. We would like to trim and remove several smaller trees on the south border of the
property. We could obtain a narrow view corridor here across a neighbor's yard
that has no trees to speak of. will,
are small and suppressed.. ,T.he removal of
a1' proxunate y 4 trees here will allow the remaining bees to thrive. he canopy
will rise so the lower branches can be removed providing a somewhat obstructed
view of the lake to the southwest.
The following are less important to us. We suggest them as the right thing to do for the
appearance and health of the property, but keeping things as is will not prevent our
enjoyment of our property. We ask that you consider these requests as what we'd like to
do with our property, but leave it to however you'd like us to preserve this part (most) of
the property.
4. There are a number of suppressed trees and invasive species on the property. I
would suggest that where suppressed trees are growing within a 1 foot of a larger
tree that the larger trees on the property would benefit by removing the adjacent
smaller trees. The numbers involved have been identified on our landscape plan.
I think the property could end up with some magnificent trees if we take care of it.
I don't think anyone will disagree with removing invasive species. If we leave a
number of suppressed trees to flounder without sun under a canopy, everything
suffers. This message was received from the arborists I spoke with and it made a
lot of sense to me. White it won't help me obtain any lake view, I would like to
maximize the beauty of the existing stand of trees and enjoy them.
5. There is a large tree in the front yard which we'd like to replace with a crab tree
or something small in scale. The large tree is growing up directly under the
electric wires and we think it is a bad idea to leave it here. Front yards in this
neighborhood are often 5 to 15 feet deep like our property so a garden and crab
tree in the front would mix well with other gardens along the west side of the
street.
b, There are some whips along the south of the property line between my house and
my neighbors. These are seedlings (various) that have taken hold and are
resulting in a hedge of trees that is not ideal as a hedge. I would replace them with
lilacs. They are not near the lake. There is one substantial tree maybe 3" here that
I would leave consistent with the desire to maintain trees.
Well, that's it. I'm trying to be reasonable here and I hope it shows. I like the trees
and I'm trying to be a good caretaker. I've liked living in the community and I hope
my neighbors welcome us. Thank you for your consideration.
1
EAST ELEVATION
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
WEST ELEVATION
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
NORTH ELEVATION
143 •
SOUTH ELEVATION
RECEIVED
JUL 27
City of So. Burlington
I
NOTES
1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all
utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises.
EWStIng ubfly locations are appro lmate only. The Contractor G. & 1. BOURNE
shall lfefd verily all LWW corWicts. All discrepancies shaff be
reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shelf contact Dip
Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction.
2. E/evst/ons we based on the level of Lake Champlain measured
of the King Street Ferry Dock on December 23, 2003.
(Elevation 98.55)
3. This plan In not a boundary survey and Is not Intended to
be used as one. Property !Ines am based upon a plan entitled
" Plan of Southern Section of Queen City Perk - South Burlington, W.
prepared by Hoeg, Stone and Associates dated October 23, 1946.
