Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBATCH - Supplemental - 0000 Patchen Roadi 1 r a_ PUBLIC HEARING i SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The Southh Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 Williston Road,. South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, Novenber 25 . 1980. at 7:30 p.m., to consider the following: 1) Application by William and Gail Lang for_final plat approval of a three lot subdivision on Dorset Street near the Shelburne line. Property is bounded by_ lands of the applicant, Blair, Ward, Neilson and by Dorset Street. _ 2) Application by Gerald Milot for preliminary plat approval of a 39 unit condomimium project on a 13.7 acre parcel owned by Barber on Patchen Road. Property is bounded by properties of Melna Concrete, Verman, and Wilson to the east; Northern Terminals Inc., Gardenway, Perkins, LaBerge, Jarvis, and Jaycee Park to the south; Lamplough to the west; and Munson to the north. Copies of the appl iratinnS are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Poger Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission 1V - CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELI1, INA.RY PLAT 1) Name '�of Applicant 2) Name of Subdivision MrcHE" P-V.>• C0i4Atg1l� eI ;) 3) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreace, number of lots or units, type of land use, inclu-e gross floor area if Comm- ercial.) - Vol — 4) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record,applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: 5. Name, address, and phone number of: a . En g in e e r �J-( i � }� iE l (`ZM7 -- LLE�Q b. Surveyor FEW OLY5.) c . At+ o r n e y H. P1=-t Desi-ner------�� _---�,-'4� � ------ -- -- 2- Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since this proposal was last before the , Commission: 4- L) l,tTSIrvOA\1 1O 3C/ k 7) List naives and mailing addresses of owners of record of all cont- igous properties: 15eE� Wei (a� PU(&&-na A State title, drawing number, date of original plus any revisions, l and designer (s) of the preliminary map (sO ' accompanying this appli- cation: 1IAel5V t-OE A VTTEI) 9) Attach a preliminary map showing the following information: 1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the city. 21 Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. 3) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 4) The names of all subdivisions im-nediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. 5) The location and size of any existing se;aars and -vmter mains, culverts and rains on the property or serving the property to be subdivided. 6) Location, names and widths of existing, and proposed streets, private ways, sidewalks, ct;rb cuts, paths, easements, parks -S- and other public or privately maintained open spaces as > well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. 7) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of'proposed finished grades where change of existing ground elevation will be five feet or more. 8) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. 9) Numerical and graphic scale, crate and true north arrow. 10) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative mans of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. 11) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision ,for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 12) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed.� location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface Tvoil, rock and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. 13) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. 14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. '15) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic lay- out in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. 16) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 10) Developmental timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) E{a� �� �� �✓ �� cz�,DE15 N/ AA Z `f 11) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements � of these regulations: .D�,�%��� _..4- 12) Attach a'vicinity map showing the following: 1:) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the record owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street ad- joining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing, filed or proposed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to, the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the sub - divider's entire holding. (signature) applicant or c tact person ca tie *vut4 Nurtington Hire Department 575 Dorset *treet #out4 Nurlington, Vermont 05401 OFFICE OF JAMES W. GODDETTE, SR. CHIEF September 26,1980 Mr. David Spitz City Planner City Of South Burlington, 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Dave, Plans have been reviewed by this department on the changes to the Barber development for construction on Patchen Road. The plan was marked revised 9/3/80. With the changes made I feel we can give the proper protection if needed. If any changes are made to the plans they should come back to us for another look. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. Sincerely es W. Goddette Sr. Chief MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next Week's Agenda Items Date: 8/19/80 3)'�Milot - Patchen Road Applicant is still trying to work out access details and therefore has re- quested a continuation of the public hearing. 4) Pepsi Because of contour difficulties applicant has shifted location of the second- ary Pepsi building resulting in the lossofone lot. Even though several items have not been completed at this time - fire, water and legal reviews - I feel that the changes should be looked at by the Commission. Remaining questions from preliminary review: (a) street location is accept- able even though it does not directly line up with lightly used driveway across Allen Road; (b) sight distance at Allen Road curve is adequate by engineering standards, and tree clearing would have minimum impact; (c) pedestrian easement has been adequately located; (d) because of new site layout and shortened City street, emergency easement to Shelburne has been deleted. Other points to be resolved: (a) fire chief may want one hydrant relo:_ated; (b) water plans have not yet been submitted to water deparment; and (c) legal documents for the street and water and _-x-destrian easements must still bE sir mitted; (d) engineering sheets must be stamped by the project engineer; (e) reduction of parking spaces from 65 to 43 must be explained. 5) Bevera_ge Store - Dorset Street Application will be reviewed only if approved on Pbnday by the Zoning Board. Applicant proposes to close off Dorset Street curb cut and to replace it with one on San Remo Drive. Applicant also proposes to cut off joint access to abutting property owner. Barrier design and effect on existing circulation pattern must be reviewed. 6) Ca nnizzaro Application will be reviewed only if approved on Monday by the Zoning Board. Property currently contains six apartments and a retail piano store. Applicant plans to replace the store with two offices including his own real estate operation. Site is fairly crowded. Parking spaces are both too few in number and to small in size - they will have to be revised. Applicant proposes to close off 2 Shelburne Road curb cuts and to replace them with one on Brewer Parkway. While the advantages are obvious, the disad- vantage is that the new entrance will cause a new paved aisle behind the building where a grassed buffer strip previously existed. Also, the Fire Chief will adept either layout but prefers one entrance to remain on Shelburne Road. 7) Other Business If time permits, several items of Ccn nissicn business (see agenda) are available for discussion. DHS 8/19/80 FINDINGS OF FACT AND/OR STIPULATIONS For the Preliminary Plat application of Gerald Milot for a 53 unit cond- ominium project on Patchen Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Preliminary Plat, Proposed Condominums for Barber Property," dated 7/21/80 and prepared by Dubois and King. Stipulations: 1. Subdivision of water, sewer, storm drainage and other construction details for final plat review shall include consideration of the City Manager's conn�--nts in his memo dated 8/14/80. 2. Setbacks behind the Verman and Wilson properties shall be a minimum of 30 J feet. 3. A 15 foot easement for a pedestrian trail shall be ipdicated on the final plat. 4. Required legal documents shall be submitted at the time of final plat application. n6t MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda Date: 8/14/80 2) Deforge Development The proposed mounds at entrance to this project should be eliminated to improve sight distance. With the sharp entrance curve and the 7% grade it is important for as much sight distance as possible especially in the winter months. 