Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SP-92-0000 SP-90-0000 SP-86-0001 SP-86-0000 SP-83-0000 - Supplemental - 0155 Market Street
City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 20, 1990 Shuen Poon P.O. Box 9475 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: China Lite Residential Unit Dear Mr. Poon: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact & Decision for the above referenced project. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, R ym6nd J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant 1 Encl cc: Richard Brousseau RJB/mcp PLANNING COMMISSION 22 May 1990 page 2 spaces parallel. They felt there would still be enough parking spaces even with those that are lost. This would allow 21 ft. aisles. Mr. Weith will check with the Fire Chief to see if this is adequate. Mr. Burgess advised the applicant to work with the Planner to correct the deficiency in landscaping. 3. Site Plan application of Shuen Poon for construction of one residential unit within an existing building used for restaurant use (China Lite) thereby creating a mixed restaurant/residential use building, Corporate Way Mr. Brousseau said they are proposing a 4 bedroom apartment on the west side of the existing building. The area is presently an attic above a space used occasionally for banquets. They will take 713 sq. ft. from the restaurant and will add a dormer above. One of the rooms will be used by Mr. Poon and the others for employees. Ms. Pugh raised the question of whether this is a substantial alteration or just an alteration to the exterior finish. Members agreed it was a substantial alteration. Mr. Brousseau questioned whether City Center zoning allowed mixed residential/commercial use. Mr. Burgess said it was not the in- tent of the City Center zoning to house people in restaurants. Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission deny the site plan ap- plication of Sheun Poon for conversion of 1,460 sq. ft. within an existing restaurant building to one residential unit thereby cre- ating a mixed restaurant/residential structure as depicted on a 3 page set of plans, page one entitled "China Lite Restaurant, Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont, Floor Plan, Proposed 4 bedroom, 2 story Apartment," prepared by T.W.B, and dated 5/l/90 for the following reason: 1. The existing structure is nonconforming as it does not meet setback requirements as defined in Section 1.602 of the South Bur- lington Central District Zoning Ordinance. Section 1.80 of the same regulation prohibits alterations to a noncomplying structure except for alterations to facades and exterior finishes. It is the Commission's determination that the proposed construction of the dormer constitutes a substantial alteration and does not classify as a facade or exterior finish alteration. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the provisions of Section 1.80 of the South Burlington Central District Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Pugh seconded. Motion passed unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION 22 May 1990 page 3 Mrs. Maher said if a new application is submitted, she would like the seats in China Lite counted. 4. Discussion with Joseph Senesac regarding the change in circulation pattern at the Gaynes/P&C Shopping Center complex, Williston Road Mr. Senesac said when Williston Rd. was widened an island was put in between the "in" and "out" lanes of the complex. He said he had had the Jersey barriers installed because of the number of accidents resulting from people trying to make a U-turn around that island. There is also a problem with people coming out of Spillane's. He said the barriers have relieved congestion though he is not pleased with the appearance. He would like to remove the barriers and put in an island down the entire lot and also change the angle of parking along the building to go with the flow of traffic. He acknowledged signage is poor but said tractor trailers knock the signs down. Mr. Craig asked how one circulates in the lot from Gaynes back to P & C if the lot is crowded. Mr. Senesac said you can't. Mr. Craig felt this was a substantial change requiring a new site plan. Other members agreed. Mr. Craig felt an engineer should study the lot and make recommendations. Mrs. Maher suggested having Craig Leiner look at it. 6. Public Hearing: Continue revised final plat application of Homer Dubois to construct a connector road (Adirondack Street) between Butler Farms and Oak Creek Village and treat this con- nection as a second access to the Butler Farms residential development for purposes of constructing more than 50 units, Hinesburg Road Mr. Burgess reviewed the history of this request noting the Commission had approved 7 additional units with a gravel base to be paved on the Dubois side. The Council reviewed this but the application to the Council asked them to approve construction of the access road for 36 more units. The Council denied this and sent it back to the Commission. He noted the applicant wants to use this access in lieu of a second Hinesburg Rd. access as orig- inally approved by the Commission but denied by Act 250. Ms. Kehoe, attorney representing Mr. Dubois, said with the plan proposed now, Mr. Dubois would be obliged to build a road to city standards and approved by the city, with a sidewalk. They would then be allowed 36 more lots, 7 of which would be permitted im- mediately (she noted there are threatened lawsuits because of existing contracts on those lots). The Dubois would commit them- � � Z Planning File Data for Computer Input 1. Original Property Owner �%a L."4 2. Developer's Name 3. Name of Development 4. Address of Development or Project Co�_ 'Type 5. of Project___ Minor Subdivision (MI) Major Subdivision (MS) Site Plan (SP) 6. Zoning District 1 C Z 7. Zoning District 2 R. Zoning Board Approval date if Required 9. Date of Planning Commission Hearings/Meetings Site Plan Date S�3 2�9D or Sketch Plan Date 10. Preliminary Plat date _ il. Final Plat Date 12. Revised Final Plat Date 1 (if applicable) 13. Revised Final Plat Date 2 (if applicable) 1 4 . Acreage of 'rotal Project 15). Use of Land 1 12ey12 I G . Use of band 2 'le IX/d� Ilse- o f Land 3 1 �.. l ti<• o I' Land I 1 `a . !•lumber of Lots Ott. tiumhor of Single Fami 1. Uni t ! Nitmher of Mtt I t i -Fami I -N- Uni t !-o(, t i can Cost o f 1311i I d i tl<? S O/oQo 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 34. 36. 37. 38. Size of Building (Square footage) q at/»wn urtiT�%'�Ga Streets City Street CS Private Street PS Date of Acceptance of streets by City Bond -Landscaping _ Bond -Streets _ Bond -Sewer Bond -Water Bond -Other Date Mylar Due (90 days after approval) Date Recorded Expiration date of Approval Date of First Building Permit Tax Map Number Map File Location 1 Map File Location 2 Map File Location 3 Other fees (Type and amount) Preparers Name: Date: Posted in Computer (Name, Date): City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 June 18, 1990 Mr. Richard Brousseau 4 Doi -set Lane Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: China Lite Residential Unit Dear Mr. Brousseau: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the 5/22/90 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. n rel, oe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl cc: Mr. Sheun Poon JW/mcp 5/22/90 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Sheun Poon for conversion of 1,460 square feet within an existing restaurant building to one residential unit thereby creating a mixed restaurant/residential structure as depicted on a 3 page set of plans, page one entitled "China Lite Restaurant, Corporate Circle, South Burlington , Vermont, Floor Plan, Proposed 4 bedroom, 2 story Apartment", prepared by T.W.B. and dated 5/1/90 with the following stipulations: 1. The plan shall be revised prior to permit as follows: a) An additional hydrant to be installed by the applicant in a location to be approved by the Fire Chief. b) The title block on page 2 of the plans shall be revised to indicate that one apartment unit is proposed instead of two apartments. 2. A sewer allocation of 450 gpd is granted. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to permit. 3. The applicant shall pay the $200 per unit recreation fee prior to permit. 4. The revised plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner prior to permit. 5. The building permit shall be be obtained within 6 months or this approval is null and void. 5/22/90 JW MOTION OF DENIAL I move -the South Burlington Planning Commission deny the site plan application of Sheun Poon for conversion of 1,460 square feet within an existing restaurant building to one residential unit thereby creating a mixed restaurant/residential structure as depicted on a 3 page set of plans, page one entitled "China Lite Restaurant, Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont, Floor Plan, Proposed 4 bedroom, 2 story Apartment", prepared by T.W.B. and dated 5/1/90 for the following reason: 1. The existing structure is nonconforming as it does not meet setback requirements as defined in Section 1.602 of the South Burlington Central District Zoning Ordinance. Section 1.80 of the same regulation prohibits alterations to a noncomplying structure except for alterations to facades and exterior finish- es. It is the Commission's determination that the proposed construction of the dormer constitutes a substantial alteration and does not classify as a facade or exterior finish alteration. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the provisions of Section 1.80 of the South Burlington Central District Zoning Ordinance. FA c�q �<4 iq I I I � CHINA LITE RESTAURANT I EJ ra XIfL1-L1 j5TAURMT -- ---�-- p RAT I L DATE-4- -90 - 4Wryq(- SCALE-I'r= 20' PROPOSED - TWO /� MENiS 2 STOW UNITS Jr, 1 1. E AST 7) . fLAT A. -r- -j P 6P M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: May 22, 1990 agenda items Date: May 18, 1990 4) CHINA LITE RESTAURANT, CORPORATE CIRCLE The floor plan shows the project as a 3 apartment instead of 2. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: May 22, 1990 agenda items Date: May 18, 1990 3) 11 ROOM ADDITION. COLONIAL MOTOR INN. SHELBURNE ROAD Please see the enclosed staff memos dated March 20, 1990. Since the structure is non -conforming, improvements are limited to 25% of the fair market value of the property. An appraisal was conducted which valued the property at $1,200,000. The estimated building construction cost of $125,000 represents 10.4% of the fair market value. 4) CHINA LITE, MIXED RESTAURANT/RESIDENTIAL China Lite proposes to convert part of its unused restaurant space and a portion of its attic to a 4 bedroom, 1,460 square foot residential apartment unit. This apartment would house employees of the restaurant. The apartment would have to meet State building code requirements and City of South Burlington requirements such as a maximum of 5 unrelated persons living in the unit. This arrangement is not exactly what the City envisioned when it passed the City Center plan and zoning. The intent was to allow mixed uses (e.g., retail/office on the bottom and residential units on top) in buildings fronting the public street. This proposal will, however, meet the general goals of the City Center plan, that is, encouraging people to work and live in the same immediate area. This structure is noncomplying since it does not. meet setback requirements. Section 1.80 of the City Center Zoning Regulations prohibits alterations to noncomplying structures except for alterations to facades and exterior finishes. The proposal includes the construction of a dormer (see enclosed elevation) for the second floor of the unit. The Commission must decide whether it considers this dormer an "alteration to a facade or exterior finish" which is permissible, or a more substantial alteration which is not permissible. Access: Access to the property would remain as is. Access to the unit would be provided by a separate entrance on the west. side of the building. Memorandum - May 22, 1990 May 18, 1990 Page 2 Planning agenda items Setbacks/Coverage: The structure does not meet the 80 foot building envelope setback. Coverage requirements are met. Density (F.A.R.) requirements are met. Parking: The applicant informed me that they have 350 fixed seats. The 350 fixed seats, 500 square foot lobby area and one unit apartment requires a total of 119 parking spaces. 133 park- ing spaces are shown. Sewer: The new unit will require an additional 450 gpd sewer allocation. The $2.50 per gallon fee will be required prior to permit. Landscaping: $1500 in new landscaping is required. No new landscaping is proposed. I will visit the site again before the meeting to see whether more landscaping is needed. 5) GAYNES/P & C CIRCULATION, WILLISTON ROAD Joseph Senesac will be in to discuss the relatively recent change in circulation patterns on the Gaynes/P & C property. The change in circulation was caused by the placement of "jersey barriers" in the parking lot. I decided to treat this issue as a discussion. Mr. Senesac will explain what was done, why and how it has changed circulation. If the Planning Commission feels site plan approval is warranted, then we can warn a site plan review in the middle of June. There have been several complaints about cars exiting via the entrance lane and cars entering via the exit lane. Some sort of site maps, sketches, etc. will be available at the meeting. Please observe the site prior to Tuesday's meeting. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 May 18, 1990 Mr. Richard Brousseau 4 Dorset Lane Williston, Vermont 05495 Re: China Lite Dear Mr. Brousseau: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddet.te's c_-mments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, May 22, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. S rely) �Ie Weith, ity Planner Encls cc: Sheun Poon JW/mcp f 575 -41nr�;rt -'Atrrrt �, . � ����rth +r�irrirnnt,�r1. lllerxn�tttt 1154g3 �`� x TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY MAY 22,1990 AGENDA ITEM DATE: WEDNESDAY MAY 16,1990 1. CHINA LITE APARTMENT ADDITION CORPORATE CIRCLE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS DEPARTMENT AND AT THIS TIME THE ONLY PROBLEM I SEE AT THIS TIME IS DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING AND MAKING A SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA A SECOND HYDRANT WILL BE NEEDED AT A LOCATION APPROVED BY THIS OFFICE AS WELL AS PLANS BEING APPROVED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY TO MAKE SURE THE BUILDING IS BUILT TO MEET ALL SAFETY STANDARDS. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION L) OWNER UF RECORD (name, address, phone #)Chin: bite Inc._._ 5 Corporate Way, SO. Burlington, V.T. (802) 658-3033 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #)-_Sheun C...PooiL (President) P.O. Box 9475 So. Burlington, V.T. (802) 434-48� 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)_Rirhard r_ousseau — 4 Dorset Lane, Williston, V.T. (802) 879-5484 4). PROJECT STREET ADDRESS:5 rornnr� way., so_ Rnr1 i ctpp,—___._ 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) p�rnpi # nl 6) PROPOSED USE(S) RP-,f urant (nn rhanna ) Add i nq 4 hpHrnnm Apart- ment , utilizing the first & second floors. N.W. side of Bldg. 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, * units, maximum height and S floors, square feet per floor) Atinn s=_Ft_ (1st floor) 713 sq. ft. (2nd floor) Total floor area (10,313)sq/ft 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Rt-sfurant employes 20 tpt-oz 1 P 9). LOT COVERAGE: building _LL_%; landscaped areas_% building, parking, outside storage_U % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $ 50,000 Landscaping S no change Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) S -0- No site work proposed 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 45 Day Project 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out) Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. 2-3 p.m.__—_ 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. 6-7 p.m. _ 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: 12 to 1 PM & 5:30 to 7 PM _ 14 ) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: Friday & Saturday_ -- DATE OF Sl!BMISSION SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE OF HEARING CHINA LITE RESTURANT 5 CORPORATE WAY SO. BURLINGTON, V.T. CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, V.T. PLANNING & ZONING PROPOSAL The China Lite Resturant is applying for a permit to turn part of its establishment into a 4 bedroom apartment. The proposal will require turning an area down stairs which is not used much , into the lower and main floor of the apartment. This area is located on the north west side of the resturant. The upper attic area of the building would be turned into two bedrooms and baths. The total square footage of the proposed apartment would be 1460 sq/ft. The lower floor having a kitchen, living room, 2 bedrooms and one bath. would have 713 square feet and the upper floor would have a total of 747 square feet. Entrance into the apartment would be from the north west side of the building away from the front entrance of the resturant which faces to the north east. The upper bedroom windows would face the north west and would have a dormer appearance with the roofs over the dormers designed like the roof over the resturants front entrance. There is already a large sidewalk on the apartments entry side so there would be no need to disturb nor rearrange the exterior landscaping and walks. The windows and trim would look and blend with the existing appearance of the resturant. Brouusseau Construction August 16, 1983 page 3 Mr. Jacob then made a motion which was amended in several instances. The final motion voted upon was as follows: That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the revised final plat application by Southur in on ea Corporation for one new commercialof asdepictedon a an entitled "Lot Dimensions Added'Corporate Circle, Site Plan, prepared by Webster -Martin, Inc., last revise , wi11 the following stipulations: 1. All stipulations from the original approval, dated 11/17/81, shall remain in effect. 7. Bonding for all street sidewalk and intersection improvements necessary to serve the proposed new lot shall e submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The following sigpalization improvements shall be provided at the Dorset Street/Corporate Way intersection: a. New signal heads facing Corporate Way b. Loop detector in Corporate Way c. Any new signal control hardware needed for three-phase operation as described in traffic consultant Joseph ppenlander°s letter dated 8 1 83 4. A temporary turn -around shall be rovided at the end of the initial segment of Corporate Way to be dedicated to the City. 5. The applicant shall provide $34 400 as his contribution to Dorset Street improvements. Up front monies an e a reement for the remainingpayment shall be worked out agree o an signed between the City Council and the developer. 6. A bvpass lane on the westerly side of Dorset Street to a length as determined by the City Engineer, shall e provided b the aeveloper. 7. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion which received unanimous approval. Mr. Jacob then made a second motion which was amended. The final motion voted upon was as follows: The the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for zne Site Flan Appiication by Liheun Moon Tor a Chinese restaurant n Corporate Uircle as depicted on a plan entitled "Utlin Restaurant, a an, prepared by Lawrence Atkin, Arc , last revised , With e rollowing a ipu a ions: 1. All sidewalks including the private 5' sidewalk adjacent to e east property line shall e concrete. Tne need Tore ion 01 the easterly sidewalk along the balance of tHe,new ro s 11. e reviewed upon application for development or the adjacent pro- PLANNING COMMISSION 3 March 1992 page 6 of the signal installation and synchronization improvements. 