HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-81-0000 - Decision - 0000 Stonehedge Driver�
41�-
2.
��'.�:,Y7^' CU'�'i•:ISSIpN
JU-,Y 21, 1y81
r. Voolery moved that the :south Burlinvton Planning Commission ;;rove
t}:='_site Lan aoplication of Jolley As:,ociates_for a bevera e mart in
ad itioh to an existinG gas station at lb30 ',helburne Road as deuicted cn
%l,lnn entitled "Togo€rraphy purvey, Jolley Associates_" r3ataA r 4i
pre:),;red by Krebs
s ti,)ulations:
sing Con3u
ers, subject to the
I. A landscal,ing bond of �:750 shall be provided.
2. This site plan exjA res in 6 months
3. Adequate signing to indicate beverage parkin, shall be installed
4. There shall be DQ_Qi t�dQ storLe1,
Mr. Jacob seconded the motion.and_all voted yes.
A;,,,Iicption by tiie .Glenwood Cor )oration for revised final plat a„ oval of
Phu e II, 10y units. of tie ..tonehedge develo went
,,r. :spitz said there were very few changes from the sketch plan 3ta;;e.
4ecause of the land swap in this area, the units are being rearranged
from the original plans. Mr. ipitz added that cluster J would now be the
same type as the rest of the development and the changes proposed for that
cluster will not take place. Detailed information will be submitted cluster
by cluster, as previous approvals have been handled.
Mr. Page, representing the developer, said the sewer easement mentioned
in the City Engineer's memo was not a problem.
r. ::ona asked whether the pedestrian trail easement would run along
the southern boundary. IKr. Page said he had not discussed it, but said it
could be added as a stipulation and if there were a problem, he would return.
fir. McClary, a resident of Stonehedge, said there was a problem with
drainage runninf; through cluster I1.
f•lr. Woolery moved thnt the :south Burlington Planning Commission approve
the rc.vised_final _pint Ape Ibyicntion bthe Clenwocd Corporation for Pose II
' unitsT of the ,Aone_hei-e develo-ment as de Acted on a plan entitled
"tonerre�e Con?o iniums .'hase 2, Final Plat " rel-ared by Fitz atrick-
Lle;,ellyn Associates, dated June 1981, subject to the following sti-ulations:
I. Previous sti:,ulations fro-:; approvals dated 11/27/79 and 4/29/80,
as they affect this revised a;)plication, snall remain in effect.
2. A 20 foot wide sewer easement shall be provided 'between the manhole
northeast of tY:L 3Jlir--1nM •;ool and the lob road for nossible future
extension easterly
1-03. Unobstructed access shall be maintained to sewer manholes that are
r:ted of'f : �ved area
4. Ltal documents shall be submitted, pr,or to issuance of a building
I;er::_it for ha3e II, to clarify the status and location of a pedestrian easement
tl�rou� i ;e Ito t gee cf ty nark land.
5. A pedestrian easement shall be indicated alon the southern boundary.
6. '-.e City Engineer shall approve and note on the plan of record,
Pi COMMISSION JULY 21, 1981
detailed drainage from cluster H prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. moat and trailer parking shall be adequately screened.
Iir. Jacob seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
Continuntion of wnrncd rnablic tietirini, on final r)lnt a;,T,licRtion by Rriy
tecor for a 134 unit subdivision, consisting! of 55 single-family and 79
multi -family units, on .,pear ;A reet
Mr. Spitz said it had not been clear whether this development was
going to have to be redrawn, so the plan has not been changed since the
last meeting, and there are no final legal documents. The City
Attorney says that what he has seen in ro.zgh form is all right, but those
are not final documents. Mr. Poger said the Attorney would have to review
the documents before approval was given.
Mr. Page, representing the developer, said sidewalks were shown on
one side of the cul-de-sacs. Mr. spitz did not feel sidewalks on the
cul-de-sacs were needed at all and Iir. Woolery agreed, if the streets were
to city standards. It was agreed to remove the sidewalks from the cul-de-sacs.
Downstream drainage was discussed. I",r. Fitzpatrick, the developer's
engineer, said they had done a detailed study which showed that the pond
or, the Horticultural Farm would not be hurt by drainage from this
development. There is also a drainage problem downstream on Brigham ''oad.
:r. Fitzpatrick said there wns a 4' culvert in that area, which in his
mind wa:� too small. It was felt that this was an existing city problem.
.',Ir. Po�_-er said that if the city would take responsibility for .it, fine. If
not, it would be consistent with past policy on traffic to say that the
development could not go in without the yroblem being solved. MX. Levesque
felt it was a city problem and this developer should not be held up. Mr.
Pilot said drainage would be released no faster than it is now from the pond
which would hold the water on the property. iir. Levesque suggested one
pond instead of three, so people could skate in the winter.
:r. Fitzpatrick explained the drainage plans. The parcel, except for
the multi -family portion, would drain into an existing swale. There is a
very small portion of the property which will run into another ravine on
the land, closer to Pheasant Way. 'dater presently sheets across this land
into the backyards of the i<ieadowood development, and that will be picked up
and put into the swale.
Mr. T".criinley, a resident of Meadowood, had submitted some information
on druinate to the Commission (copies on file with Planner). lie said lie
was concerned about an increase in water in his area. lie also worried that
sewer system construction parallel to the back of his property would disturb
the subsurface soils and damage trees in that area. He had hired a forest
manai,ement specialist to submit a report, and that person, Mr. Wilbur, was
here tcni,�ht.
:Sr. Wilbur recommended underdrains for the section of sewer behind the
McKinley and Terris lots. He was also concerned that with removal of the
bruoh and grass on the land, the speed of the water would increase, which
would make the existing drainage problems worse. He recommended erosion
control measures during construction. Mr. Vilot did not agree with all the
points in the report, but said they were willing; to do what had been a3ked.
A new swale was proposed behind the McKinley and Terris lots. Mr. Mona noted
that this would entail removinj quite a number of trees. The proposed new
swale would run into an existing small ravine next to the Hosiek lot, but the