6) Barber Property (Milot) 1) Culvert under access road will not work unless a ditch is constructed southerly which would require culverts under existing driveways. I would prefer a closed system to intercept the drive runoff. 2) The layout is extremely tight for the amount of land that is available. This layout may require a large volume of water for fire protection which may not be available. This must be investigated. 3) An update of the available Airport Parkway Sewer Plant capacity is not yet complete. This is expected to be done in a couple of weeks. 4) A sidewalk to Patchen Road should be included. % PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South hearing at the Williston Road, 1980_, at 7:30 Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 1175 South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, August 19, p.m., to consider the following: 1) Application by L.E. Farrell Ccxnpany for final plat approval of a four lot subdivision, one lot containing 14 5 acres and three lots averaging 2 to 3 _ 1 acres, on Allen Read Property is bounded on the north by Allen Road and ies of Counter and Ascension Lutheran Church, on the east by Irish, on the south by Shelburne, and on the west by properties of Bershenson, S B Collins, Inc., Paquette and Dubrul. . 2) Application by Gerald Milot for preliminary plat approval of a 53-unit condonimium project on a 13.7 acre parcel owned by Barber on Patchen Road. Property is bounded by properties of Melna Concrete, Verman, and Wilson to the east; Northern Terminals Inc., Gardenway, Perkins, LaBerge, Jarvis, and Jaycee Park to the south; Lamplough to the west; and Munson to the north. Copies of the applications are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Pooer, Chairman South Burlington Planning Commission CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1) Name '-bf Applicant 2) ?Name of Subdivision M. CWVDAWILA/7 3) Describe Subdivision (i.e. total acreace, number of lots or units, type of land use, include gross floor area if comm- ercial.)� 4) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record,applicant, or contact person since sketch plan application: _ 1_ OME 5. Name, address, and phone number of: a. Engineer s��: Plj �; �,11�G�_.. �_�� - Wz- tt-- b . Surveyor L S �j , CONSOLTNFv c. Attorney-- d. P1= t Designer ez A . -2- I 6) Indicate any changes to the subdivision such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, etc., since this proposal was last before the Commi s s ion :- 7) List naves and nailing addresses of owners of record of all cont- igous properties: �hc�u50� 4 M0+/(i.i�Cfp`, ,)�µ�, 166 WXF-14 �'D. tbD� /hbrf�i�j 1`l {'�r►�t ►1 �D= S,'$.�i%Il , 1,5� PaTI,�E►,.j '�• Cli`j' O ���• �l•�.�A�hS �IG�WC�t� ��1�cS ,�. D (.��� c�. 1Z3� V.�lGL1�,�IDtk �. G, �1zk.�� B) State title, drawing number, date of origi-ial plus any revisions, and designer(s) of the preliminary map(s�'acL-organying this appli- cation: MG'L1 A, Ft4 = =p COW)O> for- f POPErrf WLF 64 9) Attach a preliminary map showing the following information: 1) Proposed subdivision name or identifying title and the name of the city. .21 Name and address of owner of record, subdivider and designer of Preliminary Plat. 3) Number of acres within the proposed subdivision, location of property lines, structures, watercourses, wooded areas, and other essential existing physical features. 4) The names of all subdivisions im-nediately adjacent and the names of owners of record of adjacent acreage. 5) The location and size of any existing sewers and im ter mains, culverts and rains on the property or serving the property to be subdivided. 6) Location, names and widths of existing, and proposed streets, private ways, side:valks, curb cuts, paths, easements, parks -3- and other public or privately maintained open spaces as well as similar facts regarding adjacent property. 7) Contour lines at intervals of five feet, based on United States Geological Survey datum of existing grades and also of'proposed finished grades where change of existing ground elevation will be five feet or more. 8) Complete survey of subdivision tract by a licensed land surveyor. 9) Numerical and graphic scale, crate and true north arrow. 10) Details of proposed connection with existing water supply or alternative mans of providing water supply to the proposed subdivision. 11) Details of proposed connection with the existing sanitary sewage disposal system or adequate provision for on -site disposal of septic wastes. 12) If on -site sewage disposal system is proposed .� location and results of tests to ascertain subsurface toil, rock � and ground water conditions, depth to ground water unless pits are dry at depth of five feet; location and results of percolation tests. 13) Provisions for collecting and discharging storm drainage in the form of drainage plan. 14) Preliminary designs of any bridges or culverts which may be required. 115) The location of temporary markers adequate to enable the Commission to locate readily and appraise the basic lay- out in the field. Unless an existing street intersection is shown, the distance along a street from one corner of the property to the nearest existing street intersection shall be shown. 16) All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use and the conditions of such dedication or reservation. 10) Developmental timetable (including number of phases, and start and completion dates) �ck� . -VO ec-411W AV04et) ~ (3t U40 11) List the waivers applicant desires from the requirements of these regulations: � �T 'P�=IV,ISi m1\4s, r_teLD -E�C cm. -4- 12) Attach a'vicinity map showing the following: 1) All existing subdivisions, approximate tract lines and acreage of adjacent parcels, together with the names of the record owners of all adjacent parcels of land, namely, those directly abutting or directly across any street ad- joining the proposed subdivision. 2) Locations, widths and names of existing1filed or proposed streets, curb cuts, easements, building lines and alleys pertaining to the proposed subdivision and to the adjacent properties as designated in paragraph 1 above. 3) An outline of the platted area together with its street system and an indication of the future probable street system of the remaining portion of the tract, if the Preliminary Plat submitted covers only part of the sub - divider's entire holding. signature) applicant or dontact person _�/Zlf I�e c 1 e ,)X� 13 , lvo S` i _71K.no U� i:s DHS 11/25/80 FINDINGS OF FACT AND/OR STIPULATIONS MOTION TO DENY: The Preliminary Plat Application of Gerald Milot for a 39-unit Planned Unit Development on Patchen Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Preliminary Plat, Proposed Condominiums for Barber Property," prepared by Ronald R. O'Bryan, last revised September 3, 1980: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Access. Section 401.1(8) of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Reg- ulations requires that "Adequate provisions shall be made for the regulation of general traffic access to the proposed subdivision or development," and further that "All street and highways shall be of sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be so located to facilitate fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan. The recent practice of the South Burlington Planning Commission has been to require a 24 foot wide paved street plus 3 foot wide gravel shoulders on either side to serve as a privately owned access for a development of this nature and size. The proposed 20 foot wide street within a right-of-way that narrows at one point to 26 feet is insufficient to meet this requirement. 2. Sidewalks Section 401(10) of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations requires that "Sidewalks shall be installed along both sides of major and secondary streets, and along one side of minor streets. The available right-of-way for this proposed development is not sufficient to contain both a sidewalk and a street to meet South Burlington Planning Commission requirements. 3. Permitted Size of Development. Due to the insufficiency of provisions for access and a sidewalk, 39 units is too great a number to be approved at the proposed location. DHS 11/25/80 FINDINGS OF FACT AND/OR STIPULATIONS For the Preliminary Plat Application of Gerald Milot for a 39-unit Planned Unit Development on Patchen Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Preliminary Plat Proposed Condominiums for Barber Property," prepared by Ronald R. O'Bryan, last revised September 3, 1980. Stipulations: 1. A drainage plan shall be submitted and shall incorporate the requirements of City Manager William Szymanski's memos dated 8/14/80 and 9/5/80. 2. Snow shall not be deposited from the access road on to adjacent property unless permission is obtained from the adjacient landowner. 3. The water system shall be investigated by the City water department. Adequacy of water supply and pressure for fire protection must be assured. 