9. The revised final plat shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chairman or Clerk and recorded in the South Burlington land records within 90 days or this approval is null an(i vni( Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed 6-1, with Mr. Craig voting against. Ms. Pugh left the meeting at this time. 6. Public Hearing: Continued reviesed final plat application of South Burlington Realty for construction of a 49,000 sq. ft. building for general office use (38,000 sq. ft.), retail use (9,400 sq. ft.), and mechanical space (1,600 sq. ft.) on 39 acres of land along Corporate Way: Mr. Yeager said there have been minor revisions: They added a 60 ft. right-of-way so the buidling can be built with required set- backs. The right-of-way comes eastward from the China Lite driveway. The building has been set back an additional 3 feet which is within what the streetscape plans call for. The street will be built in compliance with streetscape guidelines. It won't be built to city standards. An offer of dedication will be given. They will do the surface as it should be but won't do the underground utilities. There won't be a big turnaround at the end. With regard to parking, they did away with the truck loading area near China Lite and moved it to the other end of the building with access to the indoor dumpster and recycling center. The plan shows 211 parking spaces; only 202 are required. Mr. Jeager said they know that if the street is extended as a public street they will have to move whatever is put in the 60 ft. right-of-way. They will stipulate that. With regard to landscaping: the caliper of street trees has been increased. There was a shortfall in landscaping, and the ap- plicant felt that street furniture/fountain should count toward this. The Commission after a brief discussion, felt it would prefer to waive a portion of the landscaping rather than con- sider other amenities in place of landscaping. There will be a little park area that will be visible from Corporate Way. It would serve as a nice place to sit for someone out walking. Members felt this was reasonable. Storm drainage: Drainage will be accomplished by sheet flow off the edge of the parking lot combined with underdrains to feed PLANNING COMMISSION 3 March 1992 page 7 into a swale. They have made an earthern dam with a 12 ft. culvert that forms a retention pond in the swale. This won't overload the downstream area. Traffic impact fees were then discussed:Mr. Jeager said they are troubled because the impact fee includes no provision for administrative appeal and noted this is required by Vermont statute. In addition, criteria for impact fees need to be established by ordinance or by-law. They are also concerned at how fees are calculated. Mr. Jeager noted only 39% of traffic is estimated to go toward Williston Rd. according to a study used by the city in determining fees. He added the applicant has spent a lot of money on Corporate Way and are trying to facilitate a substantial investment to complete it. They have provided more than their own infrastructure. Mr. Jeager said they don't expect not to pay any impact fees but request that for this small phase of the development the fact that they are providing a bypass for traffic so it doesn't go to Williston Rd. be counted as their "impact fee contribution." Mrs. Maher said she would not oppose a reduction in the impact fee. Other members agreed but were concerned with the precedent `r this might set. Mr. Weith said there are some good points being ^_ made, but he had some concerns. He noted that the bypass is necessary to serve 40 acres of the applicant's property and is not only there to alleviate Williston Rd. traffic. He noted the Williston Rd. impact fee is applied to all development in this area of city. It is used to support development in that area of the city. If you consider distribution of traffic, then because of traffic heading south on Hinesburg Rd. and Dorset St. the applicant should pay into the impact fees for those roads as well. Mr. Craig said he agreed with Mr. Weith. He said he had no problem postponing assessment of the full impact fee. Other members agreed to postpone the fee until the second building is developed. The applicant agreed to this. Molly Moore, an abutter to the property, said she is concerned about vulnerability as the boundary between them is not fenced. She asked for a fence to be installed and the applicant said they had no problem with this. Members also said they have no problem with flat roofing on the 3 and 4 story buildings. This should be addressed in the regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION 3 March 1992 page 8 Ms. Peacock moved the Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington Realtv for construc- tion of a 49,000 sq. ft. building for general office use (38,000 sq. ft.), retail use (9,400 sq. ft'.) and mechanical space (1,600 sq. ft.) as depicted on a seven page set of plans, page one en- titled "Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont, South Bur- lington Realty Corporation, Property Plat" prepared by Webster - Martin, Inc, and dated Setpember, 1981, last revised 2/1/92, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $36,500, 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. The landscaping plan shall be revised prior to recording to show three 3-1/2 inch caliper street trees. The Planning Commission grants a $12,300 waiver of required land- scaping because of limited space on a public street. 2. A sewer allocationof 1,125 gpd is granted. The applicant shall pay the required sewer allocation fee prior to issuance of a zoning/building permit. 3. The Planning Commission approves 14 "on street" parking spaces for the project. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to show the on street handicapped space within the future 60 ft. r.o.w. shifted one space to the south. The area currently shown as a handicapped space shall not be striped for parking in order to maintain adequate site distance. 4. Note #7 on sheet 1 of 16 shall be corrected prior to recordin to indicate seven handicapped spaces to be provided. 5. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to show the new street centered within the 60 foot future street r.o.w. The face of the curb on the east side shall be located ten (10) feet from the r.o.w. line and proposed trees shall be planted three feet off the curb face. 6. The lighting note on page 3 of 6 shall be revised prior to permit to indicate a 16 foot high street light to be approved by the City Planner. 7. Prior to permit, the Planning Commission shall review and ap- prove final streetscape plans based on input provided by the City Center Streetscape Design Committee. The plans shalladdress streetscape issues including roadway width, street tree species, location and size, sidewalk width, sidewalk material and design, and street lighting. $. Prior to recording the property plat, the applicant shall sub- mit a revised plat showing the 60 foot future street r.o.w. The plat shall be certified and signed by a licensed surveyor. PLANNING COMMISSION 3 March 1992 page 9 9. Prior to permit, the applicant shall submit an Offer of Ir- revocable Dedication and Warranty Deed for the 60 foot future street r.o.w. These documents shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to permit. 10. In an effort to find that the proposed development will not adversely affect traffic flow and safety, the applicant shall be responsible for the following: a. As expressly represented by the applicant, prior to occu- pancy of the proposed building, the applicant shall complete Cor- porate Way including construction of the Corporate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the building, the applicant shall submit a plan of the proposed Cor- porate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection to the City for approval. The applicant shall also submit to the City a letter from AOT ap- proving construction and signalizationof the intersection. (This condition does not negate any agreement between the City and ap- plicant regarding this intersection.) b. The applicant shall contribute a pavment to the Williston Road Area 1 Improvement Fund, or other Traffic Improvement Fund in existence at time of permit application. The current fund would require a payment of $15,413 based on an estimated 129 peak hour trip ends to be generated by this project. In light of the substantial expenditure of the applicant in constructing the re- mainder of the roadway in connection with this application, the contribution shall be paid to the city at time of application for a zonina/buildina permit for the next phase of development after this 49,000 sq. ft. buildin 11. Previous approvals and stipulations not superseded by this approval shall remain in effect. 12. As expressly represented by the applicant, the applicant shall maintain the new street/access drive until such time as the right-of-way and street are accepted by the City. 13. As expressly represented by the applicant, applicant shall install a stockade fence along the back of the residential property located at 8 Iby Street. 14. The final plat plans shall be recorded in the South Burling- ton land records prior to issuance of a zoning permit or within 90 days, whichever is sooner, or this approva- is null and void. The plans shall be sianed by the Planning Commission Chairman or Clerk prior to recordin Mrs. Maher seconded. The motion passed unanimously. STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES INTERAGENCY ACT 250 REVIEW COMMITTEE RE: South Burlington Realty DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION #4 APPLICATION #4C0503-9 October 26, 1999 Please enter the appearance of the Agency of Natural Resources ("Agency"), State of Vermont, by and through Patrick M. Dakin, Legal Staff, in the above -captioned matter. Criterion 1 (G) -WETLANDS Karen Bates, District Wetland Ecologist with the Water Quality Division, notes that the present plans and materials submitted by the applicant fail to adequately depict existing wetlands and their relation to the project. The site plan should show all wetlands, and delineate a 25-foot buffer around the Class Three Wetlands and a 50-foot buffer around the Class Two Wetland. Criteria 2 AND 3 - WATER SUPPLY Rob Farley, Hydrogeologist with the Water Supply Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the application and notes that if the project entails a new fire hydrant or greater than 500' of new water lines, a Water Supply Construction Permit Application needs to be ccmpleted and submitted to the Water Supply Division for their review, or the renewal of any existing Water Supply Construction Permit. The applicant can contact Greg Bostock at 1-802-241-3407 with any questions. Dated October 26, 1999, at Waterbury, Vermont. Respectfully submitted, State of Vermont Agency o7e4( f Natural Resources By r, /___ Patrick M. Dakin CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I, Jessica Locke, Secretary for the Planning Division of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, sent a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance and Prehearing Comments, October 28, 1999, regarding File #4C0503-9 (South Burlington Realty), by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the following: Randall G. Munson d/b/a South Burlington Realty Company c/o John Jaeger 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington Clerk, Council & Planning Commission 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission PO Box 108 Essex Junction, VT 05453 Date" Waterbury, Vermont, Octobe Jessica ca Vol. Page 5'U Recorded in VOL I on Vb Corporate Way Development A AAK "'y Ck CSC i This Agreement is made this u IN day of 1989 by and between Randall G. Munson, an individual doing Mbusiness under the name "South Burlington Realty Company," and having his principal place of business at 366 Dorset Street, j South Burlington, Vermont (hereinafter referred to as "SBRC") j and the City of South Burlington, a Vermont municipality located in Chittenden County (hereinafter referred to as "City"). W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, on November 17, 1981, SBRC's predecessor in interest, South Burlington Realty Corporation, obtained a final plat approval from the City Planning Commission for a 40.6 acre tract of land which lies Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street in the City known as "Corporate Circle;" and WHEREAS, Condition j6 of the Planning Commission approval requires in certain circumstances the construction of a road to be known as "Corporate Way," which will extend from Hinesburg Road to Dorset Street and which will be a principal source of public road access to the above -described property of SBRC; and WHEREAS, SBRC's predecessor has offered to dedicate •Corporate Way to the City as a public road; and WHEREAS, the School District for the City operates the so-called "Central School" on lands which adjoin the northerly boundary of the Corporate Circle property; and WNEIL i MUK AY L LLINI. IUM YlWIl1MT Y.01 1 WHEREAS, Condition #3 of the Planning Commission approval anticipates the need for access to Corporate Way from the Central School property where Corporate Way passes in the vicinity of the Central School property; and WHEREAS, the City and SBRC desire to define their respective obligations for the cost of improvements to the intersection of Corporate Way and Hinesburg Road; and WHEREAS, City desires to obtain access to Corporate Way from the Central School; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration the parties hereto mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. The City agrees to include in its plans for improvements to Hinesburg Road an intersection design for Corporate Way sufficient to accommodate the completion of development at Corporate Circle. In the event that the City proceeds with the construction the costs will be shared as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 below. 2. In the event SBRC elects to proceed with the development of Corporate Circle and any governing authority requires the connection of Corporate Way as a condition of development, SBRC and the City will share the actual direct • cost incurred to construct the intersection as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 below. 3. SBRC will be responsible for that portion of the cost of constructing the intersection resulting from the traffic generated by the Corporate Circle development or the cost of the intersection shown on the drawings referred to in 2 Vol. IM Page the South Burlington Planning Commission permit resolution dated November 17, 1981, whichever is more. 4. The City will be responsible for the remaining cost of construction, including that portion of the cost resulting from development of other properties, background traffic on Corporate way (including pass -by and diverted link trios) and the travelling public at large. 5. SBRC agrees to grant to the City, an easement at least 30' in width for purposes of providing pedestrian and vehicular access from Corporate Way to the Central School property. The use of this easement shall be limited to providing access to the Central School property for public school purposes. The initial location of the easement shall be as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. SBRC will reserve the right to relocate and/or replace the easement and any improvements constructed thereon by the City or the City School District, as may be necessary or appropriate from time to time to facilitate the development and use of the Corporate Circle property, provided that such relocation does not materially impair access to the Central School property. Within thirty (30) days following execution of this Agreement, SBRC will furnish a proposed deed, and closing shall be held within ten (10) days thereafter. The easement granted Pereunder shall terminate and become null and void at such time as the City is provided access to the central school property by the establishment and dedication to the City of the public roadway approximately shown and depicted on Exhibit B attached to this agreement. 3 Vol. �r ge -5�- 6. SBRC's obligation to grant the easement is contingent upon the City obtaining, at its sole cost and expense, all necessary amendments to permits and approvals for Corporate Circle; the closing may be extended for a reasonable period of time to allow the City an opportunity to obtain such amendments. 7. This agreement shall terminate and shall be of no further force and effect on July 1, 1999. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this %&I" day of '6ll' , 1989. WITNESSES�•1sup', • • / C -i- Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this �_\ day of ��- Q 1989. WITNESSES: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. 0 At`-'. l\?)k)`c-\\l�C J..\ � -, -this �Iay 9 i989 before me personal y appeared , duly authorized agent of SOUTH BURLINGT N REALTY COMPANY, and he acknowledged this instrument subscribed and sealed by him, to be his free act and deed and the free act and deed of the .,OTTTN R1TRT,TNGTON RFAT.TV COMPANV _ Before me, &)-nM - 19' a oa D ar ' UlF H.4P 0000%I s.�e. oezt 1r� SO.OQ' • QvUC` 1�f� 0 Us2= :ea•aErEZ. n oo OOcs�4i IOM 31 , n l�Gk kb� l t X 0 5owTH 1!5UtZu Toti o 93 .3v1� �g. cos • � �- -- Q 25.94' �) o O ` N , n ; 0 J9•. "'c. Z yr 60� Wt0_E. 2tC•,HT-OF-y..AY \ � SCE S ELT 10 ti 1. U�Jv 3 , i� PLANNING COMMISSION 9 April 1991 page 3 of pedestrrian space from vehicle space, and the Jelly Mill which also has good pedestrian space. He showed a bubble diagram of the area showing the secondary road exiting opposite McIntosh Avenue, ideally going all the way to Bartlett Bay Rd. He said they would propose the larger retail uses in the area where the land drops down. Mrs. Maher raised the question of including residential uses on the upper floors of retail buildings. She felt this would give more of a downtown feeling. Mr. White noted there is already a lot of residential use in the area. Mr. Craig said that what they now show is almost all retail which is a high traffic generator. Residential uses would mitigate some of that traffic. Mr White said they are concerned with compatibility with Martin's and they want to minimize that potential conflict. Mr. Pomerleau estimated that about 3 acres would be taken up by the Martin's store. Mrs. Maher noted that the proposed location for Martins requires people to wind through the area. Mr. Dunn suggested that one way to improve Shelburne Rd. is to have all developers put in street trees. He felt this could eventually change the character of the road. Mr. Yankowski noted that older people like apartments above stores and need a pedestrian environment. Mr. Scott suggested leaving room for bikes on the secondary road. Members said they were not conceptually opposed to having buildings up to the roadway. 3. Discussion with South Burlington Realty regarding the City1 center plan and possible conflict with wetland protection: Mr. Jaeger noted the City Center is a designated high intensity use area and that a successful downtown requires intensity with one use flowing into another. It must be pedestrian friendly. They have run into a snag on their potential development. Where they proposed their first building they have found some wetlands (he showed the path of the wetland), and there is a question of whether these can co -exist with a high density concept. It is their feeling the two are not compatible. Mr. Jaeger showed one area that is a "class 2" wetland (on the state map and protected) and others that are "class 3" and don't need to be protected. He said they need to see what these wet- lands accomplish (e.g., water purification) and whether those functions can be met in other ways. There is one area of un- PLANNING COMMISSION 9 April 1991 page 4 known classification and they will have to do a delineation of this area. Mr. Jaeger said it will be hard to do the kind of planning they conceived if they are all chopped up with wetlands. They would thus like a statement that says something to the effect that assuming they can take care of functions the wetlands provided, the city feels this area is more appropriate for high density development. Mr. Burgess said when the city zoned the area, they weren't saying they were aiming to eliminate wetlands. The question is whether to eliminate the wetlands or promote sprawl. Mr. Weith felt the Commission has to address this. He felt the Commission has the flexibility to balance the two considerations, but the question is what will happen at Act 250 and whether their rules are flexible. Ms. O'Brien said it takes a lot of time to do a thorough study. She said there is some wildlife in the lower area. She noted the laws state you can't impact the functions and values of wetlands but you can mitigate these sometimes. She said you have to be right up front with the whole of wetlands planning and have to say what functions are being accomplished by the wetlands and how these functions will be handled. She added that if there is over one acre of wetlands involved, it is very hard to get a permit under any circumstances. Mr. Weith asked what are some mitigative techniques. Ms. O'Brien said at the Burlington Intervale they put in a dike in the flooded area and also put in an island. She stressed that mitigative techniques are a very risky thing because wetlands exist because there is water coming in. It is hard to reproduce the functions of a wetland. Mr. Schuele said he is very concerned about the whole situation of the water in that area. A few years ago, he walked the area and followed the stream. There is a lot of water collecting in that drainage area. What had been a stream was cut off on the way to University Mall. He noted there used to be a lake that froze in winter enough to allow skating.. When that disappeared the water spread out, and what used to sink down doesn't do that any more. He stressed that there will be the same amount of water, but it will have no place to go. He noted that an early plan showed the developer taking advantage of the water with a brook or pond. He said the city has to face up to the fact that whenever you put a building up, you have to take care of where f� the water goes. He didn't feel a conscious effort was being made 1�' to make sure that is done. PLANNING COMMISSION 9 April 1991 page 5 Mr. Crowley said this area is one of the headwaters of Potash Brook Watershed. He noted there is a meeting tonight in Burlington about the impact of the Inglesby Ravine on the beaches and noted there are no beavers there to blame the pollution on. The source of the problem is the watershed. Retaining the hydrology of the watershed is what treats pollutants and avoids polluting the beaches. He felt the city had to look at the whole city center plan in the light of the wetlands and traffic issues. Mr. Scott asked if mitigation means reproducing the function of the wetland or going somewhere else in the city and saving another wetlands. Ms. O'Brien said both are possible. Mrs. Maher felt the issue should be discussed with the City Council as it is a very sticky issue. She also suggested looking at Dumont Park as a mitigative location. Mr. Dicovitsky noted the City center plan was to concentrate growth so as not to have the random impacts in other parts of town where they can't be as well controlled. Mr Schuele asked what portion of the land is involved as wetland. Mr. Jaeger estimated 7 to 8 acres out of 35. Mr. Weith noted that 90% coverage would be allowed in the area though they would have to meet the CO Zone along the waterway. Mr. Weith felt if the applicant is required to preserve all the wetlands with set:)acks there vrjn't be the City Center that was planned. A citizen noted that the whole problem began with the building of Williston Rd. when outlets were dammed up. He said the city is now paying for that. Mr. Schuele said that if a compromise is reached in this case, other developers will want the same consideratons ("you did it for them, now do it for me") and this could cause further problems. A poll of the Commission showed that most members wanted to preserve a balance or compromise, still supporting the City center concept but having to insure that wetlands are properly handled. Mrs. Maher asked the City Planner to give a report on Dumont Park. 4. Review proposed amendment to the noise performance standards contained in the S. Burlington Zoning Regulations: Mr. Weith noted the amendment allows construction to begin l� earlier in civic projects, Dorset St. being the most immediate consideration. Members felt the Zoning Ordinance didn't necessarily have to be changed to allow for this one exception. PLANNING COMMISSION 14 January 1992 page 6 6. The applicant shall contribute $8,919 to the City's sidewalk fund. This fee shall be paid at the time of permit for Phase II or within two years, whichever is sooner. The applicant shall post a bond for this fee prior to issuance of a zoning permit for Phase I. 7. The applicant must obtain a conditional use permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow the proposed tower to exceed the height limitation. 8. The zoning/building permit for Phase I shall be obtained within six months and the zoning/building permit for Phase II shall be obtained within two years or this approval is null and void. Mrs. Maher seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Public Hearing: Revised final plat application of South Burlington Realty for construction of a 49,000 sq. ft. building for general office use (38,000 sq. ft.), retail use (9,400 sq. ft.), and mechanical space (1,600 sq. ft.) on 39 acres of land located along Corporate Way: Mr. Jaeger said this is a variation of the plan presented in April, 1990. There were questions on the setback/coverages in the 80 ft. building envelope, also on building heights. Mr. Jaeger showed a conceptual rendering of the building. It would be located right beyond China Lite and would be an L- shaped, 3-story building. The first floor would be predom- inantly retail and the upper floors for professional office space. He felt it meets what the city wants in a downtown - pedestrian area. There would be an entrance area for the office use on the non -retail side of the building, also a landscaped area with benches that would join the major pedestrian corridor. The applicant would propose a future "mirror vision" of this 'building on the southeast corner of the lot and possibly in the :Long term a smaller office building in back. Addressing Mr Weith's questions, Mr. Jaeger said they will comply with handicapped access. They will also include in the tenant leases a prohibition against employees parking on the street. Mr. Burgess questioned whether benches and bricks count as land- scaping. Mr. Weith said in this case he feels they should as they are part of the desired streetscape. Members had no problem with this. Mr. Austin noted the Commission will have to be sure developers in other parts of the city don't ask for similar consideration. PLANNING COMMISSION 14 January 1992 page 7 Mr. Jaeger said they are in agreement with the Fire Chief on hydrants. The engineer has also reached an agreement with the City Engineer regarding runoff via a swale. There is a culvert that will attenuate the flow to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. They also have to insure runoff is cleansed so it doesn't affect the brook. Mrs. Maher noted a problem with proposed street trees of storm drains. Mr. Weith said it's either plant them over storm drains or move the storm sewer. The City Center streetscape committee is going to work on this. Mr. Jaeger said it is their intention to keep the access road serving the back of the development as a private way. He raised the question of the 0-80 ft. setback being applied to only the part of the building facing Corporate Way or the part fronting on the private road. Today, that road is the entrance road to China Lite. Mr. Jaeger said they may build it to city standards, but they are not eager to make it a city street. The landowner feels he's lost a lot to public streets and doesn't want to lose any more until he has something coming back in. Mr. Craig said as long as there is an irrevocable offer of dedication he had no problem with the setback; otherwise he couldn't vote for the project. Mrs. Maher didn't feel the Commission could waive the setback. A concensus of members showed they favored the L-shaped building but wouldn't accept the street unless it was a public street. There were two issues regarding building height, the question of flat roofs and the tower being 7.5 ft. too tall. Members felt they could waive the tower height. It was noted that Section 1.603 of the Central District Zoning allows a maximum of 50% of rooftops in a development to be flat. The proposed building is would be completely flat except for the tower. Mr Weith felt the section was very poorly worded and the City Attorney agrees with staff on this. Mr. Weith said he spoke with Jane Lafleur who said it was not the intention to discourage flat roofs. Mr. Burgess said the intention was not to have a bunch of one-story flat roofed buildings in the city center. Members felt the proposed building did not look like a one-story building and felt the Ordinance could be changed on this issue. Mr. Poger reminded the Commission that what they see in an artist's rendering is not necessarily what will be built. With regard to traffic, Mr. Burgess noted a comment from the Planner that Item #5 on the 1981 final plat approval no longer applies because the city has been advised by the applicant that they can't open up a public street over the Lake Buick property. Mr. Lamphere said if it can't be done, they want it off the Master Plan. Mr Burgess said that the City may still one day PLANNING COMMISSION 1.4 January 1992 page 8 want to have that street. Mr Lamphere suggested setting up a committee to locate that street so one day Mr. Posey can develop on his land without a problem. Mr. Burgess said that is not part of this application. Mr. Craig noted that this application does require the access to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Jaeger said they have no argument on that. He said this building doesn't trigger the need for the road, but pass -through traffic would create a level D/F intersection at Hinesburg Rd. They have sought Agency of Transportation approval for a left turn lane northbound on Hinesburg Rd., a second lane out of Corporate Way (one left, one right turn), and a signal. They feel these upgrades will maintain a level of service B. The Agency has approved and they are waiting for engineering. There will be a cost sharing agreement with the city which was part of the agreement on the school access last year. Mr. Craig moved to continue the hearing until 4 February. Mr. Sheahan seconded. Motion passed unanimouslv. 7. PUblic Hearing: Continue preliminary plat application of Charles Deslauriers for a planned commercial development consisting of 218,800 sq. ft. of general/medical office space including cafe/deli, a pharmacy, and two shops in six buildings on 12.5 acres, 421 Dorset St.: Mr. Austin stepped down during this hearing. Mrs. Maher questioned why the application is still showing a cafe/deli and the other uses which are not allowed in R-7 zoning. Mr. Brush noted there will be a letter from the applicant saying they feel these uses are grandfathered. Mrs. Maher noted there will then be other things that can't be done in a CD-3 zone. Regarding traffic, Mr. Brush noted a letter sent to the Planner regarding impact fees and traffic issues. They feel the fee should be based on final plan trip generation. Members had no problem with this. They also feel the fee should be based on a phased project. Mr Craig noted the light won't be installed until warrants allow. He said he would expect the applicant to escrow money for the light as the buildings are built. Mr. Burgess added that if the applicant builds only one building, they would pay for only 25% of the light. Mr. Burgess noted that the applicant is asking thatif the I-189 on -ramp is free to the city, the applicant would pay nothing; otherwise they would be asked to agree to pay a percen-tage of the city's share, with the city's share not to exceed $200,000. Mr Weith said he had no problem with this. Mr. Burgess noted the applicant is asking for the same arrangement with Williston Rd. improvements and asked if this is what has been done in the past. Mr Weith said no. The M E M 0 R P N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weit.h, City Planner Re: March 3, 1992 agenda items Date: February 28, 1992 3) CITY PARK. STREET The City's consultant for the City Park project will be present at Tuesday's meeting to present preliminary plans for the park. The park plan will require a zoning change and site plan approv- al. The zoning change has been warned for a public hearing on March 17. The consultant would like to get comments on the pre- liminary site plan. A site plan application will be submitted once final plans are complete and the zoning has been changed. 4) 421 DORSET OFFICE COMPLEX • i pp11c. s ,+-; ,-1 t.. r. n�a R�,�c. a,a n�+� c r..:-�c.i-i Th �; u �;ation was ccr- _ _ - j ly for a discussion on the wetlands/stream issue. The applicant has hired a wetlands consultant and is working on a plan to address this issue. This plan is not yet complete and there- fore, the applicant is requesting to be postponed to the April 14 meeting. The applicant is also proposing to amend the present application f or _ _,pr-oval to subdivicle a 12,500 parcel. from the original 12.5 acre �,, i� - '. . i t. _i- - r ' s -recommendation that once the wet - lands/st-ream issue is resolved, the applicant should submit an amended preliminary plat application form and that the amended application be rewarned . The application has changed quite significant.iy ince it was first submitted and warned in spring, 1988. i SOUTH BURLINGTON REAL'I":= _ :I:'Y. CENTER _ OFFICE/RETAIL BUILD_ ING This is a continuation of South Burlington Realty's application to construct a three (3) story 49,000 square foot mixed - retail/of*ice building on Corporate This project was last reviewed at January 14, 1992 meeting (minutes not yet avail- able). Access/circulation: No chant'-. Memorandum - Planning March 3, 1992 agenda items February 28, 1992 Page 2 Set-back/coverage: The previous layout had the building not meeting the 0-80 building envelope setback along the north side of the building. A 60 foot future street r.o.w. is now being proposed along the northerly property line which will bring the building into compliance with the building envelope setback. The building will be setback three (3) feet from this new r.o.w. as recommended by the Streetscape Committee to create a 13 foot wide sidewalk. Coverage percentages have not changed. Parking: 202 parking spaces are required and the plans show a x total of 196 on -site spaces and 15 on -street spaces for a total of �. r _... 1... „ �,� a e_. bc-ing pr. ovided . Severn ( 7 ) of these are handicapped spaces. Note #7 on sheet 1 of 6 says that only four (4) handicapped spaces are being provided. This note should b�l changed to reflect the correct number of handicapped spaces proposed. The applicant has eliminated the on -street truck loading area and replaced it with six. (6) or. -street parallel parking spaces as rec:uniiic2nded Li" 1 -., ' . T ie si—icr doses t t.o the intersection should be elimir:at.ed to reduce conflicts near the intersection. A loading/trash removal area is now shown on -site. Trash storage will be within the building. Proposed City Street: The roadway within the proposed future city street along the northerly boundary must be centered within the r.o.w.. This would allow for a 13 foot sidewalk (10 feet to—,--' the r.o.w. line plus 3 feet to the building) on both sides of the street. Trees should be setback three (3) feet from the curb i ._ t: :'t J,'1uL' .:C e :1 y r :ii.. .'C!=:i_'•_tr CVmill.lt.�Ee. �lprlic,y;,C. should indicate whether this street will be constructed to city �. t.anda rdF, . The parking area west of the end of the future city street, should be redesigned if possible so ar nllt to interFere with ±.die continuation of this street some time .in the future. As ct;zrent- ly designed, parking and trees would be within a future r.o.w. If redesigning the parking lot is not feasible then the Plannin.-I Commission and applicant should be aware that approximately 15 spaces will be _ �mo•1 ed if and wl'-n the public r.o.w. i-s -ext.er►de:: . This should he i etere:nced in the findings. 2 IKemorandum - Planning March 3, 1992 agenda items February 28, 1992 Page 3 Land5cap-iii{, _ At the last. meeT. i n the P1 ar;n __:: Commission recom- mended waving landscaping rather than setting a precedent of allowing bricks and benches for landscaping. The landscaping requirement is $36,500 and the value of the landscaping proposed is $22,,-�88, a short fall of $13,612. Staff recommends that 3" - 3 1/2" trees be used along the streets instead of 2 1/2 - 3" trees being proposed. This would reduce the shortfall to $12,240. Sewer_ No change Lighting: Twenty (20) foot high street lights are proposed but the Streetscape Committee has recommended 16 foot high street lights. This should be reflected on the plan. Bui.ldi g Heights: No change. Traffic: As stated in the last staff memo dated January 10, 1992, the original approval for the Corporate Way subdivision (11./17/81) required that certain improvements be made relating to trarric if certain conditions are met. Condition #6 requires the complete construction or establishment of bonding and a timetable for completion of Corporate Way if any on -site development will create or add to a LOS below C on any of four (4) intersections, including Williston Road/Dorset Itreet. and Williston Road/Hines- burg Road. The applicant submitted a traffic study prepared by RSG which estimated LOS in the year 1995. The build scenario assumed 45,000 square feet of retail and 145,000 square feet of office space. This application is for only 38,000 square feet of office space and 9,400 square feet of retail space. The 1995 scenario al-o assumed that -�lx (6) intersections would be improved in addition to the construction of Dorset Street, a traffic signal at. the Corporate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection, and a north bound ramp, added to E:,:.'L 1;i . The traffic study estimates that the Dorset/Williston Road inter- =;ection will operate at LOS E in 1995. Therefore, condition #6 discussed above is triggered. Additionally, the Williston Road/Hinesburg Road intersection is estimated to operate at LOS - C, however, this assumes substantial improvments to the existing intersection. The applicant has stated in past meetings that he proposes to complete C.- -i:%:r :t.- ::aY in c-_J::nection with th.i: 3 Memorandum - Planning March 3, 1992 agenda items February 28, 1992 Page 4 Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions to :discuss traffic mitigation. Staff and applicant have not been able to come to an agreement on an appropriate mitigation package to present to the Commission. It is staff's recommendation that. as a condition of approving this application that the applicant fulfill the following requirements: 1) Applicant complete Corporate Way including construction of the Corporate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection with signalization. (Note: City will be required to contribute to cost of intersec- tion and signal based on an earlier agreement with the applicant). 2) Applicant contribute to the Williston Road Area 1 Intersec- tion Improvement Fund based on 129 peak hour trip ends estimated} to be generated by the project. Under the current formula, the applicant would be required to contribute $15,413. The applicant. has indicated that all they are willing to contrib- ute in terms of traffic mitigation is the completion of Corporate Way. It is the applicant's opinion that completing Corporate Way will provide a net benefit in terms of traffic flow in the area (i.e. diversion traffic) and, therefore, should not be required to contribute to the Williston Road Improvment.s Fund. The appli- cant has further indicated that if the Williston Road Fund con- tribution is conditioned, the applicant will appeal the condition to Superior Court, based on the City'F, failure. to pr,-}perly adopt the fund as an impact fee ordinance axis required 6y statute. I strongly feel that the applicant should contribute to the fund as is required for all development.: ; • '_.l:e a, This fund is used to improve traffic flow in th- area whi.c h is needed to support future development in the area. The fund will actually go toward improving one intersection which was assumed to be impr tved in the applicant's traffic st—� ?y (i.e. , Williston!:. burg Road). I have not been able to talk to the City Attorney regarding whether he could successfully defend the Williston Road fund if challenged. If not,•perhaps a more appropriate condition for - approval would be to+lhe issuance of a zoning permit to comple- tion of all improvements assume.' in the traf f ; , study (i.e. , dorset Street improved, Corporate Way complete, signall.zed Corpo- rate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection, impr-Dved Hinesburg Road/Williston Road/White Street intersection, northbound ramp at Exit 13). 4 Unresolved issues: There are still a few unresolved issues which include the following: --- the location of fire hydrants must be decided prior to permit. The Fire Chief will return from vacation on March 2nd. This issue could therefore be resolved prior to the meeting. --- all streetscape issues, i.e. lighting, sidewalk material and design, etc. A note has been included on the plan that requires these design elements to conform with City stand- ards in effect at the time of issuance of the zoning/build- ing permit. Storm drainage: Bill Szymanski has reviewed drainage plan and found it to be acceptable. Other: --- the proposed 60 foot r.o.w. along the must be shown on the subdivision plat. applicant's storm northerly boundary' - - applicant must submit Offei:• of Irrevocable Dedication an � Warranty Deed for the future street prior to permit. --- subdivision plat should show certification and signature of land surveyor. --- the applicant would like an assurance from the Planning ''s emission that i t. will pui-_iue ar .ending SE ction 1.603 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance to allow buildings to have 100% flat roofs. 7) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY - RETAIL BUILDING - 1860 WILLISTON ROAD This project consists of the construction of a 12,000 square foot 1-story retail building. The Zoning Board of Adjustment on rA r?nary 10, 1992 granted a coridit.ion;A use permit. fo,. pro:�ect without any conditions. This project is located at 1860 Williston Road and is within the Mixed Industrial & Commercial. District. It is bounded on the north by the airport, on the west by the airport and the City of South Burlington sewage pumping station, on the east by Avis Car Rental service facility and on the south by Williston Road. Access/circulation: Access to the site will be via one (1) 30- foot wide curb cut on Williston Road. This access will be shared with the Avis property to the east.. This shared access arrange- ment was required when the Planning Commission approved these two 5 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INC. MEMORANDUM To: John Jaeger From: Norman L. Marshall Subject: Corporate Way and Hinesburg Road Intersection Date: December 12,1991 We have analyzed the effects of opening Corporate Way using the South Burlington Subarea Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model. Land use scenarios are available for 1990, 1995, and 2000. The 1995 land use scenario has been used to allow for some additional growth in the area. No City Center development was included. Because Corporate Way is planned, in part, to divert traffic from Williston Road, a signal at the new intersection is assumed in order to facilitate such diversion. In the 1995 design hour (an afternoon peak hour), the model predicts hourly traffic on Corporate Way of 264 vehicles eastbound and 270 vehicles westbound, for total traffic of 534 vehicles during the peak hour. The predicted directional distribution is given on the attached level -of -service analyses. Given the expected volumes, left -turn traffic exiting Corporate Way would experience level -of -service "F" during the 1995 design hour, and diversion traffic would thereby be discouraged. Adjusted to the average peak hour, the peak hour signal warrant and would be met. With signalization and a northbound left -turn lane, the intersection would operate at level -of -service "C" in the 1995 design hour. The Vermont Agency of Transportation's (VAOT) Policy on Traffic Signal Installation (3/18/91) provides for use of estimates for planning proposed intersections. In some cases, however, VAOT has required field verification of traffic conditions prior to allowing signal operation. Corporate Way has unique aspects that would encourage early signal installation and operation. These are: 1) Corporate Way is a public through road rather than a development driveway; 2) Corporate Way is desired by the City of South Burlington and VAOT as an alternative to Williston Road; and 3) Signalization of the intersection will be required in order to encourage maximum use of Corporate Way as a diversion route. Therefore, we recommend construction of a northbound left -turn lane, and signalization of the Corporate Way and Hinesburg Road intersection prior to opening Corporate Way to the public. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, October, 1990 Page \ ddC> - v vT4L b � trip generation rate for the China Li was increased by 20 o which results in an estimated PM peak trip generation of 83 trips. Subtracting the estimated impact of the China Lite from the total "intended impact" of Phase 1 yields a net remaining available impact of 138 PM peak hour trips. To determine the likely result of the completion of Phase 1, 138 PM peak hour trips were thus added to the base conditions and the results analyzed at the two critical intersections of Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way and Hinesburg Road/Corporate Way. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips was based on numbers developed by the JHK & associates study for the South Burlington City Center/Dorset Street Corridor. According to the report, "the trips generated were assigned to the roadway network using trip distribution factors derived from trip tables provided by the CCRPC and the assessments of the effects of future development patterns and highway improvements."1 Using these distribution percentages, the following development volumes were allocated: Dorset Street=C17 V-M :544A 19 LCorporate Way R 25 f— 19 U Mall r 19 Hinesburg Road = 7%1 3 Corporate Way 7 21 _i These volumes were used in the level of service analysis. j 2.JHK & associates, "South Burlington City Center/Dorset Street Corridor Study", May 1988, p.19. V"te Revised 11/15/86 4/15/87 THE CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON TRAFFIC IMPACT POLICY (WILLISTON ROAD, HINESBURG ROAD AND SHELBURNE ROAD) Adopted by the South Burlington Planning Commission 1986/1987 _ J Williston Road Traffic Impact Policy For the purposes of this policy, the Williston Road corridor is divided into 2 segments. Segment 1 includes the Gaynes, Sheraton and Holiday Inn area shown on tax maps #6, #7, #15, #16 and the heavily developed commercial area and the lesser developed, area to the east shown on tax maps 9, 12, 17, and 18. Segment 2 includes the Kennedy-Drive/Airport Drive intersection east to the City limits shown on tax maps 14, 19, 20, 21, 29, and 32. The impact fee is based on: 1) the undeveloped land in each segment; 2) an estimate of the development potential of the undeveloped acreage; 3) an estimate of the peak hour trip ends for the undeveloped acreage; and 4) the required traffic improvements and costs. Each development proposal in the impact area will contribute to the total trips projected for the corridor. Those trips are a share of the total trips estimated. That share shall be paid toward the total cost of Williston Road improvements. P• y Impact area 1B Commercial 1: Commercial 1: Residential 4: 15.28 acres x 43560 = 665,596.8 x 30% coverage = 199,679.04 x 2.84/1000 = 567 (Corporate Circle) 2380 trip ends x 25% to Williston Road = 595 11.13 acres - 15% = 9.36 x 4 units/acre x 1 trip end/unit = 38 TOTAL TRIP ENDS = 4380 T.24 § 5203 MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVT. Ch.131 (b) The amount of an impact fee used to fund a capital project shall be determined according to a formula developed under subsec- tion (a) of this section. The fee shall be equal to or less than the portion of the capital cost of a capital project which will benefit or is attributable to the development and shall not include costs at- tributable to the operation, administration or maintenance of a cap- ital project. The municipality may require a fee for the entire cost of a capital project that will initially be used only by the benefi- ciaries of the development so assessed. In this case, if the project will be used by beneficiaries of future development the municipality shall establish a formula consistent with the formula developed under subsection (a) of this section to require that beneficiaries of future development pay an impact fee to the owners of the develop- ment on which the impact fee has already been levied. (c) In determining the amount of a fee that will be used to fund a capital project, the municipality may account for: (1) the cost of the existing or proposed facility; (2) the means, including state or federal grants and fees paid by other developers, by which the facility has been or will be financed; (3) the extent, if any, to which impact fees should be offset to account for other taxes or fees paid by the developer that will cover the cost of the capital project; (4) extraordinary costs incurred by the municipality in serv- ing the new development; (6) the time -price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times. (d) In determining the amount of the impact fee to compensate the municipality for expenses incurred as a result of construction, the municipality shall project the expenses that will be incurred. If the actual expense incurred is less than the fee collected from the developer, the municipality shall refund the unexpended portion of the fee within one year of the termination of construction of the project. (e) The municipality shall provide an annual accounting for each impact fee showing the source, amount of each fee collected and project that was funded with the fee. The municipality must spend 'the fee on the capital project, for which the fee was intended, within six years of when the fee was paid. If it fails to do this, the owner of the property at the expiration of the six -year period may apply for and receive a refund of his or her proportionate Ch. 131 IMPACT FEES T.24 § 5205 share of that fee during the year following the date on which the right to claim the refund began. —Added 1987, No. 200 (Adj. right to claim the refund began. (f) The municipality shall establish the formula and procedure for levying an impact fee by an ordinance or bylaw adopted under chapter 59 or 117 of this title. Such ordinance or bylaw shall include a provision for administrative appeal of the impact fee assessed. —Added 1987, No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), § 37, eff. July 1, 1989; amended 1989, No. 106 ; 1989, No. 280 (Adj. Sess.), § 11c. 1989 (Adj. Sess.) amendment. Subsection (b) : In the fourth sentence, in- serted "establish a formula consistent with the formula developed under sub- section (a) of this section to" preceding "require" and substituted "has already been" for "was originally" preceding "levied". 1989 amendment. Subsection (f): Added. Cross references. Capital budget and program, see §§ 4401 and 4426 of this title. § 5204. Payment of fees (a) An impact fee or obligation for offsite mitigation shall be a lien upon all property and improvements .within land development for which the fee is assessed in the same manner and to the same effect as taxes are a lien upon real estate under section 5061 of Title 32. (b) A municipality may require payment of an impact fee or accept offsite mitigation before issuance of a zoning or subdivision permit. _ (c) A municipality may accept fees on installment at a reason- able rate of interest. (d) A municipality may require a letter of credit to guarantee future payment of an impact fee or offsite mitigation. —Added 1987, No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), § 37, eff. July 1, 1989. Cross references. Zoning permits, see § 4443 of this title. § 5205. Exemptions A municipality may exempt certain types of development from any part or all of the impact fee assessed, provided that the exemp- tion achieves other policies or objectives clearly stated in the mu- nicipal plan. The policies or objectives may include, but are not lim- ited to, the provision of affordable housing and the retention of existing employment or the generation of new employment. — Added 1987, No. 200 (Adj. Sess.), § 37, eff. July 1, 1989. 274 1 . 275 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP A Traffic Impact Analysis of City Center Phase 1 South Burlington, Vermont Prepared for: South Burlington Realty Company Norwich, Vermont October,1990 INTRODUCTION The proposed site for City Center is just south of Williston Road, to the east of Dorset Street and to the west of Hinesburg Road. There will be access both from the east (Hinesburg Road) and from the west (Dorset Street). Resource Systems Group conducted a traffic impact study for 'Phase 1" in the City Center Complex which included the following analyses: 1) originally authorized, currently used, and remaining available trip generation of Phase 1, 2) trip distribution based on JHK & Associates projections, 3) level of service analyses performed at both driveway entrances. It was concluded that there will be no unacceptable traffic congestion at either the Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way intersection or the Hinesburg Road/Corporate Way intersection. TRIP GENERATION Based on the original Land Use Permit #4C0503 issued in 1982, the approved development for Phase 1 of City Center was 100,000 square feet of office space or 50,000 square feet of retail space. South Burlington Realty has indicated that a likely Phase 1 scenario at the time of the approval was two separate office buildings each having 50,000 square feet of leasable area. The PM peak hour trip generation rate for a 50,000 square foot General Office Building is 2.211 which would yield 221 peak hour trips for the two buildings. Although the alternate Phase 1 development of 50,000 square feet of retail space may have generated substantially more than 221 PM peak hour trips, the office scenario and correspondingly modest traffic impact were chosen to reflect the most likely intended impact of Phase 1. To assess the impact of the remaining development in Phase 1, the impact of the China Lite restaurant must be subtracted from the total trips. The China Lite has a gross floor area of 9,600 square feet. Applying a PM peak hour trip generation rate of 7.25 for a Quality Restaurant2 would yield an expected PM peak hour trip generation of 69 trips. Because the China Lite contains a somewhat higher seating density than the average Quality Restaurant reported by the Trip Generation and does a significant take-out business, the RESOURCE 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 4th Edition Trip Generation, Washington D.C., SYSTEMS 1987, p. 887. GROUP 21nstitute of Transportation Engineers, p. 1166. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, October, 1990 Page 2 trip generation rate for the China Lite was increased by 20% which results in an estimated PM peak trip generation of 83 trips. Subtracting the estimated impact of the China Lite from the total "intended impact" of Phase 1 yields a net remaining available impact of 138 PM peak hour trips. To determine the likely result of the completion of Phase 1, 138 PM peak hour trips were thus added to the base conditions and the results analyzed at the two critical intersections of Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way and Hinesburg Road/Corporate Way. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of trips was based on numbers developed by the JHK & associates study for the South Burlington City Center/Dorset Street Corridor. According to the report, "the trips generated were assigned to the roadway network using trip distribution factors derived from trip tables provided by the CCRPC and the assessments of the effects of future development patterns and highway improvements."1 Using these distribution percentages, the following development volumes were allocated: Dorset Street 19 LCorporate Way Corporate Way 25 7 8 -4-- 7 19 21 U Mall 19 These volumes were used in the level of service analysis. Hinesburg Road I 10 2.JHK & associates, "South Burlington City Center/Dorset Street Corridor Study", May 1988, p.19. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, October, 1990 Page 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE Level of service analyses were performed for the two City Center driveway intersections at Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way to the west and Hinesburg Road/Corporate Way to the east. Analyses were done for the years of 1991 and 1996 for both development and no development scenarios. Base volumes were taken from counts done by Resource Systems Group on March 23rd,1990. These counts were adjusted up by 18% to design hour volumesi using automatic traffic recorder data collected by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) in downtown Burlington. A growth rate of 1.5% was used to calculate future growth. This rate has been calculated to be the average rate of growth in traffic volumes for urbane areas in Vermont. The Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way intersection is currently signalized. Level of service analysis shows that with the Phase 1 development in place, the overall intersection delay changes by less than 2 seconds from no development cases in both the 1991 and 1996 scenarios. It is estimated that in 1996, the level of service with the development volumes include will be "C" corresponding to average delays. The Hinesburg Road/Corporate Way intersection currently does not exist and was analyzed as \ S�tr an unsignalized intersection for the build cases. Even with a single lane exiting Corporate Way, the delay is estimated to be level of service 'B" corresponding to minor delays. SUMMARY From our analysis we conclude that the proposed completion of Phase 1 of the City Center Complex will have very little effect on the level of service at either of the two driveway intersections (Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way and Hinesburg Road/Corporate Way). 1Design Hour Volume equal to the 30 highest hour of the calender year APPENDIX 1 Level -of -Service Analyses RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Signalized Ir Intersection: Location: raffic Period: itersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.31-Resource Systems Group Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 1991 Design Hour PM Peak - No -Build Base Traffic Volumes EB WB NB SIB Adjustments to Base Vol's TOTAL LT TOTAL TH TOTAL FIT U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset 418 12 55 38 12 1 659 612 39 16 23 492 Development Volumes U Mall Corporate Dorset Total Analysis Volumes TOTAL LT TOTAL TH TOTALRT 19 8 7 25 19 u Man Corporate uorset Dorset 501 14 66 46 14 1 789 733 47 19 28 589 Total 562 35 883 1368 % RTOR U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset 25% 25% 25% 25% Traffic and Roadway Conditions Approach U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset Base Year = Final Year = Growth/yr = DHV adjust = Total Growth = 1.198 Dorset Add dev Y/N = in i Time of Day = FM Controller = semi -actuated CBD? n Grade % %HV Adj Parking? Nm Parking Buses Nb 0 2 N 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 uom veasinr vea. Munon!min Ilme butt Arr i ype pni 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 Lane Groupings U Mall 1 EB 2 3 Corporate 1 WB 2 3 Dorset 1 NB 2 3 Dorset 1 SB 2 3 # Lanes N L I ! I H ! H I / Lane vvidtn eit turn phase 2 y y y 14 Perm 1 y y y 15 Perm 2 y y y 11 Perm 2 y y n 11 Perm 1 n n y 11 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.31 Resource Systems Group Phase Green Times Intersection: Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way Phase 1 18 Location: South Burlington, Vermont Phase 2 37 raffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build Phase 3 Phase 4 Print Date 4/3/90 Phase 5 Print Time 8:12 AM Phase 6 Phase 7 Gr. Clear. - 8 Dorset Timings 9.6 sec Total Green 55 LOS B Total Dead 9 Cycle Length 64 Corporate U Mall Overall 13.1 sec Lane Groups Phase number 15.8 sec 12.9 sec LOS B U Mall 1 1 LOS C LOS B Dorset 15.8 sec Corporate 1 1 LOS C Dorset 1 2 Dorset 1 2 2 2 Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS U Mall LTR 18 15.8 C 15.8 C Corporate LTR 18 13.1 B 13.1 B I Dorset LTR 37 15.8 C 15.8 C Dorset LT 37 10.4 B 9.6 B R 37 8.5 B Average Intersection Delay 12.9 seconds Average Intersection LOS B z Signalized Ir Intersection: Location: raffic Period: itersectlon operations Analysis- Version 3.31-Resource Systems Grou Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 1991 Design Hour PM Peak - Build Base Traffic Volumes EB WB NB SIB Adjustments to Base Vol's TOTAL LT TOTAL TH TOTALRT U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset 418 12 55 38 12 1 659 612 39 16 23 492 Development Volumes U Mall Corporate Dorset Total Analysis Volumes TOTAL LT TOTAL TH TOTALRT 19 8 7 25 19 Base Year = Final Year = Growth/yr = DHV adjust = Total Growth = 1.198 Dorset Add dev 'YIN = ly 19 Time of Day = FM Controller = semi -actuated u mall Corporate uorset Dorset 501 33 66 65 22 8 789 733 47 44 47 589 Total 570 86 902 1387 % RTOR U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset 25% 25% 25% 25% Traffic and Roadway Conditions Approach U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset CBD? n Grade% %HV Adj Parking? Nm Parking Buses Nb 0 2 N 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 earn reusmr rea. mutton r min i ime butt Hrr i ype pni 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 Lane Groupings U Mall L I AI 1 Tn TI1l flT1 ___ 1 EB 2 3 Corporate 1 WB 2 3 Dorset 1 NB 2 3 Dorset 1 SB 2 rr Lanes N L i r 1 n. n i f Lane MOM ett turn pliase 2 y y y 14 Perm 1 y y y 15 Perm 2 y y y 11 Perm 2 y y n 11 Perm 1 n n y 11 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.31 Resource Systems Group Phase Green Times Intersection: Dorset Street/University Mail/Corporate Way Phase 1 18 Location: South Burlington, Vermont Phase 2 37 raffic Period: 1991 Design Hour (PM Peak) - Build Phase 3 Phase 4 Print Date 4/2/90 Phase 5 Print Time 3:27 PM Phase 6 Phase 7 Gr. Clear. - 8 Dorset Timings 10.2 sec Total Green 55 LOS B Total Dead 9 Cycle Length 64 Corporate U Mall Overall 14.5 sec Lane Groups Phase number 16.2 sec 13.8 sec LOS B U Mall 1 1 LOS C LOS B Dorset 17.5 sec Corporate 1 1 LOS C Dorset 1 2 Dorset 1 2 2 2 Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS U Mall LTR 18 16.2 C 16.2 C Corporate LTR 18 14.5 B 14.5 B Dorset LTR 37 17.5 C 17.5 C Dorset LT 37 1 1 .4 B 10.2 B R 37 8.5 B Average Intersection Delay 13.8 seconds Average Intersection LOS B Signalized Ir Intersection: Location: raffic Period: itersection Operations Analysis- Version 3.31-Resource Systems Group Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 1996 Design Hour PM Peak - No -Build Base Traffic Volumes EB WB NB SB Adjustments to Base Vol's TOTAL LT TOTAL TH TOTALRT U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset 418 12 55 38 12 1 659 612 39 16 23 492 Development Volumes U Mall Corporate Dorset Total Analysis Volumes TOTAL LT TOTAL TH TOTAL FIT 19 8 7 25 19 Base Year = Final Year = Growth/yr = DHV adjust = Total Growth 11.290 Dorset Add dev Y/N In 19 Time of Day JFM u Mail Corporate uorset uorset 539 15 71 49 15 1 850 790 50 21 30 635 Total 605 37 951 1473 % RTOR U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset 25% 25% 25% 25% Traffic and Roadway Conditions Approach U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset U Mall Corporate Dorset Dorset Controller = semi -actuated CBD? In Grade% %HV Adj Parking? Nm Parking Buses Nb 0 2 N 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 0 2 n 0 0 uont Fecis/nr i ed. button ! min 1 Ime Mutt Arr i ype pni 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 0 N 0 3 0.93 Lane Groupings U Mall 1 EB 2 3 Corporate 1 WB 2 3 Dorset 1 NB 2 3 Dorset 1 SB 2 3 # Lanes N L 1 ! 