Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0911 Dorset StreetNo Text No Text 7 �v rv?,,NT *j t7 15 TwialTIP Lvovvoa) �-, Hre7 &W H-Tl� I 14", fiNp Nylll-� rl.A�Tr^ '5qtr� 11' f1V 40 Pik tV-44, N~T fif� 'E�yNtl&^ l/U�&/OlN,--,- ZPWrN tAV&4 #'IX 640rD) 4- V vp \/lfh*NL* ^T/INTW m-f-,7Nap AvIlrkNoAll, 4 -D, it, ViJl!x-"(),Y\ �Tlll + -jre^,r Q ry fi moo--Num -,�tftomj lvlrd^ijY\ 15, �,7 fjjAIH pr, W A)"T Uo, ib ilk W,6'('T 'Tr � ' 14 ' � ! / bv-,� page 2 July 13, 1983 Ms. Hurd nominated Mrs. Maher for the position of Clerk, Mr. Belter seconding. Mrs. Maher requested that her nomination be withdrawn and nominated Mr. Jacob for the position. Mr. Burgess seconded. Mr.Jacob was elected unanimously. Minutes of June 28, 1983 Mr. Poger noted that on p. 7 the decision to hold the subdivision regulations hearing on July 26th was made by a motion duly sec- onded and voted upon. Mrs. Maher moved that the Minutes of June 28 1983 be accepted as corrected, Mr. Burgess seconded with unanimous approval. Revised final plat application by V.L. Properties, Inc., for a 2-lot sub -division within a 4.9 acre planned commercial develop- ment on Dorset Street. Mr. Spitz indicated that the City Attorney has no further prob- lems with this application. Mr. Mona questioned whether the property owner can do anything that would jeopardize other prop- erty. Mr. Spitz said he could not. Mrs. Maher then moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the revised final plat a ication by V.L. Properties, Inc., or a two lot subdivision within a planned commercial deve o men as depicted on.a plan entitled "froposed Retai om ex or , o erties Inc. mended Final Pat prepared bX Fi z a rick- ewellyn Associates, dated June 1985. with the following stinu- ations• 1. All stipulations from the final_ approval dated 2/22/83 shall remain in effect. 2) A deed from V.L. Properties to David Arnold, containing pro- visions as approved by the Citv AttorneV pertainingto common operation and maintenance of the planned commercial development, shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Belter seconded the motion which passed 5-0 with Mr. Burgess abstaining. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING: Revised final Creek for addition of a swimming poo lat application by Indian Mr. Spitz explained that the development had originally been ap- proved as one development, i.e. Ridgewood. The project then went banknupt and subsequently has been developed by a new developer as Indian Creek. Subsequent to approval, the Commission made the developers come in for a new approval which was completed in January, 1983. There was much discussion about a road connecting the two projects and there is now legal action on this. In the original approval, there was a request for a tennis court. The. present request is for a swimming pool. The pool is to be at least 200 feet from the closest units and will be very visible. There will also be a new road looping off the phase 2 area. page 3 July 13, 1983 Mr. John Wolf of Ridgewood Estates indicated that when he had chosen his property there were not going to be a swimming pool, tennis courts, lights, etc. obstructing his view. Mr. Frank Murray, representing Ridgewood, objected to the addition of the swimming pool and to the moving of the parking area across the road. Mr. Murray contended that the proposed modifications are not within what is referred to in the subdivision regulations as 'pan unforeseen condition," nor would it be a "modification" or "within the spirit or intentions" of the Commission's earlier approval. He indicated that they oppose the modifications based on Section 301.3 of the subdivision regulations and also because they believe the modifications will have "an undue adverse effect on the scenic view", per Section 416.6 of the subdivision regu- lations. Mr. Murray also indicated that there are no permanent monuments outlining the boundaries of the property. In addition, Mr. Murray noted that in 1974, the Planning Commission and En- vironmental Commission spoke with the developer about providing a walkway from Dorset Street up to the high school. He indicated that a gravel walk which had been put in is in such bad repair as to render it useless. Mr. Spitz indicated that when Indian Creek came in, the outstanding stipulations were researched and he had been told that gravel was put in on the west side of the road, to constitute the walkway in question. Since then the walkway has not been maintained and has not worked well. A permanent concrete walkway was never required by the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray indicated that in researching the history of the walk- way, he found reference in the 1974 minutes which indicated that the walkway was to be 6 feet wide, 6 inches deep. He said that nothing of that sort now exists. Regardingy.the pool, Mr. Murray said that it was there belief that Vermont Federal Bank knew that they would be proposing the pool as early as 1981, since persons living in Indian Creek had informed them they had been told when they purchased their property that a swimming pool would be pro- vided. Mr. Murray said this indicates that the pool was not "an unforeseen circumstance." He concluded by saying that throughout the history of the project, from 1974 to the present, the area in question was alluded to as "common space" and people who were buying property had the right to believe that it was to remain as open space. Mr. Jacob asked whether there had been any objection to the tennis courts. Mr. Murray said they did not agree with the location of the courts but did not know about them back in 1981. Mr. Wolf indicated he would not have bought his land had he known. The question was raised as to whether the pool could be to ated at the back of the Indian Creek property. Mr. Spitz in- dicated that area was treed and very wet. Speaking for Vermont Federal, -Peter Seidel denied any subtrefuge. He indicated that they had ripped up various parking lots in order to try and help the Ridgewood residents out. He said that they entire plan was approved 2 or 3 years ago, and that there had been no objections voiced at that time. Mr. Poger asked what lighting would be provided. Mr. Seidel said it would be down lighting and that he wasn't sure about night lighting. page 4 July 13, 1983 Mrs. Maher noted that this is one of the situations where one is torn by two strong arguments. She asked if it would be possible to delay action to see if, in fact, the pool's location was so detrimental and also to see if another location was pos- sible for the pool. Mr. Mona said he was surprised no one had suggested significant screening between the pool and the people who thought they were getting open space there. Mr. Seidel explained that the land falls off rather quickly and significant screening may not be possible. Mr. Poger said one thing that might be done is to talk to people about screening and who would pay for it. He also said that permanent monuments should be provided and a survey should be completed. He did not feel that the sidewalk should be a con- dition for approval of the pool but that a sidewalk should be provided. Mr. Poger then asked Mr. Seidel if they would have any objection to moving the parking area back to the original location across the road. Mr. Seidel said he thought the change had been made to avoid having the road moved out, but that he didn't think there would be any objection. Mr. Jacob said he didn't mind going out and looking at the property if it might help. Mr. Seidel siad they had hoped to have approval as soon as possible so the residents could have use of the pool during the summer. Mr. Mona suggested that if a decision is delayed that the applicant bring a representative of Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn who drew up the plans, so that they might explain the details. Mrs. Maher then moved that the Planning Commission delay taking anv action on this re uest until its next regularly scheduled meeting on July at CitVHall, a Pmin order that the Plannina Commission can conduct an on -site inspection of TFe_ ndian Creek subdivision for the ur oses of reviewing ossi le locations of a proposed pool, screening, and parking; and also o allow the Planning Commission to review the area where a side- walk was to be built according to an earlier approval of this subdivision. Mr. Poger advised that the'sidewalk issue is not properly a part of the current discussion and that the only way in which that could be built is to have the people of Ridgewood or the City pay for it. He said he also felt the Commission's function was not review possible locations of a pool but to act upon locations suggested by the developer. Mrs. Maher then asked that reference to the sidewalk be stricken rom her motion but disagreed as to what latitit h e Commission as in making suggestions as to location of the pool. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion which was passed 6-1, with Mr. Mona voting against. Duncan Case, President of the Ridgewood Association then asked for a clarification of the boundary markers, and Mr. Poger directed the City Planner to check on the markers. Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802-496-3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN GREGORY J. GUGGEMOS ALAN M. SOLOMON December 6, 1983 Planninq_ Commission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Ladies & Gentlemen: OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN This letter shall serve as a request to the Commission with regard to the connector road between Indian Creek and Ridgewood Estates located south of the access road which extends west from Dorset Street into the Indian Creek project. The connector road which extends south off of this access road extends into the Ridgewood Development as shown on the final plat plan approved by the Commission. This roadway is approximately 20 to 25 feet in width and is not improved. In addition to improving this roadway, Indian Creek respectfully requests permission to undertake steps to prevent ingress and egress from the Ridgewood Development to the access road which runs westerly off of Dorset Street. Access to this roadway will be prevented by one of the two following methods: Commencing south of the driveway area leading into the parking area for Indian Creek units numbered one through ten either; 1) a chain, containing a break -a -way lock, suspended from two iron pipes, with each pipe located on opposite sides of the roadway, or; 2) plastic pipe, approximately on 12 inch to 16 inch centers across the roadway. The use of the suspended chain with the iron pipe or the plastic pipe will not prevent emergency vehicles from utilizing this roadway. If the chain method is used, the chain will have a break -a -way lock installed which, when struck, will cause the chain to fall free and permit the emergency vehicle to use the roadway for access purposes. The plastic pipe can be broken by the emeergency vehicle by having the vehicle's front bumper break the plastic pipe. The latter method is employed by UVM. rWE The Indian Creek Association will also agree to clear this roadway of all snow during the winter months so as to provide a viable access route for emergency use. din erely yours, Peter S. Sidel PSS/sm cc: David Gaylord I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the above letter and, by my signature affixed below, I do hereby approve of the requested change. James Goddette, Fire Chief City of South Burlington S2del & Associates Attornr_ys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802A96-3277 PETERS. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN GREGORY J. GUGGEMOS ALAN M. SOLOMON December 6, 1983 Planning Coimlission City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Ladies & Gentlemen: ��r ✓ ®p s 2 OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN This letter shall serve as a request to the Commission with regard to the connector road between Indian Creek and Ridgewood Estates located south of the access road which extends west from Dorset Street into the Indian Creek project. The connector road which extends south off of this access road extends into the Ridgewood Development as shown on the final plat plan approved by the Commission. This roadway is approximately 20 to 25 feet in width and is not improved. In addition to improving this roadway, Indian Creek respectfully requests permission to undertake steps to prevent ingress and egress from the Ridgewood Development to the access road which runs westerly off of Dorset Street. Access to this roadway will be prevented by one of the two following methods: Co-nv�--ncing south of the driveway area leading into the parking area for Indian Creek units numbered one through ten either; 1) a chain, containing a break--a-way lock, suspended from two iron pipes, with each pipe located on opposite sides of the roadway, or; 2) plastic pipe, approximately on 12 inch to 16 inch centers across the roadway. The use of the suspended chain with the iron pipe or the plastic pipe will not prevent emergency vehicles from utilizing this roadway. If the chain n>ethod is used, the chain will have a break -a -way lock installed which, when struck, will cause the chain to fall free and permit the emergency vehicle to use the roadway for access purposes. The plastic pipe can be broken by the em1x- gency vehicle by having the vehicle's front bumper break the plastic pipe. The latter method is eirployed by UVM. The Indian Creek Association will also agree to clear this roadway of all snow during the winter months so as to provide a viable access route for emergency use. Sincerely yours, Peter S. Sidel PSS/sm cc: David Gaylord I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the above letter and, by my signature affixed below, I do hereby approve of the requested change. James Goddette, Fire Chief City of South Burlington Dear Planning Commission, This letter says the road between will be maintained for emergency equipment If they are allowed to block it off from through traffic. If you look at the Tree Top Development they have the same type problem. The last snow storm December 4,1983 the emergency exit was used to put all the snow when the roads were plowed. I do not have the time or feel I should have to police the developments to make sure emergencies exits are maintained. I am told one thing on how the exit will be maintained and after things have been approved things change. I do not want the responsibility that it the emergency exit is not maintained and there is a delay to get to an emergency that some one will come back on the department or city on a loss. If the Planning Commission has any questions they can call me any time. Sincerely124 r �JamesW Goddette Sr. Chief Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802-496-3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN GREGORY J. GUGGEMOS ALAN M. SOLOMON November 9, 1983 Mr. Richard Ward City of Burlington 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 Re: Indian Creek Dear Mr. Ward: OF COUNSEL: HARRIETT GALVIN I would appreciate it if I could be placed on the agenda for the November 22, 1983 meeting in order to discuss with the Commission the proposed changes to the original plat shoving the installation of the swimming pool and what we propose to do with regard to the connecting road. Sincerely yours, q sx Peter S. Sidel PSS/ah November 10, 1983 Sidel & Associates Attorney Peter Sidel P.O. Box 115 4aitsfield, Vermont 05673 Dear Peter. Please forward four (4) copies of the revised plan tc this office before 11/15/83. I plan to schedule you for 11/22, however, I do need the plan. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RIB11mcq MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 12/9/83 2) James Hardy, 350-354 White Street 1. 25 foot right-of-way is only change from sketch plan review. 2. Planning Commission expressed concern regarding future development of the rear parcel. 3. No other problems. 3) Homer Dubois, 57 lot P.U.D., Hinesburg Road 1. This application meets all minimum requirements set forth under the City's area and density provisions. 2. The traffic data submitted by Trudell Engineering is presently being re- viewed by Dr. Oppenlander. 3. The size of the water service along Dubois Drive is being questioned by the City Engineer and Fire Chief. 4. Adjoining property owner Mr. Arthur Toutant has expressed some concerns regarding his bird farm operation i.e. noise and odor to nearest lots. 5. Letters on file from School Department, Champlain Water,Department of Agriculture, Police Department,all expressing no serious problems with this development. 6. Planning Commission should consider a phasing schedule, this is a 5 year project. Suggest 15 units per year for first two years and 9 units each year thereafter. 7. Sewer allocation by City Engineer being 350 g.p.d. Uncommitted capacity to date 32,900 g.p.d. 8. Street lighting should be submitted for approval. 9. Street plantings not allowed over the water lines. 10. No motion prepared at this time, due to the fact that many changes to the plan are necessary, suggest continuation to next regular meeting. 4) Indian Creek, Attorney Peter Sidel 1. See enclosed letter of request for Attorney Peter Sidel. 2. Fire Chief Goddette expresses concern regarding maintaining the access road during the winter months. Chaining the road posses no problem. Memorandum Next week's agenda items 12/9/83 Page 2 3. Should the Planning Commission agree with this request I suggest a formal agreement protecting the fact that the Indian Creek Association will keep the road clear of snow at all times. 5) Bourdeau-Rye, Milot-O'Brien 1. Application continued from November 8, 1983 meeting. 2. Major issue at that meeting being connector to Georgetown Condonimums. Understand that a meeting was held between both groups. Connector not favored by them. 3. Fire Chief expressed concerns regarding building locations (see enclosed letter) . 4. See comments of November 4, 1983 from staff. 5. No motion prepared at this time. Suggest continuation to next regular meeting. 6) Grandview Development, Mr. Lyn Palin 1. The deadline for obtaining all permits is 12/31/83 (see enclosed letter). 2. Requests for a one year extension by other developers has been accepted, see no reason not to honor on this request. 7) On November 14, 1983 the City Council met with the City Representatives to discuss pending legislation. This year amendments to Act 250 may be considered. The Council has requested input from the Planning Commission, see copy of these minutes relating to the November 14 disucssion. September 15, 1983 Katherine Vose District 4 Environmental Cormission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Re: Indian Creek Development Dear Mrs. Vbse,. Be advised that the South Burlington Planning Conmission approved an amend- ment to the Indian Creek development which includes the construction of two (2) tennis courts and, 24'x40' swirruidnq pool on September 6, 1983. 'This proposal is in total ccvT-lliance with the City's duly adopted 11330 Comprehensive Plan. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative officer 91/mcq Landscape Architecture & Planning Paul Flinn Michael Lawrence 82 Church Street Burlington Vermont 05401 802/862-4438 �t �. -�. �:: t '� ,\ � � � 6Ppt � - __ ��.,.,, - :. .. �� `,, •- �� .. _ :. .► _, _ _ . ,, _ . � `� / __ _ , .� . �, __ ._ .: �. __ . ,. - ,. r �, �, �,, _mil � G�:' % �"/ . .� � a "�, � +f � % �. .� _ f, � -,.;. ` � �-,.<:, � x JJJ _ �� " ' i , � �- r� � !, ,� ' � ,;' elf ,or WT A,'j i,� �CA"nc- N'°YN- /"*f- b t)ct;r- lkm wvP'�'I.f' v Vf, 1 fx-1 6A -t 60flINLI15 ^Llt^ r�J rVVltrr,,p HM� 15 MTt�M`ll fp"COWNTPl 6"Dlfv-rA �v 6fD fff", /6u� rl)"Tr^ 51wjN,,i bD FV, 15 VtrOW'5 Y-, Ao tfx �z i5 "tltWA OVA&L"OM�5) 4- , 5' vp � Vlwfq-4uA(\ 011INTINTW vio-"W, rD, vv If/ Vib,"Up t�NT/Ato 5' pc V15 \4bCX-NL)/*\ tfte-)q/D( IDIMOPW ArztL)* 4 li, r��TjNt,7 - WAT,71\Tl ON MRf�- I h r INI21NN W6�- 'W:t,rr�-t VPNA49Nr V�- 6-7N6eAN,4 / ^4Pb�� / i7k r4,'�T6rl `4,rm ,owa-q-, Memorandum Next week's agenda items 8/31/83 3) Indian Creek pool Landscaping plan is designed to screen the proposed tennis court and swimming pool. Should the Planning Commission consider approval of the plan a bond for the total worth (not yet determined) should be posted with the City. No additional comments. 4) Valley Ridge, former College Woods Applicant has started site improvements. A few minor revisions involving grading changes and combining four (4) single family units into duplexes are proposed. No problems with the amendments. Same approval motion (May 10, 1983) is suggested. 5) Farrell Proposed is the remodeling of the Sherwin-Williams building into five (5) retail shops. A 1400 square feet addition is proposed to the northerly end of the building. Zoning Board of Adjustment granted approval (7/25/83) to extend a non -conforming structure. Applicant proposes to close one curb cut off Shelburne Road (most southerly curb). Major entrance is located at a signalized intersection. Second access to parking area is off Proctor Avenue with a curb cut to the rear of the lot for delivery trucks. Parking: minimum of 1 space per 100 square feet of retail floor, minimum required 98, proposed 60 spaces. Lot coverage, parking and building 71% (Variance granted for addtional 1%). Traffic: continents are expected before Tuesday's meeting from Mr. Oppenlander. 6) Ethan Allen Farm, Mr. John Belter Lot layout is okay, no problems. See Bill Szymanski's memo regarding engineering aspects. August 10, 1983 Attorney Peter Sidel P.O. Box 115 Waitsfield, Vermont 05673 Dear Peter, At their meeting of Tuesday, August 9, 1983, the South Burlington Planning Commission continued the application for a swimming pool at Indian Creek until September 6, 1883. If you wish to be heard at that meeting, you must submit revised plans with landscaping details to Zoning Administrative officer Richard Ward prior to August 30, 1983. If the City has not heard from you by that time then the application must be denied. Please call this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, Citv Planner D1JS/mcq M. Richard Ward Frank Murray Memorandum Next week's agenda items 8/5/83 Page 2 At least half of Country Club Estates is below 65. The proposed new homes will be slightly above 70. d) Even though the proposed homes are in an area described as "marginal", construction of 5 residences will have less of an impact on Country Club Estates than commercial or industrial development. To improve the situation for both existing and proposed residents a 50 foot treed buffer will be useful as a moderate noise buffer. Additional benefits of the new layout are that all lots will have adequate building area and no driveways will be needed onto Poor Farm Road. In sum, I support the new proposal as a reasonable use of the property and one whose impact on Country Club Estates will be within acceptable limits. 5) Indian Creek Pool The applicant has requested that this item be postponed. I have no further information at this time. 6) Windinq Brook Extension A letter from the proposed purchaser of the project is enclosed. This request should not be in the "automatic extension" category. I have no strong recommendations as to whether the approval is extended or not, but the rights of this project vs. others waiting in line should be carefully considered. July 26, 1983 p. 6 egress and that would be compounded with the addition of 6000 sq. ft. of popular retail development. The "E" level of service on Imperial Drive is bad and will get worse. She said that what may be generally accepted standards may not be appropriate for Vermont. She said she based her vote on the lack of sig- nalization at the intersection and said the Commission should force the issue with the State and should meet with the head of the Agency of Transportation. Continuation of public hearing on revised final plat application by,Indian Creek for addition of a swimming pool Mr. Spitz noted there had been a site visit by 2 members of the Commission. Some side issues were observwd. The gravel path that had been put in has not been maintained, but it was felt that this was not the responsibility of Indian Creek or of Ridge- wood Estates. There are also no monuments, and he suggested this be a stipulation in any motion. He said it was the consensus of those viewing the site that this was the proper place for a pool and that landscaping and screening was the issue. Mrs. Hurd said she felt the landscaping had to be close to the pool and tennis court. Mrs. Maher agreed and would like to see as much extra evergreen landscaping as possible on the east and south sides, both of which face Ridgewood residents. A Ridgewood resident noted that there is an elevation, and Ridgewood residents would be looking down at the pool/tennis court area. Mr. Murray, attorney for the Ridgewood group, stressed that they are not opposed to the pool but to its location. They ask that before further degradation of the land occurs that monuments be required to be placed. Mr. Seidel indicated that he had spoken to Steve Page who is to contact the surveyor. He said that if need be they would give the City a check for $1,500 to insure that the monuments are placed. Mr. Mona stressed that any en- croachment onto Ridgewood property is the responsibility of the Indian Creek people and they would be held accountable. Mr. Mona noted that the plan still shows parking on the Southeast side of the road. Mr. Seidel said they had no problem with re- moving it and agreed to do so. Mr. Boyle then was introduced to address the landscaping con- cerns of the Ridgewood people. He noted that the original plan was for high density cluster development overlooking the meadow. The concept was for single family houses along the edge of the ridge, leaving common open sapce. He said that concept has not been maintained in the present sub -division and could have been better maintained with open sapce. He added that the pool and tennis court are not in keeping with the spirit of the original approval,ond that orientation near the road is not imperative to this type of ;recreation. He felt there would be no problem in movinu the_Pool to the north since parking is not needed. Regardiftg planUrng, he felt it would be most effective along the sout17 side of the roadway, which also would minimize the impact of the road itself. He said the developer could berm up an area above the existing grade, probably 4 feet high and 300 feet long. July 26, 1983 page 7 Mr. Spitz asked why there would be no screening next to the tennis court. Mr. Boyle said there was not enough room because of the height of the Ridgewood units. Mr. Jacob noted that the cost of such a berm would be about $15,000. Mr. Seidel said that his experience has been that berms simply do not work. Mr. Wolf of Ridgewood said that noise is also arproblem, especially with kids in a pool. He said he had bought his house so he could forever enjoy the open space. He added that the tennis courts had already flooded last Wednesday. Mr. Grayson said that Planning Commissions do make mistakes and that the tennis court was one - such mistake. He asked that the Commission not compound that error now. He said the South Burlington concept is for cluster housing and open space. Mr. Mona acknowledged that the