4. The sewer allocation for this development is 9700 gpd. 5. A 15 foot easement for a pedestrian trail shall be indicated on the final plat. 6. Required legal documents shall be submitted at the time of final plat application. AGENDA South Burlington Planning Commission City Hall Conference Room 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Regular meting @7:30 P.M. Tuesday, June 24, 1980 1) Minutes 6/17/80 2) WARNED PUBLIC HEARING: Application by George and Norman DeForge for Preliminary Plat approval of a 14 unit condominium project entitled Sunrise Terrace on Quarry Hill Road. 3) Application by Gerald Milot for Sketch Plan review of a 55 unit planned residential development located on a 13.8 acre parcel owned by Charles Barber on Patchen Road. 4) Other business. Ab �•Yh\.� ty. Respectfully submitted, David H. Spitz, City Planner V 1 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON Subdivision Application - SKETCH PLAN 1) Name, address, and phone number of: a. Owner of record d A21zleS grrbeY b. Applicant. c. Contact person Ara�1/- 2) Purpose, location, and nature of subdivision or development, including number of lots, units, or parcels involved as well as proposed use(s). 3) Applicant's legal interest in the property (fee simple, option, etc) ,/-) _Pf,'s A) 4) Namesof owners of record of all contiguous properties elu 5) Type of existing or proposed encumbrances on property such as easements, covenants, leases, rights of way, etc. -2- i ' 6) Proposed extension, relocation, or modification of municipal facilities such as sewerage, water supply, streets, storm drainage, etc. .Se�y e✓ �- tc9 ���e � 7) Describe any actions taken by the Zoning Board of'Adjustment, or previous actions by the South Burlington Planning CommAssion, which affect the proposed subdivision anvinclude dates: /VDiV � 8) Attach a sketch plan showing all information required under items 2 through 7 on p. 5 of the Subdivision Regulations. (signature) applicant or contact person date FOR OFFICE USE date - su}xnission of application and sketch plan to administrative officer - this proposal is classified as a major or minor subdivision - application deemed complete - proposal tentatively scheduled for first Planning Commission meeting or Confirmed For 3) Milot - Pat( Memorandum - Next Week's Agenda !� 6/20/80 Page 2 ' Application is for 55 multi -family units on a 13.8 acre parcel (owned by Barber) with 60 feet of frontage on Patchen Road on the south side of Mena concrete. Access corridor narrows to 30 feet at one point. There are 2 major questions in regard to the layout of this project: (1) access and (2) location of buildings. Regarding access, the Commission must consider at what point a project is large enough to require a public street - recent examples of large projects are Treetops which was allowed a private drive and Townhouses at Timberlane and Stonehedge which were required to have some public streets. The access question here is compounded by the fact that one of the projected streets on the City's highway plan goes right through the corridor for the applicant's private drive. However, the extension of this City street may be difficult due to topography. The 30 foot width at one point also poses a problem for a City street. The single entrance is also a question as Section 401.1(7) of the subdivision regulations states that the number of dwelling units served by a comiton single access shall not exceed 50 unless additional connections to other streets are approved by the Planning Commission. The adjacent 30 acre Munson property to the north also has only one access, located about 200 feet to the north of the Barber property entrance on the other side of Melno concrete. Potential access for the entire "triangle" area - including both the Munson and Barber properties and the "triangle" connector shoulo be considered before this application proceeds to the preliminary stage. Topography at the rear of the Barber property is steep rand, therefore, the applicant has proposed to cluster all units in the front of the property. The desireability of this arrangement should be reviewed according to the PUD general standards in Section 12.002(A). It would also help to have contour lines available to more easily understand the indicated layout. Other points: (1) a pedestrian trail appears to run through the property. and arrangements for it should be made; (2) since the property abuts Jaycee Park, the recreation director would like to review any developments that may impact on the park (or vice versa). RICHARD A.SPOKES JOSEPH F. OBUCHOWSKI WILLIAM G. LIVINGSTON Steven F. Stitzel SPOKES A OBUCHOWSKI ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 2325 SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 December 3, 1980 David Spitz City Planner 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Proposed Milot Subdivision, Patchen Road Dear David: 1775 WILLISTON ROAD TELEPHONE (802) 863-2857 The Planning Commission has asked whether they can legally deny a subdivision application on the basis that the access roadway would be too narrow to meet City standards. I understand the City Manager, Street Superintendent and Fire Chief all have expressed reservations in regard to the width of the access road. In addition, the property configuration is such that the applicant would be unable to comply with the street standards set forth in the City's Subdivision Regulations and other design standards utilized by the State of Vermont. There is ample legal authority for a Planning Commission to deny a subdivision --planned residential development application on the basis that the access road is of insufficient width, particu- larly for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks. See 24 V.S.A. §4417(1), Sections 401.1(a)(9), 405 and 416(4) of the Subdivision Regulations and Sections 12.002(4) of the Zoning Regulations. There obviously must be a sufficient evidentiary basis in the record of the hearing to support the Commission's decision, whatever it may be. Should the Commission determine that the access road is not sufficiently wide to accommodate the antici- pated traffic flow (including that of emergency vehicles) it might be appropriate to suggest to the applicant that alternative vehicular and pedestrian access routes be explored as well as replanning the development to take into account the access difficulties. Please let me know if I have not adequately answered the Planning Commission's inquiry. Very truly~yours, Richard A. Spokes RAS/bjh may. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 11/21/80 2) Lana Final subdivision plat shows same layout as sketch plan 2 individual 10 acre lots fronting on Dorset Street (enclosed). Applicants prefer not to locate houses on a shared future City right-of-way as was considered at sketch plan. They feel that such a major future street is not compatible with the character of their planned development. Several issues regarding access will have to be resolved at the public hearing: (a) Number of curb cuts to be permitted on Spear Street. (b) Permitted location of access points other than the - proposed future City street. (c) Discussion of requirements for City street standards if and when more than one house will share the same access drive. In addition to access questions I feel that the Planning Commission should encourage, whenever possible, low -density cluster provisions. These provisions can make it easier to minimize curb cuts on major streets and can reduce the length of any required public streets. Soil test information from the sketch plan must also appear on the final plat and must include actual percolation test lo- cation and results. Septic system design by an engineer will be required though not prior to final plat approval. 3) Patchen Road Internal layout is vastly improved with 39 rather than 53 units. 30 foot setbacks to Verman and Wilson properties have been provided, there is some interior green space, and interior circulation is good for fire protection anc other access. iio%-.ever, access to the development remiains as a serious problem. The 26 foot wide "neck" prevents the usual City re- ouirements for a 24 foot wide street and 5 foot sidewalk for this t%'De of aevelOpment. nD011cant is seep- rjc a with a 20 foot tide Sti reet. n aoditicr:ai �ro:•le-. is the ,:ini-.a1 off -set from Richard `terrace to tS7e right-Gf-WaV SE'rvin0 this property. i;.�un, l-cal access to a property (20 foot width or ;Wore) does not guarantee c^.eCUaCV Of access for a T:t?lti-Ui11t CeVC10l _ i-n 1 v1,d for entIf anything -:ore th15 rC: F r C:', o!_ t:Er;:cte cCue�= . j`.t MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City manager Re: Next weeks agenda Date: 9/5/80 4) Barber Property 1. A 20 foot road is too narrow especially without shoulders. Road as shown will require construction of travel way to property line. Snow will have to be deposited on to private property. 2. Access road should be crowned with a drainage inlet added on north side of intersection with Patchen Road. It should also have side ditches to con- trol runoff on to adjacent property. of P,�pr' ov ) t/ G2QuPq, UNIT LAYOUT - ✓ PEP z�M7- - !Q EG,-C 4,A&P,,4 PA,7 - mq-uur �fo Ll3g� Fjwn 3,4 r <� _Q�,: oQ w 11 l ll luJIL 75- cu,�' wr 1963 to P �r g� 4v, j�,�,��� (39 inC — 1� fi,-�w✓ -fie- a ��2 1 o- )q" 6� -A - aX7�fZXa aff-41 ca .r►.�t lP�+' a !WMM, I F. x,RAm, ip� DHS 11/25/80 FINDINGS OF FACT AND/OR STIPULATIONS For the Preliminary Plat Application of Gerald Milot for a 39-unit Planned Unit Development on Patchen Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Preliminary Plat Proposed Condominiums for Barber Property," prepared by Ronald R. O'Bryan, last revised September 3, 1980. Stipulations: 1. A drainage plan shall be submitted and shall incorporate the requirements of City Manager William Szymanski's memos dated 8/14/80 and 9/5/80. 2. Snow shall not be deposited from the access road on to adjacent property unless permission is obtained from the adjacient landowner. 3. The water system shall be investigated by the City water department. Adequacy of water supply and pressure for fire protection must be assured. 4. The sewer allocation for this development is 9700 gpd. 5. A 15 foot easement for a pedestrian trail shall be indicated on the final plat. 6. Required legal documents shall be submitted at the time of final plat application. _l7C.�of 17euelopmenl Gorporaflon 159 PEARL STREET ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 (802) 879-7188 December 15, 1980 Mr. David Spitz City Planner City of South Burlington 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear David, I hereby withdraw my application for preliminary plat approval on the Barber Property subdivision off Patchen Road. I will resubmit the plan with a modified entrance design. Sincerely, 4&.(%ham Gerald C. Milot GCM,jg 'IJANN11IG CO;:I'I�SICi� The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, December 16, 19bO at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City hall, 1175 Williston d. Lembers ;'resent 6idney PoCer, Chairman; George Mona, Ernest Levesque, Peter Jacob, Kirk 'rioolery, James Ewing Mlember Absent Robert ''Walsh Others 1'renent David :spitz, Planner; Joy & Elwood Deck, i'eter Cuffrin, Mike Dressell, John Guinness, Hal Bensen, John Belter b:inutes of December 9. 1960 On page 3, under the preliminary work session on upcoming zoning amendments, at the end of the fourth line of the fourth paragraph, the words "R3 or R4" should be Added after "R2". Mr. «oolery moved to approve the December 9, 1960 minutes as amended and 1r. Jacob seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Continuation of review of preliminary plAt a,;nlication b.V Cerald Hilo for a 39-unit condominiu::, ; rojf--ct on Patcnen Eoad _.�.__._....._., 1 r: :.Fitz said he htid received a letter from „r. 11ilot dated December 15, 1)00 withdrawing the application and stating.r that he would resubmit it with a :.,iodified eritritnce design. No further action by the Commission was needed. A;;,,:'.,^s,tion by Michael Dressell for final plat approval of a 100' x 1.;0' lot ., t :'., 1-Tchard Road Mr. Spitz said this was an ap;licRtion to take 4 50' x 150' lots and combine them into 1 100' x 100' lot and another 100' x 230' lot. Mr. PoLer asked about the easement shown on the sketch and 'Ir. Dressell said that there was a pipe in the area which they had located with a. metal detector and that it seemed to be a lateral connection between the storm drains on Orchard Road and Meadow ;load. The easement has been there from 1936 but no one seems to know exactly what it is for. lie said it was not certified in any way that the easement is in exactly that position and he added that it was not positive that there was in fact an easement. Mr. Spitz suk,';ested a note on the plan of record that there is an ea,se,nent of 10' in width which strnddleS the north boundary li fie. Mr. ',foolery m(,v(;d that the :;outh .Furlini;ton ljannin;� rao >rnve tat fi.n<tl ,:lnt a,,pl icr3 t.ion of Achscl Drr ell for - 100 x 100 foot ;u%lre lot on . rehard Load as d(:l)ict*;d on a plan entitled "Boundary survey, Pro-jerty of Lloya and Fataerine Barnes to be transferred to Lichae1 Dressell." ;)repa.red by r,.rous arid Lznain- Con.oulting '..n-;ineers, dated November 1980, subject to the following stipulations: 1. It _shall be noted on the final plat that there is an easement of REVISED AGENDA South Burlington Planning Commission City Hall Conference Room 1175 Williston Road South Burlington, Vermont Regular Meeting @7:30 P.M. Tuesday, December 16, 1980 2) Continuation of review of preliminary (not final) plat application by Gerald Milot for a 39-unit condominium project on Patchen Road. This item was also incorrectly noted as a final plat application on the December 9, 1980 agenda. All other agenda items remain the same. Respectfully submitted,, David H. Spitz, City Planner NO C�, iISaION lli C'r;;".3F.l. 9 14i ;� The Goutii :iurlineton Planninj; Commisnion held a regular meeting on Tueoday, December 9, 19' 0 at 7:30 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 1175 ',4il1i2tcn r'.d. ;,'.embers i're >ent Sidney Po-er, Chairman; Ernest Levesque, George .bona, James Ewing, Kirk Woolery, Peter Jacob i1ca ber Absent Robert Walsh Others !'resent David Spitz, Planner; Raymond Danis, Elwood and Joy Beck, Henrietta & Edward Aiken, Peter Collins, I�;att Iiarcello, James Rameaka, Richard Weinand, William ociluele, Lowell Krassner ,irautco of Dec(�mber r . QdO Mr. ',foolery moved to a.- rove the December 2. 1980 minutes and Mr. :'Ilona seconded the motion. All were in ftivor. C.�ntinuati.on of revi4 (--s ,,f fin,A. -slat a-) )lication by/Gerald .T'Rilot ffor a anit condo-minium ,)ro:ject on tatch.en Road 111r. !'oEer noted that the hearing; had been left open for receiLit of the City Attorneys advice. The Attorney sent a letter to the Planner dated Dece.ber 3• '''Ir. .'o;,,er complimented the Attorney on his promptness. i'r. :spitz :;;aid the ni,l;licant had been sent a copy of the response and that this; afternoon tie had received a call withdrawing the ay)i)lication. He and the Attorney felt, however, that a written withdrawl was required in this case, and that is beinG drawn a but is not yet ready. ;Xr. Spitz su�zcested twat no :,ction be tar:en tonif:ht on the withdrawl. He felt if the withdrawl had not bF E;n received by nF.; t week, the Co:.�::_ission should deny the a,;,:lic=: tion. ,:r. ;;oolery rr.(jvE:d ti.(i-reli�rin,r r. �� plat ap;-i ,licntion of tie _ n r r, ; d pilot .u:,-iivision off :'a to .t :. . ,d be coatiriucd until DPce-:ib(r 16 at 7:; at Ci.ty :lull at the reiuE:;t c,t' t':ie Planner. I:r. Jacob seconded the :notion. It was noted that this was_ a preliminary plat, not a final plat as the agenda stated. The motion carried unanimously. Jite ;)li,n roview of a lic;,tion by B & J Food Services for a drive— throut-h window fur i',u.r -cr ?;in on tolb-arne Road. mr. at,itz showed s(,:,e slides of the area in question. He said the paving in the ptirrinC lot would be extended and an additional row of Larking added. This row was ap,)roved in the on-inal Nlan but was never put in. Two parking spaces at the corner of the building will be removed and a planted area will be put in their ;,lace. This will remove turning; movement conflicts with the new window. '4r. Collins s,%.id that when the new road to the Pomerleau land behind this lot was built, access to Burger King would be off the new road, not tihelburne Road. He expectsd that that access would be in the middle of the lot. Some ,arkinC o,,acea will i:rtve t(, bu r(:;.loved to accomodate the new entrance but these MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: David H. Spitz, City Planner -Re: Next week's agenda Date: 8/14/80 2) DeForge. See City Manager's me o. Note that the 7% grade is considerably below the maximum City standard for a minor street (10%). 3) Pepsi. Applicants have run into topography problems on the pepsi lot. They will appear at the meeting to explain the situation but will not be requesting any approvals. 4) Treetops. Kevin Killilea, president of Treetops Association, called to say they will be installing a break away device across the emergency access. 