Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-83-0000 - Decision - 0911 Dorset Street (2)January 5, 1982 Peter Sidel Valley Professional Center w7aitsfield, Vermont 05673 Dear Peter, Enclosed is a copy of the Sobhh Burlington Planning Cannission's final plat approval with stipulations for the subdivision of Indian Creek from the balance of the Ridgewood develorxrent. I hope to clarify any questions on stipulation 3. If maintenance of the connecting section of road is to be joint, then you must submit an agreement signed by both parties. However, if Indian Creek is willing and able to nointain the entire connecting road segment, then I only need approp priate documents submitted and sinned by your client. One other point: if I do not hear from you to the contrary, I will assume that "Indian Creek Drive" is an acceptable street name. I have also noticed that a nu,-rbering plan is included on the final plat. Again, unless I hear diffeeently, I will assume that numbering system to be acceptable. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planer DHS/mcg 1 Encl PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4, 1983 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, January 4, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; George Mona, Kirk Woolery, Peter Jacob, Mary -Barbara Daher, John Belter, Judy Hurd Others Present David Spit$, Planner; Don Melvin, Free Press; Ethel Harris, Susan & John Geise, Barry Carris, Peter Sidel, J. Edmund Smith, F. Duncan Case, Monica Smith, Mary Anne Murray, Judy Huetz, Bruce Mozhdehi, John Crotty, George Brady Minutes of December 14, 1982 Mrs. Maher moved to approve the December 14, 1982 minutes and Mr. Jacob seconded the motion, which carried with Mrs. Hurd abstaining. Mr. Poger welcomed Mrs. Hurd to the Commission. Mrs. Maher asked that the Chairman send a letter of thanks to Robert Walsh for his serviees on the board. Continuation of final plat application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan Association Peter Sidel, agent for subdivision of the Indian Creek Development from the balance of Ridgewood Estates Mr. Spitz noted that on some of the units, the applicant would now like to add dens to the living space. This will have to be an amendment to the final plat. There are 59 units and the dens will be added on about 12. Mr. Poger noted that the Ridgewood owners had made their position known in a December 29 letter with a petition attached (copy on file with Planner). Mrs. Murray asked whether there would be a swimming pool in the Indian Creek area and Mr. Sidel said he believed there would be, but did not know for sure. There is no guarantee of a pool in the paperwork he has done for the project. Mr. Poger noted that if the pool was not on the plan now, it would not be allowed without approval of the Commission at a later date. Mr. Poger asked if there were any obligations left on Ridgewood which had not been fulfilled, as a result of the original proposal, but Mr. Spitz did not think there were any problems of that kind. It was noted that Ridgewood had proposed a swimming pool, which has been built. No pool was ever proposed in the area now under consideration for subdivision. Mr. Spitz noted that the Commission was considering a subdivision of this property into two separate pieces. He stated that the development as a whole was at its maximum density and that there could never be any more units added to either side. The issue, he said, was the status of the road - should it be open or closed. Mr. Spitz said the interior roads would be private, but the Economou land next to the proposed Indian Creek has poor access to Dorset,St., so a right of way over a corner of the Indian Creek property will be left. Thus, if Economou wants to have access to Dorset Street over Indian Creek land, he will have to build that portion of the road to city standards, but the right of way will be available. Mrs. Murray was concerned about the addition of those possible units on the Economou land in the future, feeling it Would add more traffic on Ridgewood roads. 2. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4. 1983 Mr. Mona said he appreciated the Fire Chief's comments on the road, as he appreciated.the concerns of the Ridgewood residents, but he felt that nothing had changed as a result of the two parts of the development being separated. Mr. Woolery was concerned that Ridgewood land would drain onto Indian Creek land. He wanted both,parties to be aware of that so they could have some sort of joint maintenance if it were needed. He thought it was possible boundary lines might have to be changed later. Mrs. Monica Smith felt that if the subdivision took place, it would be a major change in the original plan. She felt the connecting road had originally been planned to allow phase 3 homeowners access to the tennis courts. Now they will have their own, so the road is no longer needed. She said Ridgewood did not want the burden of maintaining that section of road and she said the residents wanted security and privacy. Mrs. Maher noted that during her former tenure on the Commission, this development had been discussed and at that time the road was not laid out as it is only for access to the tennis courts. She said it had been discussed in detail and was laid out this way to provide for safety and convenience. She felt the road as proposed was for the greater good of the citizens of South Burlington as well as the Ridgewood owners. She did not think separate ownership was a good reason to close that road now. Mr. Duncan Case asked about having only an emergency access there, but Mr. Poger noted that the road system was located where it is to allow residents of either section to have access to both Swift Street and Dorset St. He added