4. This property Iles In the OueenCiy Park Zoning District.
I I
I
II
I mlllilo�ol d' 11I IIIIIIIY I II �//I// �� YV~-Y YYY
T
r if lidl,, I I II'iIII' it ;llil /
_-
LAKE r / Il'I'llI I i i I' ill I/, ;I'lll'lllllllill l '
i /rW l;+I I i;; I i li . IIlil'I 11,
CHAMPLAIN I' l i l l l l l l II III I 4,
l I/ I I j
1/ l l l Ir 1 1 I I tlX. IS b1F(PS (� .)� If
,� I I I,N��I°!' II I
/ r! 1! 1! ! I I I I I I I I I I Ffr_•/' '! I' i/ l j / I I
I
r If If
f I !+ I I 1 / E)d RETAIWNG fWAfLL 12! 404E,1
l2' IBIkyH
! / / I f / r I r I ; I(I I \
o l f / l/ I l / If
�. 4EVI}I�ITRL{ST
/l
/ I-
1I
/ I I +I l I!/ ' I I I I I I I I' I I •I I! �� �' //, 1I I I' 11 I
// / l�//1 /�// /'l /l I I! l /! I I j _ �i, �✓ /18"
�INE//
Aj
LAKESHORE
303
ELEVATION 98.5' / / / //'� ' //
It
I! I ! If I If 1I! // // / / // // 47/ r ! 1/ / / / / /�?-/'7�/�
11117/l f IE G^ ff I Bi i If
l l l/ 1 / �/ l 1' i l 1( if If l/ i/--
lIli 8" CRAB I+ l Il iII ` If / l
I I III I I I I l l 1 I !/ I
�iili�iii I i/ it rl 1'
l ifI, I` I EXIST. GARS
FFE = 136
11 i III I\ III/ / r! rl l ! i l i S� E. CAFLISPH
I;
EXISTING HOUSE
l f
Ill 1 I FFE = 136.8'
I 1 1 I I I r I / I EX FIRE PYT l i 1 1 /
XI R6TAI' ' WALL i I ! I I jj I,. I. 1 �! r II�" CRAB
TAMARAFK
/
PINE /
7STING HOUSE
FFE = 145.0'
1ST FLOOR
1
�(20"
PINE \\
I I \ I
iB f1NE I I \ \
15 \PINE \\
\ \ I 7J BOLE 20"! OAK
p
\� 15" PMIE \ I r
\ 11
18" PINE_ 1 1 1 7
J �t �11 J
I AO" 0
IGE 1 �
1
1
7 El\ \
Y Y -Y
r- -
If-LOCUSr
� r /
EX WOOL) FENCE 1
u /
`6"TAMARACK '
EX PLAN#NC5
EX. SiONEI WALK
I
H
I
1 I
iI
I
I I hl
1 1
1
J '
1 a s-- --
O
II I
/
�Il
I
RECEIVED
JUL 2 2 iZdi
City of So, Burlington
LEGEND
- z3e -
- EXISTING CONTOUR
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
—
SETBACK LINE
O
IRON PIN
O
CONIC. MON.
-- �---OE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
— —UE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
®
SEWER MANHOLE
e
SHUT-OFF
POWER POLE
n
MAILBOX
DEGDUOUS TREE
CONIFEROUS TREE
EDGE OF WOODS/BRUSH
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
IST FLOOR WOOD THRESH /450'
CL OF GARAGE ON CONC. 142 C
LOWER WALKOUT WOOD THRESH 1376
C" PARKER
I'I
I,
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN rcrr
e L i-h-10 ft.
SITE ENGINEER:
f
IF
CIVIL ENGINEEIIING A66MATES ING
PO BOX 455 SHELBURNE, Vr 06N7
amw�Oza rise aawwun w .+rw.00eaam
CJG
ORebm
JLM
ursoa0
JLM
APPLICANT:
ROBERT & SUSAN
GRIFFIN
OWNER:
CHARLES S. LEWIS
& HERB CORN94L
PROTECT: EMSTING
CONDITIONS
SITE PLAN
99 CENTRAL AVE.
SOUTH BURUNGTON
VERMONT
OAK LEDGE
RED R=
POWT
LAKE
CHMPLAIN
PROJECT
LOCATION
LOCATION MAP
can ceAcm ssnms
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
SITE PLAN
nAR I MAW= MMM
JUNE, 2004
10' C 1
PW NO
04171
NOTES
1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all
uHiities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises
Existing udl8y locations are approximate only. The contractor G. & 1. BOURNE
shalt 8e/d vent, all utility confilota. All dlscrepanoles shelf be
reported to the Engineer. The Contractor $half contact Dig
Safe (88"44-7233) prior to any con$tructlon.
2. Elevations are th based on e Amer of Lake Chsmphdr, measured
th at e King Street Ferry Dock on December 23, 2003.