5) Lang. Applicants own a total of 121 acres on the west side of Dorset Street approx- mately 4 mile north of the Shelburne line. Two ten -acre lots are proposed with frontage on Dorset Street, and a future right-of-way has been left to serve rear land. The property is crossed by both pedestrian trails and proposed City streets, as shown on City planning maps. 6) Milot, Patchen Road. (1) AOCESS. Right-of-way narrows to 24 feet at one point, insufficient for a sidewalk. State law requires a minimum right-of-way of 20 feet for any lot. If a lot is proposed for higher -density development, the Planning Commission must be satisfied that the narrow right-of-way is adequate for safety and overall access for the proposed number of units. For this development a 24 foot walkway plus a sidewalk should be the minimum; a full public street right-of-way with a connection to the adjacent Munson property would be more desireable. This would tie in to the corridor shown on the proposed City street map, which is best located on riunson's land. (2) LAYOUT. Entire property is 13+ acres. Proposed portion for development is approximately 3 acres, smaller than indicatedAsketch plan. The City's zoning ordinance addresses proper allocation of open space and what standards must be met to approve full zoning density for a PUD — see sections 6.302(c) and 12.002(A) (10) . Setbacks behind Verman and Wilson properties should be 30 feet. Fire chief is unhappy with long dead-end driveway and no turn -around area for easterly host Memorandum 8/14/80 Page 2 cluster. A connecting drive and modified layout should be considered. More room might be gained in a westerly direction. (3) RECREATION. Plateau on southern portion of property may be suitable as an addition to Jaycee Park. This is being reviewed. An existing pedestrian trail should be located on the plat. 7) Vermont Federal. Application apparently has been grandfathered from Cl-C2 provisions by actions within past 6 months by City Council and Zoning Board. Final approvals with stipulations by both boards are enclosed. Traffic data submitted to the Council and City reviews are also enclosed. �10(10NA-Pw /%L?— Vro�-T A L-WWL V t Y- i R MEMORANDUM To: Richard Spokes From: David H. Spitz Re: Proposed Milot Subdivision, Patchen Road Date: 12/1/80 I have reccomended to the Planning Commission that they deny the application for a 39-unit PUD on the Barber property on Patchen Road because of a right-of- way that is too narrow to meet the City standards for access to this type and size development. After they requested a legal opinion concerning their right to deny the development on that basis, you asked for additional information regarding the original cause of the narrow right-of-way and regarding the basis for the City standards and the size of development at which they became applicable. I Creation of Lot Lines Prior to 1967, Dennis and Barbara Barber owned the entire parcel in question plus the immediately adjacent lot to the south on Patchen Road. On December 4, 1967 (V88,p31) the Barbers sold this 104 foot x 312 foot lot (no lot angles were described) to Gary Wright, and the property now belongs to Howard Verman. The City subdivision regulations in effect in 1967 did not require review or approval for division of an individual lot. No survey was done in 1967 but the sellers apparently thought they were keeping a right-of-way of 50 to 60 feet to serve the rear land which they still own. That width is shown on the City tax maps. However, because of the angle of the lots on Patchen Road the actual remaining right-of-way to the rear land narrowed to 26 feet at one point. This fact became evident when the current applicant surveyed the entire Barber parcel. Thus it appears that the current access difficulties were created entirely by the current owners of the parcel. II City Standards for Access to Multi -Family Developments In all recent applications for multi -family developments, the City has re- quired 24 foot wide streets plus 3 foot shoulders and a 5 foot sidewalk either adjacent to the street or at another location serving the development. Examples include Townhouses at Timberlane (120 units), Stonehedge Phase II (109 units), Sugartree (34 units), and Windridge (17 units). For further information on these requirements I have talked to City Manager William Szymanski, Street Superintendent Sonny Audette and Fire Chief Jim Godette,and also to Gordon MacArthur in the Planning Department of the Vermont Transportation Agency. The City officials feel that the 24 foot street without curbs is adequate for 2 travel lanes with no parking. If parking is foreseen, as in a grid develop- ment, 30 foot streets with curbs are needed. The officials note that on existing 20 foot streets there is very obvious evidence of use of the shoulders, a condition that contributes to deterioration of both shoulders and paved portions of the street. To avoid this problem, the 24 foot street allows for all normal traffic to stay on the paved area, and the shoulders provide the necessary margin for passage of emergency and other wider vehicles. Note that a fire truck is 16 feet wide and will usually require more than 24 feet if it must pass an oncoming vehicle, Memorandum - Proposed Milot, Subdivision, Patchen Road, 12/1/80 - Page 2 City officials feet that these street requirements are applicable for any multi -family development regardless of the number of units. Similarly, sidewalks are seen as necessary for any multi -family development. If the street does not have curbs, the City Manager recommends a 10 foot separation from street to sidewalk. However, a 4 foot separation was required in the Sugartree development and that same separation could be permitted in this case. As a check against the fairness of the City's standards, I called Gordon Mac- Arthur of the Vermont Transportation Agency. He cited Circular A65 "Desirable Standards -Class 3 Highways" as the most pertinent standard for this type of street. The standards are as follows: (a) up to 25 vehicles per day - 2x7 foot lanes + 2x2 foot shoulders, or 18 foot total, (b) 25-50 vpd - 2x10 foot lanes + 2x2 foot shoulders, or 24 foot total, (c) 50 -100 vpd, - 2x12 foot lanes + 2x2 foot shoulders, or 28 foot total. Based on national standards, a 39-unit condominium development would generate 199 vehicles per day. In order to generate less than 50 vpd, only 10 units could be built. III Summary Based on local experience and state advisory standards, a 26 foot wide right-of-way is insufficient to serve 39 units. The absolute minimum width would be 24 foot street plus 2 x 3 foot shoulders + 1 foot additional separation + 5 foot sidewalk, or a 36 foot total. Based on state vpd criteria, a lesser width would be sufficient only for 10 units or less. I see no valid reason for permitting development on a substandard right-of- way, especially when that right-of-way was created by the current landowner. The City is facing more and more development proposals on marginal parcels of land; and it cannot afford to begin lessening its standards now. DHS 12/9/80 FINDING OF FACT AND/OR STIPULATIONS i� • ► RS Mu The Preliminary Plat Application of Gerald Milot for a 39-unit Planned Unit Development on Patchen Road as depicted on a plan entitled "Preliminary Plat, Proposed Condominiums for Barber Property," prepared by Ronald R. O'Bryan, last revised September 3, 1980: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Access. Section 401.1(8) of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Reg- ulations requires that "Adequate provisions shall be made for the regulation of general traffic access to the proposed subdivision or development," and further that "All street and highways shall be of sufficient width and suitable grade and shall be so located to facilitate fire protection and coordinated so as to compose a convenient system properly related to the plan. 2. Sidewalks. Section 401.1(10) of the City of South Burlington. Subdivision Regulations requires that "Sidewalks shall be installed along both sides of major and secondary streets, and along one side of minor streets." 3. Fire Protection. Section 405 of the City of South Burlington Subdivision Regulations requires that street width and other factors be reviewed by the Fire Chief to insure that fire protection can be provided. 4. Development Impacts. Section 416(4) of the City of South Burlington Sub- division Regulations requires that any proposed development "Will not cause unreasonable highway congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways existing or prepared. Plan must be approved by City Engineer." 5. Standards for Multi -Family Development. In pursuit of the above requirements the Planning Commission has developed standards for private roads serving mult- family developments. These standards have been applied in approvals for a number of recent multi -family developments ranging in size from 17 to 120 units. Stand- ards include the following: a) 24 foot wide streets plus 3 foot shoulders. b) 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street. c) Separation between street and sidewalk of 10 feet prefered,* 4 foot minimum. d) Adequate space for drainage. 6. Access for Proposed Development. Only one access to a public street serves the property for which the 39 unit multi -family development is proposed. Recent surveys indicate that the access narrows at one point to 26 feet, an insufficient width to meet Planning Commission standards for this type and size of development. 