The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0025 Bay Crest Drive�yi 9 sout by � � o., 1 ` `': fr, PLANNING & ZONING October 7, 2013 Re: #SP-13-29 Dear Applicant: Enclosed, please find a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision rendered by the Development Review Board concerning your recent application. Please note the conditions of approval including that a zoning permit must be obtained within six (6) months_ If you have any questions, please contact me. Sxm��_ Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Encl. CERTIFIED MAIL -Return Receipt Requested # 7010 0290 0000 2215 5648 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com l� UrJ�J Ll 112 Illm, southburlingtun PLANNING & ZONING Permit Number SP-- (office use onl APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW ❑ Administrative evelopment 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. 1. OWNER(S) OF RECORD (Name(s) as shown on deed mailing address, phone and fax #): (SM Cdu12 GOI)0dM1Y1(JAA clo 7D r- wp6-rg-::l2 IN 5 t GR�7'A-►�1t* Pa Box 45-2- M69R1b t/iLc.F—. vT D 66 802-371-Mb 2. LOCATION OF LAST RECORDED DEED(S) (Book and page #): 3. APPLICANT (Name, mailing address, phone and fax #): BAY C dVk-r 40AfW - h ESN. 75- MY C2 a` ST 02 t JIB SruTH-' 11MLINkT0, Vul bS'403 4. CONTACT PERSON (person who will receive all correspondence from Staff. Include name, address, phone & fax #): .SkSV n/ 15 J Kx- 2S 13A-( 6Ke-s7T Piz tVG. -I*-l10 CF—I-L; %D2-2J-5-71D S. I0z-L.y/T- 403 Fox : Sft %b+- 2Z71 4a. CONTACT EMAIL ADDRESS:: tL � —�/ cifvm, 5. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 25- OA-L CaF$ T 6. TAX PARCEL ID # (can be obtained at Assessor's Office) 61 sa — 0vbd 3 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com l 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. General project description (explain what you want approval for): JWVLEAt-5 9_, fod d O C trPA<AT1( b. Existing Uses on Property (including description and size of each separate use): Ar-6 t 0P'NC'1ZZ'5 c. Proposed Uses on property (include description and size of each new use and existing uses to remain): K" l IDM*C/5-5 CA/V C d. Total building square footage on property (proposed buildings and exi ting buildings to remain): 3_ Z t7 f . 54 � AJ6 G �40-r—) e. Height of building & number of floors (proposed buildings and existing buildings to remain, specify if basement and mezzanine): Zb FT 2 FLO-ok S (410 Gih4AP�rlG�� f. Number of residential units (if applicable, new units and existing,units to remain): (nfa G H'&V6-E. g. Number of employees (existing and proposed, note office versus non -office employees): h. Other (list any other information pertinent to this application not specifically requested above, please note if Overlay Districts are applicable): 7 0 YZMyJ A't' DI b T7U LT Site Plan Application Form Rev. 12-2011 { 8. LOT COVERAGE Total Parcel Size: Z 571 S' 5-, I Sq. Ft. a. Building: Existing 17, IT % 43 1 D I, S sq. ft. Proposed AW , l ND C (f sq. ft. b. Overall impervious coverage (building, parking, outside storage, etc) Existing �3°1, % / 9 $1" sq. ft. Proposed AID CWMFb % l ND ct4N(s1F, sq. ft. c. Front yard (along each street) Existing % / 2.367,43 sq. ft. Proposed w G e % / NA C --sq. ft. d. Total area to be disturbed during construction (sq. ft.) ift [ 1 * Projects disturbing more than one-half acre of land must follow the City's specifications for erosion control in Article 16 of the Land Development Regulations. Projects disturbing more than one acre require a permit from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. 9. COST ESTIMATES a. Building (including interior renovations): $ b. Landscaping: 9 c. Other site improvements (please list with cost): 3Ta�M, IM.PRdVF�1�yr5 � .4.2,DUy 10. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC a. P.M. Peak hour for entire property (In and out): ,: 0 0 em 11. PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 7: 06 AfA -- 6-; oo PM 12. PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Ar-K E 13. ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: A-V (r (f5 T 2013 14. SITE PLAN AND FEE A site plan shall be submitted which shows the information required by the City's Land Development Regulations. Five (5)' regular size copies, one reduced copy (I I" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy of the site plan must be submitted A site plan application fee shall be paid to the City at the ti e of submitting the site plan application in accordance with the city's fee schedule. p�_ r 1-J7 Administrative site plan applications require three (3) regular size copies, one reduced copy (11" x 17"), and one digital (PDF-format) copy. Site Plan Application Form. Rev 12-2011 NOTE: NOTIFICATION of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS: Notification of adjoining property owners, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations, is the responsibility of the applicant. After deeming an application complete, the Administrative Officer will provide the applicant with a draft meeting agendas or public hearing notice and sample certificate of service. The sworn certificate of service shall be returned to the City prior to the start of any public hearing. 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. �5 31 —,.--( SIGNAURE OF PROPERYY OWI�ER ( cat loom) Do not write below this line 3-A45dAI LVVfZ, PRINT NAME DATE OF SUBMISSION: >� a� REVIEW AUTHORITY: Development Review Board ❑ Administrative Officer I have reviewed this site plan application and find it to be: Complete �//� ❑ IpVomRlete `lu Administrative Officer r/as; Date The applicant or permittee retains the obligation to identify, apply for, and obtain relevant state permits for this project. Call (802) 879-5676 to speak with the regional Permit Specialist. Site Plan Application Form Rev 12-2011 )tA southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Raymond Belair, Administrative Officer Dan Albrecht, Planner, Temporary Assignment RE., Agenda Item #3: #SP-13-29, Bay Court Condominium Association DATE: September 13, 2013 Site Plan Application #SP-13-29 Meeting Date: September 17, 2013 The applicant, Bay Court Condominium Association is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 56 unit condominium complex. The amendment consists of making improvements to the stormwater system, 25 Bay Crest Drive. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: 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. 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. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground. 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. 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. No changes to the existing buildings or site are being proposed as part of this application and therefore the aforementioned criteria are not applicable. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) 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 or collector street, to provide additional access for emergency or other purposes, or to improve general access and circulation in the area. At this time, staff does not suggest providing additional accesses. (b) 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. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) 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). There are no changes proposed to the existing trash facilities. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As there is no building construction proposed for this site, there are no minimum landscaping requirements. As the application includes the alteration of more than twenty cubic yards of fill, this application shall also be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval: (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a plan showing the proposed improvements. This plan is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: Other: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. Staff does not feel this requirement is applicable to the subject application. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The applicant is proposing an upgrade to an existing stormwater system. The applicant proposes to install an underground stormwater storage/infiltration structure, pond outlet structure and to increase the pond capacity. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. Staff does not feel this requirement will be necessary for the subject application. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. The applicant must comply with all requests of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent and the project shall meet with his approval prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent provided comments to staff on June 26, 2013 which were relayed to the applicant in the staff comments for the July 2"d DRB meeting. ***Please note that I am commenting on this plan as if it were a project to be reviewed by the DRB under site plan review. I am not reviewing and commenting on this plan as if it were a project that is going to be turned over to the Stormwater Utility (SWU) for future maintenance. There is a separate process for this, which is detailed at http://www.sburistormwater.com/facts/ (about halfway down the page under the "Residential Stormwater System Takeover By the City"). Paperwork to initiate this process is available online at http://www.sburlstormwater.com/download-material/ and has not been submitted. It should therefore not be assumed by the applicant that once this project is granted approval by DRB that the SWU will accept maintenance responsibility for the project. Review through the site plan process does not include evaluation of things like easements and maintenance access I' l for SWU staff that would be required if the City is going to accept responsibility for the system. I spoke to the project engineers and made this clear in March 2013.*** ❑ Provide final hydrologic modeling so that information regarding the project can be included in watershed models maintained by the City. ❑ Consider modification of the outlet structure. As proposed there is an 8" pipe leading into the concrete outlet structure. Inside the concrete structure is a 1.75" diameter hole. If this small hole becomes plugged it would require confined space entry to unclog. Also, the cap should be removable to allow the 12" pipe leading out of the structure to be cleaned/inspected as necessary. ❑ Confirm that the system is capable of safely passing large storm events. During large storm events, it appears as if the system is designed to fill and flow out of a 12" pipe in an upstream drainage structure. Where would water flow if this 12" pipe fails or is overwhelmed by water from upstream drainage areas? ❑ What State permits has this project applied for/received? The applicant responded to the Superintendent's comments on September 10, 2013 as follows: Hi Tom, Thank you for review of the proposed stormwater retrofits. We have reviewed your comments and provided additional information and responses in bold below. Please see attached revised site plans, modeling and an updated narrative description of the retrofits, which was prepared for the EFA submittal for the 9030 permit. Please let us know if you need any additional information. In support of the application before the DRB, if you feel that your comments have been addressed, we would appreciate it if you could reply to that effect in an email for Ray Belair in preparation for the upcoming meeting. Please see below responses to comments in bold: -Provide final hydrologic modeling so that information regarding the project can be included in watershed models maintained by the City. See attached hydroCAD results for Q-1, Q-10, Q-100 events -Consider modification of the outlet structure. As proposed there is an 8" pipe leading into the concrete outlet structure. Inside the concrete structure is a 1.75" diameter hole. If this small hole becomes plugged it would require confined space entry to unclog. Also, the cap should be removable to allow the 12" pipe leading out of the structure to be cleaned/inspected as necessary. The outlet structure has been modified so that the orifice is on the outside of the structure, protected by a trash rack. See details sheet C3. This redesign results in a change to how the structure manages large storms. See next bullet. -Confirm that the system is capable of safely passing large storm events. During large storm events, it appears as if the system is designed to fill and flow out of a 12" pipe in an upstream drainage structure. Where would water flow if this 12" pipe fails or is overwhelmed by water from upstream drainage areas? Existing conditions hydrologic modeling shows that this system may be overwhelmed during larger events under existing conditions. Please note that the revised outlet structure includes a new 18" pipe that will replace the existing 12" outfall pipe. The revised outlet structure has been designed to maintain 12" of freeboard in the pond during the 100-year event. -What State permits has this project applied for/received? The project has coverage under DEC stormwater permit 6294-9030.1. On September 11, 2013 the Superintendent indicated that he was satisfied with the proposed changes and response to comments/questions. Note that some of these items may be appropriate conditions of approval. Page I of 5 ray From: Tom Dipietro Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:02 AM To: Peter Smiar Cc: jburt@cea-vt.com; ray; Justin Rabidoux Subject: RE: FW: request for comments from last DRB meeting -bay court condos Ray, I have reviewed the additional information provided by Peter and I am satisfied with the proposed changes and response to comments/questions. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works City of South Burlington Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. /f you have received this message in error, please notify its immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Peter Smiar [mailto:petersmiar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:12 PM To: Tom Dipietro Cc: jburt@cea-vt.com; ray Subject: Re: FW: request for comments from last DRB meeting -bay court condos Hi Tom, Thank you for review of the proposed stormwater retrofits. We have reviewed your comments and provided additional information and responses in bold below. Please see attached revised site plans, modeling and an updated narrative description of the retrofits, which was prepared for the EFA submittal for the 9030 permit. Please let us know if you need any additional information. In support of the application before the DRB, if you feel that your comments have been addressed, we would appreciate it if you could reply to that effect in an email for Ray Belair in preparation for the upcoming meeting. Please see below responses to comments in bold: *Provide final hydrologic modeling so that information regarding the project can be included in watershed models maintained by the City. See attached hydroCAD results for Q-1, Q-10, Q-100 events *Consider modification of the outlet structure. As proposed there is an 8" pipe leading into the concrete outlet structure. Inside the concrete structure is a 1.75" diameter hole. If this small hole becomes plugged it would require confined space entry to unclog. Also, the cap should be removable to allow the 9/11/2013 Page 1 of 4 ray From: Peter Smiar [petersmiar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:12 PM To: Tom Dipietro Cc: jburt@cea-vt.com; ray Subject: Re: FW: request for comments from last DRB meeting -bay court condos Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: Bay Court Storm Narrative 2013.pdf; Bay Court 2013 Modeling.pdf; C1 Bay Court Ex Hyd Plan.pdf; C2 Bay Court Proposed Plan.pdf; C3 Bay Court Details.pdf Hi Tom, Thank you for review of the proposed stormwater retrofits. We have reviewed your comments and provided additional information and responses in bold below. Please see attached revised site plans, modeling and an updated narrative description of the retrofits, which was prepared for the EFA submittal for the 9030 permit. Please let us know if you need any additional information. In support of the application before the DRB, if you feel that your comments have been addressed, we would appreciate it if you could reply to that effect in an email for Ray Belair in preparation for the upcoming meeting. Please see below responses to comments in bold: •Provide final hydrologic modeling so that information regarding the project can be included in watershed models maintained by the City. See attached hydroCAD results for Q-1, Q-10, Q-100 events •Consider modification of the outlet structure. As proposed there is an 8" pipe leading into the concrete outlet structure. Inside the concrete structure is a 1.75" diameter hole. If this small hole becomes plugged it would require confined space entry to unclog. Also, the cap should be removable to allow the 12" pipe leading out of the structure to be cleaned/inspected as necessary. The outlet structure has been modified so that the orifice is on the outside of the structure, protected by a trash rack. See details sheet C3. This redesign results in a change to how the structure manages large storms. See next bullet. *Confirm that the system is capable of safely passing large storm events. During large storm events, it appears as if the system is designed to fill and flow out of a 12" pipe in an upstream drainage structure. Where would water flow if this 12" pipe fails or is overwhelmed by water from upstream drainage areas? Existing conditions hydrologic modeling shows that this system may be overwhelmed during larger events under existing conditions. Please note that the revised outlet structure includes a new 18" pipe that will replace the existing 12" outfall pipe. The revised outlet structure has been designed to maintain 12" of freeboard in the pond during the 100-year event. *What State permits has this project applied for/received? The project has coverage under DEC stormwater permit 6294-9030.1. 9/11/2013 Page 2 of Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. Thanks, Peter Peter Smiar, P.E. (802) 922-5357 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Jason Burt <jburt(a�cea-vt.com> wrote: From: Tom Dipietro [mailto:tdipietro@sburl.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2013 6:56 AM To: iburt@cea-vt.com Cc: Cathyann LaRose Subject: RE: request for comments from last DRB meeting -bay court condos Jason, Below I've cut and pasted the comments I sent to P&Z on 6/26. I assume that this is what you are requesting. -Tom Below are comments on the Bay Court Condominium stormwater project. I reviewed sheets C 1-C3 dated August 2011 and prepared by Queen City Engineering. No other material was provided to me. 9/11/2013 Page 3 of 4 ***Please note that I am commenting on this plan as if it were a project to be reviewed by the DRB under site plan review. I am not reviewing and commenting on this plan as if it were a project that is going to be turned over to the Stormwater Utility (SWU) for future maintenance. There is a separate process for this, which is detailed at http://www.sburlstormwater.com/fags/ (about halfway down the page under the "Residential Stormwater System Takeover By the City"). Paperwork to initiate this process is available online at http://www.sburlstormwater.com/download-material/ and has not been submitted. It should therefore not be assumed by the applicant that once this project is granted approval by DRB that the SWU will accept maintenance responsibility for the project. Review through the site plan process does not include evaluation of things like easements and maintenance access for SWU staff that would be required if the City is going to accept responsibility for the system. I spoke to the project engineers and made this clear in March 2013.*** Provide final hydrologic modeling so that information regarding the project can be included in watershed models maintained by the City. • Consider modification of the outlet structure. As proposed there is an 8" pipe leading into the concrete outlet structure. Inside the concrete structure is a 1.75" diameter hole. If this small hole becomes plugged it would require confined space entry to unclog. Also, the cap should be removable to allow the 12" pipe leading out of the structure to be cleaned/inspected as necessary. • Confirm that the system is capable of safely passing large storm events. During large storm events, it appears as if the system is designed to fill and flow out of a 12" pipe in an upstream drainage structure. Where would water flow if this 12" pipe fails or is overwhelmed by water from upstream drainage areas? • What State permits has this project applied for/received? Thank you for the opportunity to comment. -Tom Thomas J. DiPietro Jr. Deputy Director Department of Public Works 9/11/2013 Page 4 of` City of South Burlington Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in Hunters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Jason Burt fmailto:iburt@cea-vt.coml Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 4:39 PM To: Tom Dipietro Subject: request for comments from last DRB meeting -bay court condos Tom, Please email me your comments from the last DRB meeting so I can take care of those before the next meeting. Thanks. Jason Burt 9/11/2013 CI Proiect Review Sheet — City of South Burlington 1. Application #�i 3 ,C;t 19 2. Street address & Project Name �� -MVJ0,K--e-- 3. Type of Review J-) k )Glr-� 4. DRB initial meeting date 3, 2— 13 Additional Dates: 5. Lead Planning staff person to perform review —ban 6. Second staff reader 7. Other departments to Review: Staff person responsible Fire: Y /Q Date Provided: Date review needed back: DPW: N Date Provided: /3 Date review needed back: 8. Meeting with applicant on questions? 9. Staff notes complete by: Last revised 6/3/2013 A 0INVA", 5 southburlington PLANNING & ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Boar FROM: Ray Belair, Administrative Officer 0 RE: Agenda #8, Site Plan Application #SP-13-29, Bay Court Condominium Association DATE: August 30, 2013 Continued site plan application #SP-13-29 of Bay Court Condominium Association to amend a previously approved plan for a 56 unit condominium complex. The amendment consists of making improvements to the stormwater system, 25 Bay Crest Drive (staff is requesting that this item be continued to the 9/17 meting). The applicant is not able to attend the September 3, 2013 meeting so staff is requesting that this item be continued to the September 17, 2013 meeting. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com r ARM southburlington PLANNING A ZONING MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Development Review Board FROM: Cathyann LaRose, City Planner oc Dan Albrecht, Planner, Temporary Assignment RE. Agenda Item #8: #SD-13-14, F & M Development Company, LLC DATE. June 28, 2013 Site Plan Application #SP 13-14 Meeting Date: July 2, 2013 The applicant, Bay Court Condominium Association is seeking site plan approval to amend a previously approved plan for a 56 unit condominium complex. The amendment consists of making improvements to the stormwater system, 25 Bay Crest Drive. SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS Pursuant to Section 14.03(A)(6) of the Land Development Regulations, any PUD shall require site plan approval. Section 14.06 establishes the following general review standards for all site plan applications: 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. 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. Newly installed utility services and service modifications necessitated by exterior alterations or building expansions shall, to the extent feasible, be underground 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. 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. No changes to the existing buildings are being proposed as part of this application and therefore the aforementioned criteria are not applicable. Site plan applications shall meet the following specific standards as set forth in Section 14.07 of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: (a) 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. At this time, staff does not suggest providing additional accesses. (b) 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. Pursuant to Section 15.13(E) of the Land Development Regulations, any new utility lines, services, and service modifications shall be underground. (c) 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). There are no changes proposed to the existing trash facilities. (d) Landscaping and Screening Requirements As there is no building construction proposed for this site, there are no minimum landscaping requirements. As the application includes the alteration of more than twenty cubic yards of fill, this application shall also be reviewed under Section 3.12 of the Land Development Regulations. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil, or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than twenty (20) cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot, shall require the approval of the Development Review Board. The Development Review Board may grant such approval where such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products in connection with a resource extraction operation. Standards and Conditions for Approval (1) The Development Review Board shall review a request under this Section for compliance with the standards contained in this sub -Section 3.12(B). An application under Section 3.12(A) above shall include the submittal of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plat application showing the area to be filled or removed, and the existing grade and proposed grade created by removal or addition of material. The applicant submitted a plan showing the proposed improvements. This plan is sufficient to satisfy this requirement. (2) The Development Review Board, in granting approval may impose any conditions it deems necessary, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) Duration or phasing of the permit for any length of time. Staff does not feel this requirement is applicable to the subject application. (b) Submission of an acceptable plan for the rehabilitation of the site at the conclusion of the operations, including grading, seeding and planting, fencing drainage, and other appropriate measures. The applicant is proposing an upgrade to an existing stormwater system. The applicant proposes to install an underground stormwater storage/infiltration structure, pond outlet structure and to increase the pond capacity. (c) Provision of a suitable bond or other security adequate to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section. Staff does not feel this requirement will be necessary for the subject application. (d) Determination of what shall constitute pre -construction grade under Section 3.07, Height of Structures. The pre -construction height for future development will be the existing grade. Other: 1. The applicant must comply with all requests of the South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent and the project shall meet with his approval prior to the issuance of a zoning permit. The South Burlington Stormwater Superintendent provided the following comments to staff on June 26, 2013 as follows: ***Please note that I am commenting on this plan as if it were a project to be reviewed by the DRB under site plan review. I am not reviewing and commenting on this plan as if it were a project that is going to be turned over to the Stormwater Utility (SWU) for future maintenance. There is a separate process for this, which is detailed at http://www.sburlstormwater.com/fags/ (about halfway down the page under the "Residential Stormwater System Takeover By the City"). Paperwork to initiate this process is available online at http://www.sburlstormwater.com/download-material/ and has not been submitted. It should therefore not be assumed by the applicant that once this project is granted approval by DRB that the SWU will accept maintenance responsibility for the project. Review through the site plan process does not include evaluation of things like easements and maintenance access for SWU staff that would be required if the City is going to accept responsibility for the system. I spoke to the project engineers and made this clear in March 2013. *** J •Provide final hydrologic modeling so that information regarding the project can be included in watershed models maintained by the City. •Consider modification of the outlet structure. As proposed there is an 8" pipe leading into the concrete outlet structure. Inside the concrete structure is a 1.75" diameter hole. If this small hole becomes plugged it would require confined space entry to unclog. Also, the cap should be removable to allow the 12" pipe leading out of the structure to be cleaned/inspected as necessary. •Confirm that the system is capable of safely passing large storm events. During large storm events, it appears as if the system is designed to fill and flow out of a 12" pipe in an upstream drainage structure. Where would water flow if this 12" pipe fails or is overwhelmed by water from upstream drainage areas? •What State permits has this project applied for/received? Staff recommends that the Board ensures that the questions are answered satisfactorily before closing the hearing. Some of these items may be appropriate conditions of approval. CI CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 21 st day of June, 2013, a copy of the foregoing public notice for Site Plan Review/Development Review Board Meeting #SP-13-29, was sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid to the owners of all properties adjoining the subject property to development, without regard to any public right-of-way, and including the description of the property and accompanying information provided by the City of South Burlington. I further certify that this notification was provided to the following parties in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4464(a) and Section 17.06(B) of the South Burlington Land Development Regulations: List of recipients: (see attached list) Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 24th day of June, 2013. Printed Name: Phone number and email: Signature: Date: Remit to: City of South Department of Planning & Zoning 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington Sample Certificate of Service Form. Rev. 1-2012 MYERS CHARLES 19 BAY CREST DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MAYER ANDREW & CAROLYN LYMAN 24 BAY CREST DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WINTER JOANNE 28 BAYCREST DRIVE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 HELEBA DAVID & BRIAN 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #701 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ROBBINS ELIZABETH A 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #704 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FIESS HERMAN E IV 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #804 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FRIBERG ANDREW 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #902 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BUONANNO STACEY & MICHAEL 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #905 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BLUMEYER REX E 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #908 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SEHR TERRENCE W & KATHLEEN DUPEE JOHN & LUCILLE 20 BAYCREST DR 22 BAY CREST DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN JOHN INC 410 SHELBURNE ROAD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WALCOTT JOHN C & DONNA M 90 NEW ENGLAND AVE #3 SUMMIT, NJ 07901 ROTH AMY D 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #702 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LESSARD HEATHER 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #802 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403-7859 ENGLUND CHRISTINE 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #805 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 OPRENDEK JUDITH I TRUST 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #903 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DANAHER JAYSON J 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #906 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CRUCITTI BRITTANY 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1001 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MEYERHOF NINA LYNN 26 BAYCREST DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WEST BONITA SHAW 32 BAYCREST DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 D AGOSTINO NICHOLAS M & ELIZA D 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #703 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN REBECCA A 78 HAYMAKER LANE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DUBOIS MICHAEL R 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #901 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GARNEAU KRISTEL 89 MARGARET RD MILTON, MA 02186-3626 SHRESTHA BHASKAR & MEGAN E 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #907 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 COBLE WALTER R 33 HARBOR VIEW UNIT 1002 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DUQUETTE ANGELA ANN LUPIEN PIERRETTE MARTINEAU LARRY 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1003 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1004 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1005 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 I VICTORY SUSAN 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1006 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 HENSON MATTHEW 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1103 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WATERS MARK J 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1202 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DAVANT EVA 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1205 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FROST KAYOTHIA L 25 BAYCREST DR UNIT #101 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 25 BAYCREST DRIVE UNIT 104 LLC P 0 BOX 1677 WILLISTON, VT 05495 SEREN BEHNAZ-PARHAMI 3700 DEAN DR APT 2303 VENTURA, CA 93003 BURT JASON C 25 BAY CREST COURT #110 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 AUSTIN SARAH & KEVIN 25 BAY CREST DR #201 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MEILLEUR CATHY A 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1101 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 HARRINGTON SCOTT 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1104 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BROSCIOUS JOHN 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1203 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 EROH AMY J 199 HOLLOW CREEK DR #1 COLCHESTER, VT 05446 JOHNSON DAVID H 25 BAYCREST DR #102 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RUSSELL JOHN A 1161 WILLISTON RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 DELARICHELIERE AIMEE 25 BAYCREST DRIVE UNIT #108 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LAPOINTE SLYVIA 25 BAY CREST DR #111 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN JOHN INC 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LUCIER JOSHUA R & KELLY L 33 HARBOR VEIW RD #1102 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GREITZER LEWIS B 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1201 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FREDE GREG F 33 HARBOR VIEW RD #1204 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LIVERSEDGE WILLIAM & RITA 34 BAYCREST DR S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LEONARD KAREN F 25 BAY CREST DR #103 BAY S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BLAKESLEE SYLVIA 25 BAYCREST DR UNIT 106 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 GRAHAM ANDREW S & ASHLIE S 25 BAYCREST DRIVE #109 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 ANDERSON SETH 631 N PASTURE LN CHARLOTTE, VT 05445-9254 MCKAY ROBERT & JANICE 5315 SOUTH BLANCA POINT HOMOSASSA, FL 34446 HODGDON FRED & MARLENE RUSSELL JOHN A & LYNN MEUNIER LINDSAY 1092 OSGOOD HILL RD 1161 WILLISTON RD 25 BAYCREST DR #206 WESTFORD, VT 05494 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BOYAJIAN MICHAEL LARKIN JOHN INC TOULIS CHRISOSTOMOS & 25 BAYCREST DR #207 410 SHELBURNE RD CHRISTINE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 11 MEADOW LANE UNDERHILL, VT 05489 SKOPLJAK MIRSAD LIN-Z LLC MOY GOODWIN H & ERICA L 25 BAY CREST DR #302 70 S WINOOSKI AVE BOX 203 25 BAY CREST DR #304 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 CABBE RUTH Z RUSSELL JOHN A & LYNN RESNIK MARTIN & ANNE MARIE 25 BAY CREST DR #305 1161 WILLISTON RD 200 OLDE ORCHARD LANE S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SHELBURNE, VT 05482 PALERMINO CHRISTOPHER JACQUES LAURIE A SHEKETOFF ALAN & CLAUDIA 78 SEVERANCE GRN UNIT 302 25 BAY CREST DR #309 75 CHERRY HILL RD COLCHESTER, VT 05446-5759 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 FAIRFIELD, CT 06825 FRIGO KEVIN CASSIDY CHRISTOPHER VIEIRA GINGER 25 BAY CREST DR #311 25 BAY CREST DR #312 25 BAY CREST DR #401 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 SARIC DARKO & AIDA SEDIC LARKIN TARRANT HOEHL LAJEUNESSE JOAN M 25 BAY CREST DR #402 410 SHELBURNE RD 25 BAY CREST DR #404 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 RYAN KATHY A CARIK SCOTT & BETTY POCZABUT KATELIN G 391 RIVER RD 25 BAY CREST DR #406 25 BAY CREST DR #407 COLCHESTER, VT 05446 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 OUELLETTE JOHN AYER TERESE MASLACK & CAMPBELL ROBERT ROY 25 BAY CREST DR #408 PATRICK B 25 BAY CREST DR #502 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 P 0 BOX 9213 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05407 STEVENSON JEFFREY OUELETTE MICHAEL R DROLETTE TODD 25 BAY CREST DR #503 RR #1 BOX 1228 1085 PINE ST S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 WESTFORD, VT 05494-9517 BURLINGTON, VT 05401 MIRAMARNKARN SUPATTA NEWTON ADRIENNE FAYE WHIPKEY SEAN 25 BAY CREST DR #506 25 BAY CREST DR #507 25 BAY CREST DR #508 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 1 NAPPI ROBERT TRUST 384 EAGLE DR JUPITER, FL 33477 HESTER PENNY DAWN 1805 KEELER RD WOLCOTT, VT 05680-4107 DEGREE DYLAN 25 BAY CREST DR #607 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN JOHN INC 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 BURDZY LESZEK & DANUTA 25 BAY CREST DR #605 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 LARKIN JOHN INC 410 SHELBURNE RD S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 MCCORMACK JEANNE 103 HEINEBERG DR BURLINGTON, VT 05401 CROSBY DEBORAH 25 BAY CREST DR #606 S BURLINGTON, VT 05403 A'UG-14-2000 MON 08:09 AM S TTZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. 802P-P-n2552 P. 03 fi :!Qc rTz,N1QvzTix k AZZUTU, T.C. a•a EANTALLIN 67in r r067 OrroctBox 1 '1+4oi 111. VT v■• o I •out STATE OF VERMONI' CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. Bay CourtCondonunium Association) CHITTENDEN SUPERIOR COURT V. ) Douglas S. Isham ) DOCKET NO. CONLPLAW 1~QR A TB7<IPORARY AM PERA!N N INTLTNCTION AND FOR T]ARZAGES 1. Plaintiff is Condominium Association organized and existing under and by virtue of Title 27 VSA Chapter 15 and VSA 27A Chapter 17. 2. Defendant is the owner of Condonniuium Unit #109 of the condominiums operated by Plaintiff. 3. Plaintiff acting by and through its Board of Directors brings this action under the authority set forth in VSA T. 27 Chapter 15 and T. 27A Chapter 17 and tinder the authority set forth in the Declaration of Condominium for Bay Court CondornizUiums (the Declaration) and the By -Laws of said Condominium Association (the By -Laws) which are recorded in Volume 294 on Pages 79.133 of the City of South Burlington Sand Records, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A and incorporated herein by reference (the Condominium). 4. On March 8,1990 Defendant acquired title to Unit #109 of the Condominium together with an undivided 1.7851/'6 interest in and to the common areas in accordance with the Declaration above referred to by Apartment Deed of record in Volume 291 on page 231 of the City of South Burlington, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix Band incorporated herein by reference. 5. On acquiring such tide, Defendant became bound by all terms and provisions of the Declaration and By -Laws. 6. Defendant on acquiring title to Unit #109 acquired title to the space -within said condominium unit as defined in Section 4 of the Declaration and only an AUG-14-2000 MON 08:09 AM IiTTZEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO. 802rn2552 P. 04 ; r QVXTPE, X I Q CEYTE kai84CIATEf, r.c. •-o UNTALUX OTPLrr ro�� p►r�«.a, . 'taroo�rrr,rroruawnos undivided interest in the common areas and facilities (Common Area), which elements comprise among oter things the cxterior of the buildings and the air space in, above, and around the Common Areas. 7. Defendant, in violation of the Declaration at T.27 and VSA 2-111, has erected or caused to be erected an additional room on and around and attached to the Common Area of the condominium without right or authority of any kind, all as depicted in the photographs, copies of which are attached as Appendix C. S. Such addition constitutes an encroachment upon and alteration of the undivided interest of the remaining owners of the CondominiumAssociation and an appropriation of the legal and equitable rights of the remaining owners to the portion of the common area. 9. Such addition also constitutes a trespass and a continuing trespass by Defendant in and upon the undivided interest of the remaining owners to the cornmott area. 10. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm and injury if Defendant's conduct is not enjoined. 11. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur court costs, attorn,ey's fees incident to its duty to maintain the general common areas and such costs and fees are valid charges and expenses, which are and shall become liens against Unit #109, owned by Defendant. 12. plaintiff asserts such Lien upon Defendant's property to secure and to be applicable against court costs and attorney fees incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this action in a sum the Court shall determine to be just and reasonable. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests; 1. That the Court decree that Defendant's construction and erection of the addition constitutes an encroachment upon, an appropriation of, and a trespass upon the undivided interests of the remaining owners of the Condominium Association. 2. That the PIaintiff recover reasonable attomey's fees and costs of this action. 3. That the Defendant be temporarily enjoined from continuing to make such addition. AUG-14-2000 MON 08:10 AM STITZEL PAGE F'LETCHER PC 11 FAX NO. 8025-RO2552 P. 05 SQCaTTE,N-iQV rrz Jk ASSOCL *rzz, P,C, V'6 LAR ALLtT @T/RK7 past o17106 YOY 1 "I\OGSKI, i7 06464.606a 109t) 039-0879 A. That the Defendant be permanently enjoined by way of permanent injunction to remove said addition. 5. That the Defendant be permanently enjoined from constructing any other structure in any manner attached to the common area. G. That the Covet impose exemplary damages against the Defendant for the intentional construction of such addition without authority to do so. 7. For costs of this action:. S. For such other relief which the Court deems just and reasonable. Dated at Winooski this _i� day of June 2000. 4Niquciquette & Associates By: Sr. Attorney for Co Condominium Association STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (802) 660-2555 (VOICE/TDD) STEVEN F STITZEL FAX (802) 660-2552 or 660-9119 PATTI R PAGE' E-MAIL (FIRM2555@FIRMSPF COM) ROBERT E FLETCHER WRITER'S E-MAIL (ALAFFERTY@FIRMSPF COM) (*ALSO ADMITTED TN N Y ) WRITER'S FAX (802) 660-2552 August 17, 2000 Kevin McLaughlin, Sheriff Chittenden County Sheriff's Department PO Box 1426 Burlington, VT 05402-1426 RE: City of South Burlington v. Douglas Isham Docket No. Dear Sheriff McLaughlin: JOSEPH S McLEAN TIMOTHY M EUSTACE MIA KARVONIDES AMANDA S E LAFFERTY Enclosed please find an original Summons and one copy of the Summons and Complaint to be served upon the above -named defendant in connection with the above -referenced matter. I also enclose a Return of Service for your convenience. Our records indicate that the defendant may be served at 25 Baycrest Drive, #109, in the City of South Burlington. Following service, please forward an invoice to this office for your services. Thank you. Sincerely, V0" �. - Amanda S. E. Lafferty ASEL/bj1 Enclosure cc: Raymond Belair son4406.cor STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) DOCKET NO. DOUGLAS ISHAM, ) Defendants. ) SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S): You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq., Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is 171 Battery Street, P.O. Box 1507, Burlington, Vermont 05402- 1507, an answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service.* If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Your answer must be filed with the Court. Unless the relief demanded in the Complaint is for damage covered by a liability insurance policy under which the insurer has the right or obligation to conduct the defense, or unless otherwise provided in Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any related claim which you may have against the Plaintiff, or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. J e� � DATED: August 17, 2000 y Y - Amanda S.E. Lafferty, Esq. *Served on Date Deputy Sherif Son702.11t STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P O BOX 1507 BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) V. ) DOCKET NO. DOUGLAS ISHAM, ) Defendants. ) C O M P L A I N T NOW COMES the City of South Burlington, by and through its attorneys, Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C., and for its Complaint states as follows: 1. The City of South Burlington (the "City" herein) is a Vermont municipality situated in Chittenden County. 2. At all times material to this Complaint, the City has had zoning regulations (hereinafter the "Regulations") in effect. 3. Douglas Isham (hereinafter the "Defendant"), owns and/or occupies a condominium unit located at 25 Baycrest Drive, #109, in the City. Defendant's ownership of #109 does not extend beyond the space within the condominium unit. 4. Bay Court Condominium Association (hereinafter the "Association" ) owns and/or occupies real property (hereinafter the "Common Area") located at 25 Baycrest Drive in the City. 5. On or about September 17, 1999, Defendant made application for zoning permit #99-344 to convert an existing patio, located in the Common Area, to a "sun room type enclosure." The City Administrative Officer (hereinafter the "AO") approved said application on or about September 17, 1999. 1 6. On or about October 1, 1999, the Association made application to the City Development Review Board (hereinafter the "DRB"), appealing the decision of the AO approving permit #99- 344. 7. The DRB held a duly warned public hearing on or about November 16, 1999. In its decision dated November 16, 1999, the DRB granted the appeal of the Association and reversed the decision of the AO to issue zoning permit #99-344 to Defendant. 8. Commencing on or about January 21, 2000, Defendant enclosed an existing patio adjacent to Defendant's condominium, on land in the Common Area. 9. Defendant has not obtained approval from the City to enclose the patio as described in paragraph 5, above. 10. The enclosure of the patio, without having first obtained approval under the Regulations constitutes a violation of Section 27.10 of the Regulations and 24 V.S.A. 4443(a)(1). 11. On or about January 21, 2000, the City provided Defendant with written notice pertaining to the enclosure of the patio adjacent to the condominium unit at #109, referenced in paragraph 8, above. A true and correct copy of said notice marked as Exhibit A, is attached hereto. 12. Defendant has failed to appeal said written notice of violation to the City Development Review Board within the required fifteen (15) day period and the time for taking such an appeal has now passed. 2 13. In spite of said notices, Defendant has failed and/or refused to comply with the requirements of the Regulations by taking any of the required corrective actions enumerated in said written notice of violation, referenced in paragraph 11, above. WHEREFORE, the City requests that this Court grant it the following relief: 1. Enter an Order requiring Defendant to restore the patio in the Common Area to its original condition by removing all building materials used to enclose the patio. 2. Award the City fines of One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day Defendant has been in violation of the Regulations from January 29, 2000. 3. Award the City such other relief as the Court deems proper. DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 17th day of August 2000. son 671. lit CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON By: STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. Its attorneys i INAMIMA - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 21, 2000 Douglas S. Isham 25 Bay Crest Drive, #109 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation, Construction of Unit #109 Dear Mr. Isham: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a permit from the City as required by Section 27.10 of its Zoning Bylaws and 24 VSA 4443(a)(1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property: Commenced construction to enclose a 10' x 13' portion of a deck adj acent to condominium unit #109 owned by Douglas S. Isham. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Restore the property to its original condition by removing all building materials used to enclose the deck. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceeding, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to one -hundred ($100.00) dollars per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs again within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. EXHIBIT e E A m Douglas S. Isham Zoning Violation January 21, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and eighty five ($85) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincerely? Rajl�L. elair, Administrative Officer cc: Joseph S. McLean, City Attorney 1 Encl Certified letter #Z 462 929 520 Ps 1995 -- -----a off, CD C, il �. � 1�. � ro e� � � C2 c C3- N � � �f W csn N p ro W co M j- t a SENDER: I also wish to receive the follow - or ❑ Complete items 1 and/or 2 for additional services, ing sat vices (for an extra fee): a/ Complete items 3, 4a, and 4b. n ❑ Print your name and address on the reverse of this form so that we can return this ai a card to you. 1 • ❑ Addressee's Address m2 ` ❑ Attach this form to the front of the mailpiece, or on the back if space does not permit. 2. ❑ Restricted Delivery 2-1 M❑ Write 'Return Receipt Requested' on the mailpiece below the article number. N ❑ The Return Receipt will show to whom the article was delivered and the date o. •m p delivered. 3. Article Addressed to: 4a. Article Number Z 462 929 520 CL o Douglas Isham 4b. Service Type V ,F 25 Bay Crest Drive ,,1 09 El Registered EkCertified ail South Burlington, VT 0540 ❑ Express Mail ❑ Insured E 9 . ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ COD '� j1� 7. Date of Delivery (GCs�i o 5. Receiv,pd By: (Print Name) B. Addressee's Address (Only if requested and ! fee is paid) t c0 .-6. Signature (Addressee or Agent) PS Form 3311, December 1994 I02595-99-B-0223 Domestic Return Receipi A STATE OF VERMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COURT CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, ) Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) DOCKET NO. DOUGLAS ISHAM, ) Defendants. ) RETURN OF SERVICE I, , Sheriff of Chittenden County do hereby certify that I served a copy of the City of south Burlington's Summons and Complaint on Douglas Isham at , by hand delivering the same to him on this day of 2000. DATED at , in the County of Chittenden, State of Vermont, this day of 2000. Son7o3.11t STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P O. BOX 1507 BURLINGTON. VERMONT 05402-1507 Chittenden County Sheriff's Office By: 08i22/2000 TL1E 11:55 FAX 8028809118 STITZEL PAGE & FLETCHER STITZEL, PAGE & FLETCHER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 171 BATTERY STREET P.O. BOX 1507 BUR.LINGTON, VERMONT 05402-1507 (6UZ) 660-2555(VOIC rrDD) STEVEN P. STITEBL FAX (BQ_) 664-2552 a666-9119 PATr1R PAGE* E-MAIL aMt2v=554FOgvWF,C04 ROMT P FL OCHER wurvt's 3-MALL (IMUL•AN017 MMSPRCOMi (-.uloAAhrtTrr TK)4.Y.) W=ER-8 FAX (202) 660.2512 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET Date: August 22, 2000 To, Ray Belair Fax: 846-4101 Re: Bay Court Condominium v. 'Douglas Isharn Sender: Joe McLean You should receive 3 Page(s), including this cover sheet. If you do not receive all the pages, please call (802) 660-2555. MESSAGE iQSEPH 5 WLSAIV TIMOrHY lvi BUSTACE NGAXARVONIM AMANDA S E. LAFFOLTY Transiritted herewith is Preliminary Injunction and Stipulation in connection with the above -referenced matter. This rtttssnre is �utstldW a* for tb4 we of the Addle we and may contain infortration dmi is privilegcd and confidential 1f you are not the uitoded w Apitn 4 you are bn*y notfied tbat any dissemin000n of this communication is strictly prohibited, If you have reocived this rvrm unicatioii i, error, p1cam nctify us inumdiately, by telephone (302.660-2555). Thank you. 08/22/2000 TUE 11:56 FAX 8026609119 II l A ASSONATER. P.C. r.6 12ASTALLiLV %rmerr P061 urr[um nox 1 WOOS [, rroaana-enwi ioo!) rya-4ary STITZEL PAGE & FLETCHER Z008 rii;.6;NctEFKSCf�;LE [ FA.UG 2 2 �000 STATE OF VERMONT HMENDEN COT TNT TY SS. l [?IhNCRirRKAt4EE C Bay Court Condominium Association ) C=ENDEN SUPERIOR COURT V. ) Douglas S. Isl am ) DOCKET NO. S0789-00 CnC PRELIMIN �,�aARY M UNCTION A hewing was held on the day of 2000, on Plaintiffs Motion for a Preliminuy Injunction, the Honorable Matchow Katz presiding. Alter heating, the Court hereby grants the motion and the Defendant is hereby ENJOINED from perfoming any further work or activity in erection or construction of an addition to his Unit # 109 at Bay Court Condom6ium_ ALL UNTIL FURTHER ORDER, OF THE COURT. DATED at Burlington, Chittenderx Cfi , VT, clay of j*, 2^100. Han, Manhew : Presiding Judge for Count 03/22/2000 TUE 11:55 FAX 8026609119 STITZEL PAGE & FLETCHER f�0U2 DrN7FN FC011h �y G! ERK 'N G. 4S UfFf(, 1- (c n A Q c'1 ,► v c 77i r f� A[6 2 2 0 �./ ! DIANL A CLF. RY ALLEE 7-c pv j � 7�iil,rt ate, Pit a)"i e3 -v C7-G.� �%`�vrZ �sT,Qs � arrC � •� �r 1 ,� fir• � � �' 1Y f-!� ;217-07ele O.Y opCy �r07.e, f F AUG-14-2000 MON 08:08 AM STITLEL PAGE FLETCHER PC FAX NO, 802PP02552 P, 02 1'IQUETTEt NIQUE'TTE & ASSOCIATES, F.C. RUSSF.LL Y, A'�IQVVTTF.p JR. Augsst 9, 2000 Joseph S. McLean, Esq. 171 Batter}, Street P'0. Box 1507 Burl ngion, VT 03,4 2-1507 A,rronNE1 s AT LAW 7.9 EASiT ALLEN STn=T FAST OFFICE .BOX 1 wwoollur, VTrRMOVT 05404-0001 TELtPHONC TELwco!'xER NO2.655-p.`,75 802.655.138J.4 Re: B1y Court Condominium Association Dear joe: IRUSSELL F. NIQUETTY, SR, 1007-003 P(ti-stlant to otlr disciissiotl today, be aware that I represent. Bay Cc= Condominium Association in its effort to reniove the stn.,cture constricted by Mr. Isharn (Unit #109) on Condorrlirtiturt Asso6itioil property in violation of the Declaration and BrLaws of the Condominium. The action is fiicd in Chittcndcn Superior Court Docker # S789-00 CnC and a preliminary injunc6un hearing is sched,�ed for August 22, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. A copy of the complaint is attachcd. It is the g,.)al of the Association to have the stnicture removed at Mr. Isham's expense. The Association will file alien for the costs of removal if h his to take any action on its own. I agr,:e with you that any action by the City at this time naming the Association as Co-defendant will no, serve any useful purpose as the Association is attempting in good faith to enforce the C ordominium Declaration and B-Laws. Peel free to contact the at your eonvcnicnce in this regard. Si ssell F. Niquette, jr, R['N/Irb 2nC. I Penny Hester 1805 Keeler Pond Rd. Wolcott, Vermont 05680 Tel: 802 371 8326 Susan Victory 25 Baycrest Dr. South Burlington, Vt 05403 Cc: Phil Small Don Allen Doug Isham Niquette and Niquette & Associates VSouth Burlington office of Planning and Zoning Dear Susan, I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the way that the Baycourt Homeowners' Association Board has proceeded with Mr. Isham's request for permission to construct an addition to his Baycourt condominium (#109) on property that I understand to be common area as defined in the Bay Court Declaration for Condominium. In my recent telephone conversations with Board members, I have been confused by your answers and have become very concerned that this matter has not been properly handled. I offer the following observations: 1. Sections 5 and 6 of the Declaration of Condominium for Bay Court Condominium clearly state that any change in the use or in the division of common interest and/or common area must be approved by "all Unit Owners". I do not believe that 100% approval for this project has been obtained. The proposed addition will occupy space that is defined as common area. There has also been no clear redefinition by amendment of that common area or any adjustment proposed or made to the percentage of common interest held by that unit, or by any others, that would guide the future upkeep and repairs that will be required for this addition or any others that may follow. 2. 1 believe the proposed addition has been started before the Board's approval has been formally communicated to all the unit owners, and before a proper municipal building permit has been obtained. This has given no one an opportunity to have any questions answered, or appeal any decision before the construction started. This not only makes it awkward for anyone who wishes to question the matter, but also lends an intimidating atmosphere to the whole situation casting my questions as being those of a "trouble maker" and oppositional. 3. 