(Elevation 98.55')
3. This plan is not a boundary suiey and Is not Intended to
be used as one. Property lines arm based upon a plan entitled
Plan of Souttram Section of Queen City Park • South Burlington, 14."
prepared by Hoag, Stone and A Associates dated October 23, 1948. I
4. This property fifes In the QuarmCity Park Zoning District III I I I
II II �i�lllllil'I 1\I\
I loi;lo�olol�l!.i i1il
`p8 �i�ol�i�jd=r!ill II� II�IIY
LAKESHORE
12/23/03 -
ELEVATION 98.5'
r �
-
girM'
TAM
rl i l �/�iiliilii l i i i' I l i� ills I'. I;lil�il�i�il I ��
LAK
E
j Sri r'f �!i I iit li I 'I I� II+ 1 '"
LAK /' '! / I/II It
CHAMPLAIN i' lilil' liiilil iIII IIII'IIj1\ ,
I l l ljlll� I lj / II I I I 4'PINE !
1 / l I' I
/i iill'iiilil Ii ifi i�lXliilrl'l'
I I 1 I1
RETAINING; WALL I l�OEIE,12" IBII kDH
I I11 \
1'ilit�li�`Ilil`ilo°`'lii'rif Till i � I ill I ii; �1
�. 4EV1«`I� 71F�L(9T I
II I lull II
It ' I + 1, 1 I I I�+
!' l�l l j!// 'ri I I I
/78" PINE
/
/�
SILT PENC�
/7�/,
l tL/ T/ 1
0
SILT FENCE (TYP)
1 14�2ocusr,��
,e
////,
��
JSTING HOUSE' 1 -I
FIFE = 145.0' EX. WOW FENCj
1ST FLOOR B' TAMARAI
OOD THRESH.
j PR
, A DJ
EX. PLAN#NGS
\ I
\
.D
15,\PINE \
\
\
7/ BOLE
PINE \I \I
I r
<
Ill! 111 E4 GAB¢N'
18, PINr_
C
OA
E.
.��
!II/IIOH�It
�' • /
I EX. FIRE PIT
/r
CRAB
ALL DISTURBEDARB
SEE SHEET C3 FOR
I APPLICCATION RATES
/ (v
/ Q
/
1
I
EX. STONEI WALK
N
1 I
\ i I
CU
? '(OAKS I I
!I
143
}
43 1743 86
1/2 IP
. PARKER
LEGEND
- -----3sc--
EXISTING CONTOUR
-- — — —
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
—
SETBACK LINE
O
IRON PIN
m
CONC. MON.
OE
OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
— UE
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
m
SEWER MANHOLE
a
SHUT-OFF
•n,
POWER POLE
—
MAILBOX
U
0 G
DECIDUOUS TREE
.t
CONIFEROUS TREE
rvvrwvvw�
EDGE OF WOODS/BRUSH
BUILDING ELEVATIONS
1ST FLOOR WOOD THRESH 145 a'
CL OF GARAGE ON CONC 142 It
LOWER WALKOUT WOOD THRESH 1376
SCAL>;
,
( IN r'at )
1 Inch . 19 tL
C
SITE ENGINEER:
C �
CIVIL ENGINEEgNG AiibCLAIM INC
P O BOX.A5 SHELSURNE, K 90tI,t
eve 9169Y3 Aar .mxsn7r IwR wwr.Tsawo
mum
CJG
cscom
JLM
0"0w
JLM
APPLICANT:
ROBERT & SUSAN
GRIFFIN
OWNER:
CHARLES S. LEWIS
& HERB CORNE44
PROJECT:
EXISTING
CONDITIONS,
SITE PLAN
99 CENTR& AW
SOUTH 9URUNIQTON'
VERMOtfr
�Wilmr.nn—M1510
LAKE
CHAMPWN
LOCATION MAP
r . a99
1 — 1 Dams 1 atqumr 1
EROSION
CONTROL
PLAN
n as auaam numm
JUNE, 2004
11. V 2
11101. NO.
04171