Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Victory Drive (2)1 C+kA,MgWW..I,,11•} 5ar�. wJ y w � v �ffi1v 1�31 O 1 -Opp fi Nc�csc'�k- • = CyciST'1�4s- �Cb�NG� Id M E M O R A N D U M To: Files of Hurley Condominiums, Glenwood, Larkin Apartments, Meadowood at Spear, Meadowbrook Condominiums From: SSP Re: "Loose ends" to be resolved on hater lines with CWD Date: 9/13/78 Before release of bonds or any further approvals on these projects, Ed Blake should be contacted. Chittenden Subdivision - Refer to Dick Ward's memo (a joint effort Parkhill Apts., - Site Plan Review The existing plantings in front of building A, most of which are shown on the plan submitted, appear to be adequate. The existing pool will presumably be removed, and some trees adjacent to building B will be lost during construction. I would suggest care be taken to protect the two large existing trees, between buildings A & B. during construction. Since building B is very close to the rear property line, precaution should be taken to minimize damage to the trees on the abutting property. I would sugest that stipulations similar to those of the previous app- roval be made on this plan as well. (copy enclosed) Airport Rental Ca_ r Facilit — Site Plan R23 iew Presumably, this facility is not intended for use by the general public. The nature of the traffic and peak hours of operation should be specified. It is my understanding that at some future time, cars being serviced will drive directly from the terminal area to the proposed facility, across airport lani. In view of the fact that there will be significant filling and grading, it might be desirable to have the Tree Committee review the landscaping plan. One aspect of the plan,is especially noteworthy is the saving of an existing 4211 pine tree: M E M O R A N D U M TO: SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RIC HhRD WARD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: SUBDIVISION OF VICTORY PROPERTY DATE: JUNE 49 1976 The proposed development is located within the R-4 District, this proposal is submitted under Section 6.30 Residential Planned Unit Development. The minimum lot size required is five (5) acres. Cluster housing development are permitted, area, density and dimensional requirements must be waived by the Commission, the maximum density is 4 units. per acre. The project must conform to the general standard of Section 12.002(a) under a formal hearing the Commission will be evaluating the development under the 14 point criteria (Section 12.002(A)). In April 1959 a subdivision was approved, this subdivision showed the installation of two streets (50 1 R.O.W. ) with 13 lots. This subdivision is no longer in effect. In considering this development the Commission must apply those standards under Section 6.302.. Under formal review more detailed data will be required. The site contains sewer and water right-of-ways which will be identified during study plan submission. A recreation facility such as a swimming pool should be encouraged. Lots 1 and 2 fronting on Victory Drive should be considered as single family dwelling lots with a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq. f t.t (reason being to maintain existing char- acter of neighborhood.l Road should be being that this is set -backs and yard a minimum of 105 fe Lots 3 and-4 fronting on Williston set-off a minimum of 209000 sq. f t. (reason desireable business retail area in the future), requirements as presently required involves Chittenden Farm Subdivision Chittenden sub -division proposal is to set-off one ten (10) acre parcel to the south of the Chittenden Cider Mill, for purpose of constructing a single family, dwelling. -2- 1 Percolation and test boring has been conducted, soil is heavy clay. On site sewer.,will be installed. However no drain- age ways appear to be involved,. The sewer system appear to meet all local and state standards. The area is zoned AR District, minimum lot size 10 acres, the proposed subdivision is in conformance. In order to allow for ingress into rear position of the remaining land I recommenda, 60 ft* r.o.wo along the south property line abutting the Blair farm, with the final plan detailing the R-.O.W. location. Airport development along VANG road, rental aar'facility. Proposal is to construct a facility which will serve as a service building for rental cars. (Hertz and National Rent - a -Car). The area is zoned Industrial District, Zoning Board of Adjustment granted a variance on May 17, 1976. The VAN, road is private and therefore requires Planning Commission approval under Section 11.35. The site is wet, w hicr appears to be the result of land filling of the property located at 1900 Williston Road. The drainage way was originally some 500 ft. northerly on the Air Guard Rce d . Mr. Szymanski has reviewed the site and will be supervising the site woik with the intent of reopening the drainage way to allow for a better flow of run-off. The Commission should be concerned with the two proposed curb cuts. Sewer will be pumped to Airport Five, installing a line along the Williston Road right-of-way. Parkhill Motel- 1185 Shelburne Road. Proposed is to add a second level to the motel located to the rear of the apartment complex. The building proposed for the front of the property is no longer under consideration. The present motel is non -conforming, this proposal was considered by the Zoning Board of Adjustment on May 3', 1976 and granted approval. The present entrance and parking area is in conformance and allows for the addition, no alterations will take place on the site, other than additional