1 believe that the actions taken by the Board in granting approval for this project are beyond the powers given to the Board in Article VIII Section 8.1 of the Bylaws. Specifically, section 8.1,f. states that the Board has powers and authority to conduct any business "not reserved to the membership". As stated above, I believe any reallocation and use of common property for the construction of property that will be used for any reason by an individual unit owner requires the consent of all unit owners. I understand that you have consulted with legal counsel to obtain guidance for the actions that the Board has taken thus far. I am requesting a written response from you, or legal counsel explaining the course of these events and the basis for the Board's actions in this matter, and how these actions comply with the condominium Declaration and Bylaws. I also request that all construction work on this project cease until my questions are answered and compliance with the Association Declaration and Bylaws, and with any South Burlington Zoning regulations is achieved. I do appreciate the work you and the Board do for the Association and the responsibility that you have in these matters. However, I am very concerned that the Board act in the best interest of all unit owners and in compliance with our Declaration and Bylaws. will appreciate your prompt attention to my questions and look forward to hearing from you soon. S' cerely, 41 Penny FWster Unit Owner Baycourt #604 Pnorded in Vol. J 6; so Burlington Attest: � , Ekth S yr r itIrA �� cl �19 at QUITCLAIM DEED — on page- d Retor s dC vca;C�iDW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS That I, Carrie Isham �PWtQrAy known as Carrie Schmitt, of Winooski, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, Grantor, in the consideration of TEN AND MORE Dollars paid to my full satisfaction by Douglas S. Isham, of South Burlington, County of Chittenden, State of Vermont, Grantee, have REMISED, RELEASED AND FOREVER QUITCLAIMED unto the said Douglas S. Isham, all right and title which I, Carrie Isham, or my heirs may have in, and to a certain piece_ of land in South Burlington, in the County of Chittenden and State of Vermont, as described as follows, viz: Apartment No. 109 of the Bay Court Condominium (the "Apartment") as numbered and further described and depicted in the Declaration and the plans filed therewith (including plat plans and floor plans recorded in Plat Book 252, Pages 116-117 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington), together with an undivided interest in the Common Areas and Facilities and Limited Common Areas and Fapilities as set forth in the Declaration. Being all and the same lands and premises conveyed to Douglas S. Isham and Carrie Schmitt (now known as Carrie Isham) by Apartment Deed of Larkin Tarrant and Hoehl Partnership dated March 8, 1990 and recorded in Volume 291, Pages 231-234 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Said lands and premises are subject to a 30 foot utility easement and a 20 foot sewer easement previously conveyed to the City of South Burlington and shown on the plan above referred to. Included herewith are certain rights of way, reservations, and conditions contained in the above -mentioned Apartment Deed from Larkin Tarrant and Hoehl Partnership to Douglas S. Isham and Carrie Schmitt of record in Volume 291, Pages 231-234 of said Land Records. Reference is hereby made to the above -mentioned instruments and the references contained therein, in further aid of this description. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD all right and title in and to said r L quitclaimed premises, with the appurtenances thereof, to the said Douglas S. Isham and his heirs and assigns forever. AND FURTHERMORE, I, the said Carrie Isham, do for myself heirs, executors and administrators, covenant with the said Douglas Isham and his heirs and assigns, that from and after the ensealing of these presents the said Carrie Isham will have and claim no right, in, or to the said quitclaimed premises. , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal this day of April, 1995. IN THE PRESENCE OF: aan,e_ULd- C rrie Ishal STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At Williston, this �J 1A day of April, 1995, Carrie Isham, and she acknowledged this instrument, by her sealed and subscribed, to be her free act and deed. Before me: N tary Public MDL6J/Isham.Qcd erty bran'.{erjax VetMont4roPA END OF DOCUMENT I CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 21, 2000 Philip Small Baycourt Condo Association 25 Baycrest Drive, #502 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation, Construction of Unit #109 Dear Mr. Small: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a permit from the City as required by Section 27.10 of its Zoning Bylaws and 24 VSA 4443(a)(1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property: Commenced construction to enclose a 10' x 13' portion of a deck adjacent to condominium unit #109 owned by Douglas S. Isham. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Restore the property to its original condition by removing all building materials used to inclose the deck. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceeding, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to one -hundred ($100.00) dollars per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs again within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues hither enforcement proceedings. N Philip Small Zoning Violation January 21, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and eighty five ($85) dollars within fifteen 0 5) days of the date ofthis letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincex-gly, Lymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp cc: Joseph S. McLean, City Attorney 1 Encl Certified letter #Z 462 927 137 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 January 21, 2000 Douglas S. Isham 25 Bay Crest Drive, #109 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Violation, Construction of Unit #109 Dear Mr. Isham: Please be advised that based on information available to the City, you have commenced land development on your property at the above address without obtaining a permit from the City as required by Section 27.10 of its Zoning Bylaws and 24 VSA 4443(a)(1). Specifically, you have initiated the following activities on the above -described property: Commenced construction to enclose a 10' x 13' portion of a deck adjacent to condominium unit #109 owned by Douglas S. Isham. You have seven (7) days from the date of this letter to discontinue this violation and take appropriate remedial action. Specifically, you must accomplish the following: Restore the property to its original condition by removing all building materials used to enclose the deck. If you do not accomplish the actions directed in this letter within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, the City may pursue this matter in court. In such court proceeding, the City will be entitled to seek appropriate injunctive relief and fines of up to one -hundred ($100.00) dollars per day for each day your violation continues beyond the seven (7) day period provided in this letter. If the violation described in this letter occurs again within twelve (12) months of the date of this letter, you will not be entitled to receive a further Notice of Violation from the City before the City pursues further enforcement proceedings. Douglas S. Isham Zoning Violation January 21, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Violation to the Development Review Board by filing a written notice of appeal (see enclosed) and eighty five ($85) dollars within fifteen (15) days of the date of this letter with the Clerk of the Development Review Board at the following address: 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403. Sincerely Ra d J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp cc: Joseph S. McLean, City Attorney 1 Encl Certified letter #Z 462 929 520 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 1999 Mr. Gage said he has very serious concerns. He noted that the Environmental Board said the city was not going by its own plan. They stressed that this is a unique area of the city, and that this is what "leap -frogging" is all about — going into a rural area. The city's plan says it does not want this to happen. Mr. Gage then showed his driveway and spots where cars disappear in the dips in the road. He stressed that it is a very dangerous situation to put cars from 40+ units onto that road. He felt it is not safe to put all that traffic on a road with blind spots and that this should be addressed before the project plans go any further. Mr. Fife agreed there is no way to emphasize how dangerous this area of the road is. Ms. Brady said she felt the applicant should wait to see what the effect of this will be on the school system. She felt this should be discussed before there are any more homes built. Mr. Dinklage explained that the School Board will review the application. Mr. Dinklage said he felt the comments on the dangers of Van Sicklen Rd. are very appropriate. Mr. O'Rourke said he would like the city's traffic expert to look at this. He would also like a report on prime ag soils and an indication of how to address this. He said he didn't feel this plan was a creative solution. He would also like input on street lights. Mr. Chamberland asked the applicant to respond to the request for clustering. Mr. Snyder felt this was a cluster plan. They are the smallest lots that can be permitted in the zone. Ms. Quimby noted that the City Engineer suggests a sidewalk along the private drive. There is one on the main road, and she didn't feel a second one was necessary. Mr. Fife asked about drainage. Mr. Donovan said as much as possible drainage will got into the small retention areas so as to maintain normal flow into the wetlands. He said they don't have the details yet. Mr. Fife said he was concern with salt getting into his pond and doing damage. Mr. Gage stressed that once the rural character of the area is lost, it is gone forever. He felt this plan was not responsive to preserving the rural setting. Mr. Dinklage then reviewed the Board's concerns including the blind spot in the road, trying to minimize encroachment into the setback from Hinesburg Rd., responding to clustering to the maximum, drainage, the rec path easement, and lighting. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of Baycourt Condominium Association from the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Zoning Permit #99-344 to 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 1999 Douglas Isham to enclose a 10'x13' portion of an existing deck, 25 Baycrest Drive, #109: Mr. O'Rourke stepped down during this discussion due to a conflict of interest. The condominium president said that Mr. Isham had proposed an addition to a condo building to the condo association. The association said they would look into it. Before the association could take any action, Mr. Isham got a building permit for which he gave false information to the city. Mr. Isham said he was the owner of the land on which the addition would go. The condo president said the land is owned by the condo association. In addition, the condo association by-laws say that any change to the property must be agreed upon by all members. Mr. Belair said he was not aware of where the property lines were when he issued the permit. He, too, noted that Mr. Isham said he was the owner of the property. Mr. Belair said if the new information is correct, and Mr. Isham is not the property owner, the decision to issue the permit should be reversed. The Board must make this decision as Mr. Belair is not allowed to reverse his own decision. Ms. Quimby read the following Findings of Fact and decision: This matter came before the South Burlington Development Review Board pursuant to the provisions of 24 VSA 4464(a) on appeal of Baycourt Condominium Association from the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Zoning Permit #99-344 to Douglas Isham to enclose a 10'x13' portion of an existing deck, 25 Baycrest Drive, #109. The appellants were present at the public hearing held relative to this appeal. Based on evidence submitted at the hearing and as part of this appeal, the Development Review Board hereby renders the following decision: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The owner of record of the particular property on which the deck exists and for which a zoning permit was issued to enclose a portion of the deck is Baycourt Condominium Association. 2. The Administrative Officer issued zoning permit #99-344 on September 17, 1999 to Douglas Isham at 25 Baycrest Drive, #109 to enclose a 10'x13' portion of an existing deck. Douglas Isham listed himself as the owner of the property. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 1999 3. On October 1,1999, the Baycourt Condominium Association appealed the issuance of zoning permit #99-344 on the grounds that the zoning permit application listed the incorrect name of the property owner. 4. Zoning permits must be issued to landowners. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Since zoning permits must be issued to landowners and Douglas Isham is not the landowner of the deck onto which the enclosed portion was to be constructed, the Development Review Board concludes that zoning permit #99-344 should not have been issued. DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the South Burlington Development Review Board hereby grants the appeal of the Baycourt Condominium Association to reverse the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue zoning permit #99-344 to Douglas Isham to enclose a 10'x13' portion of an existing deck, 25 Baycrest Drive, #109. Mr. Roth seconded the motion which was then passed unanimously. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Application of Far Water, Ltd., seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Area, Density & Dimensional Requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to allow 44 residential units more than is permitted in the R4 District,1952 Airport Parkway: Mr. Crampton spoke on behalf of the applicant. He noted that there was an approval for this project which included development on both sides of Lime Kiln Road. Then, Act 250 ruled that the entire west portion of the property should be undevelopable because it is a "rare and irreplaceable area." Mr. Crampton noted that the property is listed by the state as "rare and irreplaceable." Mr. Crampton said he feels the staff notes for the application,misstate the variance request. The applicant does not believe a variance is needed, but if a variance is needed, the applicant believes it should take into account the entire property (both sides of the road) which was approved for the PRD. Mr. Dinklage said this is getting into the area of transfer of development rights which is not allowed in this location. E DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD 16 NOVEMBER 1999 Mr. Crampton then cited the purposes of a PRD, one of which is to preserve special features of a property. The PRD regulations also say that the PRD must include all property owned by the applicant. Mr. Crampton said the applicant got approval for an 84-unit PRD. It is their contention that the calculation of maximum allowable density should be based on the total land in the PRD, not on one specific lot in the PRD. The applicant feels that the original approval was for the total land in the PRD, and they believe they have approval for 84 units. They feel they are just clustering the units into one area of the PRD. Mr. Dinklage said the Board would like to get clarification from the City Attorney on this issue. He said his feeling is the path is not as smooth as Mr. Crampton would suggest. Mr. O'Rourke noted that the Planning Commission made accommodations to get those 84 units. He expressed frustration at the situation because he felt there was a nice development planned. Mr. Crampton cited what he felt was a similar situation at a Shelburne Rd. development where the city allowed density from the other side of a city street in order to grant the developer 60 additional units. Mr. Rabideau then showed the plan the applicant is proposing. He cited a number of positive aspects and noted it conforms to all setbacks and is within coverages. There is also less surface parking. Mr. O'Rourke noted a 20% parking shortfall Mr. Rabideau said they have revised parking and now have slightly more than 2 space per unit, and the shortfall is down to 10%. Ms. Quimby said if there isn't adequate parking, cars will end up parked in the street, which is exactly what has happened in the Shelburne Rd. development the applicant cited. Members discussed continuing the hearing in order to get input for the City Attorney. Mr. Crampton asked for copies of all correspondence from the City Attorney. Mr. O'Rourke moved to continue the hearing until 21 December. Ms. Quimby seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Agenda Item #9, the sketch plan of the Far Water proposal, was not heard as members wanted input from the City Attorney before considering it. 10 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 23, 1999 Philip Small Baycourt Condo Association, # 502 25 Baycrest Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal, Unit # 109 Dear Mr. Small: Enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced project granted by the Development Review Board on November 16, 1999. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, 46�1 Raymond J. Belair Administrative Officer Certified Letter #: Z 462 929 521 RJB/mcp Encls cc: Douglas Isham /3 3SA."It, 38""-. '5 3 0 N,, 3 Y/ '41-' 2 , 44 iki _ 46 48 0780 00025 c I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------------- 30' WATER, SEWER, AND PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT 00017 N 63 '40 vuu I Q R 0960 00021 R 0960 00022 R 0150 00019 R Y'F A.1 0960 00020 R 015 000, R CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 12, 1999 Philip Small Baycourt Condo Association 25 Baycrest Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal, Unit #109 Dear Mr. Small: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and my comments to the Board. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, November 16, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since�ly, Raymond J. Belair, Administrative Officer RJB/mcp Encls cc: Douglas Isham CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 October 7 , 1999 Douglas Isham 25 Baycrest Drive, # 109 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Zoning Permit Appeal Dear Mr Isham: Please be advised that the issuance of Zoning Permit #99-344 for you to construct a 10' x 13' sun room has been appealed (see enclosed). Pursuant to 24 VSA 4443(a)(3), this permit will not take effect, and no construction may take place, until such time as the appeal is finally adjudicated. The Development Review Board will hear this appeal on November 16, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Since Raymond 1. Belair, Administrative Officer RW/mcp Encl C C PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON DEVELOPMENT 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, November 16, 1999, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Preliminary plat application of John Larkin to amend a planned unit development consisting of an existing 89 room hotel and 275 seat restaurant. The amendment consists of constructing an addition to the existing hotel buildings and constructing a new hotel building to add 71 rooms for a total of 160 rooms, 1 Dorset Street. 2) Application of Leonardo's Piazza/Philip S. George seeking conditional use approval from Section 26.05, Conditional Uses, and Section 26.05, Multiple Structures and Uses on Lots, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to convert 1500 square feet of retail space to a bakery & delicatessen restaurant use (pizza delivery) in a building with a retail use, 1333 Williston Road. 3) Application of Far Water, Ltd seeking a variance from Section 25.00 Area, Density & Dimensional Requirements of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to allow 47 residential units more than is permitted in the R4 District, 1953 Airport Parkway. 4) Appeal of Baycourt Condominium Association from the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue Zoning Permit #99-344 to Douglas Isham to enclose a 10' x 13' portion of an existing deck, 25 Baycrest Drive, #109. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. John Dinklage, Chairman South Burlington Development Review Board October 30, 1999 to aorrvem 1500 squam feet at, row, space m a, bakery & delicatessen, i restaurent'use [pizza de-' livery!, in a, Wilding, with, retail use, T333 Williston Road. 3) Application of Far ter, Ltd seeking a van ance Pro Section 2M� Area, Density & Dlrnen-� 3ional Requirements at the, South, Burlington"' Zoning Regulations. Rel quest 4s for, pefrri(sajort to allow 47 r residential , units more than" s' per- mfttWr in thw R4! District, 1953, Airport Parkway. I 4 *pow, 0i ft4n" I � decision- olle"Iof! " *the, , mini dve, Offlow to, issue Zoning, Permit! #99�'U* toOlou s, 19ham" to, 40005A lt�a TT ponftr'afan exssdnq;, CieCig. 25r' 5111crest Drive,'.i"Cl6vies, of',thw' applic&" for" ips th4f ton, C4,1, y7" C Memorandum - Development Review Board November 16, 1999 agenda items November 12, 1999 proposal at its 11/1/99 meeting (see enclosed memo). Mail delivery: Applicant should indicate how mail delivery will be provided (i.e., mail box clusters or individual mailboxes for each home). School impact: The school impact letter for the 64 lot proposal is acceptable for this proposal. Floodalain Overlay District: The plan shows the floodplain limits along Muddy Brook. Other: --- each duplex and house will be assessed road, school and recreation impact fees in accordance with the South Burlington Impact Fee Ordinance. --- provide street names for preliminary plat. --- the duplex lot should be numbered. 7) BAYCOURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION - APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER'S DECISION The Baycourt Condominium Association has appealed my decision to issue a zoning permit (#99-344) to Douglas Isham (see enclosed) to enclose a 10' x 13' portion of an existing deck. I am not certain of the Association's reasons for appealing this permit. I believe it is their position that the deck is on their land and he does not have permission from them to build this enclosed area. If this is the case, then the information on the permit application under "owner" was incorrect. 8) FAR WATER, LTD - VARIANCE - 44 RESIDENTIAL UNITS This request is to allow 44 residential units more than is permitted on a 9.42 acre parcel (to be increased to 10.64 acres after road realignment) located at 1952 Airport Parkway. The Planning Commission on 9/22/98 approved an 84 unit planned residential development on two (2) parcels of land. The easterly parcel was approved for 40 units and the westerly CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 November 12, 1999 Philip Small Baycourt Condo Association 25 Baycrest Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal, Unit #109 Dear Mr. Small: Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Development Review Board meeting and my comments to the Board. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, November 16, 1999 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincely, Raymond I. Belair, Administrative Officer RIB/mcp Encls cc: Douglas Isham "- CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON PERMIT NO ........ APPLICATION FOR ZONING PE UT 1st. Copy CODE OFFICER ZOIIC..ti/% 2nd. Copy CITY ENGINEER III 3rd. Copy CITY ASSESSOR y yy 4th Copy APPLICANT Date................................ 19. .. . The undersigned hereby applies for permission to make certain building Improvements as described below. IPlans to be submitted if required by Building Inspector.) All construction to be completed In accordance with the Zoning Laws and Building Regulations of the City of South Burlington and the State of Vermont, and con- form to the Regulations of the National Board of Fire Underwriters and any and all Federal Regulations now in off act. CONSTRUCTION STREETSN. N U M B E LOT SIZE: Frontage Depth Lot 140. Two Family BUILDER Aportm ant No. Fern. ■Private ■ Offices rry�m MINEEM SEWAGE DISPOSAL: Public 0 Private Permit * warehouse ®EEEM =��OMEM i ROAD OPENING: (Show layout) Permit * ■ ■ Underground ■ • ■ Permit * -00©©Plot to scale Lot and Building Improvements, showing width of Front, Side and Rear yords. Mark N at Compass point Indicating North. • • �� Concrete l�ENE= ■■■■■■■■E■M■EMEE■EMEE■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ WOMEN ■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■!I'''■■ Block � ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■Concrete ■■■MOT ■■■■■■■■■■■■M�.:■■ �,111101E ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■SEEM■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ MEE■M■ME■ESE■MMSEMi■OEM■MESSE■■SE■■■■■■■■■■■E■ ... .................... ........................ .............................................. .............................................. Conc.-or Cind. al. �: ...............■.........................■■■■■! IN ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■1 PROPERTY Estinated ROOFINGDescription Asph. Shingles FEE COM T I N $ /6 /6 �r'e��' Plans received Yes ❑ No ❑ SIGNATURE of OWNER or BUILDER a ADDRESS of OWNER APPLICATION: REJECTED ❑ APPROVED A� IGNATURE OF CODE OFFICER ISSUED TO 6_16 �� i �/�% Date 19 ---F DRRUIT VA In FAR CIY •IIANTI-IC PERMIT SUBJECT TO APPEAL WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM nATP ia_gIIPn City of South Burlington Application to Development Review Board Official Use APPLICATION # HEARING DATE �(� FILING DATE j i FEE AMOUNT . Name of applicant(s) RA 7 C01JR T Co N Dd /y S10 C-° i ATl Del Address 25 Q Y C RE 51- 1R . Telephone # 02671, A5N i YZ Z - /(- Z Represented by )0W $r / 7J&�v 7- / N / L /'P 5-1;14 4-1— Landowner- 16"COUAT aWDe , 5pe/f+T7 0-� Location and description of property e0 Al Al GW f R-C-lq Or' 77-1 e' /45 0 C l f 77 OW Adjacent property owner(s) & Address &' ecovR-r (Yv/J7c>b 5 Type of application check one: appeal from decision of Administrator Officer ( ) request for a conditional use ( ) request for a variance I understand the presentation procedures required by State Law (Section 4468 of the Planning & Development Act). That a legal advertisement must appear a minimum of fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing and I agree to pay a hearing fee which is to offset the cost of hearing. r Describe request: >, DEN I WE OF r.IPa. If Other documentation: Ib--©t Date SOUTH BURLINGTON ZONING NOTICE In accordance with the South Burlington Zoning Regulations and Chapter 117, Title 24 V.S.A. the South Burlington Development Review Board will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington Municipal Offices, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, , at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Application of seeking a from Section of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations. Request is for permission to l CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February 9, 2000 Philip Small Baycourt Condo Association 25 Baycrest Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal of Baycourt Condominium Association, Zoning Permit #99-344 Dear Mr. Small: Enclosed is a copy of the November 16, 1999 Development Review Board minutes on the above referenced project. Please note the decision to reverse the issuance of zoning permit #99-344. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Encls CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ZONING 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 (802) 846-4106 FAX (802) 846-4101 February 9, 2000 Douglas Isham 25 Baycrest Drive, #109 South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Appeal of Baycourt Condominium Association, Zoning Permit #99-344 Dear Mr. Isham: Enclosed are copies of the November 16, 1999 Development Review Board minutes on the above referenced projects_ Please note the decision to reverse the decision of the Administrative Officer to issue zoning permit #99-344. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Sarah MacCallum Planning & Zoning Assistant Encls PLANNING COMMISSION 24 SEPTEMBER 1985 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday 24 September 1985 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman, Judith Hurd, William Burgess, James McClary, John Dooley, John Belter, Peter Jacob Others Present Jane Lafleur, City Planner, John Larkin, R. Krebs, Don Allen, Daniel O'Brien, John Rider, Valerie Rider, Fred Smith, Eliz- abeth Edwards, Reg Boucher, Mary Silverman, Bill Robenstein, Joseph Schall, Eugene Alexander, Peter Allison, Blake Stimson, Jeffrey Nelson, R. Stewart Wooster, Doug Fitzpatrick, Kathleen Huffman, Bob Duncan, Lynn Charlier UBLIC HEARING; Revised Final P t of LTH Associates for evision of 20 un--g ,ice Cluster 7 single family lots and 10 units in Cluster C to 5 single family lots Mr. Kreps said the 11 flats and townhouses of pine trees. They lot 43 has no frontal ment on lot 39 where said he was troubled be allowed. Dts are immediately to the east of the already built. There is a good buffer would like curb cuts for each lot, but ;e, so access would be through an ease - there is already a curb cut. Mr. Dooley by this and members agreed it should not Mrs. Lafleur said there is a problem with a street name in Cluster D and Mr. Larkin said this can be changed. Members agreed that Wagner, Heindel & Noyes should check the erosion question. Mrs. Maher said there have been complaints about the condition of the streets in the development. Mr. Larkin said the roads will be blacktopped by the end of October. 3 UBLIC HEARING: Revised final plat of LTH Associates for the subdivision of Cluster Blnto 2 lots located on Harbor View Rd. Mr. Larkin said they had run into a title insurance problem and that -phasic the project would solve this. Mrs. Lafleur said they could stipulate there could be no higher density than now approved. One concern is that the road remain open to Cluster A through Cluster B. C PLANNING COMMISSION 24 SEPTEMBER 1985 PAGE 2 division of Cluster B of Harbor Heights into 2 lots of 1.7 and 2.2 acres as depicted on a plan entitled "Revised Lot Plan, Harbor Heights, ¢luster B" dated April 1984, prepared Krebs and Lansing with the following stipulations: 1. Access to Cluster A through Cluster B shall remain open wnd appropriate amendments to legal documents, including condo by-laws shall be approved 12y the City Attorney and recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days to insure this. 2. All approvals of the original subdivision (7/13/82) shall remain in effect. 