7. Permitted Development. Due to the insufficiency of provisions for access and a sidewalk, 39 units is too great a number to be approved at the proposed location unless alternate access is found. Z 2. 25, 1980 "s. i:ona proposed that the .drive to lot 1 be adjacent to the north boundary of the 31.7 acre parcel in anticipation of a possible subdivision of t'�at cartel, and he proposed that lots 2 and 3 take access cff the pre, used rip ht of :;ey. He X. it vas reasonable that lot 1 and the 31.7 acre per'cel snEre an access 7.' on each lot. The drive on lot 1 sriould be on the property line. :r. :•:ona said lot 1 would have to be encumbered with a 30' width on the north side for a future ri'r�t of way, possibly the entire distance of lot 1. Kr. Spitz felt access for lot 3 should be frc= the south, althcugh ::r. Lang did not scant to put the drive on the right of ;;ay now because there ie poor visibility in that area because of a home and a hedgerow.=ventually .,e felt access could be from there. V:r. Spitz did not want to abandon the i::ea becauseof the hedEerow and he said :he wanted to look into it further. .:r. c,:er felt the hearinE. should be lostponed until the ri`;ht of way safety question ,as settled and the access-•oints specifically 10CEted. i:r. Nang sFid he wantedto put the drive in on lot 1 very soon, and since no one objected, ::r. ;has told he could start work on the road if he put it where it had been discussed. The drive should straddle the property line. i.:r. i#'oolery moved to continue the public hearinr on the Lance 3 lot subdivision until next Tuesday, December 2 at City Hall at 7: 0 p_. =•:r. wring seconded the motion and all voted aye. Application of Gerald ..pilot for zreli-inary alat a--roval of a 39 unit condominium �)roject on 1ptchen Road _ ::r. pilot said the project had been =edified. There will be 39 inste;•d of 53 units rnd the entrance drive will be 20' of Tavv7zent with a sidewalk 5' wide. The units have also been reoriented so as to encoure e :ecrle to hark near then, not on the entrance road, which is rro-Dosed to be private. Two parking spaces per unit, one covered and one not, is ,proposed and more parkin€ can be added. Some of the units will contain a flat on the lowest level, locking out over the ride, kith two-story townhouse units over the flat. There will be 3 townhouses for each flat, so one unit .might contain 1 flat with 3 two-ntcr;; townhouses over it. Mr. Milot said they had allowed a 60' right of way to the :arson property next to this. This may be the best future access when that property is developed. Mr. '-Iilot said he had tried to buy that access but :unson would only sell the entire parcel and the price was too high for that. :•:r. i:ilot felt that 30' of .pavement was required for grid subdivisions V.here cars will be parking on the streets, but that for a multi -fa. --,illy devclor,Went thV only concerns with the entrance drives should be uhetier they were adenuFte and safe and could handle the traffic Cener,;ted. Ee said they would prohibit parking on the entrance road and noted that it would not be convenient to iark t>:ere As far as snow removal, he felt that Ls his res,,Onsibility and if the nhr. or part of the road had to be bucket -loafed, that vould be done. rover asked if this a ntr._nce could be blocked i!' ti:e :'Inrcn access were to be used and :;as told it could ce r•:stricte4 by t6:inC out the ;,ave-c;.t and puttirb down pre -cast concrete or `ravel. the concrete could be filled wit}, sand and seeded uut e=ere;_Lcy vehicles could tr%vel over it. .:r. :'oLcr felt the city _i�i:t find it hard to c:force t::e ter -..- rc.:.ov.-:1 :nce the IcS�Ori5lClllty ::�� tn.::en Ovc-r b� ti:C AS-oc� .tlo' L::d Lc toted t.,tt it L%fety he w&s concerned aL;,ut. .:r. Ewint fElt there w; ul3 cc r:s fcr c3est }c. ,.r. Leves?ue var.tcd to kncle Zc,w to ie 2;;' :.ottlenec:shad •e. N 3• F: AN_+ING C2:-"ISSI0h 25, 1:80 :Ir. Kilot read a list of city streets which were 20,' paved ::idth and said he felt a 20' wide private drive was adequPte. I"s. Spitz said that in other rulti-family develorrents where t ere :ould be no parking on the entrance roads the Cor=ission has required a 24' ,aide road, which is being requested here. The City Engineer�::anager also -.arts 3' gravel shoulders on each side for safety for large vehicles and a 5' sidewalk. In addition there has to be encun,h room for snowplowing and drainage. This prorosed entrance is not up to city standards. :-:r. "pitz suspected that the situation had been crested a long time ago. He also said that he and the City :,ngineer/::a_na-';er felt this develo_-)-ent was too ruck unless it ::fld better access. he noted that just because the land was zoned R4 did n ct mean it could have that r.0 bar of units. The question of taxation of the land ::as raised. If it cannot be full;,• developed as it is zoned, _erha.s the taxes should reflect that. It was noted that the access question has one both of the rave.:ent :-idth and of the right of way width. !.'-r. Beck asked about Y:ster and serer and was told they could be ciiec ed later. lie then asked Fbout.drainafre and was told it vould go to a retention pond and seep out from there. ::r. Schuele felt the sight -distance at that location should be checked. _ .e also noted that the retention 2ond would not re=ove salt and said that could have a detrimental effect. ':s. Gravelin asked about the wetlands End vas told the State vculd review that. Xr. Verran asked how tall the buildine.s were and was told 24' from ground level He pointed out that this access would be offset from ::icnard Terrace, which is not a good situation. :•"s. Danis asked hor: close the rcarest unit was to the entrance road and was told it was about 10J'. :•:r. Sheil asked about children walking to school and was told that when the school department was asked about the effect of these children on the schools, they could also ask where the kids would go and whether they should be bussed for safety. It was noted that it has been the Policy of the CcL=ission to require sidewalks. :•Is. 'Jilson asked how near the closest building would be to her i,roj'erty lire and was told it was 30' • ; oGer said the Cos:aission could .pass this, ask that the wLter, setter and traffic studies be done before final ;:let, ,ay that 39 units were too many, or s,-.y that because of the bottleneck nothing could be built there until t:.ere was better access. It was noted that the aj• .licLtion could be ar: rcvcd with a stipulation that that when the other access is available it be used, but :.r. Spitz felt that would be hard to obtain liter and ::r. Fo6cr wpnted to ..rovide for this develop=(--nt with the ass'.x.+.ption that that access would never be available. :r. Ewin;7 moved to close the ;:ublic hEprin_►_, ::r. Levcs.ue seconded, and all voted aye. before the vote, however, ::r. :.:i lot noted that tr:is t:as the only access he Could Lire the Cc�ission anal that if he were not allowed to E�.:il•d, t e .parcel �,ould be landlocked and that .:culd be a hardzhil - I:r. ':foolery op?.osed the develoi:�.ert because of the roads. ::e noted t::at t:^.e Co=ission dig. nvt Oet the roads and sidewalks u:: front, it did not , Et titer at all F.�:d Y.e felt t e street was inadenuate. ::r. %ia_ felt t:._e was ar. u nsE ."e condition i :ti: }..ecause cf the r.srrcx::E�s of the r:_:.t of way :.:•d i ce :: E th-13 access a::d :.ic -rd Terr:.ce wc.uld be offset. Ee felt that if t:�e ri• i,t cf way question could r.ot be .. or,:cd out t .(: Co` ission shcsld r.c.t CivE E. _ rcval ic:i it be .;:,rked out later. :ie felt ti.at Er.y z;iti. cc h s :Inzon la nd c ad cc_e b= fore evelo ment, not c:f t_r it and accers t .r.. ': the t r- E --h -u1d be re;, _ctcd or, the grcun ie c,f _ a, E t;; , a _ �c- 4. "r'LAN ING C0:1:71:I01SION Road and at the bottleneck. ::r. ::ona ;:anted to .snow how this situation had arisen and he felt that ,ecause of this dilen-a the City Attorney should review the City Engineer's memo and _take a declaration as to whether the parcel was landlocked. is. Levesque felt the developer had compromised on the develorm•ent, coming down from 53 units to 39 and he liked this development. i's. Jacob had a ;roblem with the 20' road without shoulders, but he noted that Dorset Street also had no shoulders. lie felt a private street could be maintained better than a public one. ::r. aoolery felt that as the city used up its R4 land in this area, they vould be confronted with more parcels like this one and he stated that if the Co missicn did riot draw a lire scale,. ere and say that certain r=reels fell below accertable levels, they would not be able to say that at all. He urged the Ittorney to define rhetaer this parcel was landloc'ed, and if it v-ere, he felt the city might have to make adjustments. He wanted to knot; the city's obli`ations regarding this lard. ::r. ;'ona wanted to know the Attorney's opinion before t e plan was a: roved or rejected. ,*r. roger note that this eas a pre-existing right of way End the only access to the