landscaping. Performance bonds are required for the landscaping plan of Parkhill Motel and also for the Airport Rental car facility MEMO TO: Paul Farrar, Chairman City Council William Wessel, Chairman Planning Commission William J. Szymanski, City Manager Richard Ward, Zoning Administrator Stephen Page, Planning Assistant FROM: Richard A. Spokes City Attorney RECEIVED J U N 4 1976 MANAGIER'S OFFICE CITY DO. GURUNGTON DATE: 6/3/76 RE: New Subdivision Regulations - Petition for Referendum As you all know, a petition was submitted under 24 V.S.A. §4404 to have the newly adopted subdivision regulations presented to the voters at a special meeting. I understand the petition contains more than the requisite number of signatures, and in all other respects the petition seems to be in order. In analyzing this situation, I have concluded the following: 1. The new subdivision regulations do not become effective until approved by a majority of the voters at a special city meeting. The vote would be by Australian ballot. 2. The old subdivision regulations remain in full force and effect until voter approval of the new regulations. 3. It is impossible to commence any procedure to amend the new regulations since they are not legally effective at this time. C 4. The City has no choice but to honor the petition and call a special meeting as the situation presently exists. The relevant statutes do not set a time limit, and it would appear that primary day in September would be the logical date for the referendum. 5. Although there is no Vermont statutory or case law on the subject, it is my opinion that some of the petitioners, if they so choose, may withdraw their signatures from the petition at any time prior to the commencement of the warning process for the special meeting and public referendum. If any persons desire to withdraw their names from the petition, they must file a second petition complying with the same formalities as set forth in the initial petition and indicating their clear desire to withdraw their names. If the number of persons choosing to withdraw their names is sufficient to reduce the number of signatures on the original petition to less than 2% of the legal voters of the City, then no special meeting and referendum need be held. If there is a possibility of some of the petitioners withdrawing their names, the action must be undertaken at once. If I can clarify the situation further, please let me know. See: 27 ALR 2nd 606; In Re Initiative Petition No. 2 City of Chandler, 170 Okl. 507 41 P. 2d 101, 102; and Halgren v. Welling, 63 P. 2d 550, 556 (Utah). em t)wni U v Iv -ml------------------ no M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Date: February 3, 1978 Re: Addition to Econo-Lodge The proposed addition is in conformance with the city's zoning regulations, however, I don't feel the proposed additional landscaping conforms to the required dollar amount which is $11,400. Suggest that the plan be reviewed by the Tree Committee. Drainage for the additional parking area should be approved by the City Engineer. Re: Addition to Robertson, Inc., Calkin's Court Proposed addition is in conformance with zoning regulations. The minimum amount of landscaping required is $1,305. I don't feel that the proposed landscaping plan conform to the dollar amount required. Plan should be reviewed by the Tree Committee. Calkin's Court to my knowledge is still a private street unless the street is deeded to the City., approval is required under Section 11.35. Percolations test are required prior to designing an on -site sewer system. Re: Storage building for Palmer Co., LTD, 2071 Williston Road Mr. Palmer was granted a variance on January 9, 1978 allowing for construction of the proposed building. The location of the proposed building will eliminate the use of a unauthorized drive way to the auto repair shop to the east. Landscaping plan fails to indicate the planting material. Minimum dollar amount required is $690. Re: I.C.V. Office Complex, Williston Road and Kennedy Drive Drive-in bank facility is a conditional use which will require an application before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. A portion of this lot is located within the Conservation - Open Space District, it appears that the developer- is proposing to fill that area, filling is prohibited. Additional information will be required to determine the boundary line of the C.O. District. Landscaping as proposed appears to be in conformance, minimum dollars amount is $10,000. su99est the Tree Committee review the landscaping plan. Re: Victory property sub -division Area is zoned Residential 4 District allowing for a planned unit development under Section 6.30. According to the Assessor's the parcel involved contains 7.1 acres which allows for a density greater than what is proposed. Access to the development will be provided over a existing 50' right-of-way located off Victory Drive. Specific standard D under Section 6.302 is a problem.based on the information finished by the City Engineer. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer Date: February 3, 1978 Re: Addition to Econo-Lodge The proposed addition is in conformance with the City's zoning regulations, however, I don't feel the proposed additional landscaping conforms to the required dollar amount which is $11,400. Suggest that the plan be reviewed by the Tree Committee. Drainage for the additional parking area should be approved by the City Engineer. Re: Addition to Robertson, Inc., Calkin's Court Proposed addition is in conformance with zoning regulations. The minimum amount of landscaping required is $10305. I don't feel that the proposed landscaping plan conform to the dollar amount required. Plan should be reviewed by the Tree Committee. Calkin's Court to my knowledge is still a private street unless the street is deeded to the City,, approval is required under Section 11.35. Percolations test are required prior to designing an on -site sewer system. Re: Storage building for Palmer Co., LTD, 2071 Williston Road Mr. Palmer was granted a variance on January 9, 1978 allowing for construction of the proposed building. The location of the proposed building will eliminate the use of a unauthorized drive way to the auto repair shop to the east. Landscaping plan fails to indicate the planting material. Minimum dollar amount required is $690. Re: I.C.V. Office Complex, Williston Road and Kennedy Drive Drive-in bank facility is a conditional use which will require an application before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. A portion of this lot is located within the Conservation - Open Space District, it appears that the developer is proposing to fill that area, filling is prohibited. Additional information will be required to determine the boundary line of the C.O. District. Landscaping as proposed appears to be in conformance, minimum dollars amount is $10,000. suggest the Tree Committee review the landscaping plan. Re: Victory property sub -division Area is zoned Residential 4 District allowing for a planned unit development under Section 6.30. According to the Assessor's the parcel involved contains 7.1 acres which allows for a density greater than what is proposed. Access to the development will be provided over a existing 50' right-of-way located off Victory Drive. Specific standard D under Section 6.302 is a problem -based on the information finished by the City Engineer. Subdivision _Pr2yosal for Victory Property The proposal (see attached map) is to subdivide a 9 acre, more or less, parcel into five lots, and construct twenty-two dwelling units on one of thos lots in the form of an R-PUD. The proposal generally conforms to the Master Plan, based on the .information submitted to date. Physical Setting The site is level and has sandy soils. Significant existing vegetation consists of scattered clumps of poplar and maple trees. There are two drainage su ales .running through the property in an east -west direction, at least one of which links existing storm drainage culverts. The project site is surrounded by an established residential neighborhood on the west, north, and east. To the south it is abutted by Williston Road and largely non-residential land uses. The site is served by municipal serer and water and public transportation. In addition, it is centrally located with respect to churches, schools, shopping, and parks. Proposed Plan A. Access - Ownership/maintenance of streets should be specified. The access road, as shown, will expose 5 existing dwellings on Victory Drive to 100-200 auto trips per day. Storm drainage and some curbing has already been installed at the proposed access paint, as a result of a subdivision plan approved in 1959. Relocating the access to Merriam -Graves north line would reduce congestion on Victory Drive, but would result in wasted land and improve- ments at the proposed location. Providing a secondary access from the south end of Helen Avenue would be desirable. While this section of Helen Avenue has been constructed to City standards to the north property line, of the Victory property, is used for access to abutting properties, and is maintained by the City, it is in private ownership. Access from Williston Road, which could be limited to a common curb cut to serve both proposed roadside lots, should be restricted to those lots, and not extend to the interior of the project. Consideration should be given for pedestrian access to Helen Avenue and Williston Road. B. Structures - Information will be needed on the cost (rental or purchase), type (condo, apt., etc.), and size (,# of BR's, floor area, building height, etc.) of proposed units. The building complexes could be located so that the open space is more evenly distributed about them. Some of the existing trees could serve as screening for the structures as well. - 2 - C. Dot Layout - It would be preferable to deepen the Williston Road lots to approximately 2001, in order to square off property lines and to better accommodate whatever future use is made of them. With regard to the two lots off Victory Drive, they should be shortened .in order to square off property lines and to provide the one large lot with enough area to accommodate 22 dwelling units (area as presented is 5.2A-, 5.5A- needed for 22 DU's). D. Recreation -Open Space - Ownership/maintenance of open space should be specified. Given the number and proximity of. existing municipal recreation facilities, it would appear that dedication of land for park purposes is not primary consideration. �,. F. Utilities — Existing sewer lines and storm drainage should dictate building and road locations. F. Miscellaneous A survey of the property could change the plan because there appears to be some question as to the amount of Victory Drive frontage. - The name of the project should not duplicate or closely resemble the name of existing or approved projects or streets elsewhere in the City. - As recommended by the Burlington Airport Plan for this area, these units should have adequate sound proof- ing. Comment: This proposal appears to be an efficient and. proper use of land, considering the site amenities, and the public investment in a variety of municipal services and facilities close at hand.