3. The density of units, now at 16, in the 1.7 acre lot shall not be increased in the future because of this subdivision. 4. The Final Plat shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days. Mr. Jacob seconded, and the motion passed 6-0 with Mr. McClary abstaining. y, PUBLIC HEARING: Revised Final Plat of O'Brien Brothers for the 4 lot subdivision of Foxcroft (Cardinal Woods Extension) Mr O'Brien said there would be no change in use and no change in density. This was approved as 1 project and they now want to set up a separate organization for each use. The attorney says this will be a simpler procedure and the best approach is to ask for a subdivision. They will stipulate no in- crase in density at'any time. Mr. Dooley asked if there is any open space reserved. Mr. O'Brien said there is no O Q ern land except for the Conservation Zone and a GMP easement. Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve-thase- Sub ivisinn of Fnxnrnft (Cardinal Woodn .x naion) as dEnicted on a plan entitled "Cardinal Woods, Phase II: -Lieweiivn s stipula Ji The sti2ulations of e original approval granted Februar L2, 1985 and amended -February 26, 1985 shall remain in 3There shall be no density increases on any lot; this shall CITY OF SOTJrH BURL,INGTON Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT 1) Name of Applicant (- I N 2) Name of Subdivision P RO (2g-krr 3) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor, attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: NUtlf. 4) Indicate any changes to the subdivision, such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, or developmental timetable, since preliminary plat application: 6-C.Ue44 l 2 1-2F-P--916-M LOT--e7 5) Submit four copies of a final set of plans consisting of a final plat plus engineering drawings and containing all information required under section 202.1 of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 204.1(a) for a major subdivision. 6) Submit two draft copies of all legal documents required under section 202.1 (11) and (12) of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 204.1(b) for a major subdivision. (Signature) applicant or contact person Date PLANNER 658-7955 ty of SouthBurlingto -575 DORSET STREET UTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS the South Burlington Planning Commission duly approved the revised Final Plat of LTH, Inc., for the revision of Cluster C from 10 multi -family units to five duplexes on Bay Court Drive and Harbor View Road on November 25, 1985; and WHEREAS these approved revisions are depicted on a plan entitled "Horizontal Layout" prepared by Krebs and Lansing, dated 6/1983 and later revised on 11/13/85; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission duly approved the revised Final Plat of LTH, Inc., for the revision of Cluster D from 20 multi- family units to seven single-family lots at Harbor Heights on Harbor View Road on October 22, 1985; and WHEREAS, these approved revisions are depicted on the plans entitled "Final Plat:Bartlett Property", revised 9/3/85 and "Horizontal Layout:Bartlett Property", dated 9/3/85, as prepared by Krebs and Lansing; and WHEREAS, the applicant neglected to file the record copy with the City Clerk within the required 90 days; and WHEREAS, the conditions have not changed since these approvals, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that these approvals and plats are hereby validated subject to the conditions of approval. Adopted: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman William Burgess John Dooley, III Peter Jacob Judy Hurd John Belter Catherine Peacock CI CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON JqAet-,CtD Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT 1) Name of Applicant A4`70C.JbrL't) 2) Name of Subdivision 1/Al2f Lf=S (-Vo (5g- :J: 3) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of reco:td, applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor, attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: r-4 CNC, — 4) Indicate any changes to the subdivision, such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, or developmental timetable, since preliminary plat application: 60p4Z-,F, zb grad :LLtqLr,x (� --?-) q (L -DvVQA.it461`7 hglM f�AgGE- 10 UN (Tzi 5) Submit four copies of a final set of plans consisting of a final plat plus engineering drawings and containing all information required under section 202.1 of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 204.1(a) for a major subdivision. 6) Submit two draft copies of all legal documents required under section 202.1 (11) and (12) of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 204.1(b) for a major subdivision. "/-, E,&,tC. Yl" (Signature) applicant or contact person Date PLANNING COMMISSION 22 OCTOBER 1985 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, 22 October 1985, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman; Judith Hurd, John Dooley, William Burgess Others Present Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner; Sidney Poger, The Other Paper; Robert Krebs, William Nedde, III, R. G. Blanchard, C. B. Killen, Peter Moodie, Steve Tragemann, Richard Jones, Steve Baffoni, Richard Flakenbush, Claire & Bob Beauchemin, Robert & Aline de Laricheliere, Sue Falkenbush, Randy Berard, Paul Couture, James Dodge, Peggy Dodge, Maureen Rees, Cathy Frank, Barbara Lenox, Al Liguori, Reza Nemazee, Carolyn Lyman, Andrew Mayer, Michael Dugan, Walter Houghton, Mr. Samson, Doug Fitzpatrick, Gary Lacey, John Larkin Minutes of 8 October 1985 Ms. Hurd moved that the Minutes of October 8, 1985 be approved as written. Mr. Dooley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 1) Continue Public Hearing on revised Final Plat application of LTH Associates for the revision of Cluster D from 20 multi- family units to 7 single family lots at Harbor Heights, Harbor View Road Mrs. Maher noted that the developers and City Manager have compromised on the holding facility for runoff as there was a wish not to harm a large stand of trees where the holding pond would have had to be placed. Mrs. Lafleur said the compromise solution involves a dry well installed just west of lots 49 and 50 similar to what is being done on other lots. Mr. Krebs added that the back yard of the lots will drain to the west. There will be a natural area in the center that will drain down. The first part of the runoff would fill up the dry well. Detention would be taken into the ground. The rest of the water would go over the top of the dry well as it would anyway. Mr. Dooley said he would like to see a stipulation that the deed has to give the right of use to the city to assure that the dry well is doing what it should. Residents from the adjoining properties spoke strongly in favor of granting the single family lots instead of the multi -family lots. 11 2) PLANNING COMMISSION 22 OCTOBER 1985 PAGE 2 Mrs. Lafleur advised that the final blacktopping of the road was done a few days ago. The Chairman polled the Commission as to preference on main- tenance of the dry well, and the majority preferred that the City assume this responsibility. Mr. Dooley then moved that the Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat of LTH Associates for the revision to Cluster D from 20 multi -family units to 7 single-family lots as shown on the plans entitled "Final Plat: Bartlett Property" revised 9/3/85 and "Horizontal Layout: Bartlett Property" revised 9/3/85 prepared by Krebs and Lansing Con- sulting Engineers, Inc, with the following stipulations: 1. The plan shall be revised to eliminate any change to Cluster C. It shall remain as multi -family dwellings until a revised plan is approved. 2. The street named "Bay Court" shall be renamed not to conflict with the Bay Court condos. The name shall be approved by the City Planner. 3. All stipulations from the Final Plat approval of July 13, 1985 shall remain in effect. 4. Prior to any building permits for lots #44 to #50, the street trees shall be planted on the public streets and the final course of blacktop shall be installed. 5. The applicant shall install a dry well catch basin in the open space area to the west of the boundary of lots 49 and 50 as approved by the City Engineer. The catch basin shall be maintained 12y the City of South Burlington and the applicant shall provide to the City an appropriate easement or right - of -entry for that purpose. 6. The revised plan shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Consider expired site plan application of LTH Associates for 20,000 sq. ft. office building on lot #9, Harbor View Rd. Members agreed that they would like the applicant to comply with recommendations of Wagner, Heindel & Noyes regarding storm water detention. Mr. Dooley moved that the site plan application be continued No Text PLANNING COMMISSION 25 NOVEMBER 1985 PAGE 2 1. An $1800 landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan showing the trees situated to screen the storage area for approval of the City Planner prior to permit. 2. The designated storage area is storage until a revised site plan installed around the perimeter of applicant's discretion. the only area approved for approval. The fence may be the property at the 3. Septic connections shall be located for future connection to the street. 4. The new inlet on Ethan Allen Drive shall be City standard. 5. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months. Mrs. Hurd seconded the motion which passed 3-0 with Mr. Belter abstaining. 3, Public Hearing: Revised Final"Plat of LTH, Inc., for revision to the approved Cluster C from 10 multi -family units to 5 duplexes on Bay Court Drive and Harbor View Road Mr. Larkin explained that his i buffer between the condos and t land would be held in common o front on city streets. The Wa indicates that 3044 gals. of st the property by a method to be Members discussed the driveways T-shape set-up would allow for The access road is to be 18 ft. Dooley said he would like to se the building and the access roa ntention is to provide a he single family homes. All wnership and all units would gner, Heindel & Noyes study orm water should be stored on approved by the City Engineer. to the units and felt that a better access and parking. wide to the corner unit. Mr. e 10 feet between the side of d. Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the re- vised Final Plat of LTH, Inc., for the revision to Cluster C from the approved 10 units in one structure to 5 condominium duplexes as depicted on a plan entitled "Horizontal Layout - Bartlett Property" prepared by Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc, dated 6 1983 and last revised 11 13/85 with the following stipulations: 1. The access driveway to the southwest building shall be 18 feet wide. The edge of the driveway shall be no closer than 10 feet to the nearest building. 2. The drainage Hay in the southwest corner shall be piped and plans for this shall be approved by the City Engineer PLANNING COMMISSION 25 NOVEMBER 1985 PAGE 3 prior to permit. 3. The applicant shall meet the recommendations of Wagner, Heindel & Noyse for stormwater detention by a method approved by the City Engineer. If construction proceeds during the winter or spring months, the applicant shall follow the recommendations of Wagner, Heindel & Noyse for erosion nnntrnl_ 4. The plan shall show T-shaped driveways for each building, allowing two cars to park in front of a unit such that they each have unimpeded access, as approved by the City Planner. 5. A_ revised landscaping plan with street trees and site landscaping shall be approved by the City Planner prior to permit. A bond shall be posted in an amount determined the City Planner prior to permit 6. The revised plan shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 9O days or it shall be invalid. Mrs. Hurd seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. y, Consider site plan application of Tony Cairns for Champlain Oil Co. for the construction of a 4480 sq. ft. office building and use of existing building for Champlain Oil Co., at 354 Dorset St. The existing Merrill building will serve for oil storage. Offices in front will be for the dispatcher. The new building will be for office staff. One curb cut will be closed and the drive leading to the front of the Merrill building will be closed. One of 2 existing gas pumps will probably be removed. Champlain has only 4 trucks. Mr. Belter felt there should be a way to separate Champlain's lot from Alco next door. Mr. Cairns said there is a chain link fence that could be extended. The new building will be 4800 sq. ft, initially single story but with the capability of being extended to 2 stories. Mrs. Lafleur noted that the Fire Chief says there is an underground storage tank that he would like information on. Mr. Cairns said they will -request that Merrill remove all tanks over a certain number of years old. Mrs. Lafleur noted that the plan conforms to existing zoning and is improving the lot. However, because new plans are being considered for Dorset St. and it may be that with re- zoning, trucking and industrial warehousing will be zoned out. The Dorset St. Committee is looking at the San Remo Dr. PLANNING COMMISSION 22 OCTOBER 1985 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, 22 October 1985, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman; Judith Hurd, John Dooley, William Burgess Others Present Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner; Sidney Poger, The Other Paper; Robert Krebs, William Nedde, III, R. G. Blanchard, C. B. Killen, Peter Moodie, Steve Tragemann, Richard Jones, Steve Baffoni, Richard Flakenbush, Claire & Bob Beauchemin, Robert & Aline de Laricheliere, Sue Falkenbush, Randy Berard, Paul Couture, James Dodge, Peggy Dodge, Maureen Rees, Cathy Frank, Barbara Lenox, Al Liguori, Reza Nemazee, Carolyn Lyman, Andrew Mayer, Michael Dugan, Walter Houghton, Mr. Samson, Doug Fitzpatrick, Gary Lacey, John Larkin Minutes of 8 October 1985 Ms. Hurd moved that the Minutes of October 8, 1985 be approved as written. Mr. Dooley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 1) Continue Public Hearing on revised Final Plat application of LTH Associates for the revision of Cluster D f_rom,_..20,multi family units to 7 single family lots at Harbor Heights, Harbor View Road. T Mrs. Maher noted that the developers and City Manager have compromised on the holding facility for runoff as there was a wish not to harm a large stand of trees where the holding pond would have had to be placed. Mrs. Lafleur said the compromise solution involves a dry well installed just west of lots 49 and 50 similar to what is being done on other lots. Mr. Krebs added that the back yard of the lots will drain to the west. There will be a natural area in the center that will drain down. The first part of the runoff would fill up the dry well. Detention would be taken into the ground. The rest of the water would go over the top of the dry well as it would anyway. Mr. Dooley said he would like to see a stipulation that the deed has to give the right of use to the city to assure that the dry well is doing what it should. Residents from the adjoining properties spoke strongly in favor of granting the single family lots instead of the multi -family lots. PLANNING COMMISSION 22 OCTOBER 1985 PAGE 2 Mrs. Lafleur advised that the final blacktopping of the road was done a few days agg. The Chairman polled the Commission as to preference on main- tenance of the dry well, and the majority preferred that the City assume this responsibility. Mr. Dooley then moved that the Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat of LTH Associates for the revision to Cluster D from 20 multi -family units to 7 single-family lots as shown on the plans entitled "Final Plat: Bartlett Property" revised 9/3/85 and "Horizontal Layout: Bartlett Property" revised 9/3/85 prepared by Krebs and Lansing Con- sulting Engineers, Inc, with the following stipulations: 1. The plan shall be revised to eliminate any change to Cluster C. It shall remain as multi -family dwellings until a revised plan is approved. 2. The street named "Bay Court" shall be renamed not to conflict with the Bay Court condos. The name shall be approved by the City Planner. 3. All stipulations from the Final Plat approval of July 13, 1985 shall remain in effect. 4. Prior to any building permits for lots #44 to #50, the street trees shall be planted on the public streets and the final course of blacktop shall be installed. 5. The applicant shall install a dry well catch basin in the open space area to the west of the boundary of lots 49 and 50 as approved by the City Engineer. The catch basin shall be maintained by the City of South Burlington and the applicant shall provide to the City an appropriate easement or right - of -entry for that purpose. 6. The revised plan shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 2) Consider expired site plan application of LTH Associates for 20,000 sq. ft. office building on lot #_ 1 Harbor View Rd. Members agreed that they would like the applicant to comply with recommendations of Wagner, Heindel & Noyes regarding storm water detention. Mr. Dooley moved that the site plan application be continued Thir is -, 53 lot Lich str,1(9--I,!,s ti-.D anC A ? s5istrictr, Th'Z` site slop�.--,�S l3own to the west and has 'a substantial drainagel,,,,317 on its north-weote.rn corner,, and is approximately-65 lcrl-.:, in size. ."cceoo inclu(.,: s-t,-r_,'kJ,ng lan: on nnrt-Alole n7iqnalizatlnn, '-3 te 1-1 e to a but '-'- i n(; lrnpertito th_ m-.)rLh an,,9 a linl,, up (throucb tr,-�fz i c i th a, e, pin -A..,;cour�,�g, �) , anO Rr,,ak e J_.'Pak-ry r7rivevmy. :3ho-.,-,,-n in th,, Comprc2h`-,,n,,_,,ivP 7)"an for t h i c , proparty. Sidewalks, ,3hould be inrft,711r�d -:long Rout_-',' 7nee interior roacl The lo,,77.t.ion on jr_)rop,'rty 'Till 1-7,10.1n on contour- �,,,,,3p -to I), '�uh-aittd e :iatc!r su-ni.1,,r C?sign ,ill-iall I),- 7:)y the City Dngin2r-,,r ;nC7 the Zi z e Chi :, f Parkl•�nd dc.)dicntion c-ont'4cuolls -to th:a �' -�.,-�ist_ing parlclancl&tO t.h4.',, nor-th olmee by the city and th�_' lll,_�a(3o-,,vond at* �p.r.nr I, ,,e M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: November 26, 1985 agenda items Date: November 22, 1985 2) N.E.T.C. Livestock Fence, Lot #2 1. No comments. 3) BARTLETT PROPERTY, LTH, INC., HARBOR VIEW ROAD 1. A 12' wide by 200' toot long access drive serving a duplex will not allow two way travel. It should be at least 18' wide. I would rather see two triplexes and the long drive duplex eliminated. 2. Driveways as shown on plan will not accommodate two cars unless they are parked one behind the other which is not good. 3. The drainage way in south-west corner should be piped instead of the open ditch. 4) CHAMPLAIN OIL, 354 DORSET STREET 1. A concrete depressed curb shall be installed across new entrance at San Remo Drive. 2. Parking area shall be graded to drain toward existing catch basins. 5) PIZZAGALLI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 35 JOY DRIVE 1. The storm runoff (cubic feet per second) trom the site should be restricted because of my concerns on Farrell Street where the Joy Drive drainage outlets. This can be done by restricting the site discharge pipe. The result would be some short duration ponding on the site after a heavy rainfall. '25/85 J n L �. MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat of LTH, Inc., for the revision,��`to Cluster C from the approved 10 units in one structure to 5�`duplexes as depicted on a plan entitled "Horizontal Layout - Bartlett Property" prepared by Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated 6/1983 and last revised 11/13/85 with the following stipulations: 1. The access driveway to the southwest building shall be 18 feet wide. 2. The drainage way in the southwest corner shall be piped and plans for this shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to permit. 3. The applicant shall meet the recommendations of Wagner, Heindol & Noyse for storwer detention.�.A....,,:4,,'. 4. Legal documents pertaining to a permanent easement or access to the sout} as erg 'dtip e ' shams e apprp�r�d y "the-,C,1`6y,••Att�t6"r"'ney and recoeled wi' the City Clerk wit.t7h 90 d. 5. A revised landscaping plan with street trees and site land- scaping shall be approved by the City Planner prior to permit. A bond shall be posted in an amount determined by the City Planner prior to permit. 6. The revised plan shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days or it shall be invalid. tot lures --between "duple es. This must be "r'edordeCd ,.pricr,.ta-wthe conveyance of,•any ,lot or the issuance of —a btu4-1-d4ng-permit. .-7 r M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner Re: September 24, 1985 agenda items Date: September 20, 1985 SOCIATES 5 BARTLETT PROPERTY, HARBOR VIEW ROAD 9�)' The applicant proposes to change the multi -family units in Clusters C and D to single-family lots. Cluster C was approved for 10 multi -family units and is revised as 5 single-family lots (#39 - 43). Cluster D was approved for 20 multi -family units and is revised as 7 single-family lots (#44 - 50). Lot #43 does not have road frontage. Legal documents must be recorded for the 20 foot right-of-way giving access to Harbor View Road. Lot #45, and possibly #44 and 46 will have a Bay Court street address, as does #20 which is already built. Since there may be a conflict with the "Bay Court" apartments (Cluster A), the street name may have to be changed or a suitable solution found so there is no confusion with mail delivery, fire and police protection. This reduction in units should not be perceived as a permission to increase density elsewhere, and any savings in sewer capacity goes back into the pool. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant must place the final course of blacktop throughout the development, patch Harbor View Road, and plant street trees according to the plan. 3) LTH ASSOCIATES, 2'LOT SUBDIVISION The applicant proposes to subdivide Cluster B from the balance of the property. It will be separate lots of 1.7 acres and 2.2 acres. This is requested due to the insurance problems since 3 buildings are still not constructed. The access to Cluster A'through Cluster B may not be closed off. There must be permanent legal arrangements made to keep this private road open. The second access to Cluster A is not affected. Appropriate legal documents shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the City Clerk. Memorandum September 9/20/85 Page 2 24, 1985 agenda items There shall be no density increase on these parcels or the balance of the residential project. 4) FOXCROFT (CARDINAL WOODS EXTENSION), O'BRIEN The applicant proposes to subdivide the approved 107 unit project into 4 lots. Lot #1 consists of 24 multi -family units and 4 single-family and is 3.32 acres. Lot #2 consists of 6 multi- family units and is 3.09 acres; lot #3 is 3.80 acres with 16 multi -family units and lot #4 is 14.75 acres with 57 single-family units, for a total of 46 multi -family and 61 single-family dwell- ings as originally approved. Legal documents must be filed with private street maintenance clauses. There shall be no increase in density on any of these lots. 5) VERMONT FEDERAL BANK, INDIAN CREEK The applicant proposes to relocate Cluster one from a location on the southern side of the entrance road, 350-fro�i,Dorset Street to a flew location south of the newly constructed Cluster 3. Cluster One is ten units. The recreational vehicle area must be relocated since a new driveway crosses it. The new layout meets the same standards for parking, setbacks, etc. as the original approval and preserves the aesthetic appeal of the entrance to the development. 6) MARK HILL INVESTMENTS, 5 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE The applicant proposes to construct an11,250 square foot addition to the 3600 square foot existing building (Mienke Muffler) and a new 11,925 square foot building on the 90,000 square foot lot. The proposed use is automotive parts, repair sales and service or storage and distribution facilities. These received conditional use approval from the ZBA. The property is zoned C-2 and is at the southwest corner of Green Mountain Drive next to Racine AMC/ Jeep. Access and Circulation: Access to the expanded building is from an existing 24 foot wide driveway and a new 24 foot wide driveway ( 9/23/85 JBL MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat of LTH Associates for the subdivision of Cluster B of Harbor Heights into 2 lots of 1.7 and 2.2 acres as depicted on a plan entitled "Revised Lot Plan, Harbor Heights, Cluster B" dated April 1984, prepared by Krebs and Lansing with the following stipulations: 1) Access to Cluster A through Cluster B shall remain open and appropriate amendments to legal documents, including condo by- laws shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days to insure this. 2) All approvals of the original subdivision (7/13/82) shall remain in effect. 3) The Final Plat shall be recorded with the City Clerk within 90 days. jl)� { ,r MEMORANDUM ---------------- TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JAMES W. GODDETTE SR.,FIRE CHIEF RE: SEPTEMBER 24,1985 AGENDA ITEMS DATE: SEPTEMBER 20,1985 1. 4-Lot Sub -Division; Hinesburg Road Foxcraft Plans were reviewed by the fire department and at this time I do not see a problem for the fire service. 2. Park $ Fly ; White Street Extention Plans reviewed and at this time I do not see a problem with giving fire protection. 3. Lot #3 Ethan Allen Drive; Anderson,Brown $ Brown A meeting was held with Mr. Walter Adamson Thursday September 19,1985 to go over problems for the fire service. Mr. Adams understood them and agreed to make the cnTrect.i rnS and have a new plan by this meetir,_. If the expansion is also approved, one fIrre hydrant is needed as discussed with w. Adams. 4. l Bartlett Property; Mr. Larkins; Plans reviewed and with the changes Mr. Larkins requesting is less problems the the condo's he wanted to construct. S. Bartlett Property; Cluster#3 Sub -Division At this time I do not see any problems with the sub -division for cluster #3. 6. Indian Creek Condos; Cluster#1 Plans reviewed by this department and more information is needed. There are problems with the design of the locations of the buildings which would give us problems with giving fire protection. H 1\1N Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. consulting geologists 285 North Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401 802-658-0820 November 25, 1985 Ms. Jane Bechtel-Lefleur City Planner S. Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Bartlett Property LTH CLuster C Revision Dear Jane: We have reviewed the hydrologic impact of the proposed modification to cluster C of the Bartlett Property LTH Development. This portion of the site lies within watersheds #3 and #7 of the Bartlett Brook watershed. Our analysis is based on the site plan prepared by Krebs and Lansing, Consulting Engineers, Inc. with revisions dated November 13, 1985. This revision replaces Cluster C with 5 duplexes. A total of 3 analyses have been performed with the following conditions: 1. Pre -development (agricultural use) 2. Post -development with cluster 3. Post -development with duplexes Within each of these analyses, we have examined the soil land use and coverage characteristics of the site and input this data into the TR-20 computer model of the watershed. The output from the model consists if outflow hydrographs which describe the rate of discharge from the site during the design storm (25-year 24-hour storm, 4.0 inches). The hydrologic variables for the site input to the model are summarized on pages 1-3 of the Attachment. The two proposed development configurations are shown on pages 4-5 of the Attachment. The modeling runs indicate that an increase of 0.46 cfs would be observed in the peak discharge for the portion oo the site lying in subwatershed #3 or the currently proposed development. The portion of the site lying in subwatershed #7 would experience an increase in peak discharge of 0.67 cfs. In order to prevent any increase in peak discharge from the site above the existing undeveloped condition, we would propose the following detention volumes: w...,, Subwatershed #3 - ,240 gallons.- Subwatershed #7 - j804_ gal"T6ns While these volumes may seem relatively small and insignificant, it is our belief that any increase in peak discharge of this magnitude will exacerbate the existing erosional condition of Bartlett Brook. Therefore, this storage should be provided on C J Ms. Jane Bechtel-Lefleur 2 November 25 1985 the site. the design of the storage facilities will be dependent on the configuration of storm drains within the existing development roads. It is expected that runoff will preceed off the cluster C area in a relatively diffused manner, emerging at the roads which bound the area to the north and west. Upon reaching the roads, runoff will then proceed to storm drains. Therefore, it is possible that the emplacement of oversized storm drains which provide the requisite storage volume could be utilized. Another option would be the use of dry wells, located along the storm water drainage pipes downgradient from the street drains. If construction is to proceed during the winter or spring months, we would recommend that strict erosion control procedures be followed. This would include the use of hay bales and filter material at the outlet points of all storm drainage pipes which could receive runoff from the site. This is particularly important during this time of year, since vegetative cover cannot be established and large rainfall/snow melt events are to be expected. This concludes our review of the proposed revision to Cluster C and the Bartlett Propertly/LTH Development. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. ncerely, J ffrey . Nelson Wagner, Heindel, cc: Bob Krebs encl.: Attachment JAN:smm and Noyes, Inc. H WN Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. Consulting Geologists Burlington, Vermont wn Page No. PAGE OF PROJECT tAII-i-I" Ncz., P• \ DATE: 1L'2y•`a`, •£�1�LU1 mil\ • C'LA/Q RVIV \,--,%wJj UM—v—C> \ \'--!;�•1�6-J' �Z4ciwi VArl_ LNC Q-PA�- NT- w \ 0k `� ✓U f- U rG 4- • i�LA-�[ \�+h� ( r)�+z T ►t u a k 6aNzri.E ►; SUaL'-juTF:<p YcZ.E�Ni �r� AN'[ L"V L'-�: �. � ,� Dui. (►l�I Vic �L , (. �c N, �� • CU2VR_ NVMP—it4e.S • P(<E-DAVE t.�kr� l-\t AIT 0,A�ft- i' ri 'LE.)', C tJ = C' 01 $upwKLq,fzS\A0 a M,1-45 Ft` = OATa) Ac. AT QN = 6`I `l a) o PT L = V , �xo-+ &C- KT C Al = c06 GN = S • 90 V-/UrG(,u P ME N ► C �I 'e-E-J,- � -4-410 F T -V-- Ar<- per" C.AI=`tb � CN 0 FT-=0•`tU, Rc- A-V r-&I =fo`l • Sup LJA-Tkrc ":-ll`t ,.� Vl `I-+'4 5 IFt 0.2ZLl A(, Nr, C N =c1 `b C Ill )LIJ Z> U F T z = O, b -1-1 A-c k-T c N _. 6R O . Co3 ti-c... � nl s � c>, w +�'1-fL.'t s ► t� 1,.� � n./ .. i Al L \/ k-iYc tL5& 111 D H W N 17 Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. Consulting Geologists Burlington, Vermont i IIWLE UI CvN��-'V�fG4=i"l�lJ PQf 0f U L t s Grp i tiT Su C'� w a��tL�v\ c. c� a 'f,Uraw&-I IkQ u -1�1 S,vP,wh'-,rZ.S1'_E0 =i Mm Page No. PAGE OF PROJECT: BA-fLT'f n ��` �' Li' ( DATE: 11 2S- `6> 0. 146 Ills_ i V O, OC111l %tk_ (3QUCLa4JU S= V1,,, =��'� V:o,`Iw VT/5 Pkvefl 1.= ��'� v= i•�js ZIO' lyu 0.4 V FT/S o• N2 0\(VZLA-u0 1M QMI�O 1Yl�k.o� ; s � "��-y`ti � L•= a-�-� � ✓� a,� �T/s H W�N F, --q Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. Consulting Geologists Burlington, Vermont Page No. PAGE OF PROJECT: i?a a Le.t1 p 2t, PR l•� l DATE: 111*2 5•b2 Sv�3wP�� E�z� tLy,o V-(I liV zl.Ro 'l�� L-- z S�v 0,4`1 z`/s c v , I -VA f't7s - , o .154 h142 ��- SQM\�� -ic 0 L� 1 •�"^ 1M'nYIA`-' r - ` Y � a � W OD 10 �(D / 50 15,493 s.f. J 0 ,3 - et V- L W 130.00' ti MNW CA II ti VI 0 0 48 8 o To 14,400 s.f. ; z Z) - S 8 3' 46 Ni ZI g� 14, 252 s.f. N 52.06'42"E 14 .01' - 1� �� E WI 110.00' b' 27#00 1 = g0000'0011 PI 2 • •r im;117r NOUN � � 1 5 new jj 0 M o M fV O 1 Z ly 1 —0 h - — 241 PI 24•04.72 I i� I = 90.00'OC'' li existing dItch /Vd% ditch ,� cement to City I = 90000,00 left mgton - T 42 00 R = 42.00' U = 136.25'07" L _ G5.97' LC =- 59 40' PC= 24.79.72 PI = 25121.72 `= 2 5 403 69 ohd. PT = 25445.6 J L f V B,Jr C; L c c- I Revised 11113185 New duplexes I Rsvlsed 9/3/ 85 clusters C a 0 i Design RCK Drawn T W T Checked SJ D i Scale 10 = �� ow W snow Date J une 1983 Prn )t 81139 Rate 7 TR20 XEQ BARTLETT BROOK MODEL(1964+CONDITONS) JOB 1 SUMMARY REV 05/02/83 PAGE 8 , (p SUMMARY TABLE 1 - SELECTED RESULTS OF STANDARD AND EXECUTIVE CONTROL INSTRUCTIONS IN THE ORDER PERFORMED (A STAR(*) AFTER THE PEAK DISCHARGE TIME AND RATE (CFS) VALUES INDICATES A FLAT TOP HYDROGRAPH A QUESTION MARK(?) INDICATES A HYDROGRAPH WITH PEAK AS LAST POINT.) SECTION/ STANDARD RAIN ANTEC MAIN PRECIPITATION PEAK DISCHARGE STRUCTURE CONTROL DRAINAGE TABLE MOIST TIME ------------------------- RUNOFF -------------------------------------- ID OPERATION AREA # COND INCREM BEGIN AMOUNT DURATION AMOUNT ELEVATION TIME RATE RATE (SQ MI) (HR) (HR) (IN) (HR) (IN) (FT) (HR) (CFS) (CSM) ALTERNATE 1 STORM 1 XSECTION 1 .001 2 2 .10 .0 4.00 24.00 1.25 .00 11.98 1.20 1219.7 * RUNOFF --- XSECTION 2 .002 2 2 .10 .0 4.00 24.00 1.27 .00 12.00 1.81 1021.0 + RUNOFF --- ALTERNATE 2 STORM 1 XSECTION 1 .001 2 2 .10 .0 4.00 24.00 1.79 .00 11.98 1.66 1692.1 + RUNOFF --- XSECTION 2 .002 2 2 .10 .0 4.00 24.00 1.67 .00 12.00 2.36 1396.4 + RUNOFF --- ALTERNATE 3 STORM 1 +XSECTION 1 .001 2 2 .10 .0 4.00 24.00 1.79 .00 11.98 1.66 1692.1 + RUNOFF --- XSECTION 2 .002 2 2 .10 .0 4.00 24.00 1.74 .00 12.00 2.48 1464.8 + RUNOFF --- 1 TR20 XEQ BARTLETT BROOK MODEL(1984+CONDITONS) HARBOR INN-POSTDEVEL. JOB 1 SUMMARY REV 05/02/83 PAGE 9 SUMMARY TABLE 3 - DISCHARGE (CFS) AT XSECTIONS AND STRUCTURES FOR ALL STORMS AND ALTERNATES XSECTION/ DRAINAGE STRUCTURE AREA STORM NUMBERS.......... ID (SQ MI) 1 0 XSECTION 1 (u ) .00 ALTERNATE 1 1.20 ALTERNATE 2 1.66 ALTERNATE 3 1.66 0 XSECTION 2 (Z-F) .00 ALTERNATE 1 1.81 ALTERNATE 2 2.36 ALTERNATE 3 2.48 MAIN - UNEXPECTED RECORD FOUND(IGNORED) >>> <<< LEND OF 1 JOBS IN THIS RUN Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. Consulting Geologists Burlington, Vermoni 0 Page No. PAGE OF PROJECT: 1P. L ►1 DATE: -.,Ta (Zh GE-TU P oktL- -Z> . 4 i X-{c' C-kE Vie. U E. rL r AJ r SU p cr-s x o. ► vt, a- hz 5 13 w Ki--O ��°4 �� M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner Re: November 26, 1985 agenda items Date: November 22, 1985 2) NETC Livestock Fence, Lot #2 The applicant proposes to revise the site plan that was approved on October 22. The changes are as follows: 1. The open storage area will be approximately 1800 square feet. The Commission stipulated that an area be designated that is no more than 600 square feet and it be adequately screened. Part of the area will be paved and was originally shown as gravelled. These changes should not be a problem. 2. The landscaping is placed along the property line rather than along the storage area. The drainageway (brook) separates the storage area from the proposed landscaping. The applicant may at sometime request a larger storage area and prefers not to have to plant trees and shrubs only to remove them later. 3. The fence is shown on the plan but the applicant prefers to install it as his finances and desires permit. If you remember, it is likely to be rail fence. 4. The storage area extends into the floodplain area yet seems to conform to our requirements since it is not a structure. 3) BARTLETT PROPERTY, LTH, INC. , HARBOR VIEW ROAD The appcaiproposes to 1-C frGle l llt5 01iit l L th condominiums in one large building that w as approved at the original subdivision to 5 duplexes. (See enclosed map with 10 unit structure). The duplexes provide a better transition between the single- family lots to the east and the condos and apartments down the hill to the west. Cluster D was recently approved for seven single-tamily lots. The applicant will have to conform to the recommendations of Wagner, Heindel & No7es for storm water detention. See Bill Szymanski's and Goddette's comments. ,*auto +'Surlingtnn Yire Department f 575 Bark;et street ,3aut Riurlin tan 11crmant 1154111 E+ OFFICE OF JAMES W GODDETTE, SR CHIEF 863-6455 MEMORANDUM TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF JAMES W. GODDETTE SR. RE: NOVEMBER 26,1985 AGENDA ITEMS #l. Champlain Oil Complex 3S4-3S6 Dorset Street ; Plans have been reviewed by this dept. and the only problem at this time is more information is needed on location of under ground storage tanks. #2. Bartlett Property Cluster #C; The only problem I can see at this time is given protection to the back unit. There must be at least an 18' fire lane to the unit for emergency equipment. Because of the location I could see if not maintained in the winter time the best we could do is try to protect life safety and unable to do anything about the building. #3. Pizzagalli New Building 3S Joy Drive; The only problem at this time is a hydrant must be installed at the main drive way to the new building. �`C0 ZN 5sMarslill �167/392 16+g8 4 dd s�. AS 41 s ,606s v �b �� =o►eA`��y ,��93 a�F ;aQ°,Jr 5 \cA 20' arWxW eanf946EA2s tA Sd e�6Q\ea�aq �c!toC ycfkS?5\� f ` ! !�I\ I z�03N0:a �' rS6�2Q 1 ' 0 —�,0 = 49°16 ' 4T � 0.5 L = 127.58 r z P I = 52 4184bk = 52 29284 \ � � (IN p pi>• Nam \ \ Op O OPEN SWE v \ \ 0 I %. N 16��9%16 sf s I dv— 76 4C \ 15' Pestrian \ \ 20 sewer easement to 1 s \ ti easemerm, �� ---- City of Sa. Burlington %0• 311 20Cjty rOf SIN o Burl- n /5 ire curve 90°00' 00"right \ Zg0 0� " E g 00 R = 26 93.50 $3% 2 AY g5.98 11,01 p 20'sewer, easement 30'Utlllf) eoserrent \ �� J 2 N 2 0 b r"t s o.Burlxx�ton 1 to City of So Burington _ rd 1• N —� P3 0 \\ �� 55\4\4 / (no L _ N 6P34'51"W 52919' 7 20'water easement to Z City of South Burlinglori qo N (C f /' N ,1��I/e� N �+ O N S sewerSc easementN G of SoBurlon \ \5 \ 9 �co r .20' drainoge Burlington to City of So 6 03i i 3() utilities easement to /0 ,\\\ \� 5 83° " City of South Burlugton � 9 Z00 - Irish 62 bard S6,cp2603'E 1776 - 0 • N Centerline curve 5 curve f7970 N 1 _ 90000 00" left _ 20 00_ �_"� R = 0 a hard N 03' W 20g.71 ART pl - 24 0472 November 22, 1985 John Larkin 1185 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: LTH, Bartlett Property, Cluster C Dear John: Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission regarding your application. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, November 26, 1985 to represent your application. Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp Enc is cc: Bob Krebs `lv Y Vr\v= . 8aiser.. u�63/217 o1ii, o6 w .a 1 00 o� 5 sf ' M /3 it 16� �'" voopd .e r� ° R 3 ' n 90 -�, \ �qa-fA9 9T 1�59 1� 33sf o 6� sf `� / a�°fig sf m \� \17'yJ N , �sa3°3 5°EARS 5 � `2 ?935f 94\I �' 66�+69 �6 9• N a93 N a6qA3 0 Sf i �Sf s o. `� 9 N�a 1� N lei g9 T8 g W . �` is o \"'�►. SAO • W to \\ o �° \ mom., 100 oq N-Ta � Z 30 0 17,5 \"'-\ >r$ N16 �2i W Z 27 51�;;0�172a8 P.0o,,'j4p \ z \ N 197 5f �T ?off` ,� 100 CA 00 oA' �+• %0. 16 o \ \ \ _ E ✓�A2�\ 35°23'5Wlak� g5.05 S T6 04 32 E6ROW \ N 3� 76 32� 32W C� 1e,strion \ \ 20 sewer easement to 1 �p N?6p01 100- nertt., �— '� City of So Burlington 10• 3 /+Q�1OO 00 wr>oge �5 �\ \\ I Qo 10 ��J�" V, ` 1i2 03 'ty of So Burin MP t ine curve 0 0° terline curve 7 - 90°00' 00"right \ 2g. 3 E 9 PI = 26 93.50 63� BAY g5 9a I ' . 7° 24' 31 `� right No 31 90000 00"left \nP 2a ° 6 v3, W T = 50.00 ' A �"�\ Zi \ '� 2-- R = 772.2395' K \ i 9 0° �p sever t 711 ton D = 7°25' 09• 5,T 11 J' L = 99. S6' n , --- � \ 55�'''�d I a'o, LC: 99. 79' PI = 30 03.50 bk = 30 03 36 ohd. Z g / to ith Burlington �° C S �• Neighborhwd Par* a9\' ith BiP , �\"'v� in 01 � S � 6 dedicated to the City of �2 \ 0\� f SOUTH BURLINGTON 66 - E wer easement SCL Burlington \ /2 \ \ \� �\ 2�v KT N 509� \ Zq�� r .20' drainage eoscvnent to 2 / 1 ,1 Oty of So Burlington�! 03i /r 2:5 \ q5 '2° 9 Irish ° 2? / • VJ Centerline curve 5 26 1 = 90000' 00' left N T _ 0 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGI'ON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, November 26 1985, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Revised Final Plat_ application of LTH, Inc., for the revision to the proposed Cluster C of Harbor Heights from 10 multi -family _units to 5 duplexes on 1.5 acres. The property is bounded by property of the City of South Burlington on the east, B. Irish on the south, and on the north and west by Bay Crest Drive and Harbor View Road. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Mary -Barbara Maher Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission November 9, 1985 0/21/85 LB MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised Final Plat of LTH Associates for the revision to Cluster D from 20 multi -family units to 7 single-family lots as shown on the plans entitled "Final Plat: Bartlett Property" revised 9/3/85 and "Horizontal Layout: Bartlett Property" revised 9/3/85, pre- pared by Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., with the following stipulations: 1) The plan shall be revised to eliminate any change to Cluster C. It shall remain as multi -family dwellings until a revised plan is approved. rµ 2) The street named "Bay Court" shall be renamed to not conflict with the Bay Court condos. '!he name shall be approved by the ,Planner. I/" 3) All stipulations from the Final Plat approval of July 13, 1982 shall remain in effect. 4) Prior to any building permits for lots #44 to 50, the street trees shall be planted on the public streets and the final course of blacktop shall be installed. 5) The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of Wagner, Heindel and Noyes for or_osion control and- stormwater detention. 6) The revised plan shall be recorded with ie City Clerk within 90 days. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commissions From: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner I.(Y Re: October 22, 1985 agenda items ---I Date: 10/18/85 2) LTH, REVISIONS TO CLUSTER D. As we discussed at the last meeting, Jefferey Nelson recommended detention of 7000-10,500 gallons to improve the conditions in the north fork of the brook and to conform with the Commission's policy of no increased peak discharge above the pre -development level. He recommended a site within the conservation zone as a possible location. According to the tax assessor, this land is all owned by Larkin. Most of it it heavily wooded with mature pines. If a suitable location for detention can not be found without distrubing these woods, I recommend that approval still be granted. The benefits of this revision seem to far outweigh the costs. (Jeff Nelson's revised analysis will be available at the meeting if not in your packet.) 3) T , LOT #9, HARBOR VIEW ROAD i The site plan application for the proposed 20,000 square foot, 2� floor office building expir4d on June 19, 1985. This application shows no change to the approved site plan. I recommend that Mr. Larkin be required to comply with the recommendations of Wagner, Heindel and Noyse for erosion control and storm water detention since this plan received approval prior to the Commission's erosion policy. This should be stipulated as a condition prior to permit. 4) LACEY, 2000 WILLISTON ROAD (PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE PRIOR TO THE MEETING) The applicant requests a 6900 square foot addition to the existing 8900 square foot building that is used for carpet sales, storage and warehousing. The addition will be for warehouse use. Access: Access will not be changed from the existing driveway off Williston Road. A 1983 site plan approval stipulated that it be widened to 20 feet. Circulation: The applicant proposes to blacktop a new area at the rear of the building. This should be adequate for circulation. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 658-7955 October 17, 1985 John Larkin 1185 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Re: Cluster D. Revisions and reapplication for office on lot 119 Dear John: Enclosed are the agenda and pertinent memos to the Planning Commission. I talked with Bob Blanchard regarding the need for Wagner, Heindel & Noyse's opinion on the office. I will recommend that they stipulate it in the approval motion but of course it is up to them if they want the analysis up front. I expect to hear from Jeff Nelson this week regarding the location of the pond and the amount of detention. Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp Encls cc: Bob Krebs Bob Blanchard PLANNING COMMISSION 8 OCTOBER 1985 PAGE 4 No Parking zones on either side of Brookwood Drive along the property at 329 Dorset Street. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion passed 6-0 with Mr. Jacob abstaining. F Mr. Dooley then moved that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that they study parking problems on East Terrace in light of its present width. Mr. Belter seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. L1, Continue Public Hearing for Revised Final Plat of� Lam- Inc., for revision of Cluster C & D of Harbor Heights to single family lots, Harbor View Rd. Mr. Krebs asked that only Cluster D be considered as revisions are being made to Cluster C. The water study indicates that this plan is an improvement over the previous condo plan and will result in .8 cu. ft. per sec. of runoff over the undeveloped state. Wagner, Heindel & Noyes recommends a 7-10,000 holding basin; however, Mr. Krebs said there is no good place to put such a basin. He said they felt they were being punished for making things better. The Chairman polled the members, and a majority felt they wanted to continue the hearing to further consider this issue. Mrs. Hurd moved that the hearing be continued. Mr. Jacob seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Consider revised Site Plan application of Tony Perry for Perry's Fish House (formerly Pappas' Restaurant) at 1080 Shelburne Road. Mr. Perry said he has negotiated previously for a foot print and parking plan but as they began to develop the property they wanted to make changes for aesthetic reasons. They have now taken out one curb cut so that they will have only one shelbvrne R& curb cut which will be wider. Parking will be sufficient to accommodate the additions being made. They have moved the curb cut to line up with the one across the street. They propose to have plantings on berms in front and also an aesthetic pond. The Zoning Board has granted a variance for a deck. Total seating will be 265. Mrs. Lafleur noted that this plan considers Clausons as part of the whole lot. Mrs. Hurd noted that the Fire Chief wants the parking lot extended to get fire vehicles in. Mr. Perry said he would be willing to keep an access plowed in the rear of the buildings. He has a sprinkler system and the building is masonry with a steel roof. Mr. Dooley moved that the Planning Commission approve the October 17, 1985 John Larkin 1185 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 re: Cluster D Dear John: Enclosed are the minutes of the October 8, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp 1 Encl cc: Bob Keebs PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 t October 9, 1985 Joseph and Rene Schall 33 Harbor View Road Unit 905 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schall: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 The Planning Commission asked me to respond to your letter of September 22, 1985 regarding the driveway and road conditions of the Harbor View development. Your concerns have been brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and will be a part of the approval motion for the revisions to Cluster C and D. At this point, the request has been tabled for a second time to get more information on the erosion impact and the possibility of stormwater detention. It will be continued on October 22. Thank you for making these items known to the commission. We will do our best to make sure they are rectified. Sincerely, Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp cc: John Lakkin 22 September 1985 33 Harbor View Road Unit 905 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 862-2103 City of South Burlington Planning Board Mary -Barbara Maher - Chairman Peter L. Jacob John Dooley III John Belter William Burgess Judy Hurd Jim McClary City Office Building 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Planning Board members: We are owners of a home in the Harbor Heights townhouses on Harbor View Road. We believe that, before any changes to the project plan are approved, the developer should be required to complete the roads and paved surfaces feeding into the existing project. The roads as they exist are inconvenient and unsafe. Three areas need attention: (1) A portion of Harbor View Road caved in this past spring. The repaired area has never been paved. Large trucks traveling to building sites have damaged the dirt and gravel portion of the road resulting in large holes. There is yet another large and deep hole in the road nearer to the highway. (2) The driveway entering the townhouse area from Harbor View Road has never been paved despite the fact that some of the homes have been occupied for almost 14 months. We have been told by LTH, Inc. representatives that the road has not been paved because a trench will eventually need to be dug across the driveway to install utilities when new townhouses are constructed in the area. The driveway should have been paved long ago even if a small portion of the drive would need to be excavated and repaved at a later date. The dirt drive has deteriorated severely over the past year. An automobile actually became mired in one of the holes several months ago and had to be removed with a tow truck. - 1 - These two areas present a hazard to normal driving. Considering the large size of the entire project, two entrances are required to allow emergency vehicles to quickly and safely enter the area. (3) The final coat of asphalt has not been applied to the drives and parking areas of the townhouses. We have waited now over a year for this last layer of road surface. As storm drains now lie above the road surface, rain water flow can cause erosion and possible damage to the stream running through the property. Fetid odors arise from the storm drains because of the very low water flow. We suggest that before additional building takes place on the project that (1) the two damaged areas on Harbor View Road be repaired, including an asphalt covering; (2) the driveway into the complex be paved; (3) if a trench is dug across the driveway, the trench be quickly filled and paved; (4) the final coat of asphalt on the drives and parking areas be properly installed. By doing these jobs the developer will finish the construction of the first phase of the townhouse project before beginning additional work. Sincerely, Jos. J. Schall Rene W. Schall - 2 - is rt {{ I p `.tT� t��. � ti� � .��,. \ 1 'i H 1\1NWagner, Heindel, and Noyes, InC. consulting geologists 285 North Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401 802-658-0820 October 8, 1985 Ms. Jane Bechtel City Planner South Burlington, VT 05401 Dear Jane: We have reviewed the proposed modification for the Bartlett property as shown on the drawing prepared by Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers with the revision dated September 3, 1985. As we understand it, the proposed modification involves the removal of cluster D and replacement with single family lots. The portion of the site in question lies within subwatershed 3 of the north fork of the Bartlett Brook in which severe erosion problems currently exist. For that reason, it will be important that future developments do not aggrevate the existing condition, by increasing the peak discharge in the stream. The proposed modification will result in an improvement over the previously planned development which included cluster D. Since this project was approved prior to the approval of current policy of the Planning Commission, no stormwater detention was required on the site. Using the TR-20 computer model, we have made the following projections for the peak'discharge from the portion of the site in question: Condition Peak Discharge Pre -development 4.01 cfs Post -development (with cluster D) 7.05 cfs Post -development (single family) 4.79 cfs It can be seen, an increase of approximately 0.8 cfs in the peak discharge is observed in this portion of the site in between pre -development to the now proposed condition. This is obviously an improvement over the 3.0 cfs increase in discharge from this area based on the earlier proposed plan. However, in order to help bring about the improvement of conditions in the north fork of Bartlett Brook, and in accordance with the Planning Commission's current policy of no increased peak discharge above pre -development levels, we would recommend that the developer provide a detention basin in the conservation zone immediately to the north o_ � J_ dings 4 and 5 in cluster A. The required detention basin volume would b6""F tween 7,000 and 10,500 gallons, depending on engineering design. Ms. Jane Bechtel 2 October 8, 1985 Additionally, it will be important to prevent erosion from the site during the construction for the new residential lots. Therefore, we recommend that all drainage c:,hannel, downgradient from the construction area be lined with hay bales held in place with wooden stakes, and that these installations be inspected routinely and particularly following any rainfall. This concludes our review of the revised plan for the Barlett property located in the Bartlett Brook watershed. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey' A. Nelson Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. cc: Bob Krebs encl. JAN:smm H W�N Wagner, Heindel , and Noyes, Inc. Consulting Geologists Burlington, Vermont K Page No. PAGE OF PROJECT: i�N-QT I-L' DATE, IS11,, V' �'A �VPJ Lid -i L�t'C'L L•..,, `}.1� ArZ"�*` J (.N JIrN LJl�':Fi_.i.' L�t+_j L (L ! 'IC, 1r2TL�(T C�2 vG vc ' , 1 � '� ��F l.. („ILlwO �.. � E1'� 1U•(l h Lv G- l C. �-! tic.t� a ;' +:+ + +SUE - 1\JU IL10�F.C,��: LlvsiE.a. D .I:3 AC. �`�`� CN�B� ✓ k. IAA OV rtAC l� C!V Fv =L C t li CNj Vvz,TUktll, Q;44rZ0.0 1. U.)T �1.}( CND ✓ ' i4,1j. T ,z 1.4a 1iC, O.Oo3`s V% J = ,S6 rT /S WN'Tc-a- \n/A"1 Ly3 moo' S o,03 V 1 ` / lWntrt�L(�' ~1 s 0,OL L SC) Q) V V-T/S AT/ 5 T� 5 . 4 r rW H WVN Wagner, Heindel, and Noyes, Inc. Consulting Geologists Burlington, Vermont Page No. PAGE OF PROJECT' LA' -f" V, r CJFr rzt � 1 DATE, W $' 'L oVtircl9 C� UU� �l kY NS� i j.� (ut� �'. (�.� a ✓ c� �/0 3 i �`� 5OO1.I T 1 -J�p1— r 1 - 1 pu � � ,Uv 13tt c:>S4=G C. 0,103F.r/s October 4, 1985 John Larkin 1185 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Harbor Heights, Clusters C & D Revision and subdivision of Cluster B Dear John: Enclosed are the minutes of the September 24, 1985 Planning Commission meeting. Be sure to record your milar for Cluster B within 90 days. Cluster C & D will be continued on October 8, 1985. Sincerely, Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp 1 Encl cc: Bob Krebs October 4, 1985 John Larkin 1185 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Harbor Heights revision to Clusters C and D Dear John: Enclosed are the agenda and my memo to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present to represent your application on October 8, 1985. Sincerely, Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp Encls cc: Robert KteAbs No Text September 20, 1985 John Larkin 1185 Shelburne Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: Revised Final Plat, Harbor Heights Dear John: Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present to represent your application on Tuesday, September 24 at 7:30 P.M. Sincerely, Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner JSB/mcg Encls cc: Robert Krebs Russell F. Niquette, Jr. 22 September 1985 33 Harbor View Road Unit 905 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 862-2103 City of South Burlington Planning Board Mary -Barbara Maher - Chairman Peter L. Jacob John Dooley III John Belter William Burgess Judy Hurd Jim McClary City Office Building 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Planning Board members: We are owners of a home in the Harbor Heights townhouses on Harbor View Road. We believe that, before any changes to the project plan are approved, the developer should be required to complete the roads and paved surfaces feeding into the existing project. The roads as they exist are inconvenient and unsafe. Three areas need attention: (1) A portion of Harbor View Road caved in this past spring. The repaired area has never been paved. Large trucks traveling to building sites have damaged the dirt and gravel portion of the road resulting in large holes. There is yet another large and deep hole in the road nearer to the highway. (2) The driveway entering the townhouse area from Harbor View Road has never been paved despite the fact that some of the homes have been occupied for almost 14 months. We have been told by LTH, Inc. representatives that the road has not been paved because a trench will eventually need to be dug across the driveway to install utilities when new townhouses are constructed in the area. The driveway should have been paved long ago even if a small portion of the drive would need to be excavated and repaved at a later date. The dirt drive has deteriorated severely over the past year. An automobile actually became mired in one of the holes several months ago and had to be removed with a tow truck. These two areas present a hazard to normal driving. Considering the large size of the entire project, two entrances are required to allow emergency vehicles to quickly and safely enter the area. (3) The final coat of asphalt has not been applied to the drives and parking areas of the townhouses. We have waited now over a year for this last layer of road surface. As storm drains now lie above the road surface, rain water flow can cause erosion and possible damage to the stream running through the property. Fetid odors arise from the storm drains because of the very low water flow. We suggest that before additional building takes place on the project that (1) the two damaged areas on Harbor View Road be repaired, including an asphalt covering; (2) the driveway into the complex be paved; (3) if a trench is dug across the driveway, the trench be quickly filled and paved; (4) the final coat of asphalt on the drives and parking areas be properly installed. By doing these jobs the developer will finish the construction of the first phase of the townhouse project before beginning additional work. Sincerely, Jos. J. Schall Rene W. Schall - 2 - A G E N D A Dorset Street Committee Community Library, Dorset Street Room 137 South Burlington, Vermont Regular meeting @7:30 P.M. Monday, September 16, 1985 1) Minutes of August 12, 1985. 2) Discussion on the Regional Plan and CCTA Plans for South Burlington with Barry Carris. 3) Discussion on' long range plans of the School Department with Fred Tuttle, Superintendent. 4) Discussion on the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and other City plans (Jane Bechtel, City Planner). 5) Discussion of proposed Dorset Street Goals and Objectives. 6) Other business. Respectfully submitted, Ja4i . m Jane S. Bechtel, City Planner No Text PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Roan, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, September 24 , 1985, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1 Revised Final plat application of Vermont Federal Bank for Indian Creek for the relocation of Cluster One from a location on the southern side of the entrance drive off of Dorset Street to a location within the development south of Cluster 3. Property is bounded on the north by Economou, on the east by Faith Methodist Church, Robenstein and Myers, on the south by the Ridgewood Development and on the west by Whittlesey, and is located at 911 Dorset Street. 