1 H ! R 1 / Lane Width eft turn phase 2 y y y 14 Perm 1 y y y 15 Perm 2 y y y 11 Perm 2 y y n 11 Perm 1 n n y 11 Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis HCM 1985 - Resource Systems Group v. 3.31 Resource Systems Group Phase Green Times Intersection: Dorset Street/University Mall/Corporate Way Phase 1 18 Location: South Burlington, Vermont Phase 2 37 Traffic Period: 1996 Design Hour (PM Peak) - No -Build Phase 3 Phase 4 Print Date 4/3/90 Phase 5 Print Time 8:14 AM Phase 6 Phase 7 Gr. Clear. - 8 Dorset Timings 11.3 sec Total Green 55 LOS B Total Dead 9 Cycle Length 64 Corporate U Mall Overall 13.3 sec Lane Groups Phase number 16.4 sec 16.3 sec LOS B U Mall 1 1 LOS C LOS C Dorset 23.7 sec Corporate 1 1 LOS C Dorset 1 12 Dorset 1 2 2 2 Lanes Green Time Total Delay Group LOS Appr Delay Approach LOS U Mall LTR 18 16.4 C 16.4 C Corporate LTR 18 13.3 B 13.3 B Dorset LTR 37 23.7 C 23.7 C Dorset LT 37 12.5 B 1 1 .3 B R 37 9.5 B Average Intersection Delay 16.3 seconds Average Intersection LOS C Unsignalized "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group Resource Systems Group Intersection: Hinesburg Rd/Corporate Way Location: South Burlington, Vermont Analysis Period: PM Peak -- 1996 DHV Build Adjustments IB WB NB SB Speed Limit A/BF 40 ase Volumes T )ev Volumes T ,)alysis Volumes T # of Lanes A/B: Control Type C: Shared Lanes C? DHV Adjust Base Year Analysis Year Growth/Year Total Growth Add dev? sum 28 0 634 487 pce? Minor right large radius? Hinesburg SB is A <--- B Minor right accel lane? Hinesburg NB Corporate WB Is B A ---> is C � Major excl. RT lane? urgeFIT radius into minor? C Population >= 250,000? Restricted sight distance? Movement: A-thru A -right B - left B-thru C-left C-right Volume: 484 3 10 624 7 21 pch: ///////// / / / / / / / / / 1 1 ///////// 7 22 Right Turn from Corporate WB Conflicting Flow: 485 vph Critical Gap: 5.9 sec Capacity (M1): 630 pch Reserve Capacity: #N/A pch Service Level: # N / A Left Turn from Hinesburg NB Conflicting Flow: 487 vph Critical Gap: 5.2 sec Capacity (M2): 719 pch Capacity Used: 1 % Impedance (P2): 0.99 Reserve Capacity: 709 pch Service Level: A -no delays Left Turn from Corporate WB Conflicting Flow: 1120 vph Critical Gap: 7.1 sec Capacity (Mn): 149 pch Capacity (M3): 148 pch Reserve Capacity: #N/A pch Service Level: # N / A (Shared Lane) Capacity (M13): 347 pch Reserve Capacity: 318 pch Service Level: B-short delays 2 stop y 1.180 1990 1996 1.015 1.290 y 1.05 n n n n n n Print Date:4/2/90 Print Time: 3:38 pm N 1, Unsignalized "T" Intersection 1985 HCM Analysis vMM3.02 -- Resource Systems Group Resource Systems Group Intersection: lHinesburg Rd/Corporate Way Location: South Burlington, Vermont Analysis Period: IPM Peak -- 1991 DHV Build Adjustments EB WB NB SB Speed Limit A/ 40 se Volumes L Th R ev Volumes L Th R alysis Volumes L Th R sum Hinesburg SB Hinesburg NB Corporate WB Movement Volume: pch: # of Lanes A/B: Control Type C: Shared Lanes C? DHV Adjust Base Year Analysis Year Growth/Year Total Growth Add dev? 28 0 590 452 pce? Minor right large radius? is A <--- B Minor right accel lane? is B A ---> Major excl. RT lane? is C F____Large FIT radius into minor? C Population >= 250,000? Restricted sight distance? A-thru A -right B-left B-thru C-left C-right 449 3 10 580 7 21 11///////// 7 22 Right Turn from Corporate WB Conflicting Flow: 451 vph Critical Gap: 5.9 sec Capacity (M1): 657 pch Reserve Capacity: #N/A pch Service Level: # N / A Left Turn from Hinesburg NB Conflicting Flow: 452 vph Critical Gap: 5.2 sec Capacity (M2): 747 pch Capacity Used: 1 % Impedance (P2): 0.99 Reserve Capacity: 736 pch Service Level: A -no delays Left Turn from Corporate WB Conflicting Flow: 1 040 vph Critical Gap: 7.1 sec Capacity (Mn): 172 pch Capacity (M3): 171 pch Reserve Capacity: #N/A pch Service Level: # N / A (Shared Lane) Capacity (M13): 384 pch Reserve Capacity: 354 pch Service Level: B-short delay 2 stop y 1.180 1990 1991 1.015 1.198 y 1.05 n n n n n n Print Date:4/2/90 Print Time: 3:37 pm A Traffic Impact Analysis of the South Burlington City Area RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Norwich, Vermont I April, 1991 City Center, April 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1 SCOPE OF REPORT...............................................................1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................1 THE SOUTH BURLINGTON SUBAREA CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL.....................................2 OVERVIEW..........................................................................2 LAND USE SCENARIOS.......................................................3 CURRENT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS..................................................5 TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF CITY CENTER...............................................7 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY................................................7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................18 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE 1: LAND USE SCALING FACTORS........................................4 TABLE 2: 2000 PM PEAK HR TRIP GENERATION USING TRIP GENERATION............................................................................5 TABLE 3: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS........................................................................7 TABLE 4: FORECASTED INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LEVELS OF SERVICE, AND AVERAGE INTERSECTION DELAY.................11 FIGURE 1: PM PEAK HOUR BASE VOLUMES...................................6 FIGURE 2: ASSUMED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS.................9 ANALYSIS RESULTS......................................................................11 FIGURE 3: PM PEAK HOUR CITY CENTER TRIP DISTRIBUTION ... 13 FIGURE 4: PERCENTAGE OF CITY CENTER TRAFFIC IN 2000 BY APPROACH..............................................................................14 FIGURE 5: EXIT 13 ON -RAMP SCENARIO.......................................15 FIGURE 6: FULL EXIT 13 INTERCHANGE SCENARIO....................15 FIGURE 7: HINESBURG ROAD INTERCHANGE SCENARIO ......... 16 FIGURE 8: INTERCHANGE ENTER AND EXIT VOLUMES BY SCENARIO...............................................................................17 FIGURE A-1: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 1995 NO -BUILD ... A-1 FIGURE A-2: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 1995 BUILD .......... A-2 FIGURE A-3: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 NO -BUILD ... A-3 FIGURE A4: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD .......... A-4 FIGURE A-5: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD WITH NORTHBOUND ON -RAMP AT EXIT 13.................................. A-5 FIGURE A-6: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD WITH FULL INTERCHANGE AT EXIT 13...........................................A-6 FIGURE A-7: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD WITH NEW INTERCHANGE AT HINESBURG ROAD (EXIT 12A)..... A-7 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Center is a proposed mixed use development including office, retail, and residential uses to be located in South Burlington, Vermont. The City Center build scenario in the year 2000 was developed by the South Burlington City Planner. This scenario includes 1607 office employees, 191 retail employees, and 50 multi -family dwellings. Using the conversion ratios developed by CCRPC, these employee forecasts correspond to about 480,000 square feet of office space and 120,000 square feet of retail space. This report documents the findings of a traffic impact study for the proposed City Center development. Impacts were analyzed using the South Burlington Subarea Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model. This model represents the roadway network and the land -use determinants of trips in Chittenden County, with additional detail included for the City of South Burlington. When new land use and roads are coded into the model, the model predicts the resulting changes in traffic volume. Impacts are calculated both locally and regionally. Weekday afternoon peak hour turning movements were counted at seven intersections and at the site of a future eighth intersection in 1990. The intersections are: Dorset Street and Williston Road, Dorset Street and University Mall (north)/Corporate Way, Dorset Street and University Mall (south)/Lake Buick, Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive, Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive, Hinesburg Road and Corporate Way (not constructed yet), Hinesburg Road and Williston Road, and White Street and Williston Road. Levels of service for the eight study intersections have been analyzed for eight scenarios. These scenarios are: 1989 design hour volumes (PM peak hour), 1995 no -build (without City Center), 1995 build (with City Center), 2000 no - build (without City Center), 2000 build (with City Center), 2000 build (with City Center) with a NB on -ramp at Exit 13, 2000 build (with City Center) with full interchange at Exit 13, and 2000 build (with City Center) a diamond interchange at Hinesburg Road (Exit 12A). Analysis of the eight intersections surrounding the proposed City Center location show no level of service below "E" in the 2000 build case with the intersection improvements recommended in an earlier corridor study in place (JHK 1988). The most serious congestion in the area is expected to be at the Williston Road/Dorset Street intersection, with or without City Center. The construction of Corporate Way will offset much of the impact of the City Center traffic. All of the interchange improvements cause shifts in traffic volumes; the full Exit 13 and the Exit 12A scenarios cause significant traffic volume reductions at the Dorset/Williston and Hinesburg/Williston intersections. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF REPORT This report documents the findings of a traffic impact study for the proposed City Center development in South Burlington, Vermont. The major activities undertaken in this analysis included: ♦ manual traffic counts during the afternoon peak hour at eight intersections in South Burlington; ♦ configuring the South Burlington Subarea Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model for the years 1995 and 2000 using land use projections developed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC); ♦ using the travel demand model to predict the effects of interchange alternatives at Exit 13, and a proposed new interchange at Hinesburg Road; ♦ using the travel demand model to forecast impacts of the development in the years 1995 and 2000 upon eight intersections, with and without roadway improvements in the vicinity of City Center. The study relied upon: ♦ data on roadway geometrics collected through site visits; ♦ general design and analysis procedures documented in the Highway Capacity Manual,l the Trip Generation Manual,2 and the AASHTO Manual.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed site for the City Center development is bounded by Hinesburg Road to the east, Dorset Street to the west, Williston Road to the north, and Kennedy Drive to the south. A new street, Corporate Way, is planned to provide primary access to the project. Corporate Way will connect Dorset Street opposite the northern entrance of University Mall to Hinesburg 1 Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Highway Capacity Manual: Special Report 209, Washington DC, 1985. 2 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 4th Edition, Washington DC, 1987. 3 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Washington DC, 1990. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 2 Road. In addition to the two Corporate Way accesses, a third access to City Center may be provided by an extension of White Street south from Williston Road. This road was not considered in the analysis as it was not deemed to be necessary to support the project. City Center is a mixed use development including office, retail, and residential uses. The City Center build scenario in the year 2000 was developed by the South Burlington City Planner. This scenario includes 1607 office employees, 191 retail employees, and 50 multi -family dwellings. Using the conversion ratios used by CCRPC of approximately one employee per 300 square feet of office space, and one employee per 600 square feet of retail space, these employee forecasts correspond to about 480,000 square feet of office space and 120,000 square feet of retail space. THE SOUTH BURLINGTON SUBAREA CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL OVERVIEW The traffic impacts from developments are commonly analyzed by assuming that existing traffic patterns will be unchanged by the presence of a new development, and that traffic patterns resulting from a development will be similar to existing traffic in the same area. These methods would not yield accurate results with City Center. City Center is a large project with a different character than surrounding land use. Therefore distribution of City Center traffic may have a different pattern than traffic from other major generators in the area, such as University Mall. In addition, City Center will provide an important new roadway between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road that will divert existing traffic as well as serve City Center. Therefore, for this study, impacts were analyzed using the South Burlington Subarea Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model. This model represents the roadway network and the land -use determinants of trips in Chittenden County with additional detail included for the City of South Burlington. When new land use and roads are coded into the model, the model predicts the resulting changes in traffic volume. Impacts are calculated both locally and regionally. The original Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model was developed by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and Resource Systems Group in 1989, based in part upon an extensive household survey. The survey derived information about Chittenden County residents from a sample of approximately 500 households. Data on the origins, destinations and other characteristics of approximately 4,000 trips made by members of City Center, April 1991 Page 3 these households were compiled and used as inputs to the modeling effort. Land use data such as numbers of single and multi -family dwellings and numbers of individuals employed were collected for 152 geographic zones within Chittenden County. Data on over 800 roadway sections and 600 intersections were compiled. These data were incorporated into a set of computer files which, together with a unique application procedure, developed specifically for this model, comprise the Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model? This model has been refined into a set of Subarea models in which the regional model structure is further detailed for geographical subregions. To date, subarea models have been completed for Burlington, South Burlington, and Essex. The South Burlington Subarea Chittenden County Regional Travel Demand Model has been used to analyze the traffic impacts of City Center. LAND USE SCENARIOS Five land use scenarios were analyzed. These are: A 1989 base, A 1995 no -build (without City Center), A 1995 build (with City Center), A 2000 no -build (without City Center), and A 2000 build (with City Center). The future land use scenarios were adapted from 2000 land use forecasts compiled by the CCRPC. The compiled forecasts were not used directly because they imply a much more rapid increase in employment, up 56 percent, than in residences, up only 17 percent. Use of these forecasts would lead to unrealistic traffic forecasts. In the travel demand model, trips are generated on the basis of residential land use. The theory is that people, not buildings, make trips; and that the number of people is much more closely correlated with housing than with commercial and industrial facilities. A moderate increase in housing generates a moderate increase in total trips in Chittenden County. If these trips are distributed among a based of commercial and industrial uses which increases at a greater rate, each use will receive a reduced number of trips. As City Center is one of the land uses that receives a smaller number of trips than would be anticipated, the impacts of the project would be underestimated. RESOURCE SYSTEMS 1Resource Systems Group. Development of the Chittenden County Regional GROUP Transportation Model. Prepared for the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization. Essex Junction, VT: August 1989. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 4 Balanced land use scenarios were generated where growth in employment equals growth in housing as in the scenario compiled by CCRPC. In the year 2000 build scenario, employment growth in the City Center areal ,was also assumed to be that in the compiled scenario. Outside, the City Center area, growth in each employment category: retail, industrial/warehouse, office, and institutional, was reduced. The total regional growth for each employment category was set equal to the growth in housing (17.3 percent or 1.4 percent per year). Adjustment to these regional control totals was achieved through multiplication by scaling factors. These scaling factors are tabulated in Table 1. In the 2000 build scenario, they range from a low of 0 percent for land use type 5 (office) to a high of 60.4 percent for land use type 6 (institutional). The 0 percent scaling factor for office land use means office growth anticipated in the City Center area exceeds 17.3 percent of current office employment in Chittenden County. Therefore, it was assumed that there would be no other net regional growth in office space. TABLE 1: LAND USE SCALING FACTORS Single Multi- Retail Indus- Office Institu- Famil Famil trial tional 1995 No -Build 55.8% 52.2% 17.9% 17.0% 14.6% 32.6% 1995 Build 55.8% 52.2% 16.9% 17.0% 9.5% 32.6% 2000 No -Build 100.0% 100.0% 31.7% 31.9% 18.6% 60.1 % 2000 Build 1 100.0%1 100.0%1 29.2%1 32.1%1 0.0%1 60.4% Notes: Scaling factors represent the percentage growth, relative to the 2000 scenario compiled by CCRPC. They are applied to all internal zones, with the following exceptions: 1) The City Center area (Zones 36, 37B, 38, 39, and 41) land use growth is included at 100% in the 2000 scenarios but scaled in the 1995 scenarios. 2) City Center (Zone 37A) land use growth is not scaled. It is included at 100% in the build scenario and is excluded in the no -build scenarios. In the year 2000 no -build scenario, there is no City Center land use, the other City Center zones have full land use, and land uses in all other zones are scaled. For the 1995 build and no -build scenarios, 1.5 percent per year growth in land use between 1989 and 1995 was assumed for a total of 9.3 percent growth. In these cases, growth in residential land use was estimated as well as employment. In the 1995 build scenario, City Center was assumed to have 45,000 1TModel zones 36, 37A, 37B, 38, 39, and 41. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 5 square feet of retail and 145,000 square feet of office; in the 1995 no -build scenario, it was assumed to have no commercial land use. In Table 2, total trip generation for City Center for the 2000 build scenario is compared to numbers calculated from Trip Generation.) These model estimates result from parameters developed during calibration. The model's driveway count estimate of 1530 is 6 percent greater than the 1430 trips estimated using Trip Generation. TABLE 2: 2000 PM PEAK HR TRIP GENERATION USING TRIP GENERATION Land Use Units/ Emps 1000 Sq Ft Total Trips Enter PM Intra- Exit zonal Model 1567 479 1051 37 Trip Generation Housing 50 35 23 12 Retail 191 115 669 328 341 Office 1607 482 746 119 627 Totals 1450 471 980 CURRENT TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The travel demand model is based upon extensive traffic count data collected by the Vermont Agency of Transportation, the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, and Resource Systems Group. These traffic data were all adjusted to correspond to 1989 design hour volume conditions.2 PM peak hour turning movements were counted at seven intersections and at the site of a future eighth intersection in 1990, specifically for use in these analyses. The intersections are: ♦ Dorset Street and Williston Road, ♦ Dorset Street and University Mall (north)/Corporate Way, ♦ Dorset Street and University Mall (south)/Lake Buick, ♦ Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive, ♦ Hinesburg Road and Kennedy Drive, ♦ Hinesburg Road and Corporate Way (not constructed yet), ♦ Hinesburg Road and Williston Road, and 11TE. 2The "design hour" is defined as the traffic period when the traffic volume is equal to the thirtieth highest hourly volumes observed over a full year. City Center, April 1991 Page 6 ♦ White Street and Williston Road. These turning movement counts were adjusted to 1989 design hour conditions for consistency with the rest of the model data. Figure 1 summarizes these turning movement data. FIGURE 1: PM PEAK HOUR BASE VOLUMES N .•+ t, L_ 34 1 I 1 /— 1263 1 rX 1213— 1 I r�ron Rd' ^ 8 L 120 "01 L 953 292 1 1 L — 817 1105 — t— 108 t Y t � td L Proposed en er 16 1 1 ! i7 J L-13 City � � 1! r 436 —t .F 13—, I" 41'1 �S University Mall 9 arm`18 L-0 245 304 —t L 155 U — 450 1 r 21 gay L-217 J 1 L 1 1 J N L r 190 Kennel or. 4� J a r N 213 J 1 1 I 681 299 — q 131 �7 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 7 TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF CITY CENTER ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The level of service was analyzed at these eight intersections under existing conditions and future build and improvement conditions. Level -of - service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions and their perception by motorists driving in a traffic stream.1 The Highway Capacity Manual defines six grades to describe the LOS at an intersection. For signalized intersections, LOS is based on the stopped delay per vehicle (seconds). Table 3 shows the various LOS grades, qualitative descriptions, and quantitative definitions for signalized intersections. TABLE 3: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LOS Characteristics --Signalized-- Stopped Delay (sec) A Little or no delays <_ 5.0 B Short delays 5.1-15.0 C Average delays 15.1-25.0 D Long delays 25.1-40.0 E Very long delays 40.1-60.0 F Extreme delays > 60.0 Levels of service for the eight study intersections have been analyzed for eight scenarios. These scenarios are: 1) 1989 design hour volumes (PM peak hour), 2) 1995 no -build (without City Center), 3) 1995 build (with City Center), 4) 2000 no -build (without City Center), 5) 2000 build (with City Center), 6) 2000 build (with City Center) with a NB on -ramp at Exit 13, 7) 2000 build (with City Center) with full interchange at Exit 13, and 8) 2000 build (with City Center) a diamond interchange at Hinesburg Road (Exit 12A). 1 Transportation Research Board, p.1-3. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 8 Level of service analyses were performed in NCAP and the turning movement volumes were taken directly from the model runs. To correct for model deviations, the base scenario turning movement volumes from each scenario were subtracted from the base run, and the result was added to the count file. Results for each, scenario are described separately below, along with scenario - specific network improvements. The level of service results for all scenarios are presented in Table 4. In all scenarios but the 1989 base case, JHK & Associates proposed year 2000 geometric improvements) were adopted in the model. These improvements are described in the "South Burlington City Center/Dorset Street Corridor Phase 1 Report" prepared for the City of South Burlington and CCRPC and are shown in Figure 2. To physically implement these changes in the model, intersection (node) and roadway (link) capacities were adjusted accordingly. The intersections within the study area which were analyzed under improved conditions were: A Dorset Street and University Mall (north)/Corporate Way, A Dorset Street and University Mall (south)/Lake Buick, A Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive, A Hinesburg Road and Williston Road, and A White Street and Williston Road. 1 JHK & Associates. South Burlington City Center/Dorset Street Corridor Traffic Impact Analysis, Phase I Report. Prepared for City of South Burlington and Chittenden County Regional Regional Planning Commission, December 1987. City Center, April 1991 Page 9 FIGURE 2: ASSUMED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Existing Geometry Improved Geometry c o � � — (no change) 8 I F I Z II 4 U g � r ► ,sir J I L RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 10 FIGURE 2 CONCLUDED Existing Geometry Improved Geometry JAA L hL 1 r Pr I I rPr 3 AA I (n/a) (signal) p b o ♦Aid- - �hL y .a �row�r J 3 1 — J b c ti T — r— a 3 11rPr 14 1 F Pr City Center, April 1991 Page 11 ANALYSIS RESULTS Turning movements estimated by the model for each scenario are shown graphically in Appendix A. Level -of -service results for all scenarios are presented in Table 4. Computer diskettes that contain all files required to reproduce the analyses are available as an attachment. The results are discussed below. TABLE 4: FORECASTED INTERSECTION VOLUMES, LEVELS OF SERVICE, AND AVERAGE INTERSECTION DELAY Inrn\Scenario 89 Ba 95 NB 95 B 20 NB 20 B 2013173 20BF3 20BF2 Dorset & 5063 5365 5184 5442 5416 5361 4962 5208 Williston B E E E E E D E 11.39 50.75 42.38 57.19 59.68 50.12 32.85 45.00 Dorset/UMall 2592 2509 3059 2673 3861 3676 3456 3797 /CorpWay B B* B* B* C* B* C* B* 13.04 10.77 12.35 13.91 21.84 14.48 15.67 14.00 Dorset & U 1882 2261 2162 2579 2905 2761 2772 2818 Mall (S) B B * B * C* C* D* C* C* 10.90 10.99 10.69 23.07 15.20 25.49 15.61 15.49 Dorset & 2621 2905 2758 3250 3228 3471 4029 3135 Kennedy D C* B* D* C* D* D* C* 25.49 17.33 12.32 33.64 18.18 25.16 39.71 6.75 Hinesburg & 1631 2690 2683 2925 2873 2873 27.56 3051 Kennedy B C C C C C C C 11.88 19.09 15.22 21.44 19.09 16.52 17.77 17.13 Hinesburg & 1926 2351 2325 2142 2367 Corp Way NA NA C NA C D D* C 19.26 18.21 31.72 12.50 16.65 Hinesburg & 2441 3349 3542 3487 3965 3943 3694 3713 Williston D C* C* C* E* E* D* D* 21.17 18.90 18.98 18.02 51.28 51.65 29.37 35.75 White & 2513 3205 3069 3298 3160 3259 3112 2598 Williston B B* B* B* B* B* B* B* 12.87 1 12.86 1 12.27 13.78 1 12.71 13.10 1 12.42 12.36 RESOURCE Key: 89 Ba-1989 base, 95 NB-1995 no -build, 95 B-1995 build, 20 NB-2000 no - SYSTEMS build, 20 B-2000 build, 2013173-2000 build partial Exit 13, 20BF3-build full GROUP Exit 13, 20BF2-build full Exit 12-A * Using JHK proposed improvements City Center, April 1991 Page 12 The 1989 design hour analyses are based on the turning movements presented in Figure 1 and existing intersection/roadway geometries. No changes were made to the South Burlington Subarea model. The results show two intersections (Hinesburg/Williston and Dorset/Kennedy) operating at level -of - service "D" with total intersection delays between 25 and 27 seconds. The 1995 no -build scenario does not include either City Center or Corporate Way. In this scenario, all intersections are at level -of -service "C" or better except for Dorset and Williston which is at level of service "E" (50 second delay). The JHK improvements were used in all analyses from 1995 no build on. The Hinesburg/Williston and Dorset/Kennedy intersections perform better in 1995 no build than in 1989 due to those improvements. In the 1995 build scenario, construction of Corporate Way provides an alternative to Williston Road. All intersections' level of service either improve or stay the same. Hinesburg and Corporate Way was analyzed as a signalized intersection, resulting in level of service "C" with an average delay of 19 seconds. In the year 2000 no -build scenario, there are increased traffic volumes, and slightly lower levels of service. Dorset/Williston is predicted to continue to operate at level -of -service "E," but with a higher average delay than in 1995. With the addition of a full City Center buildout plus the construction of Corporate Way, the results are mixed as compared to the 2000 no -build scenario. Because of the addition of Corporate Way, traffic volumes are lessened and levels of service improve along the southern portion of Dorset Street. On the other hand, the level of service at Hinesburg/Williston drops to "E." Traffic volumes at Dorset/Williston increase somewhat, and are close to the intersection capacity. Figure 3 shows the distribution of City Center trips during the year 2000 design (PM peak) hour. About three-quarters of the City Center trips leave the study area bounded by Williston Road, Dorset Street, Kennedy Drive, and Hinesburg Road. The other one -quarter have origins or destinations within the study area such as University Mall. About one third of City Center trips access through the Williston Road/Dorset Street intersection. In Figure 4, the total City Center related traffic generated in the 2000 build scenario is taken as a percentage of the total traffic at each intersection by approach. The largest single impact is on the northbound leg of the Dorset/Williston intersection where 26 percent of the total traffic volume is estimated to have City Center origins. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 13 FIGURE 3: PM PEAK HOUR CITY CENTER TRIP DISTRIBUTION The travel demand model was also used to analyze three I-89 interchange scenarios. A a north bound ramp added to Exit 13, A a full interchange at Exit 13, and A a new full diamond interchange at Hinesburg Road. The assumed lane configurations for these scenarios are shown graphically in Figures 5, 6, and 7. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 14 FIGURE 4: PERCENTAGE OF CITY CENTER TRAFFIC IN THE YEAR 2000 BY APPROACH The first interchange scenario includes the addition of an I-89 north bound on -ramp at Exit 13 which will be accessed from Dorset Street. With this improvement, most intersections along Dorset Street had slightly reduced delays. Hinesburg Road intersections became slightly more congested, possibly due to diverted trips bound for the new on -ramp. The results, however, showed neither great improvements nor significant deterioration in intersection levels of service. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 15 FIGURE 5: EXIT 13 ON -RAMP SCENARIO I-89 Proposed Existing Kennedy Road a� a� I-189 Existing Ln Ir O Existing FIGURE 6: FULL EXIT 13 INTERCHANGE SCENARIO I-89 Relocate I-189 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP Proposed Relocated :n Proposed Kennedy Road • N kz posed Existing City Center, April 1991 Page 16 FIGURE 7: HINESBURG ROAD INTERCHANGE SCENARIO I Hinesburg Road I4 Included in the full Exit 13 intersection improvements were: A a north bound on -ramp from Dorset Street onto I-89 A a north bound off -ramp from I-89 onto Dorset Street A relocation of a ramp from southbound I-89 to westbound I-189 A a ramp from westbound I-189 to southbound 1-89 A a ramp from southbound I-89 to eastbound I-189 A relocation of a ramp from eastbound I-189 to southbound I-89 With these interchange additions, the Dorset/Williston intersection improved by almost 27 seconds average intersection delay in the year 2000 scenario; a change from level of service E to D. The Hinesburg /Williston intersection improved by 12 seconds average intersection delay in the year 2000 with a full Exit 13 interchange. Other intersections, however, did not show significant change. In the last interchange scenario, a full diamond interchange was analyzed at the 1-89 and Hinesburg Road location. The Dorset/Williston and the Hinesburg/Williston intersections showed significant improvement, and other intersections changed only slightly. Entering and exiting volumes at each interchange are shown in Figure 8 for the 2000 build scenario and for each interchange scenario. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, April 1991 Page 17 FIGURE 8: INTERCHANGE ENTER AND EXIT VOLUMES BY SCENARIO 2000 full 12A 2000 full 13 2000 par. 13 2000 build 2000 no build 95 build 95 no build 89 base RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP ® EX 12A OFF EX 12A ON ® EX 12 OFF EX 12 ON ® EX 13 OFF EX 13 ON 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 Number of Cars City Center, April 1991 Page 18 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Analysis of the eight intersections surrounding the proposed City Center location show no level of service below "E" in the 2000 build case with the JHK intersection improvements in place. The most serious congestion in the area is expected to be at the Williston Road/Dorset Street intersection, with or without City Center. The construction of Corporate Way will offset much of the impact of the City Center traffic. All of the interchange improvements cause shifts in traffic volumes, with the full Exit 13 and the Exit 12A scenarios causing significant traffic volume reductions at the Dorset/Williston and Hinesburg/Williston intersections. RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A -1 FIGURE A-1: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 1995 NO -BUILD r r� �1 ` Nan L_34 I L — 1370 390 q 62J 1240— I toRd. 1 917 —1 �9 ^ 182 1 I L 882 !j P/J 1337 20 16J 626 — 1 352 -' -1 N - 1 ll 425 J 14— n I 41-1 N University Mall � J 245 353 -, 157 C-4�$ -553 j I L r 22 �I N pS — � Yenned Dr. 119: J L- 240 1 I 1 110 —1 MO 11-1 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A - 2 FIGURE A-2: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 1995 BUILD A n L 34 1 / — 1368 jjJ ... 1264— 1 1 stop Rd. 1045 `O v .^. L— 176 1 3141 J 1 L— 849 t— 179 11ri 122 — f �y 7 L 180 Proposed 647 —J 1 211 J L— City Center 279 —1 ms N jttt' 21 I co 3 f 2Jn O 411 J University m `"a" J J 223 J 167 1 245 J 1 268 1 a oc g L 199 VAR — 530 J I L r21 1� 21 JI r 477 Kenned Dr. 486 236 J 11 F 88-1 36e � � RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A - 3 FIGURE A-3: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 NO -BUILD J �^ f ell L34 ec�t• i I I L — 1403 62J 357 i 1 / 1181— I ton Rd 4 183 347 116s I L — 894 1144— r 113 J posed 16J r � J 38 City 26841 dO 388 J 1 I C0 { tt r 1 411 1 University Mall 245 400 1 K i� (; a L 177 r 464 J L r— 271 Kenney D. s9a — i. R i 270 J 11 I 114 —1 347 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A - 4 FIGURE A4: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD L 34 Cat. L — 1334 J 1 ! 289 0 11%—1 I Eton in Rd• L241 1080 � �� 133 I L �M9 !!{ i i M Proposed 16—� 692 — 290 City Center 245 --, f((f 246 J l l r C0 7 65— dfP Ln Or 41-1 ao dy University MaH J J 464J 442 J 1 2O --1 M5— b L 21g 5 58 J 1 I r21 q�n KenneID r-37 L z s6J 7 — , 27J i�r 6°�' - 16� RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A - 5 FIGURE A-5: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD WITH NORTHBOUND ON -RAMP AT EXIT 13 t_ 34 {I L — 1368 % 312 ! J / 62 1 1247— I ton ' n Rd. t_ 17 ! J %2 —1 3e J 1122 2 I L i J 1179 — r 211 16J ! Lo cn 9 L 302 Proposed 717 — 2561 F(1 —z95 City center j r I I C o 'aye 82J 41-1 ccI�� University) 11 MaU J J 4W J 2M --I 407 J 33o 1 tc 1— 226 —515 J I L r- 21 439�0- 17--1 55 1 I r 106 J Kenned Dr. sm — N $ I f—' §� RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A - 6 FIGURE A-6: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD WITH FULL INTERCHANGE AT EXIT 13 t_ 34 1246 276 62J 1158— 1 1 t°n Rd. ° to L 189 r i 765 C.m 333 J 1070 I L — 863 1126 — r— 199 16 J 400 Proposed 676 — 1 --1 241 ityCeCenter 254 f � 2D6 �a 41--1 dJ, University Ma" J 379 _ I 411 —1 I 2141+ 362 1 o�G L— 117 —297 r— {{�� 117 J I L I r 573Med Dr. J L r— 169 sW — 339 1 1 I 112 —, �� RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP City Center, March 1991 Page A - 7 FIGURE A-7: PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES FOR 2000 BUILD WITH NEW INTERCHANGE AT HINESBURG ROAD (EXIT 12A) 34 1212 294 62J ton i R t r 1 1174— 7 Rd 4 L 235 c� 878 �i I 347 J I L — 876 i ! % 1122 — r 194 j ! Proposed city center 16J _ 2289 2�58 —1 iI�G 291J1Ir �o QQ r� University 411 Mall J J 3r� J aO t— 185 —510 r 21 J L r 2�3 yenned Dr. 53z - n 27811 r 1321 324 — 9'--1 RESOURCE SYSTEMS GROUP FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive • Williston • Vermont • 05495 • (802) 878-3000 13 February 1992 Mr. William J. Szymanski, P.E. City Engineer 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Center Place, Drainage Evaluation File: 89032 Dear Mr. Szymanski: Zcl'tc�_�e i,,,- r7e-11146��Zl_W__ w V5 At your request, we have evaluated the soils on site within the above referenced project in order to determine the feasibility of infiltration for stormwater management. On 14 July 1991 we had excavated several random test holes in order to determine groundwater depths and the types of soils on site. Our test pit logs indicate that sand comprise the top layers of the profile to varying depths over a clay layer. Our conclusion was that the soils within the project area were unsuitable for infiltration. Due to the proximity of the site to the Potash Brook watershed, you had asked that we provide some other type of on -site stormwater treatment. In order to respond to your request, we have provided a stormwater detention pond. Enclosed please find copies of our pre and post developed drainage analysis. The site was broken up into five sub -areas and analyzed under both pre and post developed conditions. The enclosed map indicates the watershed boundaries. A ten year 24 hour design storm was used as the review parameter. The study point was identified as an 18" RCP behind Lake Buick. Our pre developed numbers indicate a peak rate of runoff during the design storm to be approximately 7 cfs. We believe this number may be marginally inflated, due to the stormwater attenuation properties of the small wetland immediately upstream of the culvert. Under the developed scenario, stormwater runoff from the parking area, would be directed via sheet flow, overland into a small detention basin. The detention basin has been sized to attenuate the peak rate of stormwater runoff from the parking area and release it over time. The net impact on the 18" RCP culvert behind Lake Buick would be a reduction in peak flow from approximately 7 CFS to approximately 5 CFS. Again we believe the post developed calculation to be marginally higher due to the wetland immediately upstream of the culvert. Design 0 Inspection 0 Studies • Permitting 0 Surveying Mr. William Szymanski File: 90039 13 February 1992 Page Two Other drainage areas that are not directed to the stormwater pond and drain to the storm system on Corporate Way will see a very small increase in water. We believe the storm system within roadway will adequately handle the increase in runoff. Along with our drainage area maps are the pre and post developed runoff calculations, and our twenty scale drawing indicating the design details of the detention pond. Should you have any questions regarding our proposal, please contact us. Sincerely, FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Charles Van Winkle Project Manager cc: John Jaeger, South Burlington Realty Company FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 1 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 ::ydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED.ROUTING O9UBCATCHMENT F--j REACH Q POND [ h LZNK Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 2 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HVdroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer SVstems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN, SCS U.H. SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (%CN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS) (AF) 1 1.31 30.0 4%65 96%76 - - 76 - 1.6 12.21 .14 2 4.67 6.0 37%39 13%74 24%98 26%98 73 - 9.2 11.91 .44 3 .16 6.0 100%98 - - - 98 - .8 11.90 .04 4 .74 6.0 31%61 39%74 30%98 - 77 - 1.8 11.91 .08 5 .70 6.0 100%61 - - - 61 - .6 11.94 .03 Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 5 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 Post Developed DA I ACRES CN .05 65 Woods grass Combo SCS TR-20 METHOD 1.26 76 Woods grass combo TYPE II 24-HOUR 1.31 76 RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 1.6 CFS @ 12.21 HRS VOLUME= .14 AF Method Comment Tc (min DIRECT ENTRY Post developed DA I 30.0 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF Post Davalopad DA I 1.5 1.4 AREA= 1.31 AC 1 3 To= 3e MIN 1.2 I 1 CN= 76 l g SCS TR-2e METHOD v g TYPE II 24-HOUR .7 RAINFALL= 3.6 IN o .6 � .5 4 PEAK= 1.6 CFS (�? 12 . 21 HRS .2 .2 1 VOL UME= .14 AF TIME Cloura� SUBCATCHMENT 1 Post Developed DA I HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 RUNOFF PEAK= 1.6 CFS @ 12.21 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .4 .9 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.1 .9 .7 .5 .4 .4 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 6 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 Post Developed Drainage Area II ACRES CN 1.74 39 Open space good, SCS TR-20 METHOD .60 74 Open space good TYPE II 24-HOUR 1.13 98 Impervious RAINFALL= 3.6 IN 1.20 98 Impervious PEAK= 9.2 CFS @ 11.91 HRS 4.67 73 VOLUME= .44 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY Post developed DA II 6.0 SUBCATCHMENT 2 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF Post Developed Drainages AraCl II AREA= 4.67 AC Tc= 6 MIN CN= 7.3 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 9.2 CFS e 11.91 HRS VOLUME= .44 AF CV M V' U-) 1-0 r- co Ol m TIME Chourai Post Developed Drainage Area II RUNOFF PEAK= 9.2 CFS @ 11.91 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .2 .3 .7 1.8 4.3 9.1 6.5 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 .9 .8 .8 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 i'c>T Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 7 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 hydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 Post Developed DA III ACRES CN .16 98 Impervious Area SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= .8 CFS @ 11.90 HRS VOLUME= .04 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY Post developed DA III 6.0 SUBCATCHMENT 3 RUNOFF Post Davalopad DA III .75 .70 AREA= .16 AC .65 Tc= 6 MIN .55 CN= 9e 50 .+ 45 SCS TR-20 METHOD v .40 TYPE II 24-HOUR .35 RAINFALL= 3.6 IN o E' .30 PEAK= B CFS .25 15 e 11.9 HRS 10 VOLUME= .04 AF 05 0.0 L --- N CD Ol m TIME Ck- m"r-a) SUBCATCHMENT 3 Post Developed DA III HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 RUNOFF PEAK= .8 CFS @ 11.90 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .3 .5 .8 .5 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fc�S Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 8 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HVdroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 ACRES CN .23 61 .29 74 .22 98 .74 77 Post Developed DA IV Open space good Open Space good Impervious Areas SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 1.8 CFS @ 11.91 HRS VOLUME= .08 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY Post Developed Da IV 6.0 SUBCATCHMENT 4 SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF Post Davalopad DA IU AREA= 74 AC Tom= 6 MIN CN= 77 SCS TR-2e METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 1.B CFS e 11.91 HRS VOLUME= O6 AF TIME (houra) Post Developed DA IV RUNOFF PEAK= 1.8 CFS @ 11.91 HOURS HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 10.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.00 1.2 .4 .3 .2 13.00 .1 .1 .1 .1 14.00 .1 .1 .1 .1 15.00 .1 .1 .1 .1 16.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.00 0.0 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .2 .4 .9 1.8 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 9 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 Post Developed Da V ACRES CN .70 61 Open space Lawn, good SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= .6 CFS @ 11.94 HRS VOLUME= .03 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY Post developed Da V 6.0 SUBCATCHMENT 5 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 .50 .45 .40 .35 .30 .25 o .20 � 15 10 .05 0.0am SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF Post DavaloPad Da U AREA= .7 AC T== 6 MIN CN= 61 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= .6 CFS e 11.94 HRS VOLUME= .03 AF N �T7 V L[7 �D I� CO Ql m TIME CI our�� Post Developed Da V RUNOFF PEAK= .6 CFS @ 11.94 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .5 .5 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 >, Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 13 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 POND 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW New Pond bah i nd per-k i n9 car-ac3 STOR-IND METHOD PEAK ELEU= 307.4 FT PEAK STOR= .10 AF Qin= 9.2 CFS Qout= 3.6 CFS LAG= 9.5 MIN N m V Ln lD OO m TIME Ckc3"r-a) New Pond behind parking area OUTFLOW PEAK= 3.8 CFS @ 12.07 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .3 .9 2.4 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 2.9 1.7 1.1 .8 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 12 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems POND 1 STARTING ELEV= 305.5 FT FLOOD ELEV= 309.5 FT ELEVATION CUM.STOR New Pond behind parking area 2 x FINER ROUTING STOR-IND METHOD (FT) (AF) PEAK ELEVATION= 307.4 FT 305.5 0.00 PEAK STORAGE _ .10 AF 306.0 .01 Qin = 9.2 CFS @ 11.91 HRS 307.0 .03 Qout= 3.8 CFS @ 12.07 HRS 308.0 .18 ATTEN= 59 % LAG= 9.5 MIN 309.0 .53 IN/OUT= .44 / .44 AF 309.5 .57 INVERT (FT) OUTLET DEVICES 305.5 12" CULVERT n=.019 L=20' S=.005'/' Ke=.5 Cc=.9 Cd=.6 309.0 5' BROAD -CRESTED RECTANGULAR WEIR Q=C L H-1.5 C=.25, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 TOTAL DISCHARGE vs ELEVATION FEET 0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 305.5 0.0 0.0 .1 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.1 1.3 1.6 306.5 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.6 3.7 307.5 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.3 308.5 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 309.5 7.0 POND 1 DISCHARGE Naw Pond behind parking area 309. 5 -- I ooci- e I_e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 309.0 _5'_BROAD-CRESTED_RECTANGUARIR 3a8.5 30B.0 a 307.5 307.0 J 306.5 w306.0 CLV i, RT 3a5.5m Ln m Ln m Ln m Ln m Ln m to rn m C'V CV r'7 m d- V- Ln Ln lD lD r- DISCHARGE CcfaD Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 10 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HVdroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer SVstems REACH 1 DEPTH END AREA DISCH (FT) (SQ-FT) (CFS) 0.0 0.0 0.0 .2 .1 .1 .3 .3 .3 .5 .4 .6 1.1 1.3 2.5 1.2 1.5 3.0 1.4 1.7 3.2 1.4 1.7 3.3 1.5 1.8 3.2 1.5 1.8 3.0 1 .5 1.4 1 .3 1.2 11 I . 0 9 .8 _ .7 t- . 6 w .5 w o .4 3 .2 .1 0.0, CD 5.0 4.5 4.0 '+ 3.0 u 2.5 0 2.0 L�l 1.5 1.0 .5 0.Bm 18"RCP behind Lake Buick 18" PIPE n= .018 LENGTH= 30 FT SLOPE= .0016 FT/FT 2 x FINER ROUTING REACH 1 DISCHARGE 1 e "RCP beh i nd Laka Bu i c--k STOR-IND METHOD MAX. DEPTH= 1.50 FT PEAK VELOCITY= 1.9 FPS TRAVEL TIME = .3 MIN Qin = 5.2 CFS @ 12.16 HRS Qout= 3.0 CFS @ 11.90 HRS ATTEN= 42 % LAG= 0.0 MIN IN/OUT= .58 / .58 AF N N CV N N m m DISCHARGE REACH 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW le -RCP bah i nd Lcdka Buick 18'' PIPE n=a16 L=30' S=.0016 STOR-IND METHOD VELOCITY= 1.9 FPS TRAVEL= .3 MIN Qin= 5.2 CFS Qoutt= 3.0 CFS LAG= 0 MIN [V its Ft O- Ql m TIME Choura� �7 �s Data for CENTER PLACE POST DEVELOPED DRAINAGE Page 11 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 18"RCP behind Lake Buick OUTFLOW PEAK= 3.0 CFS @ 11.90 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .2 .4 1.0 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 .9 .8 .8 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 1 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems WATERSHED ROUTING CD CD c; CD > i� OSUBC.TCHMENT [::] REACH Q POND LINK SUBCATCHMENT 1 -> REACH 1 X,Y = 5.6 5.1 <1 2> SUBCATCHMENT 2 -> REACH 1 X,Y = 4.0 5.9 <1 2> SUBCATCHMENT 3 -> X,Y = 5.6 7.0 <1 2> SUBCATCHMENT 4 -> X,Y = 7.2 7.0 <1 1> SUBCATCHMENT 5 -> X,Y = 8.8 7.0 <1 1> REACH 1 -> X,Y = 4.2 3.7 <1 1> IpE Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 2 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HVdroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems RUNOFF BY SCS TR-20 METHOD: TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN, SCS U.H. SUBCAT AREA Tc WGT'D PEAK Tpeak VOL NUMBER (ACRE) (MIN) --GROUND COVERS (RCN)-- CN C (CFS) (HRS) (AF) 1 1.31 33.0 100%82 - - - 82 - 2.0 12.24 .19 2 5.23 21.0 61%65 39%76 - - 69 - 5.2 12.11 .39 3 .06 30.0 100%98 - - - 98 - .2 12.18 .01 4 .26 6.0 100%98 - - - 98 - 1.2 11.90 .06 5 .55 4.8 100%65 - - - 65 - .7 11.91 .03 or - Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 6 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydrOCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 1 Pre Developed DA I ACRES CN 1.31 82 Woods - grass combination Method TR-55 SHEET FLOW Woods: Dense underbrush n=.8 TR-55 SHEET FLOW Woods: Dense underbrush n=.8 SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW Grassed Waterway Kv=15 L=110' CHANNEL FLOW a=21 sq-ft Pw=12' r=1.75' s=.005 '/' n=.035 V=4.36 fps SUBCATCHMENT 1 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 2.0 CFS @ 12.24 HRS VOLUME= .19 AF Comment Tc (min Sheet I 11.4 L=40' P2=2.2 in s=.1 '/' Sheet II 19.6 L=50' P2=2.2 in s=.04 Shallow Concen't 1.7 s=.005 '/' V=1.06 fps Open Channel .3 L=90' Capacity=91.6 cfs Total Length= 290 ft Total Tc= 33.0 SUBCATCHMENT 1 RUNOFF Pr -Ea DeveImpad DA I AREA= 1.31 AC Tc= 33 MIN CN= 62 L S TR-20 METHOD YPE II 24-HOUR CD INFALL= 3.6 IN 0 PEAK= 2.0 CFS G� 12.24 HRS VOLUME= .19 AF 0. ry rn ;:n Ft W rn m TIME Cl�oura� Pre Developed DA I RUNOFF PEAK= 2.0 CFS @ 12.24 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .3 .6 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.2 .9 .7 .6 .5 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 �2 Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 7 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 2 Pre Developed DA II ACRES CN 3.20 65 Woods - grass combination SCS TR-20 METHOD 2.03 76 Woods - grass combination TYPE II 24-HOUR 5.23 69 RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 5.2 CFS @ 12.11 HRS VOLUME= .39 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY DA II 21.0 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF Pra DavalopBd DA II 5.0 q 5 AREA= 5.23 AC 4.0 Tc= 21 MIN CN= 69 3.5 3,e SCS TR-2e METHOD v 2.5 TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN CD 2.0 E' 1 . 5 PEAK= 5. 2 CFS 1.0 e 12.11 HRS VOLUME= .39 OF 5 e em -- fV fT') V- U-) 1-0 M m TIME Cl�oura� SUBCATCHMENT 2 Pre Developed DA II HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 RUNOFF PEAK= 5.2 CFS @ 12.11 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .2 .6 1.7 3.8 5.1 4.4 3.1 2.2 1.7 1.3 1.1 .9 .8 .7 .7 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 8 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydrOCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 3 Pre Developed DA III ACRES CN .06 98 Impervious Areas (roadway, roof, SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= .2 CFS @ 12.18 HRS VOLUME= .01 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY DA III 30.0 SUBCATCHMENT 2 RUNOFF Pra Davalopod DA III .15 .14 AREA= .06 AC 10 Tc= OB MIN 12 1 1 CN= 96 e9 SCS TR-20 METHOD v .06 TYPE II 24-HOUR .07 RAINFALL= 3.6 IN o .06 .05 PEAK= .2 CFS 04 C� 12 . 1 8 HRS .03 02 VOLUME= Oi OF 01 0. 0 `q"tom - N F*'- v Ln t.n r- co m m TIME Cloura� SUBCATCHMENT 3 Pre Developed DA III RUNOFF PEAK= .2 CFS @ 12.18 HOURS HOUR 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 10.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 12.00 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.00 0.0 Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 9 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HVdroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 4 Pre Developed DA IV ACRES CN .26 98 Impervious Areas SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 1.2 CFS @ 11.90 HRS VOLUME= .06 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY DA IV 6.0 �J .7 u � 5 0 4 � 3 .2 SUBCATCHMENT 4 RUNOFF Pra D(avalopad DA IU AREA= 26 AC Tom= 6 MIN CN= 96 SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= 1.2 CFS e 11.9 HRS VOLUME= .06 AF N M V LC,) k.o r- OZ) Qn m TIME Cl�oura� SUBCATCHMENT 4 Pre Developed DA IV HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 RUNOFF PEAK= 1.2 CFS @ 11.90 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .5 .8 1.2 .8 .2 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -)�Lr Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 10 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HVdroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems SUBCATCHMENT 5 Pre Developed DA V ACRES CN .55 65 Woods - grass ( fair ) SCS TR-20 METHOD TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN PEAK= .7 CFS @ 11.91 HRS VOLUME= .03 AF Method Comment Tc (min) DIRECT ENTRY DA V 4.8 SUBCATCHMENT 5 RUNOFF Pr -is Davalopad DA U .65 .60 AREA= .55 AC .55 Tc= 4.B MIN .50 CN= 65 .45 � .40 SCS TR-20 METHOD .35 TYPE II 24-HOUR RAINFALL= 3.6 IN o .30 .25 .20 PEAK= .7 CFS .15 e 11.91 HRS .10 VOLUME= .03 AF 0q5q 0 Ln to f-- CO Ql m TIME Cl�oura� SUBCATCHMENT 5 Pre Developed DA V HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 RUNOFF PEAK= .7 CFS @ 11.91 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .3 .7 .4 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 11 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 iiydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 DEPTH END AREA DISCH (FT) (SQ-FT) (CFS) 0.0 0.0 0.0 .2 .1 .1 .3 .3 .3 .5 .4 .6 1.1 1.3 2.7 1.2 1.5 3.1 1.4 1.7 3.4 1.4 1.7 3.5 1.5 1.8 3.4 1.5 1.8 3.2 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4 . 5 � 4.0 3.5 3.0 0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 5 e'em 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 18" PIPE n= .019 LENGTH= 30 FT SLOPE= .002 FT/FT STOR-IND METHOD MAX. DEPTH= 1.50 FT PEAK VELOCITY= 2.1 FPS TRAVEL TIME = .2 MIN Qin = 6.9 CFS @ 12.13 HRS Qout= 3.3 CFS @ 13.10 HRS ATTEN= 52 % LAG= 58.0 MIN IN/OUT= .58 / .58 AF REACH I DISCHARGE 1 6" Ra i nforcad COnCY'9ta P i pB le- PIPE n=.019 L=30' S=.002 m (V V' 1-0 m m N V 1-0 m m CV V CV CV N CV N m m m DISCHARGE CcfaD REACH 1 INFLOW & OUTFLOW IB" Re) inforcad Concrata Pipe 18'' PIPE n=.019 L=30' S=.002 STOR-IND METHOD VELOCITY= 2.1 FPS TRAVEL= .2 MIN Qin= 6.9 CFS Qout= 3.3 CFS LAG= 58 MIN -t -� N rT7 V' LC') lD I- co Q1 m TIME Choura� -lr� Data for CENTER PLACE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS DUP1 Page 12 Prepared by FitzPatrick-Llewellyn Incorporated 29 Jan 92 HydroCAD 3.01 000596 (c) 1986-1991 Applied Microcomputer Systems REACH 1 HOUR 10.00 11.00 12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 20.00 18" Reinforced Concrete Pipe OUTFLOW PEAK= 3.3 CFS @ 13.10 HOURS 0.00 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 .70 .80 .90 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .2 .4 .9 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 1.0 .8 .9 .7 .8 .6 .7 .6 .6 .5 .6 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .4 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 South Burlinl9ton Realty Companvv 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-9039 December 3, 1991 Mr. Joe Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 RE: CITY CENTER - OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING Dear Joe: In response to your memo of October 28, 1991 I offer the following additional information: - ACREAGE: The total acreage remaining under the ownership of South Burlington Realty at Corporate Circle is +/- 38.94 acres. Including the China Lite property, the total is +/- 41.0 acres. The total area of the roadway rights -of -way for which Offers of Irrevocable Dedication have been granted to the City is +/- 6.44 acres. This does not include the entrance drive serving the proposed development and the China Lite, or the area of the pedestrian easement along the drainage way. The net acreage, then, is +/- 32.5 acres. - COVERAGE: The proposed building footprint is 16,700 square feet, which is a coverage of 1.2 percent of 32.5 acres. The total proposed coverage, including the entrance drive serving the project and the China Lite, is 113,800 square feet or 8.0 percent. -WETLANDS: The wetlands which we are proposing to fill in with this project are class three wetlands, and thus are not protected by the Vermont Wetland Rules. They will be taken into consideration, however, in the determination of whether the project meets Vermont Water Quality Standards. The project must meet Vermont Water Quality Standards in order to receive Act 250 approval, and in order to comply with the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #26. Although these wetlands per se are not protected by the Vermont Wetland Rules, we believe that any functions they perform will be amply protected in the course of the project's Act 250 permitting. See enclosed letter from Lisa Borre dated April 26, 1990, Bradley Wheeler dated October 29, 1990, and Catherine O'Brien dated March 1, 1991. Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting Mr. Joe Weith December 3,1991 -COST: The estimated building cost is $2,900,000. The estimated landscaping cost is $36,500. - FLOOR AREA, USAGE: The total gross floor area is 49,000 square feet on three floors. A total of 38,000 square feet gross floor area will be devoted to general business offices, including all of the top two floors and a portion of the first. On the first floor a total of 9,400 square feet gross leasable area will be devoted to retail, including 7,500 square feet of retail floor area and 2,300 square feet of merchant storage, office, mechanical and so forth. On the first floor there will be 1,600 square feet of non -leasable space including the lobby, mechanical rooms and the like. - STIPULATIONS OF 1981 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL: #5. The proposed development does not appear to meet any of the triggers (a), (b) or (c) which would require a resolution of the Lake Buick right-of-way. In any case, South Burlington Realty seems to be powerless to achieve any resolution of this matter without a prolonged legal battle, and there is no assurance that the outcome would be in our favor (or the city's). #6. We plan to comply with the requirement to either complete construction of Corporate Way or establish bonding and a timetable for completion, prior to or in connection with the construction of the proposed building. Because of the economic climate, regulatory delays and other factors there may be a substantial delay between the revised final plat approval and actual construction of the building. For this reason it is important that the actual bonding and/or con- struction of Corporate Way not be required until at least the start of the vertical construction improvements. #7. The improvements to the intersection of Dorset Street and Corporate Way which were anticipated by this permit condition have already been completed. #8. South Burlington Realty and the City have studied the area's traffic extensively, and we are certainly prepared to deal with the consequences of the proposed project. Since it appears that the completion of Corporate Way will result in a net improvement to the area's traffic long beyond the building project for which we are now seeking approval, we are concerned that the "residual" improvement, after completion of this current project, be recognized when we seek approval for additional projects. I would welcome a discussion of how we might accomplish this. - CORPORATE WAY / HINESBURG ROAD INTERSECTION: Application is being made to V.A.O.T. for permission to complete the Mr. Joe Weith December 3,1991 3 intersection without signalization, but with the addition of a left turn lane on Hinesburg Road northbound, and a second exit lane from Corporate Way eastbound. At this point we are seeking schematic approval from V.A.O.T. We expect to have some indication on this prior to our revised final plat hearing. If approved, the next step will be to design the intersection and of course the City will be involved with that. We expect to adhere to the terms of the July 26, 1989 Corporate Way Development Agreement, as recorded at Vol. 281, p. 550. - LANDSCAPING PLAN: The landscaping budget is being revised, although the total will be as indicated above. We are including in the landscaping plan various public amenities in addition to the vegetation. I believe this is entirely appropriate and customary in a "city center" environment, and I have enclosed copies of two references