Appeal of Carl James Anderson (Decision and Order)

CourtVermont Superior Court
DecidedMay 2, 2003
Docket219-10-02 Vtec
StatusPublished

This text of Appeal of Carl James Anderson (Decision and Order) (Appeal of Carl James Anderson (Decision and Order)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Vermont Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Appeal of Carl James Anderson (Decision and Order), (Vt. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

STATE OF VERMONT

ENVIRONMENTAL COURT

Appeal of Carl James Anderson } } } Docket No. 219-10-02 Vtec } }

Decision and Order

Appellant Carl James (A Jim@ ) Anderson appealed from a decision of the Development Review Board (DRB) of the City of Burlington approving an application for approval of a 40-unit residential apartment building at 300 Lake Street in the City of Burlington. Appellant appeared and represented himself; Appellee-Applicants Burlington Community Land Trust and Housing Vermont are represented by Richard C. Whittlesey, Esq.; the City of Burlington is represented by Kimberley J. Sturtevant, Esq. An evidentiary hearing was held in this matter before Merideth Wright, Environmental Judge. The parties were given the opportunity to submit written requests for findings and memoranda of law. Upon consideration of the evidence and the written memoranda and proposed findings, the Court finds and concludes as follows. All section references are to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Burlington, unless otherwise noted.

Appellee-Applicants propose to construct a 40-unit apartment building on the lower portion of a vacant 1.65-acre roughly triangular lot bordered by Depot Street to the southeast, the railroad tracks to the west, and land of Burlington College to the north. The property is located in the Waterfront Residential Medium Density zoning district, in which multi-family apartment housing is a permitted residential use. From the building site the land slopes steeply upwards to the north, to a plateau at the elevation of North Avenue at the Burlington College buildings. From the building site the land also slopes steeply upwards to the east, across Depot Street and continuing upwards to the building sites on the west side of North Avenue. Depot Street slants diagonally down from North Avenue to Lake Street along the southeasterly boundary of the site. Depot Street is at present restricted in use due to the instability of the slope and the potential for subsidence. It is not a through-way and is basically only used for emergency access. Appellant lives in a building at the top of the slope which could potentially be affected by such subsidence.

In connection with this project, Appellee-Applicants propose to stabilize the slope by site engineering methods involving the reshaping and regrading of the bank to the east of the building site and insertion of a geo-grid. Trees will only be removed where necessary to improve the slope of the land; that is, to flatten or reduce the degree of slope. Except where necessary to stabilize the slope, or to remove dead trees, the grove of cottonwood trees existing to the east and southeast of the proposed building site will be preserved. After regrading, the slope will be replanted with 610 staghorn sumacs, whose root systems will further help to stabilize the slope, and jute matting will be placed to stabilize the slope as the vegetation regrows. Because the property had been in industrial use in the past, topsoil on the disturbed areas of the property will be stripped and tested for contamination. Soils that test clean will be reused on the site; those that are contaminated will be disposed of properly.

Appellee-Applicants propose to construct a four-story L-shaped residential building on the lot, to provide forty housing units, of which 34 are proposed as so-called > affordable= units, that is, affordable for those with less than 80% of the area= s median income, so that the project qualifies under Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Inclusionary Housing. There will be eighteen two-bedroom units, with the remainder being one- and three-bedroom units. The project is intended to provide affordable, safe, decent housing for families.

The building is located at the foot of an existing hill, and is designed so that it will not interrupt the ridgeline above, that is, it will not interrupt the view of the City= s skyline from areas near the lake looking towards the east, and will not interrupt the view of the lake from buildings or public areas at the top of the slope looking towards the west. The building itself is well-designed visually to bridge the differences in building mass and materials from the large industrial Moran plant up to the residential and institutional buildings such as the Commodore condominiums, the Burlington Police Department building, and the Burlington College buildings along North Avenue. The building is designed so that the units either have decks or patios, or have large sliding windows with railings, to give access or the sense of access to the outdoors and to break up the scale of the building facades. The materials proposed for the building are brick, fiber- cement clapboard, and vertical metal siding, to relate the building to the industrial waterfront setting but to give it a more comfortable residential scale. For the same reason, the mass of the building is interrupted by the use of the vertical metal siding on the fourth floor, and brick at the base, to avoid a monolithic look. The roof overhang provides shading in the summer, and also casts a shadow line that further adds to the design sense of the building as residential in scale. The parking garage under the building has been designed to be open to view from outside, to enhance the safety of the garage space. The L-shape of the building provides an open triangular courtyard of space between the building, the parking area, and the railroad tracks, suitable for gardening or play area, and capable of providing a clear turnaround space for emergency vehicles.

Access to the building is via an extension of Lake Street, which narrows between two trees to enter the parking lot for the building. The improvements to Lake Street and to the stormwater collection system for Lake Street are proposed to be completed on a schedule to tie in to the parking lot and access for the building, and the stormwater system for the building and its surroundings.

The proposed apartment building must comply with the City= s Zoning Ordinance, and in particular Article 5 (Use and Dimensional Requirements), Article 6 (Design Review), Article 7 (Site Plan Review, which allows the substitution of appropriate design review criteria through ' 7.1.7), Article 10 (Parking), Article 13 (Major Impact Developments); Article 14 (Inclusionary Zoning) and the Conditional Use criteria from Article 17, made applicable through to the project by Article 13.1.5. Appellee-Applicants propose to accept and to incorporate into the application before the Court the City= s so-called standard conditions of approval, and the following specific conditions of approval proposed by the City.

Related to design and pre-construction

1. That the project be granted a parking waiver for up to 23 spaces, based on the parking needs characteristic of affordable housing units, and this property= s proximity to the bike path and to public transportation, and that the Applicant/Property Owner applicant investigate providing its tenants of other transportation alternatives, such as implementing a so-called ride-share or car- share program.

2. That the Applicant/Property Owner is responsible for obtaining all necessary Zoning Permits and Building Permits through the Department of Public Works as well as any other permits that may be required.

3. That the Applicant/Property Owner is responsible to meet all energy efficiency codes, and to maintain conformance with all applicable codes, regulations and guidelines (e.g. Burlington Electric Department= s Guidelines for Energy Efficient Construction dated November 13, 2000).

4. That the Applicant/Property Owner is responsible to insure that all elements on the approved site plans, including landscaping, sidewalks and road connections, are installed as approved.

5.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Appeal of Carl James Anderson (Decision and Order), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-carl-james-anderson-decision-and-order-vtsuperct-2003.