2. Revised Final Plat of O'Brien Brothers Agency for a 4 lot sub- division of Cardinal Woods Extension containing multi -family condominiums and single-family dwellings. The property is bounded by Country Park Associates on the north, on the south by Chetti and I-89, on the west by Timberlane Association and Briarwood and on the east by Hinesburg Road. 3. Revised Final Plat application of LTH Associates for the Bartlett Proye`rty (Harbor Heights) for a revision of 20 un;t.q in Cluster D to 7 single-family lots and revision of 10 unit Cluster C to 5 single-family lots Property is bounden on the no h by K Reichelt and . Larkin, Shelburne Road on the west, K ar; Lane, Bay Court and Ray Crest Drive to the east and Harbor View Road to the south. 4. Revised Final Plat a lication of LTH Asso iat s for the sub- division of _Cluster B into 2 lots of _ acraG anA 9 ar•, Property is bounded by land of J. Larkin, K. Reichelt to the north. ShelburneRoad to the west, Keari Lane and Bay Court and Bay Crest Drive to the east and Harbor View Road to the south. Copies of the a pp li .a ions are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Mary -Barbara Maher Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission September 7, 1985 NIQUETTE, NIQUETTE & ASSOCIATES RUSSELL F. NIOUETTE, SR. RUSSELL F. NIOUETTE, JR. EuoENE J. WARD, III August 14, 1985 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5 EAST ALLEN STREET POST OFFICE BOX I WINOOSKI, VERMONT 05404 Ms. Jane Bechtel Planning Administrator City of South Burlington Planning Dept. 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, Vt. 05401 Re: Harbor Heights Condominiums Dear Jane: TELEPHONE 802-655-0575 By separate mail Bob Krebbs is sending you a revised lot plan of Harbor Heights Condominiums. As I explained to you on the telephone we are experiencing some title insurance problems because the buildings 10, 11 and 12 which are part of the original Harbor Heights are not yet constructed. The solution is to divide the project into two projects, Phase I and Phase II. I therefore have enclosed proposed amendments to the Declaration which essentially create a separate condominium development out of the first three buildings which is now to be called Phase I. The second three buildings will be called Phase II. The land description is altered by the division line which now separates the phases. Each unit owner's interest in their particular phase is therefore doubled and they must sign the Declaration. Please review the proposed Declaration amendments and review the revised plan so we can be sure that these changes do not endanger the approved status of Harbor Heights. Sincereiq, Russell F. Niquette, Jr. RFN/blw Enclosures I AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUMS FOR HARBOR HEIGHTS This amended Declaration is made this day of August, 1985, by LTH Associates, owner of 82.60% of the untis pursuant to the Declaration dated August 29, 1984, and the Harbor Height Condominium Association. The remaining owners of 17.40% join in this declaration waiving any notice requirement to make this amendment approved by 100% of the owners as this amendment alters the percentage of ownership of the common interest. Upon such consent as above described, the Declaration of Condominiums is hereby amended as follows: 1. The Declaration. The Declaration shall be entitled "Declaration of Condominiums for Harbor Heights Condominium Phase I". 2. The Name. The name of the Condominium shall be Harbor Heights Condominium Phase I. 3. Section 2 Description of Land. The land which is made subject to this Declaration is described in Schedule A and is also depicted on a Lot Plan entitled "Revised Lot Plan Harbor Heights Cluster B" drawn by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., 81139 dated April 1984 and of record in Volume page of the City of South Burlington Land Records. 4. Section 3 Description of Building. There are three (3) cluster buildings with the three cluster buildings being designated Building 7, 8 and 9. Buildings 7, 8 and 9 consist of three (3) separate configurations as shown on the floor plans entitled "Floor Plans Harbor Heights Townhouses Cluster B" prepared by Erik A. Davis, architect, dated 3/28/84 and recorded in Plat Book on page of the South Burlington Land Records. Each building consists of a ground floor or basement, a first floor and a second floor. Each building is wood framed over a poured concrete foundation. The interior walls and ceilings are of sheetrock. The exterior walls above grade are of wood siding. The roofs are of wood truss with asphalt shingles. 5. Schedule B-1. Schedule B-1 shall be omitted from the Declaration as amended and all references to Schedule B in the Declaration shall mean "Amended Schedule B". Niquette, Niquette 3 Associates 5 East Allen Street P.O. boa 1 Vinooski, Vt. 05404 APPROVED at South Burlington, Vermont, this day of , 1985. By: LTH ASSOCIATES John P. Larkin, President and General Partner APPROVED by owners of the following units which constitute all of the unit owners in the condominium. Unit 701 Date Unit 702 Date Unit 703 Date Unit 704 Date Unit 801 Date Unit 802 Date Unit 804 Date Niquette, Niquette 3 Associates 5 East Allen Street P.O. box 1 Winooski, Vt. 05404 1 Unit 805 Date Unit 901 Date Unit 903 Date Unit 905 Date Niquelte, Niquette & Associates 5 East Allen Street P.O. Box 1 Winooski, Vt. 05404 AMENDED SCHEDULE A HARBOR HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM PHASE I Beginning at a point on the north side of Harbor View Road said point being 1710.5 feet easterly along the northerly line of said highway where it intersects with the easterly line of Shelburne Road; and the southwest corner of the land herein described; thence proceeding east along the northerly line of Harbor View Road a distance of 335.98 feet to a point which point is the southeast corner of the parcel herein described; thence turning to the left and proceeding N 060 33' 57" E a distance of 217.39 feet to a point; thence turning to the right and proceeding S 83 a 26' 3" E a distance of 87.00 feet; thence turning to the left and proceeding N 06 0 33' 57" E a distance of 57.71 feet to a point, which point is the northeast corner of the lands herein described; thence turning to the left and proceeding N 61 34' 51" W a distance of 397.75 feet to a point which point is the northwest corner of lands herein described; thence turning to the left and proceeding S 10 " 13' 26" W a distance of 274.03 feet to the point or place of beginning. Included in this parcel to all owners of the condominium is a right of way in common with others over the roadways of "Cluster B Phase II" as shown on the plan hereinafter referred to for vehicular and utility line access and egress to the parcel hereinabove described. The above parcel being all of "Cluster B Phase I" as shown on a plan of lands entitled "Revised Lot Plan Harbor Heights Cluster B" dated April, 1984, project 81139, prepared by Krebs & Lansing Consulting Engineers, Inc., and of record in Plat Bood on page of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Being a portion of the lands and premises conveyed to LTH Associates by Warranty Deed of Frank E. Bartlett, Grace N. Bartlett, Phyllis Bartlett Hilton, Peter Norton Bartlett, Samuel Ridley Bartlett and The Frank and Grace Bartlett Trust dated November, 1982 and of record in Volume 184 at pages 316-319 of the City of South Burlington Land Records. Niquette, Niquette & Associates 5 East Allen Street P.O, boa 1 Winooski, Vt. 05404 AMENDED SCHEDULE B Building #7 Unit Type of Unit % Ownership Each Value Each 701 A 6.11% $73,332.00 702 B 5.76% $68,995.00 703 B 5.76% $68,995.00 704 A 6.11% $73,332.00 Building #8 Unit Type of Unit % Ownership Each Value Each 801 D 6.11% $73,332.00 802 B 5.76% $68,995.00 803 B 5.76% $68,995.00 804 B 5.76% $68,995.00 805 D 6.11% $73,332.00 Building 119 Unit Type of Unit % Ownership Each Value Each 901 D 6.10% $73,332.00 902 C 5.76% $68,995.00 903 C 5.76% $68,995.00 904 C 5.76% $68,995.00 905 C 5.76% $68,995.00 906 C 5.76% $68,995.00 907 C 5.76% $68,995.00 908 D 6.10% $73,332.00 Niquette, Niquette & Associates 5 East Allen Street P.O. Box 1 Ninooski, Vt. 05404 7i�;>- C- �v0 vim- 4 November 29, 1994 Mr. Joe Weith City Planner South Burlington Planning and Zoning City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Joe: Please find enclosed a preliminary version of the Site plan for John Larkin's duplex project. Before we add all the landscape materials, I would like your opinion on the layout. Our clients goal is to re -orient the units so that the greatest number of units face the dedicated park land and or the Irish Farm to the south. A secondary goal is to reduce the number of curb cuts on to Baycrest Drive. Although we have shuffled the deck somewhat, the lot and building coverages would not exceed the previous approval. The number of units would remain the same. Would John need to return to the commision for this series of changes? Are patios constructed at grade allowed to extend into the PUD perimeter? Does returning to the commision jeopardize John's sewer allocation? Please take a moment to review this drawing and let me know how these revisions affect the permit process. Thanks for all the help! 1 Sincerely, Gregory T. deau enclosure: Preliminary Site plan S * May 24, 1979 Mr. Stuart Ireland Ireland Industries 100 Grove Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Ireland: At its meeting of May g2, 1979 the South Burlington Planning Commission acted to deny your preliminary plat application for Meadowood South, following the public hearing which was concluded May 8, 1979. The findings of the Commission, in reaching this decision, are enclosed. Yours truly, Stephen Page, Planner SP/mcq 1 Encl cc: (certified mail) Attorney Robert Roessler Mr. Tyler Hart Attorney Richarc Spokes CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION PERMIT 1. Applicant's Name, Address, and Phone Number Stuart Ireland, Pheasant Way, South Burlington, Vermont 863-6273 2. Name, Address, and Phone Number of the Person Whom the Commission should contact regarding this Application Tyler Hart, Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc. Route 2A, Box 308, Williston, Vermont 05495 879-6331 3. Nature of the Development or Subdivision 41 single family lots 4. Location of Development or Subdivision 5. Meadowood South, off Spear Street High and Low Elevations of the Tract of Land involved with the Development or Subdivision High elevation 330, Low elevation 185 6. Address of each of the Applicant's Offices in Vermont Ireland Industries, Inc., Grove Street, South Burlington, Vermont 7. Applicant's Legal Interest in the Property (Fee Simple, Option, Etc.) Option to purchase 0 2 - 8. If to Applicant is not an individual, the Form, Date, and Place of Formation of the Applicant FORM: DATE: PLACE: 9. Estimated Cost, Exclusive of Land Cost of the Development (Applicant for a Subdivision Need Not Lswer) 10. Application for a Subdivision, the Number of Lots IA . 11. What Restrictive Covenants are Planned for any Deed(s) to be issued? Covenants will be prepare for conveyance of common open space to lot owners. 12. Description of the Proposed Development of Subdivision A. Plans and Specifications: (1) Attach a detailed plat or plot plan of the proposed project drawn to scale, showing the location and dimensions of the entire tract. This plan should also show: all lots, streets, roads, water lines, sewage systems, drain systems, buildings, existing or intended. (2) In subdivisions where individual water and sewage facilities are intended, indicate the proposed location(s). (3) Show all easements, parks, playgrounds, parking areas, water courses, and other bodies of water, natural or artificial, existing or intended. (4) Include a contour man of the land involved drawn on a scale of 5 foot contour intervals. (5) Indicate on the plans the location and widtho of any easements for utilities, roads, etc., exist- ing or intended. Attach a written explanation of any such easements. r -3- 13. What is the purpose of this Subdivision or Development and What is the intended use of the land after Subdivision or Development? 14. Describe the Site of the Proposed Development or Subdivis- ion including information, if available, on Soils, Streams or Other bodies of Water, Bedrocks, Etc. 15. Acreage: A. Number of acres owned, or in which you have a legal interest 40 + acres B. Number of acres in this project 40 ± acres C. Number of acres previously developed 38 D. When do you anticipate beginning the project 1979 E. When will this development or subdivision be completed 1981 16. Water System: A. What type of water system is to be provided, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, municipal system, etc. Municipal B. Where is the nearest municipal water system and ig it available and feasible to use it? Connection to City mains in Meadowood will form a new loop. 17. Sewage System: A. What type of sewage disposal system is to be provided or intended, such as: Individual system on each lot, community system, or municipal system? Municipal - 4 - B. Where is the nearest community sewage system and is it available and feasible to use it? An additional 16,000 gpd will be contributed to the Bartlett Bay plan, which has an additional 200,000 gpd capacity. C. If the sewage system is other than a community, municipal, or individual lot septic tank and leaching field, include competent professional engineering evidence that it will perform satisfactorily. 18. Adjacent Property: A. List below the names and addresses of adjacent property owners. See plaza B. What is the adjacent property used for at present? Residential and agricultural C. What is the future usage intended for the adjacent property? Residential 19. Zoning: A. Which'District or Districts is the proposed site with- in according to the official zoning map of the City? R-4 Residential DATE SIGNATURE MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Stephen Page, Planner Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items Date: Ma 40 1979 #2 Meadowood South I have conferred with Dick Spokes on the access question; he has recommended clearing this up at the outset, and that the Commission not proceed towards a preliminary approval conditioned on the resolution of the road situation. I would add that the sewer and water lines to be extended to the new project, presently lie within the private street rights of way at Meadowood at Spear; consequently,they too are a part of the street issue. The other items left open for discussion at the last meeting were: drainage (see comments from City Engineer), edestrian trail location (apparently no meeting has taken place yet, and parkland dedication or rquivalent fee - the site obligation works out to about 2/3 of an acre (equivalent fee would be about $900). My recommendation is to acquire the land in this situation. I will be consulting with Bruce O'Neil on this prior to the meeting. In summary, I strongly urge you to resolve the street and utility situation up front; I reiterate my very firm recommendation that public streets and utilities be required for this proposal - to do otherwise invites continued disputes with this and other developers, as well as home- owners, over utility extensions, school bussing, road maintainence, and other municipal services. #3 The Partners Subdivision A site inspection will be held 4:00 P.M. Monday, May 7, at the rear of the Grand Union building. A response from the School Board, on access across their property, is still pending. As far as traffic is concerned, Bruce Houghton has indicated he would prefer to present oN T his reliminar findings to the Commission and 9 get their input be- fore making comments on his specific proposal. Bill Szymanski's b- comments on drainage are attached. #4 Revised Preliminary Plat, Phase II of Stoneheaae The phase II plan you last saw showed 109 multifamily units in seven clusters; this has been revised by dropping the number of units to 94, situated in six multifamily clusters and one cluster of 10 single family lots. The utilities and roadway serving the single family cluster should be built to City standards, and owned and maintained by the City. 'PUBLIC HEARING ;! SOUTH BURL I14GTON PLANNING COMMI S S ION ' The South Burlington Planning Commission will. hold_ a, public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 t Williston Road, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, April 24, , 1979. at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following: A Preliminary plat application of Stuart Ireland for approval of a 40 lot residential subdivision on a 40 acre parcel of land. The proposed subdivision is bounded on the north by lands of the City of South Burlington, lots 28,29,31,33,35,37,39 & 41 and Pheasant Way in the Meadowood at Spear development, on the east by lot 5 of Meadowood at Spear, and lands of Chaplin and Trevithick, on the south by lands of Irish, and on the west by lands of Bartlett. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. ' Sidney B. Poger Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission April 7, 1979 a j � � LA I�Ili u �)d i-v i -8 i C, r u, tl,�, r. , r e!r s , a n rl p h r o f r e c o r d 2a-tdett Arp I Ic a n t i:; C, t �T- C, n�7 Pic7 U-ieerr, inc o -a 2A Do x L- 10 C (11 C. ra 'n L3 D- I p2-onos�,d u se ( s 2-C 'o 1,4c, i V- L, 6 space ne ")ptiorl, ot-C) CT,t,iJ)n tr) nurcAla se. rr, n er s of r pc.,:":"S n f 7, c k, e s s n T n -i.--I T of Darll.rigton. West- --a.-tiett, South- T,;LF-L"I'l-Ill Tre%ritl-ilo?k, Cnaplin, Lot T y p e o x s 't o r c, 0 d rl c -..I s o n r. on" T t t W 71141ce cover-n-rd- 6) 1 o P o ; ed, extvrI2;-Lcn, or iiicdil-icction of Oupply, streets, storm dr;�ainage, etc.. Municipal u"ii" '.'Le's it -war, dralri-ag:--, and it—mets, . .. .. n arc- Of djustri--�nl-- c, r pre-jious c—I -ions by the "cuth CG;-xz-ds Z ion, "hicla Cffect th'j '.:-P-nclude c3z,--cs. 'Yore Nc f tln :!'u';:)r'7 i i c o n -c is I a t i On _ T i .. r ._._ST - _. ______ _ _ Z-727 p-,rcon 7 7- r" - k'.- 13 -- �4- (7 j L n on ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME/FILE TERENCE /f CE}- &I"I 7 1. LETTER OF NOTIFICATION & APPROVAL MOTION OR FINDINGS & ORDER 2. BONDING OR ESCROW AGREEMENTS LANDSCAPING SEWER WATER STORM DRAINAGE ROADS CURBS SIDEWALKS (NOTE ALL RELEASES OR AGREEMENT REVISIONS) 3. LIST APPROVALS GRANTED, WITH DATES, AND PERMITS GRANTER & SITE INSPECTIONS COMPLETED, ETC.: ;.,t{�7�- 4. UTILITY EASEMENTS *, BILLS OF SALE eVt---U/A- RECORDED l �� zx} ACCEPTED 5. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE x 3/a -/7 9 6. ROADWAYS DEEDS FOR CITY STREETS ACCEPTED PRIVATE ROAD & WAIVER AGREEMENT x 7. FINAL PLAT OR RECORD COPY - STAMPED , SIGNED, & FILED OR RECORDED 8. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS ACCEPTED & RECORDED FILED 9. MISCELLANEOUS AGREEMENTS LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING OFFER OF IRREVOCABLE DEDICATION FUTURE ACCESS POINTS SHARED ACCESS POINTS OTHER 10. - COPY OF SURVEY TO ASSESSOR (IF CHANGE IN PROPERTY LINES) 11. FEES - PAID ATE HEARING Alo pAtp-4131i1 BUILDING PERMIT ENGINEERING INSP. SEWER RECREATION (RECORD CALCULATIONS AND DEPOSIT IN ACCOUNT) 12, IMPACT FOLLOW UP i.e., "ON LINE" EVALUATION: SCHOOL KIDS CAR COUNTS 5• PLANNING COIYII�ISSION YAY 22, 1979 on the north goes to a point where, directly across the street on the south, their property ends._ Off this line, under the road, a line will extend to the parcel for its water use. Putting in this extra line willccmplete the loop in that area and give it better pressure. It will also allow for a good water system in the city. Xr. Larkin questioned how they could put in a line on someone else's Yrnperty but was told the line would be within the right of way. 1r, Jacob told the developers to discuss the issue with the plater Department, which would tell them all they needed to know about it. The Commission said they were not sure alcut sewage capacity for the project but would find out about that. -_r. Poger was not sure the d --ar;-ing s: aces r.e .rest the entrance to the pro"ect would be safe. Mr. Page said he would _ik_e to loci: into access for the land - it m'_g:_t be best to line it up with Col:,nv Office _`ark across the street, or to --lace it so it could be shared with w'.iatever is aeveloDed or: the :zorest ar_: realty lard which surrounds this parcel. I:r. is ^kin saic t:,e :ire Chief had looked at the lan. I,:r. Woolery asked if t e uncovered -_ -In lay. _ed now left room for caroorts to be constructed if that was dF sira le 1=_ er on and was told it did. 7 Page as:_ed that it be firm whether these were to be snarl enjs condominiums, because that r-ade a difference in t':e school pc;uiaticn - -ections and _'_r. arKin slid ri�n t now they wanted to build ayart_n'ents end. t :at coal-- be stiTulated. ^:r. ?ale felt the isl.ue of whether this developer should .rut in a-_ideKalk mould be addresed. Lvfl::atior. cf far_:inF, access, and circulati^n for day care center at c:rner of Route 7 and :1re wer _ arKwav Xr. Page said that in the time the center had been in operation, he, the City ,"•'anager, and the Zoning Administrator had all had occasion to go by the location and have never seen a serious problem there. He said that more of the trans_ocrtirg of children was done by van than the apnlic!:int had ori.,inally t'.-Xught wo,.sld be and there were never .more then 2 cars c-n the lot. The Manning Commission saw no problem with -parking, access, or ci:-cul;_tion on the lot. Consider rro-,,osel for inflatior_ary adjustment to .,rice ceiling on Grandview condominium units Er. :are .:,_id that where t�115 )rG�ect was a.,,rcved a ceiling price of �36,000 i,er unit was set on all snits unless it was waived by the Commission due to inflationary .,ressure. They are ready to build new and plan to market to first units o' Yn�se I at 537,9C0. This is less t her. 1;'2%� per month inflat on and t",e true• figure has been much higher than that. The developer would like a ceili.- of -,3„002 for phase I, which is an annual inflation fi,;sre of 6i-.. It was noted Li f y^ d that in latior, in the luildine overall inflation ws__. ic-r.er `-an 6,' an i r.du5,try was around 2?,.., so the Commission felt t_.ose fii:ires were reasonable. =r. Woolery moved to accept the develo;ers fi,7ure of �,39,300 as the ceding for the units in --nose I of Grandview Cond3miniu s as a: :�rz�ved the Pl:,f_nin_- Ccn __s�si on in sti-,ulation -7,i on Je.,�sc�,Y o, t� 7Ej :r. JacoL seconded tie Notion and all voted a-.e. ct on finain.-s fcr at „rear Sout _ r. .,:or_a _evea t at the tout:=ur'_in tor. Planning Cc._i=lion dery the u 7. PLANNING COM-XISSION ?:AY 22, 1979 implementation of a comprehensive public street and utility network for the City. 14. The Commission finds that the proposed private streets and utilities would :revent the orderly and coordinated development of this area of South --Slur linEton. 15. If the streets were private in the proposed development, school bus pickup would be precluded, and local ordinances pertaining to speeding, parking, unrebistered motor vehicles, etc. could not be enforced in the development. 16. I•:anv homeowners in the Xeadowood at Spear develc,cent have exerted a ,re=t deal of pressure on Louth Eurlington officials to _rovide the municipal services ordinarily provided on public streets. she Commission can only conclude prom t: e numerous coWrlaints that this a_;--licant has not been able to provide the necessary services in his 7,eadowccd at Spear develo-pment. 17. Althcueh the Ci tv has ,•n occasion furnished .maintenance and plowing services on _,rivately owned streets, the City C.nuncil recently ado:ted a -:�oliey which would rrevent such cralluitous as_ ist _nce. Woolery seccrded the motion. A copy of the rindinEs will be sent to ::r. Ireland_. ter, =11, �'r. raCe explained that that did not a_ : ly r:erely to snow plowing, w ick t o a:rlicant could pay someone to de, but involved some sophisticated machinery, such as vacuums fcr storm sewErs. The yction passed unanimously. :r. Schuele asked the Commission to consider a sidewalk policy for the city, and the idea was discussed. The meetir.` was ad,lourned at 10:53 rm. dlerk I 3. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1979 Mr. Brassard said there would be an office building built on the backland eventually — Mr. Page said the applicants would have to go to the Council under Interim Zoning on this application for preliminary approval and then come back to the Commission for final approval, at which time the Commission would look at building location. Nir. Page said he would try to have everything ready for another hearing in two weeks but was not stare that could be done. He has to talk to the school board and the traffic engineer. If two weeks is too soon, there will have to be another two week continuation at that time. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the Dublic hearing of the Partners Subdivision until two weeks from tonight on May 8 at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and it passed without dissent. A site visit to look at drainage was set for Monday May 7 at 4:00 pm and the members will meet behind the Grand Union building. The City Engineer will be asked for input on the situation and the Natural Resources Committee will be asked to come along. Mr. Page will call to remind the members of the visit. Mr. Mona asked the current status of the access road from Spear Street to this proposed development. Mr. Page said the Planning Commission had reviewed that road last December and felt at that time that the private road had not worked out well and that those streets should be public. They therefore wrote up the appropriate motion and passed it. That decision is now under appeal and the motion has not been complied with because of the appeal, leaving the road private. Mr. Mona felt that any discussion he might have on the new development would be on the condition that the street is public, as it has been approved to date. He felt that if the appeal were upheld, he would want to re -review the proposal in a new light. Mr. Ewing said they could withhold approval until they found out if the roads were going to be public or private and said that the street would not be public until the city was given the deed for it anyway. He said the way to determine whether a street was public or private was by the action of a deed, not acourt, and the Commission agreed. Mr. Poger recommended that the Commission look at Meadowood at Spear South preliminary plat now and that when they come in for final plat approval, it not be approved until the deed as approved is given to the city. Mr. Mona moved that the discussion concerning Meadowood at Spear South be within the context that Pheasant Wav is a public street as approved by the Planning Commission on FPhriiarIg b, 1974 and that should Pheasant Way not be public, that we re -review the Meadowood at Spear South proposal in light of that new information. Mr. Ewing seconded the motion. Mr. Page said the Commission was modifying what was proposed, not reviewing it. He said private streets were proposed, not public and wondered if the Commission should review the proposal as presented. Mr. Poger said the Commission could make any approval conditional on Pheasant Way being a public street and that if it were not a public street, that approval would lapse and the hearing process would have to begin again. Construction on Meadowood South could not begin until the courts had decided about the road and, if it was to be public, the deed had been given to the city. Mr. Page felt the plan itself was pretty good but that it was almost ludicrous to start a review with a major issue like access unresolved. He felt the Commission should review the plan as submitted c,r not at all, but that it I I 4. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1979 should not modify the proposal. Mr. Ireland was asked if he understood the motion on the floor and he replied that he did not. Mr. Poger said the Commission had decided earlier to make Pheasant Way public and that is how they will review the new proposal. Mr. Ireland asked that they review it with Pheasant Way being private. Mr. Poger said the Commission has decided to have it public and that if the court declares that they do not have the power to do that, then they will have to re -review this new proposal in light of questions about access. Mr. Draper moved to have a 5 minute recess and Mr. Mona seconded the motion. It failed with Messrs. Draper, Ewing and Jacob voting yes. Mr. Poger said he was not sure conditional approvals were good and Mr. Woolery agreed with the concept of the motion but wanted to look at the proposal on its own merits and not make conditions about it before it was reviewed. The motion failed with Messrs. Ewing, Draper and Mona voting yes, Messrs. Woolery. Levesque;, and.Jacob voting no, and Mr. Poger abstaining. Mr. Poger then declared a 10 minute recess.- - Mr. Tyler Hart said the proposal was for 40 single family residential lots. There will be 6 large lots on the east and 34 smaller lots on the west side of the property with a large open area in between. All the roads will be built to city standards with a 60' right of way, 30' pavement width, curbs, sidewalks, sewer, waterf and storm drainage. He showed the Commission how the drainage water would flow and where sewage would go. Water lines will be looped and provisions made for future extensions of them. A pedestrian easement has been provided and the open space parkland may be made accessible to pedestrian traffic, Mr. Hart said. He also said there would be some subsurface drainage along some of the lots. There is enough capacity in the Bartlett Bay treatment plant for the sewage from this development. The City Engineer will check both sewer and drainage in the area. The pedestrian easement will be on the line separating commercial land from residential land, which is a natural division by topography. Mr. Ireland is willing to give the city a piece of land 1.7 acres in size. Mr. Bill Meyers, of the Trails Committee, said that the pedestrian easement came up at the last meeting and that he and Mr. Ireland were to get together and talk about it. The Committee proposed a trail along the east and west boundaries and an east - west link also along the bottom of the land, which proposal Mr. Ireland did not like. They have been unable to get together -so far but Mr. Meyers hoped to be able to do so soon and reach an agreement. As far as the parkland to be given to the city, Mr. Page said that the 1.7 acres was more than Mr. Ireland's pro -rated share under the city formula, and that if that land could be added to what the city might expect from development.of,the Irish land next to this land, it would make an adequate size- park site. It was also mentioned that Mr. Ireland might prefer to pay a fee and Mr. Page was asked to compute what a fee would be. The common open space in the middle of the land in question will be for the sole use of these 40-lot owners, and Mr. Ireland said a poll taken,of the present residents of Meadowood at Spear wanted it that way. He said the land to be offered to the city for -a park was dry in the summer although it was pretty wet at this time of year. Mr. Hart said he had put in all the setback lines and that a home could be fit on every one of the lots shown, although some would have to be smaller than others. Mr. Woolery mentioned that all the drainage from this land would end up in one place eventually and he wondered if that would cause an erosion problem. Mr. Page felt the banks in the area were pretty stable. Mr. Hart said -that in the area with the 6 lots, the soil was clay, in the open space it was a 5. PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1979 transition of sand over clay and in the area with 34 homes,it was sand. Mr. Mona noted that a future right of way to the south was shown at the end of roads Mr. Ireland wanted to be private. He also said there was a city park planned at the end of a private road. Mr. Poger asked Mr. Ireland to comment on why he wanted private roads. Mr. Ireland said he had many reasons and the Commission could go back to the minutes when the private road was approved. fie said he would submit his reasons to the Commission but did not feel, since he and the city were in litigation over the issue, that he should discuss his reasons at this time. Mr. Mona felt the policy of the Commission was to - have public, streets whenever possible and he felt that if they were to deviate from that pclicy, there should be a reason for it. Mr. Doug Irish spoke in favor of private streets. Mr. Woolery noted the items to be resolved were having the City Engineer look at drainage, the question of where the pedestrain trails would be, and parkland dedication vs. a recreation fee. Mr. Page felt it would be premature to take action on the preliminary plat with so many major issues unresolved. Mr. Poger stated that it has been the policy of the Commission to require public streets because of public access, public utilities, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the community, and especially where, as in this case, there will be extensions of the roads to other roads and developments. He said that, unless Kr. Ireland could give them some specific reasons for private streets, the Commission would probably ask that these streets be public. Mr. Draper felt there should be a road across the south part of the land connecting the 6 lots to the 34 on the other side of the open space. He felt that would lessen traffic on Pheasant Way, which moves swiftly now. He felt it was a matter of safety. Mr. Ireland did not like the idea, feeling it would become a speedway. Mr. Irish hoped the developer would keep the streams in the development open so water would not back up onto his land. He also noted that it would be helpful if he and Mr. Ireland could split the cost of a fence to be erected at the south end of the property to keep the Irish cattle out of the Ireland development. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing on Ireland's Meadowood at Spear South preliminary plat until two weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7:30 pm on May 8. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and all voted yes. Horizon Heights Manager's apartment Mr. Page said Horizon Heights was an 11 acre parcel of R7 land which had received approval two years ago for an apartment complex. The originL! approval was for 77 units but at final approval that number became 76. The proposal now is to add one unit to bring it up to the maximum density because the manager of the complex had a baby and the family now needs a larger apartment. They propose to add the new unit to building #4. The addition would be one story and contain 1,000 square feet. Mr. Page said there were some items that needed to be cleared up from the last hearing, and those will be done before a building permit is issued. The addition will be visible from the parking lot and one edge can be seen from the Interstate. Mr. Richard Bruce said the location shown for the addition was really the best one. It fits the area, is away from the Interstate, and is visible for anyone coming into the complex and looking for the manager. Mr. Levesque questioned the_ unauthorized use of secondary access- point to Quarry Hill Rd., which was intended for use only by emergency vehicles. Mr. Bruce agreed that it was a saying that peopjv were _..ways taking the gate down and using that -->ad. He said he couls have the manager put the fence 5/14/79 SSP DRAFT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF MEADOW0OD AT SPEAR SOUTH On the day of May,,,the South Burlington Planning Commission denied the preliminary plat application of Ireland Industries for a 40 lot residential subdivision, as depicted on a plan entitled, "Meadowood South - Preliminary Site Plan", dated 3/9/79, drawn by Trudell Consulting Engineers, Inc., because of inadequate road access and provisions for water supply and sewage disposal based on the following findings: 1. none of the 40 lots proposed, nor the 40 acre parcel to F s:t,., be set off from the lands of Bartlett, have frontage. 1Iv I� 2. access and utility service to the proposed subdivision are jdndeterminate at the present time because applicant has appealed to Chittenden County Superior Court the decision of the South Burlington Planning Commission that these shall be publicly owned cl (�r and maintained. Based on the plans submitted, it is apparent that the applicant cannot at present, certify title to a full 60' ROW to the proposed development from Spear Street, the nearest City ? ;i streeti. ;'- i i.l• e i F i I. - I [. •Y,w!. I I F ,.-.N A�4 T = � Vt P. k 3. based on information on the application forms and on - testimony at the preliminary plat public hearing, the applicant has completely reversed his initial proposal of public utilities IDEA ` t,i- and streets (see sketch plan application) to one wherein streets and utilities are to be owned and maintained by Ireland Industries,' Inc. The City, through its staff and Commission, has consistently;,,,,, ;•5 made it clear that these improvements are to be public. 4. the continually changing stance of the applicant (from all public,to some public and some private, to all private), on matters as important as roadway access, sewage disposal, and water supply, precludes the review of other pertinent matters on the Final Draft 5/14/79 Page 2 application until these critical areas are fully resolved. 5. no waiver request, nor any documentation in support of such _ a request, has been submitted to substantiate the request for privately owned streets and utilities. 6. Access, via the private street & utility system proposed 7: , is unacceptable because such an arrangement may prevent the orderly_�'4 '__ development of a street & utility network to serve the surrounding,rr�'f�� area. The implementation of a comprehensive public street and utility network is one of the paramount functions of subdivision review; imposing an entirely private street and utility system on public network subverts and undermines the concept of orderly, co- ordinated development, in, floor of a- 1IMitiad,- and 'iroVinria.AEaw&tdmr._ Moreover, on private streets, homeowners are not entitled to the following servicef)they would normally otherwise expect: school bus pickup, City road and sidewalk maintenance and enforcement of ordinances pertaining to speeding, parking, and unregistered motor vehicles. 7. Homeowners in Meadowood at Spear, which is served by privately owned streets, have not been made sufficiently aware of the services which are not available on private streets; they have exerted extreme pressure on the municipal administration for assistance in such services, particularly because their property taxes are unaffected by the lack of certain municipal services. They have prevailed, on occasion in having City maintenance equipment assist in street plowing and salting, even though no easements �1 for their presence have been granted, and the serious question �;....., .,.- of municipal liability is unresolved. 8. the City Council has adopted a policy of not providing maintenance services on privately owned streets. ''' rA M PROPOSED FINDINGS - MEADOWWOOD AT SPEAR SOUTH 1. The parcel of land proposed to be subdivided does not have frontage on a public road, nor do any of the proposed lots have public road frontage. 2. The applicant proposes to provide access to a public road through the Meadowwood at Spear development. 3. The Planning Commission has determined that the roads within the Meadowwood at Spear development should be public, and the roads and public utilities conveyed to the City. The applicant has appealed this determination to the Chittenden Superior Court, and thus ownership of the roads and utilities in Meadowwood at Spear is unresolved at the present time. 4. The sketch plan application for Meadowwood at Spear South depicted public roads and public utilities, but the applicant now insists that the roads and utilities be owned and maintained by Ireland Industries, Inc. I 5. The continually changing position of the applicant in regard to public versus private roads and utilities has pre- cluded the Commission from considering other pertinent matters such as sewage disposal, water supply, roadway access, etc. 6. The applicant has failed to submit a request for waivers of the public road and utility provisions of the City's subdivision regulations. 0 7. The applicant has failed to introduce any evidence to the Commission to justify his request that the streets and utilities in the proposed development be private. 8. The applicant has failed to introduce any evidence which would enable the Commission to conclude that private streets and utilities will be properly maintained in perpetuity. 9. In order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the proposed subdivision, as well as the public at large, the roads and utilities servicing the development must be properly maintained. 10. Unless the roads and utilities are public, the City does not have any legal right to plow, maintain and/or repair the streets, nor does it have the legal right to maintain and repair the utility lines. 11. The City has the necessary equipment and personnel to make emergency repairs to streets and/or utility lines, but the developer does not have this capability. 12. To assure the orderly development of the City street and utility network to serve the entire area, it is necessary that the streets and utilities in the proposed development be public. 13. One of the primary objectives of subdivision review is to assure the implementation of a comprehensive public street and utility network for the City. 14. The Commission finds that the proposed private streets and utilities would prevent the orderly and coordinated develop- ment of this area of South Burlington. 15. If the streets were private in the proposed develop- ment, school bus pickup would be precluded, and local ordinances pertaining to speeding, parking, unregistered motor vehicles, etc. could not be enforced in the development. 16.' Many homeowners in the Meadowwood at Spear development have exerted a great deal of pressure on South Burlington officials to provide the municipal services ordinarily provided on public streets. The Commission can only conclude from the numerous complaints, that this applicant has not been able to provide the necessary services in his Meadowwood at Spear development. 17. Although the City has on occasion furnished maintenance and plowing services on privately owned streets, the City Council recently adopted a policy which would prevent such gratuitous assistance. 18. The Commission concludes that the streets and utilities in the proposed development must be public, and that since the applicant :insists that the streets and utilities -be private, the Commission has no choice but to deny the preliminary application. PLANNING COMMIISSION - FEBRUARY 27, 1979 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, February 27 at 7:30 pa in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Sidney Poger Chairman; Ernest Levesque, Kirk Woolery, George Mona, James Draper (lateS Members Absent James Ewing, Peter Jacob Others Present Stephen Page, Planner; Steven Bushey, Ronald Bouchard, Richard Rintaca, James Lamphere, Jarvis Hirsted, John McLellan, Paul and Veronica Mellish, William Schuele, John Stuart, Mervin Brown, William Meyer, Doris Bailey, Jerry Olson, Stuart Ireland, Carl Lis -an, Terry Boyle, Tyler Hart, Ron Bouchard Minutes of February 20, 1979 On page 3 in #2 of the motion on that page the word "not" should be removed. Mr. Woolery moved to accept the minutes of February 20. 1979. The motion was seconded by Mr. Levesque and all were in favor. Public hearing on preliminary plat application for an 11 lot subdivision of the Loson property. 45 Allen Road Mr. John Stuart showed the Commission the proposed layout of the property. There will be 11 lots and some of the lot lines have been changed since the last meeting. Access is off Allen Road and a road extends to the east of the property with a oul-de-sac at the end. Because of the realignment of the lot lines to allow more usable area on each lot, lot #5 has no -frontage on the road. Municipal water and sever are provided. The developers have verbal permission from Champlain Water District (CVD) to relocate their large rater line into the road. Mr. Stuart said that there was an easement 20' wide to the south and a drainage easement to take storm water to the vest and tie it into the storm system under Shelburne Road. There will also be an easement along the back of the lots for a future city street if the city wants it. Mr. Poger asked if they had considered combining two of the lots, such as 10 and 116and was told that they wanted to attract small businesses and were trying to keep the lot prices low. He then asked about the 20' easement between lots 7 and 8 and was told that was for emergency access to a development proposed in Shelburne. Mr. Draper arrived at this point. Regarding lot 5•s.,lack of frontage, Mr. Page said that the requirement for that was 2001. Any less than that would require a trip to the Zoning Board for a variance. The Commission can, however, approve the lot with no frontage on the road if an easement over lot 6 is provided for lot 5. Mr. Levesque felt that variances were given for cases of hardship and that subdividing and selling land to make money was not a hardship. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27. 1 The feeling of the Commidi ion seemed to be that it would be better to go to the Zoning Board and have some frontage on the road. Mr. Bushey noted that the original plan had showed 11 lots with frontage and that had been changed because it was felt the Commission wanted it changed. He also felt that getting a variance would take about 2 months to do. Mr. Woolery said that if the access to lots 5 and 6 could be a paved common drive, and that fact could be put in the deeds, he would see no problem with creating lot 5 without frontage. He felt a stipulation could be made part of the approval that there would be a common drive at the corner of the road for lots 5 and 6 and that the easement would be placed where the common drive would be built. Mr. Poger asked to have that drawn on the map before final plat approval. -Messrs. Mona and Draper felt frontage on the road was needed. The 20' easement to Shelburne for emergency access was discussed and Mr. Page said that this would probably be an aisle and parking lot lineup since that would have to be cleared of snow and maintained anyway. He has talked to the Shelburne Planner about this emergency access to a planned residential project in Shelburne and that Planner felt the option should be retained. Mr. Page felt that if the parking lot and aisle were properly placed, there could be a stipulation that the access be kept clear, but it probably would not be needed because the owner of the lot would have .to keep his parking lot clear with or without the stipulation. Mr. Poger suggested that the developer of this land provide the access and that it be -cleared and maintained by the developer of the Shelburne land. There would then be no encumbrance on the owner;in South Burlington and people would be able to go through there for emergencies. Mr..•Mona asked for a written statement from Shelburne as to what they wanted. Mr. Draper said there could be an easement over the CWD line but Mr. Page said they would -have to look at that because if the ground were plowed the frost would go deeper. Mr. Poger asked Mr. Page to ask Shelburne if they would be in favor of an emergency access over the CWD easement, and if they would agree that the developer of the land in that tots would maintain it. Mr. Poger asked the,eommissioners about whether they wanted lot 5 to have frontage, which would send the developers to -the Zoning Board for a variance, or to have no frontage and share a common drive with lot 6. Mr. Mona favored frontage for lot-5 and having the option to require a common drive anyway. Aesers. Levesque, Poger, and Woolery favored a shared drive and no frontage as long as the common drive was in the deeds for lot 6. Mr. Draper favored having frontage. Mr. Poger pointed out that with two commissioners missing at this meeting the majority might shift at the.nezt meeting. Mr. -Page said there was enough room in the treatment plant for this project's sewage. On the subject of traffic, he said he did not have the turning movement counts for Allen Road and Shelburne Road but he felt they would probably say that left turns from Shelburne Road onto Allen Road would predominate. The average daily traffic for Shelburne Road at this point is 18,000 cars per day and Allen Road's count is 1,620 per day. Mr. Page said the Highway Department -had notrecommendedstriping a stacking -lane and had told his there was enough room -forkAhree ..lanes --:t at that point. Mr. Mona was not sure 'it was safe.to pass on the right there. Mr. Stuart said that he had -made some traffic calculations based on uses of a medical office, restaurant, 2 industries, and 5 wholesale outlets and had come up with about 895 trips per day, of which 375 were created by the mediml_office. There is no way to predict what uses will go in the project but he predicted traffic of between 300 and 900 trips per day. He 3. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27. 1 also said it -vas possible once business would want two lots. Mr. Poger instructed Mr. Page -to send a letter to the.State Highway Department informing them of the proposal the Commission is contemplating in this area and of the fears the Commission has regarding what the -development might -do to traffic -in the area. Mr. Mona .asked to see the letter before it was sent. Mr. Draper moved to close the public hearing. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public hearing on preliminary plat application of the Glenwood Corporation for phase II of the Stonehedge development, consisting of 109 condominium units. Mr. Terry Boyle said that they were asking for preliminary approval of phase II of Stoushedge. Since the last meeting they have changed the road to be a loop around the outside of the units as requested by the Commission. A man-made ditch will direct storm water into .Potash Brook. Water has been reviewed by CWD and sewer by the City Engineer. The sewer lines would go west to Andrews Avenue and then to Shelburne Road and the water would be an extension of .the loop system started in phase 1 of the project. The developers will have to upgrade the sewer system by by-passing a level section in the pipes now. By doing this they will have more --than enough capacity in the lines for the sewage from the units. -The street, as far as the cul-de-sac, will be a city street and school children will be picked up at that cul-de-sac. These will be 3-bedroom units. -Mr. Boyle said the units farthest from the cul-de-sac were about 800-10001away and that there would be an internal walk system. The pavement width of the street now is 201 and that is proposed for the rest of the roadway, but it can be widened if 20' is not enough, based on the phase I�experience. Mr. Boyle felt that the 60' right of way requested -by the City Engineer was excessive in the minor cul-de-sacs of the project. Mr. Page felt 60' was headed to the north and south where there is vacant land.. •It was .suggested that the City Nngineer say have wanted--the:_60' right of way in case the street became a city street. Mr. Kona wanted to leave the road width question open. 'Mrl Boyle felt that if the road were widened it might encourage parallel parktag. Be &.aid that there would be one carport and -one additional parking space for-ea0h unit. No other parking areas were planned, but Mr. Boyle • said = it uUhl,•p� , ' a :: • ., F possible to pint some ftora69 or recreational vehicles in another arbi 4f.... the project. -He also, said that chile parking would not be allowed on the outside of the loops in frost or the clusters, it sight be allowed on tIIr R r •Ara inside of those loops, and .that would provide 8 extra spaces per loop. - _ - *r.- Boyle said- the internal - walk system would be 3-46 wide asphalt. - Mr. Woolery asked about the eohdbainium by-laws and wa►s'toId that each cluster would have its own Association and there would be' -an umbrella Association for the entire project of 201 units. He -wanted it clearly understood that what the city did not own, it would not maintain. Mr. Page said sewer and water lines were already deeded to the city. - -- Mr. Boyle -said the Fire Chief --had looked at the plan and made -some- - suggestions. He also said -that phase 2 would not be done until phase 1 was complete and he expected phase 2 to be built fros 1980-83. The people in 1he.eluster which is already built will be allowed 'to , joiu. the umbrella Association if they wish to do no. Mr. Paul Mellish felt that people walked in the roads there now and -that that was -not safe.- Mr. Hoyle said there would be the internal path system. Mr. Mona was not sure people would use that in the winter. Mr. Boyle was asked about on -site recreation facilities and replied 4. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1979 that there would be a pool ind tennis court .built in phase 1 after the first 30 units were finished. No facilities are planned for phase 2. He noted that the 7 1/2 acres of park land beside this project were originally part of the land. Tot lots will be provided through the project, but he was not sure what would be provided -in these. Mr. Carl Lisman, who represented the developers, said that they wanted to set aside land in various locations around'the development and then let the association members decide what they want for recreation facilities. Mr. Boyle added that they hoped the city would take into consideration the desires of the residents of the project when it develops the city park. Mr. Page said there might have to be some changes in layout as a result of suggestions from the City Engineer regarding sewage. He also felt the loop road should be altered slightly so as to avoid a nice stand of trees. Mr. Levesque moved to close the public hearing and Mr. Mona seconded the motion. Mr. Woolery felt there should be more discussion of the project. Mr. Levesque withdrew his motion and Mr. Mona his second. Mr. Woolery moved to continue the public hearing for the preliminary plat application of Glenwood Corporation for phase II of Stonehedge until two weeks from tonight at City Hall at 7:30 pm. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion and all were in favor. Sketch plan review. 40 lot residential subdivision of the Bartlett property. south of Meadowood at Spear Mr. Tyler Hart represented Stuart Ireland, who developed Meadowood at Spear and would develop this parcel also. He said they planned to build 40 units on a 40 acre parcel which is zoned R-4 and would allow them to build 160 homes. These 40 units will be single family homes and there will be a significant amount of open space in the middle of the parcel. 34 units will be built on the vest side of the open space and 6 on the east. The streets will be paved and 30' wide with curbs. They will be city streets, except the one serving the 6 units, which they would like to have private. Mr. Hart said he would like to resolve the exact location of the zoning line between commercial and residential property. One line, arrived at by scaling off the Zoning map, is different from a line which follows the natural contours of the land and which allows the use of vhat-Mr. Hut felt was prime residential land. Mr. Page said he would check with the City Attorney on the point. Mr. Hart said the open space would be deeded in eomaton to all the lots and that some 'Wid would be made available to the city in a separate parcel. That open space is 10-13 acres in size and might be buildable if some drainage were put in. Some pedestrian access will be provided to the open space. Mr. Hart said that land would not be open to use of the Meadowood at Spear residents, who have their own recreation area. Mr. Page said he would need some topographical information on this land. There will be a reserve strip of land on the east side of the development for possible future connection to the Irish -property. Mr. Page vanted•to make the Commission aware that it had a guideline of not wimttw more than 50 units on a street -that :hid.only:one access point to a city street. Mr. Poger felt the two eul-de-sacs shown here gave the Commission .the proper tools for future planning for an alternate access to Allen Road by the extension of one or the other of those roads. Mr. Draper felt that tying the two roads together in a loop at the south side of the property sight improve the internal traffic flow by giving cars it, 5. PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1979 two ways to get out to Phe4sant way. Mr. Ireland said the people living in Neadowood at -Spear had not felt that was a good idea. Mr. Ireland felt he would start construction next year and finish the project in 3 years. Mr. Jerry Olson of the Recreation Department said that his office had been working on the pedestrian trails system and he gave the Commission copies'of a letter outlining their position on this property (see attached copy). Mr. Poger asked that they work out a place for the trail with the developer before the preliminary plat stage. Sketch plan review, 14 condominium: units for DeforRe property off Quarry Hill Road Mr. James Lamphere said the land was just south of the Quarry Hill Club and was 2.2,acres in size and sloping. It is zoned R7 and they would like to build 14 condominium units. The road into the units will be at a 10% grade and the highest units will be placed so as not to interfere with the view of the homes on East Terrace behind this project. Municipal water and sewer will be used. The units will have 2 bedrooms. Mr. Poger asked who would upgrade the city street and was told that they were working on that problem but were willing to pay their fair share of the coat. --Mr. Page said the first 300' of Quarry Hill Road to the"apartment complex was just -shy of city standards but that there was some money in escrow to cover some improvements. Mr. Lamphere suggested that the Commission let' him try to work it out before preliminary plat review. Mr. Poger was concerned about the access road being steep and icy in the winter. Mr. Lamphere felt that if the access road intersected with Quarry Hill Road at 600 as suggested by the City Engineer, the slope of the road would be steeper and it would have to be currod. Mr. Woolery asked how many parking spaces were provided and was told there were 25 but that 28 could be put in if the Commission wished. The question of a pedestrian easement along the Interstate was brought up. Mr. Levesque moved that a letter be sent to the City Attorney directing him -to get the pedestrian trail in the green belt parallel to the -Interstate. Mr. Mona seconded the motion and all were in favor. Sketch plan review. 