history of condominium development is sordid at best. Unless something is locked up, it is difficult for things to remain as you think they will. Mr. Murray reiterated the Ridgewood contention that the applica- tion be denied as the modification is not minor, it is not in keeping with the intent of the original plan, and it violates aesthetics. Mr. Seidel said that the development has been beautifully done and the pool construction will also be fine work. He said the proposed screening is good but that the berm is the worst solution. He added that the tennis court is there to stay and that the open area will not be changed by the pool. Mrs. Hurd asked why there was no landscaping plan for approval. Mr. Spitz said it was the Commission's option to request one prior to approval. Mr. Mona said they owed the applicant some sense of what was wanted. He added that a hearing can go much faster when all interested persons have a chance to see what is proposed ahead of time. In polling the members, only Mr. Burgesssaid he was not yet sure he favored the pool. All members, however said they wanted to see the landscaping plan before approving the pool. Mr. Boyle asked whether the building beside the pool could be put below grade if it is just for utilitarian purposes. Mr. Seidel said that if it can be put below grade, it will be. He added that they can live with a 2-week delay and will submit the landscaping plan. The question of night use and lights was then raised. Mr. Seidel said that when he brings in the landscaping plan he will bring that information as well. Mrs. Hurd then moved to continue the application at City Hall when the applicant will Dring in unt: nlan. Mr. Be ter seconded with unanimous approval. Mr. Murray said he was disappointed in the straw vote to approve the pool. He felt the only competent testimony indicated the July 26, 1983 P. 8 pool could be moved so as to avoid further intrusion in the lives of the people of Ridgewood. Sketch plan application by Yvan & Joyce Beliveau for a sub- sion consisting of a boundary adjustment on Dorset Street Mr. Spitz explained this was a 10-acre zone. The Chittenden's lot is 2 acres and the Beliveau lot has 10 acres. Beliveau wants to sell 2 of his acres so that the two lots will then by 8 and 4 acres. Mr. Spitz said he had no problem with the plan. It was agreed to continue the hearing on the subdivision or- dinance until Tuesday, August 2nd, following the joint meeting with the City Council, in the Conference Room, City Hall. Other business Mrs. Aurd noted that the City Council had frozen the hiring of a person to fill the City Planner's position. Mr. Mona noted that Mr. Marvin had indicated he wished to delegate more duties to administrative areas but that this could not be done without the staff. Mr. Burgess suggested a letter to the Council out- linkz.g the Commission's concern. Mrs. Hurd then moved that the Planning Commission Chairman write to the City Council ex ressin the Commission`s feelings on the postponement in hiringa new itPlanner. Mrs. Maher seconded, and the motion was approved unanimously. In a brief discussion of the Annual Report, Mr. Mona suggested changing the word "all to "the" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. Jerk DHS 7/26/83 MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the re- vised final plat application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan Association for a swimming pool in the Indian Creek Development as depicted on a plan entitled "Indian Creek, Final Plat, Partial Enlargement & Easements," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, last revised 6/23/83: Stipualtions: 1) All stipulations from the final approval dated 1/4/83 shall remain in effect. 2) Landscaping, consisting of an evergreen screen along the southern side of the recreation area, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The applicant shall bond for the installation of boundary monuments and shall complete their installation within 30 days. If monuments are not installed within that time period, the City shall initiate action to call the bond and install the monuments. 4) The revised final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. M E M. O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/22/83 2)( Indian Creek Pool A site visit earlier this week confirms that it would not be easy to find a more suitable location for the pool. However, two improvements can be considered: (1) removal of the proposed parking spaces and (2) provision of evergreen screening immediately adjacent to the pool and tennis courts. In other matters,boundary monuments have not yet been installed. I will recommend that the applicant bond for and install the monuments within 30 days or that the City do it after 30 days are up. Also, the original Ridgewood developers did install a gravel "walkway" as required by an earlier Planning Commission. The walkway has not been maintained by the City. 3) Davis, Imperial Drive An additional statement from Carter's Children's Wear is enclosed. The City's traffic consultant, Joe Oppenlander has prepard information on traffic conditions at the Imperial Drive/Shelburne Road intersection. The report will be available to all interested parties Monday afternoon. I will present a complete explanation of the City's position on this matter at Tuesday's meeting. Please be advised that several residents have appealed the Zoning Board's granting of a dimensional variance to this applicant. 4) Beliveau, Dorset Street The applicant owns a 10 acre lot on Dorset Street. He wishes to sub- divide 2 of those acres and add them to an adjacent pre-existing 2 acre lot. No new building lots will be created. 5) Subdivision Regulations The City Attorney's comments are enclosed. 6) Other Business I would like to discuss briefly several work items: a) Annual report (enclosed) b) Sewer updates (sent previously) c) Neighborhood statistics (enclosed) Good evening Mr. Poger and Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission. My name if Frank Murray. I represent my neighbors and friends - the Ridgewood Estates Homeowners' Associa- tion. My client opposes the modification of the improvements already approved by you in 1981 for this development. In parti- cular, my client objects to the addition of the swimming pool and the shift of the parking lots for the tennis courts "across the road". The Ridgewood Estates Homeowners' Association opposes this request by the Vermont Federal Bank because it believes the facts demonstrate that these modifications are not "unforseen condi- tions", "minor modifications" and/or "within the spirit and intent" of the Commission's approval. (See City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations, hereinafter Subdivision Regulations, May 3, 1976, §301.3). Also, they oppose these modifications because they will have an "undue adverse effect on the scenic . . . beauty of the area" and on "aesthetics". [See Subdivision Regulations §416(4)]. Also, as of this date there are no "permanent . . . monu- ments" on the site to protect my client from encroachment by the Vermont Federal Bank. [Subdivision Regulations §§204.1 and 301.1]. Finally, it has been a condition of this development since 1974 that the developer provide a walkway along Dorset Street from the entrance to Indian Creek to the intersection of Kennedy Drive. That was nine years ago. Today, 1983, our children have no safe way to walk to attend school, to participate and observe recreational and athletic activities and to shop. Adult residents are forced by heavy Dorset Street traffic to drive from Ridgewood to the high school parking lot to park and run on the sidewalk along Kennedy Drive. Jogging on Swift and Dorset Streets is too dangerous. My clients believe that this condition was envisioned to protect our children and not our children's children. I would appreciate your patience if you would permit me to elaborate. My explanation should only take about seven minutes. As you are aware pursuant to Subdivision Regulations S301.3, an approved subdivision can be modified provided: (1)"unforseen conditions" make it necessary or preferable to modify; (2)the modification is "minor"; and (3)such minor modifications "are within the spirit and intent of the Commission's approval". My client believes this request by the Vermont Federal Savings Bank should fail because the facts surrounding this development prevent the conclusion that the swimming pool (1)was an "unforseen condition"; (2)is a minor modification; and (3)is "within the spirit of the Commission approval." Please consider the following events as part of my client's evidence on these issues. You will recall my clients and I meeting with you in October, 1982. We recall how surprised you were to learn that the so- called Phase III of Ridgewood was really "Indian Creek", a develop- ment completely separate from Ridgewood. You might be surprised to know that Indian Creek Condominium Bylaws, Declarations and Covenants were filed with the City Clerk's office on October 7, -2- just five days prior to our meeting. The pool is not an "unforseen condition". Vermont