Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-81-0000 - Decision - 0000 South Beach RoadLAN,aINC CCM!rISSION DECE.MBER 22, 1981 The mouth Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 22, 1981 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, George Mona, Kirk Woolery, Robert Walsh Members Absent James Ewing, Peter Jacob Others Present David ""pitz, Planner; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper; Bruce O'Neill, Recreation Director; David Crane, Reed Upton, James & Ann Sorrell, Elizabeth Edwards, Bill Duff, Gerald Milot, Carl Lisman, Spencer & Nancy Baker, Anna Mayo, Byron Hills, Stephen Page, Lowell Krassner, Thomas Price Minutes of December 15, 1981 The December 15, 1981 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Woolery, a second by Mr. Levesque and affirmative votes by all except Mr. Walsh, who abstained because he was not present. Final plat application by Edward Crane for subdivision of a parcel containing 3 commercial buildings into 3 separate lots on ahelburne Road Mr. Crane went over the lot layout. There are three existing buildings on the lot and they want to subdivide the land into three lots. Mr. Woolery moved that the :south Burlington Planning Commission approve the finnl_pint application of Edward Crane for vubdivision of a tercel c�ntnining 3 comnerci_al_buil_dings into 3 separate lots on :helburne Road, as depicted on a plan entitled "Property of Dr. Edward Crane,"prepared by Krebs do Lansing Consultinp Engineers, last revised November 30, 1981, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant's proposed legal descriptions, containing rights of way over adjacent properties and detailing curb cut restrictions, shall be included in all warranty deeds conveying any of these lots. 2. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mona and carried unanimously. Continuation of preliminary plat application by Gerald Milot for a 48 unit condominium develoTment entitled "South Beach" on Bartletts Bay Mr. Milot said the new name being discussed for the project was "Waterside". Mr. Page said one unit had been dropped from the plan. Also, in lieu of the park discussed at the last meeting, a 15' pedestrian easement has been shown around the perimeter of the project. The area the developer is proposing the city abandon has been clarified. Mr. Page said they had met with the city manager and agreed on a 30' pavement width for the new city street, with curbs and sidewalks. They are open to input on whether the sidewalk 2. PLANNI14C COMMISQ"ION DECI':MBER 22, 11)tA should run parallel to the road or not. Mr. Milot said that could be decided after they talked with the School Board. He noted that the city manager did not want another dead-end street in this area, and if the short piece not cross -hatched on the plan has to remain a city street, he would rather the entire road remained open, rather than being topsoiled and seeded as proposed. Mr. Milot said a small area of land would be left over and he mentioned deeding it to the homeowner's association, or giving it to the city. It was noted that there was a small piece of land, marked "Trono" on the map which was separate from any other parcel. Mr. Spitz said it could not be developed. Mr. ,Mona said that piece belonged originally to the lot across the street, and when that lot was sold, the piece should have gone with it. He felt that what had happened did not follow the spirit or letter of what the Commission had intended. The Commission had said that the piece could not be developed and belonged to the lot across the street. Mr. Poger felt that selling the land that way had in fact created a subdivision. I4r. Spitz said the city administration had told the developer that he could do what he had done. Mr. Mona felt the original owner should be told he had not followed the intention of the Commission and Mr. Poger felt it should be suggested that the piece of land be donated to the city to join the piece Mr. Milot owns next to it. The pedestrian easement was discussed. Mr. Milot said he did not want to allow any parking on the new road and it would be so posted. The easement will allow public access to the lakeshore. Mr. Eilot suggested that instead of the Z40,000 offered earlier, that he pay the normal recreation fee for this land and give the city the easement, which will take 1/4 acre out of the prime section of land. Mr. Spitz said the easement was not used as part of the recreation fee in other cases and he felt these were separate issues. Mr. Walsh said his understanding of the discussion held on the land at the site visit was that the easement and $40,000 would both be forthcoming, and Mr. Milot said that if that had been the way the discussion was understood, that is what he would do. He asked, however, that he be allowei to pay the fee on a per unit basis at the time of issuance of certificates of occupancy. Mr. :.ipitz felt that could be explored. Mr. Milot said the walkway would include access to the beach, so the bank did not get eroded with people walking up and down it. There will also be a stairway at the south end of the property so people can get back up the bank. Mr. Mona noted that Mrs. Nesti was concerned about the development's setback from the south line, but Mr. Milot noted that her house was set far forward of this development and that the area on the south was heavily treed. Mr. Milot did not want to have nuisance problems with the easement and, he asked that if it did create problems later on, that he be allowed to come back to the Commission and ask that it be removed. Mr. Poger said that if there were trouble later, the Commission would entertain further discussion. Recreation Director C'Neill said there were legal agreements on pedestrian easements and they discussed liability and either party terminating the agreement. He said he would give a copy to Mr. Milot. Mr. Krassner felt the mere fact of this development being here might attract people and he did not want the trail system blamed for that attraction, and any problems because of it. Mr. Mona felt this prol;osal accomplished what the pedestrian trail system has set out to do and he was very pleased with it. Mr. Milot noted that if the road were abandoned as proposed, Mr. Price would have a longer driveway to plow since the city would no longer own the 3. PLANNING CUMMI26ICN DEC;MBER 22, 1981 road in front of his home. Mr. Price said he did not object to that. He asked, however, whether