Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVR-84-0000 - Supplemental - 0114 0119 Oakwood DriveM E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 2/24/84 4) Crabbe/Rosser lots 114 & 119, Oakwood Drive These lots are a part of an old recorded subdivision which was never completed. If additional building is to take place the street should be completed across the entire frontage of the buildings lots and terminated with an adequate temporary turnaround or if there are no remaining lots a permanent turnaround built. A plan incorporating these lots into the remaining R-4 zoned area should be prepared. 5) Muddy Brook Industrial Park, Palmer Heights 1. Right turn (entrance) into driveway will be difficult unless curb radii is increased based on vehicles anticipated. An improved alignment would be plac- ing the entrance off center of the cul-de-sac. 2. A depressed concrete curb shall be constructed across the driveway entrance. 6) L.T.H. Office Building, Harbor View Road 1. The storm drain system should outlet to the northerly ravine instead of the street storm drain systems. Plan shows the easterly lot drainage connected to the sanitary sewer, this is prohibited. 2. Driveway entrance shall have a depressed concrete curb. 3. There is an existing sidewalk along the frontage of this property it should be shown on the plan. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 2/24/84 3) Bensen, 65 Patchen Road The area in question is zoned C-1 District. The site contains 3.7 acres with 145 feet frontage, approximately 2.8 acres has been set off for the proposed 20 residential units. The site is presently occupied with two office build- ings containing a total of 12,952 square feet. The minimum lot size for the district is 40,000 square feet with 200 feet front- age. Setting off 2.8 acres for the residential units will provide a balance of 37,026 square feet for the two buildings which represents a 17% lot coverage. The density proposed represents seven (7) units per acre, the density for the Patchen Road area is four (4) units per acre. Should the minimum lots be set off to accommodate the existing building (1.8 acres) the balance of the lot would be 1.9 acres, the maximum density ( 4 units per acre) would be 7.6 units. Section 11.00 purpose: states that"Commercial 1 District is hereby formed in order to encourage location of general retail and office uses in a compact central business area. Other uses that would benefit from nearby access to a central business area, including clustered residential development and small industrial employers, may be permitted if they do not interfere with access- ibility and continuity of the commercial district." Section 11.50 Planned Commercial Developments provides for multi -family dwellings as conditional uses. The minimum area, density and dimensional requirements are four (4) acres with a minimum frontage of 350 feet. At the February 13, 1984 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting, members requested.input from the Planning Commission, shall the Zoning Board consider this appeal under the permitted use section which prohibits residential use or shall they consider the request as a P.C.D. thereby recluirinq aarea, donsity and dimension.-•1l. waiver. 4) Crabbe & Ross, lots 114 & 119 Oakwood Drive Section 19.20 of zoning regulations provides that "lots with no road Irontace - permanent easement or r-o-w at least 20 feet in width is provided" jioy be approved by Planning Commission. Two lots in question set-off in 1950's. One lot would have had frontage on Glen Road (Ross) and other on Oakwood Drive (Crabbe). In both case lots are located off the existing Oakwood Drive cul-de-sac. The Ross lot involves the installation of a private drive twenty-four in width by 125 feet in length. Crabbe lot is also 24 feet wide by 150 feet in length. Crabbe has been granted a variance from the Interstate set back. Both drives are considered private drives and are not subject to City maintenance. An approval motion is necessary should the Planning Commission agree with this proposal. 1� t o/ 7--0 ko7' C c rat P AC r`t & CI R A YE 4... 5 +.c R FA p PpiL b C,4 w' SCALtF Soul�ct� • ��aa�;c�ss: �i3U Z /Aif�iOrJ € I gyp.. OA&—W©c.:D.prt PATE: t n to rr _ z jxo/?Y