Federal's representatives have known all along that they would put in the pool. They told my client in March, 1981, that the Ridgewood and Indian Creek Developments would be separate; and represented to you in August that this was only Phase III of Ridgewood. Attach- ment A is a copy of our Homeowner meeting minutes of March, 1981. Attachment B is a copy of the Bank's August 4, 1981, Application to you for "Phase III of Ridgewood". If the Bank had come before you and told you that they had planned to put in a second pool, you certainly would have been alerted that it planned a completely separate development. If this had occurred, you would have been alerted to the problems that have since developed; and I believe that there would have been a much better chance of resolving a number of matters without all of the problems over existing and forthcoming litigation. A second benefit to the Bank and its representatives of this type of behavior was to side-step a more stringent review under Act 250 by the District Environmental Commission (D.E.C.). Their attorney in a September 15, 1982, letter to the D.E.C. for the purpose of amendind its State Land Use Permit to include "Phase III of Ridgewood" provided: With respect to the criteria, it is emphasized that many of the criteria necessary to be examined for the issuance of permits has been addressed, completed and approved under the original application and the Land Use Permit issued. Furthermore, the proposed modification by the Bank is -3- completely inconsistant with the concept of Ridgewood as con- tinuously represented to you since its interception in 1974. Since 1974, you and the people of Ridgewood have been told that the area where the pool is planned would remain "common open space". I will not bore you with a complete recitation of numerous statements to this effect. I will however provide you with these citations upon request. The following is a typical representation of these statements found in the minutes of your Commission meetings: Minutes, May 7, 1974 Planning Commission Special Meeting Page 5 Mr. Boyle added a few more details of their plan. The wooded area with the little pond is the highlight . . . The object is to maintain as much open space as possible with a buffer between the single family and the cluster development. Let me very quickly -refer you to plans on file with your Commission and the District Environmental Commission demonstrating this same point: 1. Boyle (10/28/74) Attachment C 2. Boyle (5/30/75) Attachment D 3. Boyle (3/20/79) Attachment E 4. Fitzpatrick (10/2/79) Attachment F. Many of my clients believe that they relied upon the existence of this open space in purchasing their property. My client's position is that this historical development supports the conclusion that a 60' x 75' swimming pool is neither a "minor modification" nor within the spirit and intent" of what was -4- intended by this Commission. Furthermore, it is my client's position that the 60' x 75' swimming pool will violate the spirit and letter of Section 416(5) of the Subdivision Regulations. This section provides: Assessment of Development Impacts The Commission shall evaluate any proposed major subdivision according to the following standards. (5)Will not have an undue adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics . . . I have photos of what the area looks like at the present time. For example, this photo was taken from between the homes belonging to Drs. Reid and Jane Grayson and John Crotty. This demonstrates their present view near sunset. You can see the gardens. The Bank proposes to destroy this pictoral scenic aesthetic view with the screams, hoots and hollers from a 60' x 75' swimming pool. Numerous promises, documents and permits on file in your Commission's records and District Environmental Commission records demonstrate that the Developer has a duty to construct a sidewalk on Dorset Street between the exit from Indian Creek and the intersection of Kennedy Drive. The Phase I developer's Act 250 application provides as follows: September 19, 1974 Summary of Conditions Agreed Upon With the City of South Burlington 2. Under Point 4 of Zoning Section 12.002A Ridgewood Estates Developer agrees to provide a gravel type walkway . . . along the shoulder of Dorset Street from Kennedy Drive to a point opposite Ridgewood Drive on Dorset Street. -5- This condition and agreement became part of the District Environmental approval dated August 21, 1975: 4)a. Under Condition Number 2 agreed upon with the City of South Burlington, the Developer will provide a gravel walkway along Dorset Street from Ridgewood Drive to Kennedy Drive. Again, in a September 7, 1981, letter from Douglas Fitzpatrick of Fitzpatrick & Llewelyn to Mr. Spitz, South Burlington's Planner, written on behalf of Ridgewood Estates Development, Inc. Mr Fitzpatrick promised as follows: The second issue concerns the completion of the walkway along Dorset Street . . . Again, at the hearing on 25 August, the representa- tive agreed to finish the walkway . . . My client believes it is time to require completion of something promised nine years ago before commencement of a swimming pool. Finally, we believe that Section 301.1 provides the Commis- sion authority to require monuments and lot markers. We have been advised by F & L, engineers who have worked on the project as well as other engineers - none exist. Motion My clients respectfully request that you pass a motion to defeat the Bank's requested modification for construction of a pool and parking transfer because such modificatons: 1. are not an unforseen condition; 2. are not a minor modification 3. are not within the spirit and intent of the Commission's prior approvals; -6- 4. would have an undue adverse effect on the scenic beauty and aesthetics of the area; 5. the pedestrian walkway for pedestrian safety should precede construction of a swimming pool; 6. no monuments or markers yet exist to identify the tue boundary of the land. Thank you. -7- F' cr , ood i-,states flomeowner.•s A.soociat i )n ATTACHMENT A Minutes of the meeting March 16, 1981 President Jerry Huetz called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm. Fomeowners present were D.&.r,. Goins, Smith, B. Mozhdehi, J. 1,4adeau, J. Huetz, D. ;driest, J.&M. Stevens, G. Smith, D. Cauchon, J.&V. Rider, J.&F. Schwartz, F. 'Zimmerman, R. Holden, d. Miller, B. Leonardi, D. 2ingard, J. Crotty, C. Rittershausen, R. Johnson, J.&R. Grayson, C. Hunter, and S. Geise. Guests present were Carl Creedon, Castle Rock Properties, Bill Cody, President -Vermont Federal Savings & Loan, Dave Gaylord, Chief Loan Officer - Vermont Federal, and Mr. Fitzpatrick, Ridgewood engineer. The meeting was immediately turned over to Mr. Creedon who explained that since Smith, Bell & Thompson would not be continuing the project of Ridgewood Estates Vermont Federal, the backers of the n_roject, had the choice of selling the part of the nroject that has not been completed or of developing it themselves. Piro Creedon has been retained to out the package of developing the rest of the project into on ratio if, after study, the project is deemed feasible. The current ) an canlls for the building of units on :phase III land that would sell in the high 3'60,000- low 370,000 range. These units rill be townhouse condominiums, clustered in the trees. They would have a clapboard exterior with 1,250 square feet in space. Construction would begin in the spring. This ne.-r development would be completely separate from Ridgewood in all gays. It will have its own entrance from Dorset St. and two tennis courts. -Pheir residents would not have access to any of our facilities. It will have its own name. Mr. Creedon further explained that since the original Ridgewood project had a total of 114 unit permits, there are still 59 lots to be developed. Our homeowners association, therefore, has been consulted about what we would like to do concerning the 12 undeveloped units in Phase II. Mr. Creedon would like us to decide between the following two choices: 1. These 12 units could be put into ,'base III and the new developers would landscape the rest of Phase II land around the big circle into a flat grassy area for more open space. 2.. Mr. Creedon would find a developer to build us 12 units on Phase II land that would look like the rest of our units from the outside. They would be built on slabs with a total square footage of approximately 1,250 to sell in the high 360,000-low S70,000 range. There were obviously many advantages to each choice, and a lengthy question and answer and discussion period followed the presentation. ( Any of you who were unable to attend last night might wish to speak with any of the officers or others who were there for more details). A consensus vote w&s taken of those present, and having the 12 units placed in .Phase III with the resultant open green area in Phase II won by a vote of 14+ to 2+. (Last night we had decided to out this question to the homeowners for a vote as soon as possible. however, Jerry Huetz consulted our attorney today. Our attorney would like to research the two choices and make us a recommendation. Therefore, „e intend to wait until we get that recommendatioi for further action on our part. 4e will make a full report to all of you. If you have any questions, olease contact a member of the board. any of you that sere not at last night's meeting would like .