landr,`but he felt some other access was needed. He agreed that the Commission should ask the Attorney what choices they had. I•:r. 1%ona moved to continue the :,ublic hearinr until December 9 at City Hall at 7.30 -o= and to -ask for an opinion from the City Attorney as to our obli:- tions on this ::articular access to this particular property._ ::r. Jacob seconded the motion, w:iich carried with ::r. Ewing voting no. He stated that he felt the application sh::uld be denied and not carried any further. lie did rot feel the pro:)erty ;has landlocked, and so voted at-ainst the motion. Review pro•used revisions to the Cl-C2 sections of the zoning ordinance I•:r. Spitz had given the mez:bers several sheets regarding tr :ffic for various uses. He said that in most cases the local traffic generation rates were in the same ballpark as the national counts, except for the drive-in banks, which are much higher locally. lie felt that if an applicant had local counts better than the national counts, they should be used and he said that was part of the ordinance. It was noted that the figure for Dunkin Donuts was very high because the building is so small and i.:r. Ewing wondered if such businesses should be figured on a minimum number of trips, regardless of the building; size. It was noted that a smaller building did not always mean a smaller business. :r. :.'Litz said that if the building were really small, it would have a higher rercentaCc. lie felt the national standards had to be thrown out on the drive-in banks. ^,Er-PrdinC the 10 and 60 vehicles per peak hour figures for :ediur and il:h tr;.Yfic generators, : r. Spitz felt tllat the sheets showed those figures were too low. The Co...:—ission had taken 10 for a low traffic generator and 60 for a Lich tri;ffic gcnerctor, but did not relate those figures to lot sizes. :lien the lot sizes ,sent from 20,000 to 60,:00 or 60,000 sq. ft., th.e figures did not c:anLe. ::r. Spitz felt lot sizes for Cl and C? should be 80,000 sq. ft. and that the nur.ters s:.ould be raised to 40 and 90 trips per ;eak hour, ,.pica lie felt was in lire ,-ith the data he l,a.: collected. It was jointed out that the ordinance said a now use eculd be allowed on a l,re-existin,,: lot if t G traffic would Lot exceed what was cener. tEd rrevicuzly. .:r. :"r.,;''r ti:ac not sure that was al-e.a- s- a food idea, n:�tin,r that crhays the nurrc:::3in;- area s- culd be stu_ 1E, d. ',-here are so::je hi_'l, tr:.ff is 'r encr- tors; :.ear . u: ;y intcrs�ctions in t:.E city ....c_. _ r.ri,a: s would :,ot hE re: l::cad ;;its. ct's:c r high tra fic `enEr_tors. . re ,cr3irg eak hc:lr d4 ter_:irlP_tior., ::r. :spitz said that t:.e : i_sres the _crn i irs were not a : rcblem. :i.e highent h,::rs are v..ried cn t a rot -as he ,;t:,iEd L-,it he to 6 rz .:cniay t r_-.;:-h :;aturday Gr any :sir 2. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1980 Discussion with Treetops Association on status of emergency access No one from Treetops was present. Mr. Spitz said he had received a notice from the president of the Association, Kevin Killilea, saying that the Association would close the emergency access with a break -away device. Mr. Poger asked when that would take place and what would happen after the device was broken -away. I1r. Ewing wanted to see some information on what kind of device would be installed, he wanted to be sure the Fire Chief approved it, and he wanted to see a schedule of when it would be installed and who would maintain it. If this information is not forthcoming, he felt the curb should be installed before snow flies. Mr. Spitz was asked to find out the cost of adding the curb. Application of William and Gail Lang for sketch plan approval of a 3 lot sub- division on Dorset Street in the Southeast Quadrant Mr. Lang said the proposal was to subdivide a 10.3 acre parcel and a 10.1 acre parcel from 100 acres of land that they own in the Quadrant. He located the land for the Commission. He said that they plan another drive in from Dorset Street in the future to serve a house which will be located near the woodline. Mr. Spitz noted that on the city maps, a road was shown from Allen Road straight across to Dorset Street at the curve. A 60' right of way was set off on the McBean subdivision's south property line, but I1r. Spitz felt that took it too far south. Mr. Spitz noted the future drive to service housing on the open area here and he wondered if the easement could be switched to go down the other road. 1-1r. Spitz noted that there was a pedestrian trail along the creek here. h'1r. Woolery warned Mr. Lang that the Commission had been asking for a city street when 4 or 5 houses were to be served. It was noted, however, that the two lots being set off here had access to Dorset Street. Mr. Ewing wanted to see the entire parcel when this plan came in for sub- division approval. The Langs own two pieces of land in this area. Mr. Poger also wanted to see the accesses on that plan. ication of(Gerald Milot ect on Patche�oadl Mr. Page showed the Commission part of the site, noting that at the scale he was using, it extended off the sheet. The site is 13+ acres. Yr. Poger warted the entire site shown on the map that will be submitted. Ifr. Page said they proposed 53 units in 5 buildings. 42 units have a townhouse configuration and 11 have a flat configuration. Some units will be set on the edge of the break in grade. They will all have about 1120-1170 sq. ft. of area. There are 109 parking spaces shown, with 53 being covered. Sewage will flow by gravity to Patchen Road, although some residents of the area doubted that it could do that. The water main on Patchen Road will be tapped for this development. Some area residents recommended that the sewer question be checked and ir. rage was asked to do that. Xr. Page said storm drainage would be through a closed system and would go to a storm water treatment area. After the water goes to the retention pond, it will be discharged to the drainaEeway behind this development. Mr. Wage said the width of the road right of way at the narrowest point was 26.24'. The road is 24' wide paved and is shown without sidewalks. Kr. Page felt that people might want to walk over to Jaycee Park and Williston Road and he expected that a pedestrian easement would be given to the city. Room has been left for access later on to the ::unson property. 3. PLANNING COMDIIISSION AUGUST 19, 1980 Mr. Poger felt the proposal was for a lot of homes in a small area. He also felt there should be a sidewalk all the way to Patchen Road. Mr. Ewing agreed that there did not seem to be enough room for reasonable access to these units. he also felt that the access to Patchen Road, so close to Richard Terrace, but offset, would be a hazard. Mr. Spitz said the Fire Chief had a problem with one area of the development which was 250-280' long in a straight line. He wanted to have this area looped. Yr. Milot said he had tried to purchase land from adjoining property owners, but had been unable to do so. Mr. yr'oolery wanted to be sure about the sewage flow, but 71r. Idilot said they would pump it if they had to. Xr. Woolery did not like the road width and he noted that every place the city did not obtain the full road and sidewalk at the start, they never had it. He felt that if there was not enough room for the road, the buildings should not be built. Mr. Spitz said that on the city's proposed road plan, based on the triangle traffic study, there is a road from the area of the Econolodge on Williston Road that will come out in the area of the landfill. There is also a connection near Richard Terrace, which seems to go across this property. Hr. Spitz suggested a road to the Munson entrance and felt there could be private roads serving this development, coming off the public road. He noted that the city administration preferred public roads. Mr. Page said some carports would have to be eliminated to allow a 60' right of way by the dogleg. He also hoped that the primary access for development on the Munson land would not be through this development. Mr. Charles Angolano asked how traffic on Patchen Road would be controlled after this development went in, noting that both Patchen Road and Richard Terrace are inadequate now. Mr. Spitz said the Commission could ask for traffic counts on Patchen Road. Area residents were concerned about pedestrian traffic, particularly children walking to school, and about the speed at which cars travelled on that road. There was also some concern about visibility in some areas. Mr. Page said they could measure the sight -distance at the intersection. He also felt that if a problem existed without this development, the developer should not have to resolve it, but Mr. Poger felt that if it were inadequate there now, he did not want to add to the problem. Mr. Verman, an adjoining property owner, expressed some concerns to the Commission. He noted that at the last meeting there had been some discussion about using more of the land for the units. Mr. :Blot replied that the development had been made less dense through a change in configuration, but the number of units was the same. Mr. Verman was also concerned about the proximity of the entrance road to his home and he stated that the developer had estimated 300 trips per day on that road. He felt that would create a lot of noise for him. Mr. Milot replied that he had offered to construct a burm to screen the traffic noise at the most sensitive point, but Mr. Verman said that if such a burm had been created, he would have walked out of his patio onto the hill. :-.r. Verman also was concerned about the lights of cars turning into the entrance road shining at his home at night. He felt the heavy volume of traffic on the road would be dangerous for his children and other children walking on ratchen Road. He added that there were no sidewalks in that area. ?