that it has been the city's experience that such emergency accesses do not work. When there is snow on the ground, they sometimes are inaccessible. He also noted that, if the Commission wished the road to remain open, it would ask for a maintenance agreement to be worked out between Indian Creek and Ridgewood and the city would be a party to it. Mr. Poger did not feel that this simple subdivision would substantially change the development, so he saw no reason to change the circulation pattern. Mr. Belter noted that if this were a new proposal, two entrances would be required and he noted that the Commission has been asking owners of adjoining property to combine entrances, so even if these areas were coming in for approval from scratch, the Commission would be requesting two entrances. Mr. Woolery felt the way this entire thing had happened had been unusual - he was not sure he wanted to see a subdivision at all. He added, however, that he felt the original layout had been followed, so the new and old plans were almost identical. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the application by Vermont Federal Savings & Loan for final plat approval of the subdivision of the Indian Creek development formerly phase 3 of Ridgewood Estates from the balance of Ridgewood Estates as indicated on a plan entitled "Ridgewood Estates," prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, stamped November 15, 1982, subject to the following stipulations: 1. A revised final plat showing the surveyed boundaries of the Indian Creek and Ridgewood parcels shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner. 2. Additions to some end units may be permitted as long as all required distances between buildings and setbacks from property lines and reserved easements are maintained. The additions shall be drawn to scale on the revised final plat and shall be approved by the City Planner. 3• Legal documents, pertaining to use and maintenance of all private streets within Indian Creek and connecting Indian Creek to Ridgewood, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recording of the final plat. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 4. 1983 4. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. Mr. Jacob seconded the motion. Mr. Poger asked what would happen if the documents in #3 were not submitted and Mr. Spitz said the subdivision would be invalid. Mr. Poger noted that the motion did not refer to opening the road between the two areas, which is now closed, but Mr. Spitz said that unless the Commission took action to close the road, it would stand unchanged, which is open. He noted that the road had been closed in violation and that the city had decided not to take any action, pending this Commission action, but that road is to remain open. Mr. Poger noted that the Commission did not take lightly its responsibility for listening to and following the dictates of the residents of the city when they are consistent with the best planning of the city as a whole. He said they did not lightly ignore resident petitions. On the other hand, they do not lightly ignore the history of what the Commission laid out here in the past and the reasons for it. The motion carried with 6 yes votes and an abstention, from Mrs. Hurd. Mr. Case felt the petition had been ignored, but Mr. Poger felt that the Commission had listened to the concerns of the residents and had made a hard choice. Site plan application by George Brady for erection of two buildings for office and/or residential use at 1240 Airport Parkway Mr. Spitz said the Zoning Board had approved this plan for office uses, with the ability to have up to 2 residential units, if necessary. Mr. Brady expects he will not have to have the two residential units. There are industrial units to the rear of the property and there will be a fence between the areas. Mr. Spitz noted that sight distance in this area was not too good. Mr. Brady has permission from the airport to do some grading on airport land to improve visibility. It is about 130' from his proposed entrance to the airport boundary. Mr. Brady said that in the future he would like to add a building beyond the proposed parking lot at the end of the proposed new entrance. Mr. Poger was concerned that another building might be added between the new entrance proposed and the airport boundary line, which could block visibility. He did not think that would be good. Mr. Woolery was concerned about traffic eventually having access to Shamrock Road, but was told that is zoned residential, so it is unlikely. Mr. Brady had shown two accesses to the land. The City Manager/Engineer and City Planner both recommend only one. Mr. Brady said there was a problem with ledge on the property and he noted that to allow a truck enough room to get onto the side, he would have to have such a large radius that it would cut down his plantings in front. Mr. Spitz explained where he felt there could be one combined entrance, between the two shown on the plan. He felt that with the poor sight distance in this area, one entrance would be better than two. Mr. Belter felt that trucks trying to get into the site would have problems coming down that hill and turning into the property. They will have to come down the hill because they cannot come from the other direction due to the weight limitation on the Limekiln bridge. He noted that getting out of the site and going up the hill would be difficult and trucks would probably pull out very slowly. Mr. Poger suggested a single access now with the possibility of a second one later. Two accesses did not bother Mrs. Maher. Mr. Woolery did not like two entrances, but felt that because of the change in grade on the site, plus the low traffic volume, two would be all right in this case.