-r.,.-U v Mr. Creedon to see the plans and ask questions, please contact Sue Geise (658-3535) as soon as possible.) Sue Geise reminded all of those who hadn't already completed the buildings ani grounds survey to please do so at ,your earliest convenience. ie really want to know your ideas. ATTACHMENT B •� CITY OF SOUTH BURL INGTON Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT I Name of Applicant RIDGEWOOD ESTATES DEVELnPNTW, Tmc_ II Name of Subdivision RIDGEWOOD ESTATES PHASE III III Indicate any changes!to name, address, or phone number of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, sur- veyor, attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: SEE I ABOVE FOR APPLICANT; ENGIrdSER: FITZPATRICK-L&DYELLYN A;SDCTATPq_ ESSEX JUNCTION, VEFMONT; ATTORNEY: PETER SEIDEL, WAITSFIELD, VERMONT; IV Indicate any changes to the subdivision, such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, developmental timetable, since preliminary plat application TOTAL NUMBER OF APPROVED UNTTq ( t 14) IN PRnM= RJa4A s yNG—P�NALL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN PHASE III HAVE BEEN DF1.EI'Fn, METS, nr r S9 [mnTR INT PHASE IIl (final phase) ARE MULTI -FAMILY UNITS. V Attach a final plat drawing (originals not needed) showing the following information: (1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title, the name and address of the record owner and subdivider, the name, license number and seal of the licensed land surveyor, the boundaries of the subdivision and its general location in relation to existing streets or other land marks, scale (numerical and graphic), date and true north arrow. (2) Street names and lines, pedestrial ways, lots, reservations, easements, and areas to be dedicated to public use. (3) Sufficient data acceptable to the City Engineer to determine readily the location, bearing and lenoth of every street line, lot line, bouaary line and to reproduce such lines upon the ground. 'Khere applicable these should be tied to reference points previously established by the city. .. :` : . � " �'r,, .� � .tom ! � / .,'� . � �F+� � •, • •'1 �! ! �♦.• , _ �t ! / _ i •l�' �r• . •� •� fit' � !••:a��.�•' .. • � � ` � 4,�„t 'f• j ifs Yt '� J`'� � -► �' �-+�., ` • �...' A„►'�• Q �, iy� ``r • • r � ! . •`•tom. ,�5.,!'y�t ►: `/� .��''."j; !^ ; ,, _ `. �. V ••'•ifi•! i h, •�. .f •_ ^ ` , `~ `fr . ~ N,• -i '�`n"r� tir'� •� l,t E-t� `1.; , f ' i !. •, V J9. ',, .11' . � 1 ' • Z�'k'•hli'R��. INC- ..Anyw :. �'�� '•, �,: ~' r tk}„,r �.: T±.'�,, • L•. .•� a ,. .. �, `•• affta.!�•wra.:lt1C:�t..:�.i ... '�� ,✓ i. •� IL ca bi �,•We .,,:..f; 'i..+ ;� .,':/.,� _ i, ff � �- .mot' �.. . ,♦. '� ''r' � �:� � t � iYi171 i • .I � ,`��•� 1 ,mot:.•. t�� . �'!' \ ,I • ftl ram. f i ,�-.-•: ..�� w .t l♦ � w. ;',r � ,� ✓ , to l � , , rl, � •• Ley •�� lt�', .� v N,6�'{i� � �-� Xt� '• .��..;,"w ,fin- �}�' �' �� � . �i ' t ILL Kam" � ., ' i 13T •' �: �, 441-1 Cl CL o ' -�14 �ilirl r1 itn is' �\ �% T , 010 400- 10 u 14 w u (1) I r-- VT F ick (10/29/79) MMA M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 7/8/83 3) V.L. Properties Legal documents have been submitted and appear to cover all relevant concerns. The City Attorney's review should be complete by Tuesday's meeting. I see no other problems with this revised application. 4) Indian Creek Pool At the subdivision hearing several months ago, Indian Creek developers indicated they would return shortly to present plans for a swimming pool. This hearing is for the pool only and any other unresolved issues, such as road connections, are not appropriate for review now. The pool itself is a simple addition to the private recreation area and presents no problems. 5) Tilley, Hinesburg Road Russell Tilley has done a survey and has provided two rights -of -way to Hinesburg Road as requested. The only remaining issue is the location of the r-o-w closest to I-89. The applicant wishes the r-o-w to run right along the interstate fence. The zoning regulations state that "access drives may be permitted to cross the CO District". The Planning Commission must determine whether a 750 foot drive along the length of the CO District constitutes a "crossing" or whether the drive must be located outside of the 150 foot wide CO strip. After the final r-o-w is determined the applicant will have to submit appropriate legal documents. 6) Davis, Imperial Drive Many of the revisions requested at the last meeting have been provided: (a) Landscaping has been modified including a row of yews in front of the existing hedge. (b) One row of parking (12 spaces) has been removed and will be con- structed only if needed. (c) One new centrally -located curb cut has replaced the proposed two curb cuts. (d) The Fire Chief has reviewed and approved the plans. (e) The City Manager has reviewed storm drainage. The problem area identified at the last meeting will not be affected by this development. (f) Lighting information has been added. In addition to the above, I have asked the applicant to give more detail at the meeting on his client's traffic volumes. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Rig vISeD Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT 1) Name of Applicant Vermont Federal Savings & Loan Association 2) Name of Subdivision Indian Creek Condominiums 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: g 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: None This application is filed to request the addition of a swimming tool to the project and to request permission to move a small parking area near the tennis courts to the other side of the roadway in that same area S) 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. A June 20, 1983 Peter S. Sidel, Esq., Attorney for Owner (Signature) applicant or contact person Date June 17, 1983 Sheila K. Morgan Side! & Associates P.O. Box 115 t-Iaitsfield, Vermnt 05673 Dear Sheila, Enclosed is a revised final plat application form for the Indian Creek swirming pool. in addition to the application form, please submit 2 add- itional copies of the detailed site plan (U) and 4 copies of the previously approved final plat showing the addeNI swijmigg pool. I will schedule your application as soon as the above information is recived. I am aware of no substantive problems with the application. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DH,c;/r.,cg I Encl Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802A963277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN ALAN M. SOLOMON June 10, 1983 Katherine M. Powers, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Con mission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 Dear Ms. Powers: OF COUNSEL HARRIETT GALVIN RE: Indian Creek Land Use Permit Amendment I have enclosed for your review seven copies of the Application for Amendment of Land Use Permit, the layout plan and a letter explaining how this amendment request relates to the criteria set forth as guidelines for issuance of permits. It is my understanding that you will forward the required number of copies to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Cc nnission. Two copies of the above documents have been delivered to David Spitz, City Planner, for himself and for the city council. Please note that the residents are most anxious to enjoy the pool and the developer could have it completed within three weeks of approval. Your expediting this matter will be most appreciated by everyone. I will be available to you if you require further information and/or documentation to enable you to set a hearing date for this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me. We are looking forward to a hearing at the earliest possible time. Very truly yours, SGL- Sheila K. Morgan Legal Assistant sm/Encs. cc: David Spitz, City Planner S Sidel & Associates Attorneys at Law P.O. BOX 115 WAITSFIELD, VERMONT 05673 802A96-3277 PETER S. SIDEL GREGORY R. VAN BUITEN ALAN M. SOLOMON June 10, 1983 Katherine M. Powers, Coordinator District #4 Environmental Commission 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vernunt 05452 Chittenden County Regional Planning Conanission 58 Pearl Street Essex Junction, Vermnt 05452 David H. Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street Burlington, Vermont 05401 Ladies and Gentlemen: OF COUNSEL HARRIETT GALVIN RE: Vt. Federal Svgs. & Loan Land Use Permit #4C0161 Indian Creek We are requesting permission to add a swimming pool adjacent to approved tennis courts in an area of approximately 60' X 75'. Also requested is the addition of a room (study) to three buildings (which has already been granted approval from the South Burlington Planning Commission). The following is an explanation of the requested amendment as it relates to the criteria used as guidelines for the issuance of permits: Criteria #1: The swimming pool and studys will not result in undue water or air pollution. Specifically, headwaters, floodways, streams and shorelands are not applicable. Waste disposal will be provided through the City of South Burlington municipal system. Relative to water conservation, the swimming pool will be filled only once in the spring. Criteria #2: There is sufficient water made available by the City of South Burlington. Again, the pool will be filled once in the spring. Criteria #3: The pool will not cause unreasonable burden on the City of South Burlington water supply to other developed projects. ME Criteria #4: The project, which is very small in nature, will not create unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in capacity of land to hold water so as to create dangerous or unhealthy conditions. Criteria #5: The amen nt does not change at all the project's inpact with respect to highways nor does it affect waterways, railways, airports or airways. Criteria #6: The amendment does not change at all the impact on the ability of the municipality to provide educational services. Criteria #7: The amendment does not change at all the burden on the ability of local governments to provide municipal or governmental services. Criteria #8: The amendment will enhance the aesthetic appeal since the study adds balance to the buildings and the swimming pool will provide greater amenities for the residents. As with the original project, the area to be developed is neither historic site, rare or irreplaceable natural area or special wildlife habitat or habitat for endangered species. Criteria #9: The amended project conforms with capability and development plan for both local and regional plans. Criteria #10: The amended project conforms with local and regional plans. ly yours, Peter S. Sidel PSS/sm 7fLnSfGrs =1"t? fo a cc. r,pied y i4.3 fri:nse r r e e J I0:4 _I-_f_0_R_CfF ICE USE ONLY ;' p I 1 c a f ion N o � ----- --= .ows Involved: Filing Date: Deemed Complete By: ;T 1 ON­1 1 - TO BE COMPLETED BY _THE_ APPL (CANT - - _ -- -- - — -- - 658-6000 A i, P L I C A N T : Ve :mnt Federal Savings__L Loan Assn • , 5 Burlington Sc;--are- Bu , rl i na n , Vt . Name) (Address) (Phone 140.) 05401 Z . PROPERTY 016' N E R : Vermont Federal Savings &Loan Association - same as abbe_ (Nan. a) (Address) (Phone No.) 3. PERSON TO BE CONTACTED ABOUT THIS APPLICATION (Complete only if difierent from nl): Pe-ter-S. 0. Box 115, Waitsfield Vermont 467� 49ti-��77_ (Name) (Address) (Phone No. 4. 111HAT IS YOUR LEGAL INTEREST IN THiS PROPERTY: _ A�licant is owner of property/Sidel is attorney for rxanPr 5. IF YOU ARE NOT FILING THIS APPLICATION AS AN I ND I V I DUAL, C0;4PLETE THE FOLLOWING: _ _Verne banking ins it»tion tLesal Entity) (Date Formed) (State) (Date Registered in Vt.) b, .-;!'AT IS THE NATURE OF THIS REQUEST TO Ai4END T14E LAND USE PE_R- i I T To provide for_the inclusion of a sw. m Lines ? on the si tP of-Indi�_xeok Condominiums (Land Use Permit #4C0161-3)_I shift th�king.for the_tenniG-r-0urts to the other side of the road; add a room (study) to three units-.-b�iLigunits (identical to other end _units originally_a�roved). __ 7 , lac SCRIBE ANY CHANGES I N THE F01_ LO1•; 1 NG ITEMS �S FROM I NFOR!4AT I ON IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION: a, Acreage in the entire tract of land -- b. acreage in this project C. Cate the project r: i-1 I bz s iarted_Immediately d. Cafe the project will be conple-1edPool-3_wee raefte a royal e. Funding or bonding of This project �-refa . run i c i pa I services to be -used water _._--- _ _ Construction costs estimated at $40 , 000 = i t amendments =-9 0 -DQ--- — CT I Oi\ I i I= �,ID)D I T I Ot:AL I ter=ORI;A I ION REQU I RED 014 PE!V l T T R:,NSFERS 8. N'SFRr.EE: I hereby agree to complete this project" as forth in the application, Findings of Fact Conclusicns of Law and the Land Use Permit ber , and as amended above: set and - r1 urrl- (Transferree) o T;;,;;�SfE:ROR; I hereby agree to;the .transfer of Land Use Permit -- as set forth above: number (Transf error) P:O- ICE TO P:;RI" ! L=S - TO BE COtSPI_ETED SY ALL APPL ! CAtdTS _ FOR _ACT 750 F ROJ E_CTS ----- 10. This .':p p 1 i cat i on mustbe signed by The applicant. By signing hi s r:; p l i cation f he - pp l i cant assur:ies respons i b l i i ty for f he provided and, when "i he amendment Involves Act 250, cenfl,rs chat tha tc'�n selectmen, Planning. Coallnission and f red.-ppl icaticn ►P Ian ning Co, -..mission were ' mac- 'il !!-', - 4 rF /:� ".•'•i'I 1.•` 1'.'� 1 L ct�,� FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 30 May 1986 L Ms. Jane B. Lafleur, Planner City of South Burlington �� 1 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 � W� vo (w0 � v RE: Indian Creek (a.k.a. Ridgewood Estates, Phase III) � Cluster I revisions \, FILE: 8486/8042 Dear Ms. Lafleur: On behalf of our Client, the Vermont Federal Bank, we are herewith submitting revised site plan drawings regarding the above -referenced Project. As you may recall, a while ago there were discussions and plan submissions that addressed moving Cluster I, so-called, from its originally -approved location near the entrance to Indian Creek to a location near the "center" of the Project. For various reasons, not the least of which was the rather vocal objection by some residents of the earlier phases of Ridgewood Estates, the decision has been made to leave Cluster I in its originally -approved location, with minor modifications to the build n s'--siting and a_ rearran�ement_of the garages. A few other accomplishments have been realized with the revised site plan. Specifically, the driveway and paved areas have been enlarged and altered to more nearly meet -ERe goa s o Ze i y s ire c ie , Mr: Goddette. We have met with him regarding the modifications, and we believe he is satisfied with the proposed modifications. Also, the single 10-unit structure originally proposed has been divided into a 6-unit and 4-unit structure,, with 30 feet separating the structures, which makes this Cluster easier for the fire department to protect. And, although not universally favored, the road connecting the original Ridgewood Estates Project with the Indian Creek (Phase III) portion has been "downgraded" to a fire road status, with the modified entrance to Cluster I now shown as being paved and the "principal" road; the fire road will continue to exist, as agreed, with its gate near the boundary line. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 9 Permitting Ms. Jane Lafleur FILE: 8486/8042 30 May 1986 Page Two We feel the proposed changes are of a rather minor nature, with respect to the originally -approved site plan, and ask, therefore, on behalf of our Client, that they be handled on an administrative basis if possible, obviating the need for a formal hearing before the Planning Commission. One primary reason for this request is to allow the Owner to meet his desired construction -start date of mid -June for this Cluster, as well as not to burden the already -strained schedule of the Planning Commission. For your review and consideration, we are enclosing four (4) copies of the following drawings: D-1665- Revised Site & Utilities Plan (Cluster I) D-309 - Revised Site Plan (showing sewer connections) D-310 - Revised Sewer Profiles We are also enclosing a copy of Drawing D-300, the original site plan for Cluster I, for your use during review. Since the original landscaping plan is still relevant, due to the minor changes in the site plan, we are not including a revised site plan at this time. However, the Owner has asked us to prepare another landscaping plan showing additional screening on the Ridgewood Estates side of Cluster I, and we will submit this plan as soon as it is finished. Should you have any questions on the foregoing, please feel free to contact us at your earliest convenience. Again, thanks for taking the time to briefly discuss this last week. Sincerely, FITZP RICK-LLEWELLYN CORPORATED Douglas FitzPatrick, P.E. cc Mr. Wooster, Vermont Federal Bank Kessel-Duff Mr. Goddette, South Burlington Fire Dept. DRF:tao FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services The Kiln • 15 Brickyard Road • Essex Junction • Vermont • 05452 • (802) 878-3000 9 June 1936 Ms. Katherine Vose, District Coordinator District #4 Environmental Office 111 West Street Essex Junction, Vermont 05452 RE: Phase III Ridgewood Estates (a.k.a. Indian Creek) South Burlington LUP #460161 FILE: 8486 Dear Ms. Vose: tbu On behalf of our client, Vermont Federal Bank, as represented by Mr. Stewart Wooster, we are hereby making application for a Permit Amendment, regarding the above -referenced Project. Specifically, the applicant now wishes to construct the last -remaining cluster of units in Indian Creek (ironically, originally referenced as Cluster I), but would like to improve the layout by constructing a 6-unit structure and a 4-unit structure instead of the originally approved single 10-unit structure. The enclosed site plans show the original layout (Dwg #D-300 & D-314) for your reference, as well as the proposed layout (Dwg D-1665). This improved site layout has been approved by the City of South Burlington, administratively, since both the parking and fire -control aspects have also been improved by the proposed layout. In regard to your questions posed during our recent telephone conversation, the Applicant has said that all conditions presently imposed on the Project will apply to this last cluster, specifically with respect to energy and aesthetics; i.e. the proposed units will have storage -electric heating systems, and will be no more visible from the interstate system than before. For all intents and purposes, the proposed units will be identical to those previously approved and constructed. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies 0 Permitting Ms. Catherine Vose FILE: 8486 9 June 1986 Page Two The Applicant has decided to "beef -up" the originally -approved landscaping plan; the revised proposal is included for your review. In response to your other question, regarding construction time, the District 4 Commission recently approved an extension of the construction completion date until 30 November 1987, which appears adequate if construction is started in the very near future. Also enclosed, for the District Engineer's review, is the plan dealing with the altered sanitary sewer connection necessitated by the modified building layout. It seems, from our assessment, and the City's acceptance of the modified layout without hearings, that the LUP amendment could be handled as a minor amendment, which would greatly help the Applicant to achieve a desired early start on construction. To this end, we are enclosing for your review seven (7) copies of: 1. Signed Application 2. Signed Commencement of Construction Notice 3. Site Plan -Original (D-300) 4. General Site Plan-(D-314) 5. Revised Cluster I Site Plan (D-1665) 6. Revised Site Plan showing new sewer connection (D-309) 7. Revised Sewer Profiles (D-310) 8. Revised Landscape Plan (D-1722) as well as our check for the Amendment fee of $25.00, and a certification of delivery. Should you have any questions on any of the enclosed information, please don't hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Again, thanks for taking some time to discuss this amendment by telephone. Sincerely, -MAICUT C_ - Pf &af Y) 6L atx_�,) Douglas R. FitzPatrick, P.E. cc w/plans Mr. Wooster South Burlington Planning Commission South Burlington City Clerk DRF:tao FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services APPLICATION FOR LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT INSTRUCTIONS: Use this form for minor Land Use Permit amendments, including permit transfers. Applications for permit transfers are to be completed by the transferree. SECTION 1 - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Application No.: Filing Date: Laws Involved: Deemed Completed By: Fee: SECTION II - TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT 1. APPLICANT: Vermont Federal Bank, 5 Burlington Square, Burlington, Vermont 05401 2. PROPERTY OWNER: SA M[Name) (Address) (Phone No.) (Name) (Address) (Phone No.) 3. PERSON TO BE CONTACTED ABOUT THIS APPLICATION (Complete only if different than #1) Douglas R. FitzPatrick. FitzPatri k- 1 w Ilyn Inc., 15 Brickyard Rd , Essex Jct , VT 878-3000 (Name) (Address) (Phone No.) 4. WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY? FEE SIMPLE 5. IF YOU ARE NOT FILING THIS APPLICATION AS AN INDIVIDUAL, COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING: Federal Savings Bank 3-9-36 Federal n/a (Legal Entity) (Date Formed) (State) (Date registered in VT) 6. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THIS REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE PERMIT:Minor revision to building configuration and parking area, Cluster I. 7. DESCRIBE ANY CHANGES IN THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM INFORMATION IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION a. Acreage in the entire tract of land n/a b. Acreage in this project n/a c. Date the project will be started n a d. Date the project will be completed n a e. Funding or bonding of this pro]ect n a f. Municipal services to be used n/a g. Estimated construction cost n a SECTION III - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PERMIT TRANSFERS I 8. TRANSFERREE: I hereby agree to complete this project as set forth in the application, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the Land Use Permit # and as amended above: Q (Transferree) TRANSFERROR: I hereby agree to the transfer of Land Use Permit # set forth above: Transferror) as SECTION IV - NOTICE TO PARTIES - TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL APPLICANTS FOR ACT 250 PROJECTS I 10. This application must be signed by the applicant and landowner. By signing this application, the applicant assumes responsibility for the information provided and, when the amendment involves Act 250, confirms that the town selectmen, planning commission, and regional planning commission were given,a copy of the application as required. (signature of applicant) (date) signature f landowner) ate N O T I C E COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES A PERMIT pursuant to Title 10 VSA Section 6081 (Act 250) "Commencement of construction" is defined by Act 250 as "the construction of the first improvement on the land or to any structure or facility located on the land including work preparatory to construction such as clearing, the staking out or use of a right -of -way -or in any way incidental to altering the land according to a plan or intention to improve or to divide land by sale, lease or otherwise transfer an interest in the land." (Environmental Board Rule 2 (C)). A violation of any provision of the rules if punishable by a fine of not more than $500 for each day of the violation or imprisonment for not more than two yea,rs, or both. (T. 10 VSA, Section 6003). I understand there is to be no site work or construction commenced on this project until a written Land Use Permit is issued. I further understand that verbal indication that a Land Use Permit may be issued does not constitute authorization to commence construction. pp icant's Signature Date THIS NOTICE MUST BE EXECUTED AND RETURNED WITH YOUR LAND USE APPLICATION. CC-EB -8 3 DATE: In accordance with Title 10 V.S.A., §6086, I certify that I have delivered complete sets of this application and all plans and attachments to the municipality (Selectmen, Aldermen, Trustees), the municipal planning commission, the Regional Planning Commission, and any adjacent municipality and municipal planning commission adjoining this project. FEE: x LIST OF ADJOINING LANDOWNERS AND ADDRESSES: n/a LOCATION MAP: n/a COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION NOTICE: X II Signature of Applicant or Messenger State of Vermont STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 4C0161-9 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED APPLICANT Vermont Federal Bank Environmental Protection Rules ADDRESS 5 Burlington Square Chapter 4 - Public Buildings Burlington, Vermont 05401 Chapter 9 - Plumbing This project consisting of final construction approval including interior plumbing for the previously approved Phase III Cluster I ten unit condominium Building B2, Indian.Creek Condominiums, located on Dorset Street in the City of South Burlington, Vermont, is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL (1) The project must be completed as shown on the plans Indian Creek Condominiums, Sheet PV1, "Building B2, Plumbing/Ventilation Floor Plans"; Sheet PV2, "Building D2R, Plumbing/Ventilation Floor Plans"; Sheet PV3, "Buildings B2 & D2R, Plumbing Riser Diagrams"; and Sheet PV4, "Plumbing Riser Diagrams and Miscellaneous Sheet" dated June 30, 1986, prepared by AVENGCO and which have been stamped APPROVED by the Division of Protection. No alteration of these plans shall be allowed except where written application has been made to the Agency of Environmental Conservation and approval obtained. (2) A copy of the approved plans and the Certificate of Compliance shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or Local personnel. (3) This amended Certification of Compliance specifically approves the final building construction for Building B2, Phase III Cluster I ten unit condominiums previously approved in Certification of Compliance #4C0161-3. All aspects of previously approved Certification of Compliance #4C0161 and amendments remain in full effect except as amended herein. PLUMBING (4) The Division of Protection is to be notified prior to the closing or covering of any waste plumbing so that we may inspect the workmanship. (5) The applicant is reminded that all plumbing material and workmanship must meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 9, Plumbing; the National Plumbing Code; and the requirements of the Vermont Fire Prevention Section of the Department of Labor and Industry. Dated in the Village of Essex Junction, Vermont, this llth day of August, 1986. FOR THE DIVISION OF PROTECTION CC: Donald Robisky Katherine Vose Mary K. CYark Dept. of Health Assistant Regional Engineer Milot Real Estate Dept. of Labor & Industry City Planning Commission Kessel/Duff Construction AVENGCO