1 lot subdivision of San Remo Realty, west of 150 Kennedy Drive - - - Mrs Ron Bouchard -said --that =they -would like a permit to improve, -a lot on- -- - Kennedy Drive between 150 Kennedy Drive and Reilly Tire Co. The lot is 2.1 acres and wooded. At present there is a drainageway through the center of the lot, which was created through a subdivision in 1977 but classified as undevelopable. What they are proposing is to collect the'threi drainage pipes bn the property and run that water through a pipe 220' long, with a -manhole. -After the -pipe is -in -glace, -they will fill the lot to-the-318 -- - elevation line. He said they had no plans for development of that lot now but wanted to fill it now so they would have it -when they wanted it. Mr. Poger felt this lot had been created by the setting off of two other lots and that the request was to change the drainage and put in a lot of fill so the lot could be developed to its best use. He was not sure it was appropriate to do that at this point.- He felt the Commission had felt the last time the proposal was before them to subdivide that this land was too 6. PLANNING COMMISSION FLBRUART 27. 1979 wet and that it was not in t"t beat interests of the city to develop it. He felt the request -van a change from what the Commission had thought the property would be. Mr. Bouchard pointed out that in 1970 3 lots had been approved. -- _--- -Mr. Sehuele raised__the question of the protective land area reserved - on - each side of drainagerays. Mr. Poger did not object to a building being built if it could be done on the land which is now buildable and if access and parking could be shared with 150 Kennedy Drive. Mr. Bouchard said -that access would be used if filling were allowed and the building probably would be constructed on the ground_•that is usable now. The�only problem is that they would -need - more parking space than they have at 150 Kennedy Dr. Mr. Yoolery noted that the Commission had argued a lot about building in drainageways and wondered what would happen if the Commission allowed a major drainageway to be filled. Mr. Page felt this lot was unique in the city. Mr. Poger told Mr. Bouchard that 3t seemed as if, if the proposal were here tonight for review, the vote would be 4-1 in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 pm. Clerk BARTLETT'S ABBUTERS �/Frand( E. Bartlett 23 El Carm Del Sur Monterey. CA 44--- ' $amupl J. ' Ba',^one l70�0 `'Shelbur'ne Road Black Angus . 1710 Shelburne Road Allenbrook Home for Boys 100 Allen. -Road Bernice S. Irish 200 Allen Road ✓ James P. Chaplin 1741 Spear Street %Jack Trevithick 1751 Spear Street Green Mountain Poiver l Main Street Burlington, VT 0�401 1 Ireland Industries Box 2286 South Burlington, VT 05401 ✓ Kenneth Strohmeyer 10 Quail Run Robert Collins 8 Quail Run ✓' Paul Maddelein 6 Quail Run ✓ John McDonough 4 Quail Run ✓'Robert McMahan 2 Quail Run Ronald Bishop 10 Pheasant Way Chittenden Regional Planning P.O. Box 108 Essex Junction, 05452 -"40'a -��; /I I 5. CITY COUNCIL FEBRU RY 26, 1979 government had been convinced by Burlington and Winooski that the project had merit and some money had been set aside for it which might be lost. Yr. Jarvis asked whether South Burlington and Shelburne had been selected as the communities Burlington and Winooski would like to work with without the involvement of those governing bodies first and was told that was true, but that no specific names had been used when the project was discussed with the federal authorities. Dir. Tigsn said they had only a verbal commitment from -:JD. Yr. FI herty moved to discontinue discussion on the resolution for F n!_e: uni_cipal coo-Leration on low cost hcusi_n I,_r. Paulsen seconded the motion and it passed 4-1, with hir. Farrar voting no. !feet as Liquor Control Board to consider liquor licenses �,aulsen moved to adjourn as the City Council and meet as the Liquor Control Board_ :'r. ClPheriy seconded the motion and it-Fassed with all in favor. N.r. Szymanski said that he had applications for first class licenses for the Ground Round and the Rotisserie (change in ownership). Both have been reviewed by the Fire and Police Chiefs and found to be all right. Yr. Flaherty moved to sign the applications for the liquor licenses for the Ground Round and the Eotisserie. The motion was seconded by `ir. Burgess and passed unanimously. Yr. Szymanski said that he also had a request for an entertainment permit for the Ground Round from 7 pm to midnight and for movies on Friday and Saturday. There will be a singer and some musical instruments but this will be geared toward entertainment and not dancing. Mr. Paulsen moved to sign the entertainment permit for the Ground Round. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed with all voting aye. :fir. Flaherty then moved to adjourn as the Liquor Control Board and meet as the Citv Council. This motion was seconded by Xr. Paulsen and passed without dissent. Act on State Highway request for comments on the pr000sed Southern Connector Extension in South Burlington The Agency of Transportation requested a written opinion from the Council regarding the various alignments proposed for the Southern Connector in a letter dated January 24, 1979. A bap of the area was included with the letter. Mr. Jarvis moved that the City Council recommends the east alternate as shown on the proposed map and the inclusion of the Laurel Hill connector. Yr. Burgess seconded the motion and it passed with all in favor. Review draft of policy on private street plowing prepared by City Manager The City Manager submitted a draft policy to the Council (see attached copy). ]sir. Burgess said the city could insist that the person who owns the street plow it. Yr. Jarvis moved to accept the Private Road Snow Plowing Folicy as drafted by the City Yanager. Yx . Paulsen seconded the motion. Yr. Burgess moved to amend the Policy to strike item #1. This motion died for lack of a second. The motion passed unanimously. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, VL'uIONT PRIVATE ROAD - SNOW PLOWING POLICY It shall be the policy of the City of South Burlington not to plow and maintain private streets with the following exceptions: 1. Pre-existing private streets currently maintained and plowed by the city shall continue to receive the same degree of service until such time as all adjacent property served by the private street is acquired by a single party, such as in the case of Dawn Court if the adjacent property is acquired by the airport, at which time all maintenance including snow plowing will cease. The private streets, in addition to Dawn Court, are Birch Court and the north -south leg of Bartletts Bay Road. 2. New streets under construction that will become city streets and include occupants of completed structures, other than developers and builders, may receive snow plowing service by the city only after the bituminous base course paving is in place and acceptable to the city and all protruding structures, such as manholes, inlets, valve boxes, etc. are shimmed and secured to the satisfaction of the City Manager or his designated representative. This service will be for one season only. Dated on this 26th day of February, 1979. William J. Szymanski City Manager Approved on this 26th day of February, 1979. South Burlington City Council M - t -z--L, L"4,- 6-c 7 117 -,-��- IL Ireland Development �- \�I5��''E� 1. The short dead end for future extension near Lot ##15 should not be constructed until the Irish property is developed. 2. One or both streets should eventually tie into Allen Road when the Irish property is developed. 3. Streets should be public. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Preliminary sketch plan #1 for S. Ireland Date: February 23, 1979 Area zoned Residential 4 District, maximum density allowed 160 units. Average lot size 14,500 square feet which exceeds the minimum required, lots 24,25,26 and 27 along with portions of lots 23 and 24 are located within the Business Planned Development District. The area affected should be: 1 - rezoned to residential= 2 - revised the plan relocating the lots in question. How will access be provided to lots 6 and 15? A turn -around should be provided at the termination point of the proposed road near lot 15 and road proposed for 1 - 6 should be extended to the end of lot 6. Will proposed open -space be public or private, if private will home- owners association maintain the land in question. March 29, 1979 Mr. Tyler Hart Trudell Consulting Engineers Box 308 Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: Meadowood South Dear Tyler: 'Iho preliminary plat which you to warn for a public hearing. When been paid, I will place the hearing need this prior to Wednesday, April hearing on April 24. would you also additional prints? have submitted is adequate the $90 subdivision fee has ad in the paper. I will 4, in order to hold the o please drop off a couple of In general, I think this is a very good plan that addresses nearly all of the issues raised at the previous meeting. However, the pending litigation on street and utility ownership,: is a serious problem - I think it inconceivable that the Commission will act favorably on this plan, regardless of its merits, until the streets and utilities in Meadowood at Spear are committed to public ownership. Please call if you have any questions. Yours truly, Stephen Page, Planner SP/mcg ccs Mr. Stu Ireland C MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items -Date: May 4, 1979 Stonehedoe 1. Streets should be public, 30' width, curbs, etc. 2. Is a house planned for lot #107 3. Water Department must review water main layout. O'Brien Property, Hinesburg Road 1. The road connecting Twin Oaks, Timber Lane and Castlerock should extend to connect Hinesburg Road and become a public street. 2. The most westerly cluster is on land that is very poorly drained. Oakbrook Pine's 1. Cul-de-sacs shall be City standard with pavement width sufficient for parking. 2. Drainage ditch from Sherry Road to Rand property should be dredged and cleaned. 3. Additional drainage catch basins will be required. 4. Water Department to review water main layout. 5. Manhole inverts on sanitary sewer in Oakwood Drive may have to be repaired before additional sewage flow is added to the system. 6. Transition in street width as shown on Brookwood Drive should be on right side of the street. Meadowood Sout 1. Additional storm water catch basins should be added especially near lots 36, 14, 30, 21. Maximum street drainage per catch basin should be 300 feet. 2. water Department to review water main layout. 3. Streets should be City owned and maintained. Fy-lF.Trw all Y 3,5 /p, v. X . `40, = /3-t.4 1 'F c S41 000 = . v7Z- locscm-77 ofu.c ezoq 7 No Text 12 OL, 0-4 L -Clc-'� (41- i k, 6,wIIJ 1241P ebize 7© Cud-, i co-� - I I ate„! stjcc.UL, AJ �.,:..o �,,.� .�,, _ ''m Z K�✓i� s c,�.F� �uavu-ft�✓� J'�� C, 6 r+c — 10 A STATE OF VERMONT * SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS IN RE: APPEAL OF IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC. NOTICE OF APPEAL NOTICE is hereby given that IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC. hereby appeals to the Chittenden Superior Court from an Order and Findings of Fact of the City of South Burlington Planning Commission dated February 6, 1979. Ireland Industries, Inc. appeals the Board's ruling that the roadways and utilities in the development known as Meadowood at Spear be declared public. Ireland Industries, Inc. contends that these roadways and utilities were approved as private and that if declared public, such declaration constitutes a taking for which Ireland Industries, Inc. must be compensated. Ireland Industries, Inc. requests a de novo hearing on all issues. 1979. DINSE. ALLEN a ERDMANN ATTORNEYS AT LAM IN COLLEGE STREET IYMWGTON. YERMOKT Dated at Burlington, Vermont, this 5th day of March, IRELAND INDUSTRIES, INC. By: Di nse, Allen b Erdmann By: IRobert C. Roesler {XE-V ' A+-4r W - «�� T-CtZ fir" - 5 i Foa//c _ THY \Vzk4r r �► -� l,A V Om pct — P. G. 4 � L4 W (- J TIO t4o ACE 3- D\, lam_ bt* lb2- f�►l.Dl y�Vnescca,4 o� sus ._ c+Oc.r- 4g*4 0165ac---�U-1 464 r-MIK HOW 5F-,W�— I -AP ` 6095WNtNE — FhWatE:- AV, P20 L-cit6 1 �v -:Z-> -(edZ Pt-�Aor:;l M E1 'XAVT X, Mew ficVD4 t5 `To 4 v1 7,13, 1-41 Bartlett -Ireland Subdivig$.on 4 one third acre lots and 6 one acre plus lots are proposed for 40 acres lying directly south of Meadowood at Spear (see attached location map). I have the following general comments on this proposal: (a) access - ahould�"entirely via City streets: the number of units sharing a single access to a City street is above our guide- lines; a right of way should be retained to the west, to the commercial portion of the Bartlett land= the curvilinear street pattern is excellent for discouraging high speed through traffic; alignment of the easterly street with the Champlain Water District right of way is good,'but should be modified so that there is less damage to a mature stand of hardwoods. (b) recreation, open space - pedestrian trails in the Comp- rehensive Plan are shown for the east and west sides of this property. There is an enormous amount of open apace shown, largely because the project density is 25% of the allowable maximum - the ownership and use of this area must be clearly spelled out. (c) BPD-R4 zonina line - the exact location of determined by the Commission when Meadowood at Spear I believe a slight modification is in order,which is section 13.70, #7 of the Zoning Ordinance. MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planing Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Preliminary sketch plan #1 for S. Ireland Date: February 23, 1979 this line was was approved. authorized under Area zoned Residential 4 District, maximum density allowed 160 units. Average lot size 14,500 square feet which exceeds the minimum required, lots 24#25,26 and 27 along with portions of lots 23 and 24 are located within the Business Planned Development District. The area affected should be: 1 - rezoned to reaidentials 2 - revised the plan relocating the lots in question. How will access be provided -to -lots 6 and 157 A turn -around should be provided at the termination point of the proposed road near lot 15 and road proposed for 1 - 6 should be extended to the end of lot 6. Will proposed open -space be public or private, if private will home- owners association maintain -the land in queationp A Ireland Development -- ��,lS/I- *A 1. The short dead end for future extension near Lot #15 should not be constructed until the Irish property is developed. 2. One or both streets should eventually tie into Allen Road when the Irish property is developed. 3. Streets should be public. 0 ...., .r.:........,w,... ...,:....,�.�..,-.w .�..�. _.,..,..,�...-�......, .,,.... y..,...� ... ,v ...._._ ..,. � .-rb ► � _ . � ,� .yam{" C4&Tiq KA��o�( A7/ I 1 L1 - h1o�v��4D + I 1Iz- - • 35 \ 5 \ �c �.%tAA fAx . Nr, Dick Trudell viillis . Cineering; 295 :-hunpike Road South 3urlincton, Dear Dick: :arch 1, 1976 Associates Vermont U5401 �t its last ryee�nga, on lebrua.ry 24t�, the South auto i'ts ton ;:la.nning, Commiss n a.p roves an addendum (enclosed3 to its final approval of your "Ideadowood at Cpear" »ubdivision proposal. This is primarily a clarification of points w'nich were verbally agreed to at previous raeetin s; also, I am aware th..t -nu TiL:xe already complied wi" h some of bie po-LILUIJJ-4-- of this aI� enf3i)xn as f shown on your plans for la`250 reviews 111ea..te note th,it the addendum relates to t1^e flUal plat, i.e., the one which would be recorded in the City Clerk's office, after all reviews G:nd approvals have been secured. Don't hesitate to call me if you h%iVe uny questions. Sincerely, atephen Page, Planning; iyss't. cc: Mr. Stu Ireland Addendum to Approval of "Meadowood at Spear Subdivision", Passed by Resolution of South Burlington Planning Commission, February 21+, 1976 1) With regard to the boundaries of the R4 and BPD districts which affect the parcel under consideration, the Commission finds that physical and cultural features on the ground are at variance with those shown on the Official Zoning Map; the Commission interprets the boundaries of the R4 district as extending throughout the property under con- sideration and westerly to a parcel of City -owned land; the Commission further interprets the boundaries of the BPD district as extending northerly to the southeastern corner of a parcel of City -owned land. 2) That the final plat indicate that lots 10, 119 139 159 and the area designated as parkland contain minor drainageways and appropriate portions of the Conservation Open Space District. 3) The lot directly west of and abutting the cul-de-sac is to be designated "Neighborhood Park" on the final plat. �+) Easements at northeast and southwest corners of the property are to be further designated as "Pedestrian Easements." Par AVI 7P EXISTING SAND FILTEREXISTING \ OUTFALL TO BROOK ED -_ //• / / - \ \ i - - - - - - - - i TRIB_OF BARTLM RQO-))�" EX7$TING 12" -Y`� _ _ - "�, 1 %aoo�J �`:•l Yy29�'2. / ^ EXIS-- Q - % -_- - - f - - - - - �� - -'� - - % ,F��(ISTING }?✓'P; �,- "f - NV IN-24�. -- - _ _ /�S'•- J -ST- �. I N MH 4*♦ '� RI 1' INV IN=215.5 `� INV I EXI TING 300 BUILDIN 1 EXISTING 20 BUILDINGI , \ i _.o`� 1 1 EXISTING 100 BUILDIN9 7" '17 m;, rvc 12 Pvc - ST - T - ST Jj EXISFILIIC ONTROL- - / \ EFXISTING CB- - • f1' ! �UCTURE - EXISTING CB / W 22GI I I EXISTING C3 RIM=221,'g _ _ RIM-2228 / I\ INV 2201 ,I �; RIM=229.5 ,yINV IN=21$9 INV IN=21119-223.5 A v OUT-zks B I EXISTING PAVEMENT wv OUT-216 8 %- LJ '06r\ r' - s ; Fx15TrNc ca`_'_ / (BYPASS RI ER 1 ^ 4+si� ,i Svc RIM=2361 - Xw� J✓r / OISC'ONNECT�D) - I I \.p, EXISTING SMH �!'. I � 6 PEXISTING PAVEMENT ` INV.- /'/ i 1,R -IN26J J- I IN=216 3 /a K A H r I EXISTING CARPORT wNv 0<-2162 T/ _ - - � -w� --� -J;w\� w- -w- - / p _ \ / l _ �EXIST,ING CB EXISTING CB �l_ ST - - - sir - - a_ " - �yk'- - ss� INV-�22'9 RIId=231 6 rx- rvc EXISTING U /qV= RfM=236_3 _ - EXISTING CB / ss l - ` EXISTING CARPORT �' I_N7� 23o s 1 �i1 I I z RIM=222.8 _ , I�:,I, .. IrY\( F INV=219:5 \ _ es isilw En W /, PJG I•m I t� _ - _ , .� _ _ _ - _ 3jJ� I - /--'.� f �- r� / w I i�I�ISNG CB _ " I I 1 Ir', iss RIM=123-7 -� _ sees._r I EXy511 GCBRIM 08�pp_ �d � -,✓- � NV- 5.2 '-EXISTING CB -Q�J� 2 pv� EXISTING CB, I, P' ; EXISTING CB-- i itIM=220.7 _�5J' RIM=225 6 \ T� IIINV IN(E)=275.961 RX T2224MH 1 ( ) .1 RIM=2258 �✓' \��' % i \ 1 INV IN NE =2 P V-219 3 INV W}�2175, -2171 INV IN(E)=2 I �'h' ry/ ! OUT=21 .9 - INV OUT-?1139 ! - \ EXISITN X28 —uE UE �- _.� ��R1M=2256 INV IN=2156- 1>INV OU4-�5�� LEGEND HEA�Al-1 i -: _ / \ \ �' � EXISTING STORMWATER �'•� n \ .\ �`_� - _ - - - -- _ SIIN P INV =20 ST , - ..�- ' _ , Y� r2 Pay ST- SUBCATCHMENT. e(.tP INv�I'� O AREA DRAINING TO POND 7pM TEST PIT LOCATION A� _ -T � / .� / _ EXISTING PROPERTY LINE SOIL TEST PIT DATA - - - - G - EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS - ---= _- Performed by PBS 6118111 - - - -Sr- EXISTING STORM LINE L•E-- EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECRIC Test Pit �t1 0-a" dark brown sandy topsoil - - EXISTING SWALE ti �- /6"-20" very fine sand. firm / Notes I ✓ \� r / ; `\ 1 20"-45" fine sand, firm, brown, - - - -ss- EXISTING SANITARY SEWER 45"-60" very fine sand, grey, distinct mottling O 50" 1- his plan -is not a boundary survey and is nod-'fitended to a� o`e \ - - - - w - EXISTING WATER LINE _ - estimated SHGWr O 40' (elev -216 23) 2 Contours were" -generated from CC4-41i'LIDAR points on IAVD 1988 I EXISTING EDGE OF WOODS _ datum - All elevations sh9wn are orf tRe salve datum from rftotal station and static GPS-observed control Test Pit #2 (within pond, datum at base of pond) EXISTING TREE '3 All utility locations sl%wn are approximate 0pm field evidence Some GRAPHIC SCALE- \ 0-1Y silt, topsoil mix - - - uldities are locations due to lack 0( evidence -- 12" wet fine sand O 12' (elev =21503) - 225 EXISTING CONTOUR MAJOR O o /4 ks plan wes developed to show existing corch ions stormwater drainage EXISTING BOUNDARY MARKER features and is not intended for any otherI -pvrPica ( IN FEer I Note: All areas within project area are mapped as ® EXISTING CATCH BASIN 1 inch = 30 IL I ( Adams and Windsor Loamy Sands by USDA-NRCS 1 � / QUEEN- CITY ENGINEERING 98 LOOMIS ST., BURLINGTON, VT 054D1 e petersmurA6m l.mm p-(E02)922-5357 SUIIv]IM AND DIIANN JCB CFRCxW JCB/PBS erROM PBS OWNER. BAY COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 25 BAY CREST DRIVE SOUTH BULINGTON VERMONT 05403 PROJECT: PROPOSED CUSTTORMWATEERR L— V�I Ld MAY 2 4 2013 PROJECT LOCATION I: I LOCATION MAP ftMSION EXISTING CONDITIONS HYDROLOGY PLAN DA?D DMwrNU NUNRRR August, 2011 sc 1" C1 =30' EXISTING JZ" rINV=7 2 / EXISTING STONE / STABILIZAT10N_G -- _ y FIELD VERIFY ,LOCATION AND EXISTING 12",'PVC - \ \J Tu ELEVATION OF EXISTING STORM LINE / INV=207 B • \ I _ '/ / (CONTACT ENGINEER NTH ANY I -- 1 DISCREPANCIES) _ L'J - S %C ' l 1 RETAIN EXISTING \ OUTLET PIPE A / I IJ_A 1 SAW CUT AND REMOVE I I _ (EXISTING 12"STORMPLINE EXISTING W \ I I BUILDING REMOVE PAD AND EXSTINGOSAND TFILTER / J UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM \ / REMOVE EXISTING \ / STORM LINESEXISTST i INV IN 215V4 l i ," QVG EXISTING MH / - RIM-220 4 1 f� V INV IN-2155 — — -- — U E _/ — — INV OUT=215 4 EX — —_TRANSFORMER \ / REMOVE- EXFSTIN.G - LLLL��JJII MANHOLE STRICTURES l5T �RIXM-'21 ---- ST--_r-',------- SALVAGEABLE TOPSOIL AND - ' 12-" PVC DRAINAGE STONE FROM EXISTING ISTfG CONTROL STRUCTURE POND SHALL BE STOCKPILED 9 / ONSITE FOR USE IN NEW I INV IN-215 9 FACILITY INV OUT=2158 _ - (BYPASS RISER DISCONNECTED) EXISTING CB I RIM=222 8 INV I4=218 9 INV OUT-218 8 LEGEND - EXISTING CONTOUR 336 PROPOSED CONTOUR — - - — PROPERTY LINE O IRON PIN o CONC MON. ----ST---- STORM LINE ----UE---- UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING PAVEMENT I I I I I EXISTING POND DEMO PLAN ---- T - - -- TELEPHONE LINE ® SHUT-OFF �n. POWER POLE LIGHT POST W DECIDUOUS TREE -,- CONIFEROUS TREE rrvv-rr rvvv� EDGE OF WOODS GENERAL NOTES / - - - - - QUEEN ENGINEERING .- EXISTING jZ' PVC ' rINV=?,0-7 2 — EXISTING STONE / STABILIZATION J , �.0 i 2 NIMEW OUTLET STRUCTURE / - C3 R=218 St J - �EXISTING 12' PVC; 8" INV IN=214.9 INV=207,6 INSTALL 3' THIC CLAY 12" INV. OUT=213.5* DAI,A IN STORM 'NCH - �� UE / \�. - -- - r LLJ - NEW 8" W/ F.E.S. i/ INV -2150' 215.9+ 1 _- L_] NEW F E S. I EwsnNc C3 INV=215.4' BUILDING / 11h9 7r15 9+ CONNECT TO/EXISTING 12- PVC WITH VERTI)CAI, -22.5- / - - � PITTING OR APPROVED EQUAL - GRASS e f CHANNEL C3 STABILIZED OUTFACE INSTALL CONSERVATION MIX AND EC i MATTING ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN POND (fNSTALL PER gtrr-- U E _ — — .5 NEW STORM MANHOLE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS) EX TRANSFORMER RIM-221 2- 12' INV. IN-215.6 - - / - - - 1 12" IN OUT (TO POND)-215.5 12" INV. OUT (OVERFLOW)=218.3 O O — — , ST — _ ,.-_�_ -`I — — — — — 12" PVC — — — — — — - GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) I Inch . ID 1L NEW 6'x12' -� 4 SEDIMENT TANK C3 RIM=222.2 INV IN (2)=215.9 INV OUT-215.8 1. Utilities shown do not purport to constitute or represent all utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyed premises. Existing utility locations are approximate only The Contractor shall field verify oil utility conflicts All discrepancies shall be reported to the Engineer. The Contractor shall contact Dig Safe (888-344-7233) prior to any construction. 2. All existing utilities not Incorporated into the final design shall be removed or abandoned as Indicated on the plans or directed by the Engineer. 3 The Contractor shall maintain as -built plans (with ties) for all underground utilities. Those plans shall be submitted to the Owner at the completion of the project 4. The Contractor shall protect all existing utilities and property, and repair/restore all disturbed areas (on or off the site) as a direct or indirect result of the construction 5 All grossed areas shall be maintained until full vegetation is established 6. Maintain all trees outside of construction limits 7 The Contractor shall be responsible for all work necessary for complete and operable facilities and utilities EXISTING PAVEMENT PROPOSED POND GRADING PLAN 8. The Contractor shall submit shop drawings for all Items and materials Incorporated Into the site work Work shall not begin on any Item until shop drawing approval is granted. 9. In addition to the requirements set In these plans and specifications, the Contractor shall complete the work In accordance with all permit conditions and any local Public Works Standards 10. The tolerance for finish grades for all pavement, walkways and lawn areas shall be 01 feet 11 Any dewatering necessary for the completion of the sitework shall be considered as part of the contract and shall be the Contractor's responsibility 12. Existing pavement and tree stumps to be removed shall be disposed of at an approved off -site location All pavement cuts shall be made with a pavement saw. 13. If there are any conflicts or inconsistencies with the plans or specifications, the Contractor shall contact the Engineer for verification before work continues on the Item in question 14 This plan is not a boundary survey and is not intended to be used as one EXISTING OR RIM=222 INV IN=2189 INV OUT-2188 98 LOOMIS ST., BURLINGTON, VT 05401 e petenanar�gmad ro p. (802) 922 MW m SaRVE1T,D END DM- JCB r.I.D JCB/PBS Al�R➢vED PBS OWNER. BAY COURT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 25 BAY CREST DRIVE SOUTH BUL/NGTON VERMONT 05403 PROJECT - PROPOSED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS 4AY 'i .k 2L 1 of - .:Uu Lcr Ji LOCATION LOCATION MAP MISION PROPOSED POND UPGRADES Den DMEINC Nunisen August, 2011 1" C2 =10' STING GROUND --____---- _-------------_-_- T'I^T7 BOTTOM WIDTH 2' PROVIDE 4" TOPSOIL AND GRASS COVER (CONSERVATION MIX) - • - I'I �,=� I- - -- INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN CHANNEL GRASS CHANNEL IN STORM POND C3 NTS LEBARON FRAME (#LA-246) AND COVER (#'L24C1) MARKED "STORM" OR APPROVED EQUAL FINISH GRADE ADJUST TO MEET 225 FINISH GRADE �1 218.53 WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1'— MIN WIDTH FLEXIBLE GASKET 1IN 2" CAP W/ 1 TDIA ORIFICE DRILLED AT INVERT 12" PVC OUTLET 2 25 �1 214 8 B" INLET 18" SUMP 6" MIN CRUSHED CLAY CHECK DAM GRAVEL 4`PRECAST MANHOLE STRUCTURES OR ANTI -SEEP COLLAR SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPEC IN PIPE TRENCH C478 (LATEST EDITION) POND OUTLET STRUCTURE C3 Nrs. MATCH DITCH CULVERT Y END SECTION SECTON A -A TYPE I STONE FILL J 1 e. A �� TYPE 16MI 3 FILL (IMIN THICKNESS) ) CULVERT END SECTGN A STABILIZATION FABRIC CONTINUE ST.1 MIRAFI SOOX OR Ra IF REQUIRED APPROVED EQUAL Q END SECTION DETAIL G3 NTS 8"FES- INV 215 0 CAST -IN -PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES PRECAST CONCRETE w/MONOLITHIC BASE TOPSOIL, RAKE; SEED & MULCH 'NOTE CLAY MATERIAL TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER PRIOR TO BEING BROUGHT ONSITE \ CLAY LAYER 12 MM NATIVE SOIL CLAY LINER IN POND TYPICAL CROSS SECTION NTS QUEEN CITY ENGINEERING LEBARON FRAME (yLA-246) AND COVER (iiiL24C1) - - OR APPROVED APPROVED EQUALS "STORM" OR 98 L.00MIS ST., BURLIN=N, VT 05401 ADJUST TO MEET a Paterswereglleilcom FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE p (902) 922-5357 WATERTIGHT JOINT USING 1" MIN WIDTH SET FRAME ON FULL MORTAR BED h SEAL JOINT ADJUST TO GRADE Dlusn PBS FLEXIBLE GASKET TYP (� 24" 0 24" 0 r� W/ PRE CAST RISER 36" 0 RISER (TYP) SECTIONS 12" MAX cxec— 36" 0 (TYR) PBS/JCB 24"0 e• 24'0 CASTBUIE PLACE FLEXIBLE MH Arrsovm SLEEVES (TYP PBS 12" HOPE OUT - , FOR ALL PENETRATIONS) OWNER /ram" INSPECTION ' 12"0 PVC BAY COURT bCOVER ��- 12` PVC IN Zy CONDOMINIUM INV=2159 12" PVC IN ASSOCIATION INV =215 9 25 BAY CREST DRIVE 48" 50" SOUTH BUL/NGTON 6 e VET 05403 NOTES UNPAVED PAVED 1 Typical trench for drainage pipe 2 Compaction of backfill and bedding shall be a minimum of 90% (95R - under roadway surfaces) of maximum dry density determined In - - - the standard proctor lest (ASTM D698) APPROVED BACKFILL 3 Bedding material shall not be placed THOROUGHLY COMPACTED on frozen subgrode. IN 8' LIFTS 4 Approved backfill shall not contain any stones more than 6" in largest dim eneion, 2' maximum diameter wllhln 2' of the outside of the pipe, D 2' or any frozen, or organic material HOPE PIPE 5 Trenches shall be completely dewalered prior to placing of pipe bedding material and kept dewatered during installation of pipe and backfill - THOROUGHLY COMPACTED 6 The sides of trenches 4' or more in -_-_- - "-" BEDDING MATERIAL depth entered by personnel shall be sheeted or sloped to the angle of repose asdefined by 0 S H A UNDISTURBED SOIL standards OR ROCK 7 Bedding material for storm water lines shall consist of crushed stone or gravel with maximum size of 3/4" TYPICAL STORM DRAIN TRENCH DETAIL NTS 6" COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE TANK NOTES 1 REFER TO SITE PLAN TO VERIFY INLET AND OUTLET CONFIGURATION 2 TANK, RISERS. COVERS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE COMPONENTS TO BE PRECAST AND DESIGNED FOR H-20 LOADING �1 HEAW DUTY 6X 12' (I.D.) PRECAST STORM TANK C3 NTS CONE SECTION OR 4'0- TRAFFIC COVER (HEAVY DUTY) FOR SHALLOW MANHOLES 16 m In UNDISTURBED LEBARON FRAME h COVER LC266 TYPE C OR EQUAL ADJUST TO MEET FINISH GRADE FINISH GRADE Z AME ON FULL MORTAR SEAL JOINT (3" MAX ESS)T TO GRADE WITH ST CONCRETE RISERS ROPYLENEMANHOLE O E' O C TIGHT JOINTS USING DR RUBBER GASKET EXTERIOR OF ENTIRE OLE NTH A TIGHT SEALANT (2 COATS) HOPE OUTLET PIPE i m HDPE 12" INLET PIPE SUA CAST -IN -PLACE FLEXIBLE MH SLEEVES SOIL OR ROCK 12' MIN PRECAST CONCRETE OR 6" MIN CRUSHED POURED IN PLACE BASE STONE BEDDING SECTION 5 TYPICAL STORM MANHOLE G'3 NTS PROJECT. PROPOSED STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS RE EIVED MAY 2 4 2013 City 0 S0. Burlington I iVIEION STORM DETAILS DATE DEAwING NUMeEE August, 2011 srALZ N. N.T.S. C 3