the new road would be put in for construction traffic during that phase of the project. Mr. Milot said they could not do much work on the site before they got the road in place and that they would use the new road to get to the construction site. Mr. Mona asked about the path of the water after it came out the two new proposed culverts and was told it would stay the same and would be well channeled. Mr. Spitz saw no problems with a 30' setback on the south because of the trees. He noted that this development would increase traffic in the area at peak times by about 40,), but he said the city street could handle the increase. Bartletts Bay Road has a 50' right of way. Mr. Spitz also noted that the traffic signal at Shelburne Road could handle the increase in traffic. Mr. Poger noted that in some recent commercial applications, if the road system in the area is going to need upgrading because of increased traffic, the applicants are asked to contribute a certain percentage of the cost. Mr. Spitz said the need in those cases was evaluated in terms of congestion, and that will not be a problem here. Regarding the railroad crossing, Mr. Milot said the railroad did not want a signal placed here. Ms. Elizabeth Edwards said she was concerned about a number of issues. the felt pollution had not been controlled here and noted that during the year a soap scum could be seen on the beach. She also stated that at times she got a sewer smell from the pump station near her home and she doubted that the addition of 48 more units would help that. She also had concerns about traffic and erosion along the stream which drains the field. She said she now gets drainage from Twin Brook Court and the cul-de-sac in her yard rnd garage. Ms. Edwards also noted that it was hard to get out onto Shelburne Road in the morning now and would be harder after the traffic increases. She felt the city was sealing off its access to the lake and that it would be regretted. Mr. Poger noted that the easement would allow access to the lake. He said the planner would check on the capacity of the sewer plant. Mr. Woolery moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the preliminary plat application by Gerald Milot for a 48 unit planned unit development on bartlett's Hay as depicted on a plan entitled "South Beach, Preliminar Plan", prepared by Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn Associates, last revised 12 16 81, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The proposed City street from the end of the existing pavement on Brigham Road to the proposed cul-de-sac shall be 30' wide with curbs, and a sidewalk a onp one side. 2. The proposed abandonment of land within existing city rights of way must be reviewed by the City Council prior to submittal of a final plat_ application. Any abandoned land or unbuildable parcels created by establishment of new rights of way shall be deeded to adjacent landowners or to the city. 3. No new dead -ends shall be created by relocation of city rights of 4. The e 3licant shall submit a report on field confirmation of adequacy of sigiit distance at the railroad crossing at art a tTs'i y Road. 5. The applicant shall submit a recreation payment in lieu of land in the amount of 440,000; this amount is in accordance with the applicant's 4. PUNNING COMIIISSION DECEMBER 22, 1981 gffer at sketch plan review. The method of recreation payment shall be determined at final plat. 6. Information on landscaping, screening andbuilding appearance shall be provided for final plat review. 7. All required legal documents - including utility and pedestrian easements, warranty deeds for new city streets, agreement and waiver for 'Xivate struts. and corrPspondinp offers of dedication _ -end transfer returns - shall be submitted with the final plat application. !iV 8. Complete survey data shall be submitted with the final plat application. Mr. Levesque seconded the motion. Mr. Milot asked if a cul-de-sac was considered a dead-end and was told it was not. I'r. Poger said the city engineer/manager would review the sewer and drainage items. Mr. Walsh felt the Commission should check into the odor problem and Mr. roger said the engineer could be asked to look into it and make recom:endations. Mr. Mona did not want to be limited on the sidewalk issue. He said the Commission might want it out to Bartletts Bay Road. Mr. roger felt the motion was a minimum, not a maximum, requirement. Mr. Milot said that if there were a need for the sidewalk to go to Bartletts Bay Road, he would continue it out there. Mr. Levesque felt that part of the $40,000 should be used to make other recreation areas more acces3ible to the handicapped. Mr.. Poger did not want to limit the city's options for the money, but Mr. Levesque felt it should be discussed at the next meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Continuation of revised fp inal plat aplication b Investors Corporation of Vermont for a co:n:..ercial industrial complex on Lot 2 of the Brown subdivision on Williston and .3hunpike Roads Mr. Spitz said one meeting had been held on this application, and at that time it had been warned as a revised final plat application. That meeting was continued for more information, but at that time the applicant did not have all the information ready, so the meeting was continued until tonight. Mr. Spitz said he had received a letter from Mr. Lisman December 15 submitting; 10 comments, one of which was that this application should not be considered under subdivision because it was not an industrial complex. The applicants are now proposing to combine the two buildings proposed before with a corridor. Mr. Spitz sent a letter back to Mr. Lisman telling him he (lid not feel the change made the proposal any less of an industrial cou:j;lex. Mr. Spitz said that administratively, it was felt that this was an industrial complex and a subdivision, and it has been so warned. He also noted that a lot of the information was incomplete. Mr. Lisman replied to that letter, and Mr. Spitz received the reply today, which said that before submitting the information, the applicants wanted to bring the matter to the Commission, to see if the Commission agreed that this was an industrial complex. Mr. Spitz said he felt that how the application was warned was an administrative decision. Mr. Poger said it had been the practice of the Commission to allow the administrative staff to decide under what rules an application was submitted.