-r. Verman also wondered what this development would do to the water pressure in the area and whether there would be encugh pressure for an emergency. He asked about sewer capacity, and was told that if the plant could not handle the load, building could not take place. Mr. Verman also felt the offsetting of this road from Richard Terrace would add to congestion in the area and create a dangerous situation for turning traffic. Other concerns Kr. merman raised were the loss of a recreational area for residents of the area, and the spoiling of a natural wildlife area. He was told that if the residents 4. PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 19, 1980 wanted to preserve that area, they should buy it or ask the city to. Mr. Verman said that, according to national surveys, it was 10-15 years that condominiums were kept well, and after that upkeep declined. He was concerned about the narrow right of way to the project and the ability to get emergency vehicles in, and he appealed to the Commission to reject the project, because the residents wanted to protect the quality of life in their neighborhood. Air. Page said 300 trips per day was a national average figure and that there would be enough water for domestic purposes and they could meet the fireflow requirements. Mr. Schuele was concerned about the intensity of this clustering of units. Xr. Robert Harten, also an adjoining neighbor, had many of the same concerns as Mr. Verman plus a concern about an adequate number of parking spaces and a concern about protection for his property next door. Mr. Spitz felt that the setback from the Verman property should be 301. He went through the density guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. He asked that the pedestrian trail on the land be shown on the plan and mentioned that there was some flat land here which should be considered for addition to Jaycee Park. Air. Poger felt there were a lot of problems here, such as the access width, which might be alleviated in the future when the Munson property is developed, and the intensity of development planned. He felt there was too much here on a small plot and he felt a scaled down development would be more appropriate. A:r. Woolery had problems with the access, sidewalks, and road and he felt this was too narrow to build. He thought the street should be public to the buildings and he was concerned about engineering details such as the gravity sewer and the water pressure. He felt the buildings were close and noted that the Fire Chief could not get his trucks in. Mr. Ewing felt the access was too narrow for safety in a development of this intensity and that it should be public. He felt the intensity of the use was too great and that the buildings were too close together, mostly for fire protection. Another problem was that Richard Terrace was offset from this entrance, which would be unsafe, he felt, especially in light of the plans to increase traffic on Patchen Road in the future. Mr. Levesque felt that if the traffic problem existed the city should have addressed it. He felt that ifitwere a valuable natural area, the city should have bought it. He felt the project had potential for solutions and felt a loop could be made for the Fire Chief. Mr. Jacob said he would not object to the plan if a road could be put through to Munson land and a few units removed. He was concerned about the bottleneck, though. Mr. Page said he would like to have an opportunity to revise the plans and to reply to concerns about water pressure, traffic, sight distance, etc. at another meeting. He felt that 27' of pavement encouraged parking in the road and that a 10' travelled lane was wide enough. He noted that there were a number of streets in the city which were 20' or less in width. He said snow could be removed from the street, it could be curbed, a sidewalk provided, as well as 24' travelled • width. They will provide a 50-60' right of way wherever possible. Air. Woolery moved to _continue the auplication of Gerald ?-.ilot for-;reliminary plat approval of a 53 unit condominium project on Patchen Road until Se;)tember 9, 1980 at 7:30 rm at City Hall. Xr. Jacob seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Application of Vermont Federal Savings and Loan for site plan approval of a drive- in branch bank at the corner of Williston and Hinesburg Roads � r. Lamphere said the use had been aYIroved by the City Council under Interim Zoning and that the Zoning Board had also granted permission to build. He showed the proposed location and the existing building on the site. Xr. Lamphere said the traffic island on Williston .--oad would be extended to the west to prevent 4. PLANNING CODDIISSION The motion carried unanimously. NNE 24, 1980 Application by Gerald Milot for Sketch Plan review of a 55 unit planned residential development located on a 13.8 acre parcel owned by Charles Barber on Patchen Road Mr. Page represented Ifs. Milot. He said this lot was irregular and had frontage on Patchen Road. The area is zoned R4 and the land is level and sandy in one area, but there is a lot of relief to the rear of the property and two drainageways run through it. All the units would be placed to the front of the lot and the rest of the land would be left open. They will save as many trees as possible. Mr. Page said it would be difficult to line this entrance up with Richard Terrace, across the street. At its narrowest point the right of way into the property is about 30' wide, but Mr. Page said the buildings would be laid out so that there would be room for a city street in the future. He was not sure the road would be extended west into the property because the land drops off. The entrance road is shown as a 24' private drive, but Dir. Page stated that more than two parking spaces per unit were provided, so people would be less inclined to park on the street. Mr. Levesque urged the developers to use some imagination in the design of the project and to take advantage of the contours of the land. There are some duplexes in the area, but no other multi -family units like this. Xr. Page asked the Commission about the road width. He felt that with proper grading they might be able to make it 27' wide. Mr. Poger noted that the units were close toghther and he wondered about access for safety vehicles. Mr. Ewing recommended that the developers try to purchase additional land. Mr. Poger felt the plan had problems with access and internal circulation. Mr. Mona did not like the 24' road.Mr. Woolery felt the street problem had to be solved. Access to the adjoining Munson property was discussed. Mr. Page did not feel it would be good to have the major access to that property be through this land. Mr. Levesque suggested that access for Munson be placed at the 100' dogleg. Whether a sidewalk would be required was discussed, and it was felt that one would probably be required. It was also noted that the number of units proposed exceeded the figure in the Subdivision Regulations for a single access development. Mr. Page said they showed a 24' private drive on the plan, but they have left 60' wherever they could. Mr. Mona raised the question of setback from conservation zones. Other business Mr. Nona discussed the application of Mr. Scanlon to subdivide his land. The Commission told him he could include the right of way discussed as part of a 10 acre parcel, but the Zoning Administrator said he could not. It has been the practice of the Commission, for the purpose of calculating the allowed number of units which can be constructed, to accept the acreage before some is taken out for roads, etc., but Mr. Ward said that if the city accepted the 60' right of way in question, it would create a substandard (9 acre) lot. It was noted, however, that :yr. Scanlon did not have enough land for 5 lots anyway. The Commission wanted to go with the gross area and not say that by taking out the 60' strip, he would have a 9 acre lot. This has been the past practice. The meeting was adjourned at 10340 pm. Clerk