Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP-87-0000 - Decision - 0059 Swift Street (2)PLANNING COMMISSION 10 MARCH 1987 PAGE 3 depicted on a set of plans entitled "Burlington, Vermont: FAA ATCT with 6200 Square Foot Base Building" prepared �2y Leo A. Daly last revised 9/19/86 with the following stipulations: 1. A new landscaping plan valued at $29,750 shall be submitted and approved �2y the City Planner prior to permit. This plan shall show berms along Airport Drive, and the berms shall count as landscaping. In the event that a berm is not permitted on the Airport property, a new landscaping plan shall be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to permit A bond for this amount shall be posted prior to permit. 2. The Dawn Court road opening shall be closed �2y removing the existing curb radii and constructing a concrete barrier curb. 3. The curb around the paved road shall extend around the intersection radius and to the parking lot entrance. 4. Prior to permit, the City of Burlington must rectify the landscaping requirement under the previous permit 12y sub- stituting a bond for the cash. 5. The sidewalk adjacent to the parking area should be at least 5 feet wide. 6. The looped water system shall be completed and the last hydrant installed in accordance with previously approved plans. 7. A 405 gallon per day sewer allocation is granted in ac- cordance with the South Burlington Sewer Policy. This project is placed on the waiting list and no building permit shall be issued until capacity is available. The $2.50 per gallon fee shall be paid prior to permit. 8. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. Mr. Burgess seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Site plan application of Charles Anderson & Albert St. Amand for construction of a 9600 sq. ft. building for auto- mobile radio sales and service and warehouse use, 59 Swift St Mr. St. Amand noted they had purchased the property from the Mini -Storage people across the street. Half the building will be used for a company installing 2-way car radios. Mrs. Lafleur noted more landscaping is required. The concensus of PLANNING COMMISSION 10 MARCH 1987 PAGE 4 the Commission was to increase the size of the trees. Mr. Anderson noted he would like to keep the sidewalk for cus- tomer convenience. Mrs. Hurd moved that the Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Charles Anderson & Albert St. Amand for construction of a 9600 sq. ft. commercial -warehouse building as depicted on a plan entitled "59 Swift Street:Anderson St. Amand, South Burlington, Vermont" prepared �2y Michael Dugan, dated February 25, 1987 with the following stipulations: 1. A $4950 landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit. The plan shall be revised to reflect this amount and shall be approved by the Planner prior to permit. The plans should show any existing large trees at the rear of the lot. 2. A site drainage plan shall be submitted to the City En- gineer for approval prior to permit. 3. Plans shall be revised to show where pavement will be and where curbs will be constructed. 4. A 75 gpd sewer allocation is granted in accordance with the South Burlington Sewer Policy. The $2.50 per gallon fee shall be paid prior to permit. 5. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. Mrs. Maher seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Sketch plan application of RPM Development (Paul Marquis) for a 2-lot subdivision of an 80,822 sq. ft. lot, 5 Gregory Drive Mr. Hirt noted one lot will be 40,364 sq. ft. and the other 40,458. A driveway will be split between the 2 lots. There will be only 1 curb cut. The Commission has already approved a building for one lot. Mrs. Lafleur said the plan meets all requirements, setbacks, etc. 7. Sketch Plan application of John Belter for subdivision of 32.2 acres into 21 industrial -commercial lots located on Airport Parkway and Ethan Allen Drive Mr. Belter stepped down during this discussion. Mr. Belter noted there will be anew street, 32 ft. wide which will be a city street with curbs. Mrs. Lafleur added that all lots except 2 are south of Ethan Allen Drive. Mr. Belter SOUTI: )URLINGTON ZONING BOA%D OF .AUSTMENT Findings in accordance with Section 4468 of the Planning � Development Act (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to 'such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; a (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; D- (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and IT (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. Appeal # Date 3%23 /F7 Appellantr4w(y �wc�e►� /q�tiT� D�/Y��4n� Vote: Yes No Sign p List findings below: l . n y�� c% �Je �, Gy S CS �d A 2. hi T2Arr(- c r4-1.r,✓cc- C c1Y x l.c 6 4L� z,, 77- ,tie , s 3: - SOUTI. BURLINGTON ZONING BOARD OF JJUSTM::NT Vote: Li 1. 2. 3 Findings in accordance with Section 446P of the Planning & Development Act (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; 1:1 (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. a Appeal #, Date Appellant LG�/J7 Sign Yes F1 No n SOUTh hRLINGTON 'ZONING BOAPI) OF t{L)JUSTM::NT Findings In accordance with Section 446E of the Planning & Development Act (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; j (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; 9 (3) That such unneces -ry hardsship has not been created by the appellant; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. Date —)� -2.2—,f7 Appellant,aL�si� ��T_•c.,� Vote: Yes No List findings below: 3: Appeal #, Sign _ SOM, tUP,LINGTON ZONING BOAP.D OF JJUS'FM'--.'N'r Findings in accordance with Section 446E of the Planning & Development Act (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; U (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; 9 l vl (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been Created by the appellant; (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan. Appeal # L Date /23 ( Appellant &k, Vote: Yes Q No Sig List findings below: 1. kg 4""4 4� 2. SOUi._ kURLINGTON ZONING BOA?D OF ADJUSTM'ENT Findings in accordance with Section 446P of the Planning & Development Act (1) That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions, including irregularity, narrowness, or shallowness of lot size or shape, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the particular property, and that the unnecessary hardship is due to such conditions, and not the circumstances or conditions generally created by the provisions of the zoning regulations in the neighborhood or district in which the property is located; (2) That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, there is no possibility that the property can be developed in strict conformity with the provisions of the zoning regulations and that the authorization of a variance is therefore necessary to enable the reasonable use of the property; 11 (3) That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the appellant; L1 (4) That the variance, if authorized, will not alter the essential' character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, nor be detrimental to the public welfare; and E (5) That the variance, if authorized, will represent the minimum variance that will afford relief and will represent the least modification possible of the zoning regulations and of the plan.') Appeal # Date .Z 3 . / q Appellant Vote: Yes j No F Sign � List findings below: 1 2 3: