HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-79-0000 - Supplemental - 1820 Shelburne RoadPLANNING COMMISSION
Sketch plan review, 1 lot subdivision at 62 East Terrace
OCTOBER 9, 1979
A'Lr. Ray Ploof said the proposal was to construct a house with two apartments
in it on a lot with 18,000 so. ft. and 130' of frontage. The lot to be divided
into two pieces has an existing house on the south side. i:r. Ploof said there
was an apartment complex to the rear of this lot and that no covenants prohibited
the use. Mr. Jacob added that this lot was away from others on that street. X.r.
Ploof said the house would look like a single family dwelling and that it met
all setback requirements. It will fit in with the neighborhood. That street is
very long and it was suggested that a lot of traffic on that end of the road wculd
not be a good idea unless the cul-de-sac were o ened. It was determined that :
the existing house on the lot could be made a duplex and teat there were two other
lots on the street which could contain duplexes, for .a total of 4 on t^e entire
street. Na. Jacob did not think that many would be built, because of the value
of the land in that area. h;r. Poger did not want to see 4 duplexes at that end of
the street.
Site_,plan revieW,._,x_ vlsed access, parking and circulation for the for=e
> at th
plain Motors buil
corner of Allen and Shelburne Rcads
Mr. Xichael Dugan said that the property had two existing curb cuts and that
they would like to close both and put in a new 40' wide cut. They would also
like to add 11 new parking spaces on the front of the property where the cars used
to be displayed. They would also like a new rear access road on the north side
next to the Bartlett property. This drive will be a dead-end and will be for
access to the rear of the building. Mr. Dugan said they needed the extra spaces
to market the building but it was pointed out that the site might have to have
some revisions once a tenant went into the building.
Mr. Mona said that building used to be a source of controversy in the area
because the Commission limited the number of cars which could be displayed and
that number was exceeded. It was suggested that the minutes of the last hearings
on the building be researched.
Mr. -King did not think the Commission could approve the site plan until it
knew what business was going into the building.
The Commission had no problem with the access around the building or the
revised curb cut. Yr. Page wanted to look at the grading for the access* to the
rear of the building, noting that some fill would be necessary and that there was
not a lot of room between the edge of the pavement and the property line.
Mr. ?wing moved to continue the hearing until 2 weeks from tonight, on
October 23, 1979 at 7:30 Dm at City Ball. Mr. Mlora seconded the motion. It was
suggested that the Fire Chief look at the plan. The motion carried unanimously.
Public hearing on final olat aunlication of Daniel and Leo O'Brien fcr resu'odivie:^r.
of lots G and 5 of=us- =-ss =ark tiorth into 3 lots ------__
Mr. =age said he was unable to locate either of the C'Briens.
Mr. eoolery moved to continue the public hearing of Laniel and 1Ao C'Br en
for resubdivision of lots 4 and.5 of Business .ark Ncrth into 3 lots until two
weeks from tonight, October 23, 1979 at 7:30 Tm at City :all. Air. Jacob seccr.ied
tTr motion and all voted a;;e.
The meeting ::as adjourned at 9:15 pm.
C1er k
r--
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer
Re: The former Lake Champlain Motors building, Shelburne & Allen Road
Date: 10/11/79
Steve Page requested that I research the history of the building in question
relating pass action by the Planning Commission.
Here goes: In March 1971 a Mr. Donald Brisson requested a zone change in order
to establish a business called Roadside Marine. One of the conditions of
approval was that there be "no display of boats or any goods outside of the
building".
In January 1973, a variance was requested for a dual use permitting the sales
of automobiles in conjunction with boats. The Planning Commission waived the
stipulation regarding no outside display. Automobile display was allowed.
The wording of the stipulation was "that a temporary dual use be allowed and
display of new cars on the upper level by allowed" (a maximum of ten (10) cars
only)
The 1974 zoning regulations, Section 11.702 provides that not more than 50%
of the area of the required front yard shall be uscd for driveways and parking
and the balance shall be suitably landscaped and maintained in good appearance.
The building is presently in a non -conforming status - in order to occupy the
building as a retail establishment more parking is required. Use of the front
yard is mandatory. The plan submitted by Mr. Farrell shows no landscaping with-
in the front yard (Shelburne Roadside of the property). Should the Commission
consider approval of the new parking plan - additional landscaping should be
installed and bonding would be appropriate.
The Fire Chief has reviewed the plan, his comments are favorable. Hydrant
located in front of building, new curb opening provides good access.
In my opinion, the "new rear access road" northerly of the building will cause
drainage problems to the adjoining property, it will provide an area to store
dumpster and trash containers. Access is poor requiring backing of vehicles
in or out. Two large trees will require removal. I suggest approval of the
new parking area with additional front yard landscaping and denial of the rear
access road.
M E M O R A N D U M
To: South Burlington Planning Commission
From: Stephen Page, former Planner
Re: Next Meeting's Agenda Items
Date: 10/5/79
#2 Business Park North Resubdivision
There are no substantive issues to be resolved, and no changes to the plan
since you last saw it.
#:5 Spafford Subdivision (now called "Brookwood")
The plan has been revised to satisfy the conditions of preliminary plat
approval, a draft of the convenants has been approved by Dick Spokes which
will preserve the important concept of building envelopes. I have a list of
minor modifications which pertain to the legal do cuments and can be in-
corporated into a motion of approval.
#4 Vermont Broadcasting Subdivision
All is O.K.
#5 Nowland Subdivision
I suggest the final plat carry the notation, "Reserved for Future City Street",
immediately south of lot #2, to make it perfectly clear to the lot buyer where
access to the balance of the land should be located, and where the potential east -west
street may go.
#6 1 lot subdivision at 162 East Terrace
The division of a 1 + acre lot, is proposed to create a.6 acre lot with an existing
dwelling on it, and a .4 acre lot (large enough for a duplex). All City services
are at the site. The existing dwelling should be plotted on the plan to insure that
the new dividing line does not create any non -conforming situations.
#7 Site Plan Review, Plywood Ranch
The applicant has agreed to improve screening and revise landscaping. The re-
visions to the plan will be presented at the meeting.
#8 Site Plan Review for former Lake Champlain Motors buildi
The building's owners wish to obtain site plan approval for revisions to existing
access, parking, and circulation, to serve a future tenant who is as yet un-
determined. I assume this is'being done to improve the marketability' of the proposal.
Access is substantially improved, through the closing of two old curb cuts on Allen
Road, and the installation of a new one farther away from Shelburne Road. Parking is
being increased to a total of 42 spaces; circulation is sufficient, although I
question the _advisability of the dead end service road to the north of the building.
Also, the grading plan doesn't make it clear whether or not fill or surface water
will be diverted-tb the adjoining property to the north. In any event, there should
be a site plan review of this property when a particular client has been found.