supporting this view. Clearly the greenery is as important in the City Center as it is anywhere else, but other elements of the overall landscape assume a greater importance in a dense pedestrian environment as compared with a suburban park setting. Since these must compete for the same limited dollars, we are proposing a balance between the plantings and the various other elements of the downtown landscape plan. -MISCELLANEOUS: The parallel parking spaces along Corporate Way will be reconfigured so that they measure 9' x 22'. Several points related to the conflicts which would be caused in the event the entrance drive were to become a public street. Our intention is to keep the driveway as a private drive for the forseeable future, but we will conform to the current streetscape_q_uirement_for a 63 foot setback from the property line in case the drive ever -becomes a pulic�street. Concerning the street trees over the storm drain, I agree that this issue must be addressed but feel it is best to do so in the context of the streetscape committee. If the committee can resolve that issue in a way which will meet the needs of other landowners and the City, then I believe the cooperation of South Burlington Realty is likely. If the committee doesn't act, then we will try to suggest some combination of tree type and location, root containment or other protection, and acceptable hazard to the sewers. In other respects, we are agreeable to following the established guidelines as soon as we know what they are. I believe the foregoing addresses all of the items on your October 28 memo. I request that you place the revised final plat hearing Mr. Joe Weith December 3,1991 on the schedule at the earliest date available. Thank you. S J 4 State of Vermont 11 i Department of Fish and Wildlife Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation Department of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council John Jaeger South Burlington 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Realty Company VT 05403 RE: Corporate Circle Wetland Determination Dear John: AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05676 Department of Environmental Conservation WATER QUALITY DIVISION Building 10 North 802-244-6951 March 1, 1991 After reviewing the information that you have sent me, I have determined that wetlands area 1 and 2, as delineated on Sheet l of 1 site plan dated December 1990, are not contiguous to the Class Two mapped wetland in this area. It will not be possible to make further contiguous determinations on this property until all the wetlands on this property have been delineated and surveyed onto the site plans. In order to receive a Statement of Conditions, pursuant the Regional Conditions for Nationwide Permit #26, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Department needs to make the determination that the project meets the Vermont Water Quality Standards. To make this determination, the Department needs to know the following information: the amount of fill proposed to be placed in the wetland, the purpose of the project, the type of fill to be used, construction details, slopes, erosion control details, landscaping details, wetland protection mechanisms for remaining wetlands, nuisance aquatic species control, monitoring and maintenance details, and water quality and quantity leaving the site. Enclosed are the other conditions of Nationwide Permit #26 that must be met in order for this permit to be valid. If you have further questions or comments, please feel free to call. enclosure Sincerely, Catherine L. O'Brien Assistant Wetlands Coordinator Regional Offices - Bane/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N. Springfield/St. Johnsbury South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street, South 13urlingt<nn, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-9039 March 18, 1991 Ms. Martha Abair U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Box 145 203 Federal Building Essex Junction, VT 05452 Dear Marty: Pursuant to our recent discussions, we would like to notify you of our intention to perform work in the area of two small wetlands in the Corporate Circle area of South Burlington. The proposed activity includes various site improvements in connection with the construction of a three-story, 49,000 square foot office and retail building fronting on Corporate Way and a future office/retail building on the same block. Please refer to the "Proposed Building" and "Future Building Area" on the "Site and Utilities Plan" and "Overall Site Plan", both dated February, 1991 by Fitzpatrick, Llewellyn, Inc. Specifically, we plan to fill and/or otherwise impact a maximum of 0.89 acres at wetland "A" and 0.05 acres of wetland "B". In total, this project will cause a loss or adverse modification of no more than 0.94 acre of wetland. Wetland areas "A" and "B" are not depicted on the NWI map, and they are not contiguous with any NWI mapped areas according to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and our wetlands consultant. We understand that the above described impacts are currently permitted by Nationwide Permit #26 [33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)], and that no further application, notification or processing is necessary. We also understand that in order to comply with the Nationwide Permit #26 it will be necessary, prior to and after the start of construction as appropriate, to comply with the conditions listed at 33 C.F.R. 330.5 (b), with Section 330.6 ("Management Practices") and with your Appendix I ("Regional Conditions on Nationwide Permits in Vermont"). In addition to wetlands "A" and "B", there are other wetland areas on the 40 acre site. Wetland area "C" at the southeastern corner of the site has been delineated, and appears to be a portion of the PF01Y wetland as depicted on the NWI map. A larger wetland runs along the southern border of the site south of Corporate Way, and another is near the eastern boundary north of Corporate Way. Both of these are associated with.a natural and artificial drainage way. Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting .21 Ms. Martha Abair March 18, 1991 Page 2. The latter areas have not been delineated, and the boundaries on the "Overall Site Plan" are only a rough approximation. At this time there is no plan for impacting these areas, and in light of the Corps of Engineers practice of requiring a delineation within two years prior to a permit decision we do not plan to delineate these areas until there is a plan which proposes to impact them. In the event that we should seek to impact any of these larger wetlands, or for that matter any wetland areas on the site in excess of one acre in total, we understand it will be necessary for the Corps of Engineers to review the proposal. We understand that our current proposal, by virtue of the 0.94 acre maximum impact and our agreement to comply with all relevant conditions, does not require any further processing and in fact did not require this notification. It is possible that further work with the Corps may become necessary at some point in the future, though, and we felt it was best that we let you know of our plans from the beginning. We appreciate your guidance in helping us to understand the Corps of Engineers requirements and guidelines. We plan to proceed with this project as soon as we can obtain the balance of state and local approvals, so if any of the above assumptions are incorrect or if any further action with the Corps is necessary for this project as described above, I request that you notify me or Greg Dicovitsky as soon as possible. Thanks again for your help. Sincerely, John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont OW3 (M02) H63-9039 February 25, 1991 Ms. Catherine O'Brien Agency of Natural Resources - Water Quality 103 South Main Street Waterbury, VT. 05676 RE: CORPORATE CIRCLE WETLANDS Dear Cathy: It was a pleasure to speak with you by telephone last Friday, and to learn that you will be picking up the South Burlington City Center "account" after Lisa Borre's departure. Just to recap, our concern at this time focuses on three areas: a) Separation of the Class 2 "PF01Y" area from other wetlands on the property, including the "R30WH" area along the southwestern edge. Our request is for confirmation that the "PF01Y" area is not contiguous with other wetlands, and is supported by Brad Wheeler's letter of January 2, Greg Dicovitsky's letter of January 4 and related materials. My understanding is that you will need to do a site visit prior to making any determination on this issue, and that after conferring with Lisa you will schedule a visit at your earliest convenience. b) Written determination that the two wetland areas in the northwestern quadrant of the property are Class 3 by virtue of their lack of contiguity with any protected wetland. This issue was the subject of a letter from Lisa Borre last April 26, and a letter from Brad Wheeler of October 29 along with related documentation. Just to be sure, I enclose copies of the latter. My understanding is that after conferring with Lisa you will send us a written determination on this, or let me know if you should need any further materials. c) A list of the materials we must supply, and any other conditions we need to meet, in order to receive a statement of conditions, if any, which are required to have our project meet Water Quality Standards for the purpose of meeting the regional conditions of Army Corps Nationwide Permit #26. At this time we are not seeking any state permits or approvals per se; we merely wish to comply with the Permit #26 conditions. My understanding is that you will provide me with a list of what you would feel would constitute a proper request for water quality conditions. Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting V Ms. Catherine O'Brien February 25, 1991 Page 2. With multiple concerns and multiple projects things can get pretty confusing, and it is important that the various issues keep moving toward resolution. If any of my assumptions are incorrect, or if you should need any further information or assistance on any of these items, please do let me know. Otherwise, I shall assume that you will confer with Lisa and then contact me to set up a site visit at your earliest opportunity. I thank you again for your help with these matters, and look forward to working with you on the City Center project. Think Spring! Sincerely, John Jaeger enclosures .r r• • • ironmental Sciences and Engineering October 29, 1990 Mr. John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Wetlands at Center Place JCO# 1-0616-1 (48) Dear John: 0 vilil;6 El1n i �i PviJV,: I GJAP. The delineation of the wetlands on the parcel of land west of Corporate Way and north of the proposed cul-de-sac access road was completed on October 16, 1990. This parcel borders the China Light Restaurant and the Lakeview Buick properties. Methodology established in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands was followed to conduct the field work. The boundary was flagged in the field with sequentially numbered, pink survey flagging. These flags should be surveyed in as soon as possible to avoid losses due to weather or vandalism. Most of the wetland/upland boundary is quite distinct on the landscape. The boundary is typically located at the base of a steep slope which drops three to five feet from the upland area to the wetland area below. This is especially true along the southern boundary of the wetland. The transition from wetland to upland is more subtle along the northern boundary. It is along this boundary that a transect was done to collect data to document the transition from wetland to upland. The data sheets generated from this transect are attached. The wetlands on this parcel are Class Three wetlands. They are not mapped by the National Wetland Inventory nor are they contiguous to any such wetland. Therefore, these wetlands are not subject to the Vermont Wetland Rules. Proposed impacts to these wetlands will be reviewed through the Act 250 process, and if they exceed one acre, notification to the US Army of Corps of Engineers will be necessary. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely yours, THE JOHNSON COMPANY, INC. BY: Bradley A. Wheeler Certified Professional Soil Scientist BAW:kI 1-0616-1 (48) JAEGER.LTR Reviewed by: SAS CivilrEnvironntental Engineerirkq Hydmgeology Water Supply & Wasteumter Disp sal Hazardous Waste Rernediafion Flydrol,gy ConGtwinnrrf lizfr Analy.i Soil & Water Science Geology £r Geophysics Rizers and Dams Solid Waste Permitting 5 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602 ■ (802) 229-4600 Fax: (802) 229-5876 State of Vermont Department of F,sh and W-Idit fe Department of Forest%. Parks and Fiecrean01 A Oepartment of Environmental Conservation State Geologist Natural Resources Conservation Council AGENCY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 103 South Main Street Waterbury, Vermont 05676 Department of Environmental Conservation DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY 10 North Building 802-244-6951 April 26, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street Post Office Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Dicovitsky: Subject: Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Act 250 Permit 4C0503, Preapplication Review Thank you for showing me the site of the above referenced project and then meeting with me again to discuss overall project plans. I appreciate the time you have spent discussing the project with me at this stage of the permit process. It is my understanding that the District Commission has requested a complete Act 250 review under all 10 criteria prior to construction of the next phase of the project. As of the February 23, 1990, effective date of the Vermont Wetland Rules, Act 250 applicants must now demonstrate that a proposed project is in compliance with the Wetland Rules. In addition to criterion l(G), applicants must also address wetland functions under other applicable Act 250 criteria including l(B.), 1(E), l(F), 4, and 8. During our site visit with Lance Llewellyn on April 3, 1990, we walked the lot where the next phase of construction is proposed. After you left, Mr. Llewellyn and I walked along the road to look at other parts of the Corporate Circle property. I have identified several wetland areas as outlined below: 1. A shrub swamp dominated by alders (Alnus rugosa) associated with a disturbed drainage located on the lot Regional Offices • Barre/Essex Jct./Pittsford/N, Springfield/St. Johnsbury Mr. Greg Dicovitsky April 26, 1990 Page 2 where the next phase of construction is proposed. This wetland is located directly behind China Lite Restaurant and may be several acres in size. The shrub swamp drains through a culvert, into another small wetland area, and then into a drainage ditch behind Lake Buick. The drainage ditch empties into the unnamed stream that has been identified on the site plan along the southern property boundary. 2. A forested wetland with interspersed open water areas associated with the unnamed stream. The wetlands associated with the stream are contiguous to a wetland that has been identified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (see enclosed map). This mapped wetland complex has been disturbed somewhat by channelization of the stream and construction of the road. 3. Forested wetland areas located in the northern part of the property. At this time, I have not walked these lots to determine the extent of wetlands. Based on the information available, I believe that the wetland described in item 1 above is not contiguous to a NWI mapped wetland and therefore is a class three wetland. This is only a preliminary determination. I will be able to make a more definitive determination after reviewing a detailed wetlands delineation for the property. This wetland is important for improving water quality through chemical action, trapping sediments, and providing temporary retention of stormwater. The wetlands associated with the unnamed stream are class two wetlands. According to the Wetland Rules, a Conditional Use determination is required for any activity, other than an allowed use, in a class two wetland or its associated 50-foot buffer zone. Such a determination may only be granted when it is shown that the proposed use will not adversely affect protected functions. I recommend that you hire a wetlands consultant to delineate all wetlands on the Corporate Circle property. The wetland boundaries should be flagged in the field and surveyed onto the site plan. Wetland flags should be numbered sequentially and labeled on the site plan. In our meeting on April 22, 1990, the "vested interest" issue came up. I will be talking with Mark Sinclair, the Agency's land use attorney, to find out more about how it relates.to this project. Please contact me when the delineation is complete so that I can continue the review process. I also suggest that you I., Mr. Greg Dicovitsky April 26, 1990 Page 3 contact'Marty Abair at the Army Corps of Engineers Office in Essex because it is likely that she will be involved in this project as well. Her telephone number is 951-6755. I look forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, `Lisa Borre Wetlands Specialist eh Enclosure cc Mark Sinclair, Land Use Attorney Lou Borie, District IV Coordinator Bill Crenshaw, Wildlife Manager Marty Abair, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lance Llewellyn, Fitzpatrick -Llewellyn South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-6391 January 22, 1989 Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place Dear Mr. Weith, We are requesting an amendment to an approval issued by the Planning Commission in 1982 for a Planned Commercial Development known as "Corporate Circle". Please schedule us for Site Plan Review at your earliest convenience. Enclosed are the materials required for this application. The amendment we are requesting addresses the intent of the Central District Zoning Code passed in 1988 and amended in 1989. The project is to be: altered in a number of ways to bring it into closer conformity with the City's stated goals for the area. Those ways are: I. Planned Unit Development. The original permit is for a planned commercial development. We are asking for a rede.s.ignation as a Planned Unit Development since a PCD makes no provision for the residential uses we intend to include in later phases of the project. 2. Building Height. Although the code allows 2- 1/2 story buildings, it also permits the Planning Commission to award bonuses allowing buildings up to 4-1/2 stories. Based on the general principles outlined. in the City Center Study and incorporated into our site plan, we are requesting that: two three story buildings and one four story building be allowed. 3. On -Street Parking. We request a clarification regarding the fulfilling of parking requirements. The code seems to require all parking to be off-street. However, based on conversations with the planner and the Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting spirit of the City Center study, it appears that street spaces will be desirable at Center Place. Since we are providing these spaces in response to the City's wishes, we request that they be included in our parking totals. 4. Building Area. In the original permit, the approval was for up to 100,000 sf of building. Of this approximately 9,600 sf became the China Lite, leaving a balance of 90,400 sf. The current plan was developed using the principles found in the City Center study. After defining a set of planning principles that would apply across the entire site, we decided the most sensible course was to concentrate our design efforts on the most rational physical planning unit, a single quadrant of the site. In examining this unit we found the proper density of use was achieved at 190,000 sf of incremental development. Therefore, we are asking that the "umbrella" be expanded to this level. If you think an informational meeting between ourselves and the City's technical staff (yourself, the zoning administrator, the City engineer, and whomever else you think appropriate) would be helpful, we would be pleased to schedule one approximately a week before the hearing. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ,>� Enclosures City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 May 14, 1992 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Retail/Office Building, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jagaer: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find copies of the March 3, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please note the- conditions of approval and the requirement that the final plat be signed and recorded within 90 days form the date of approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sinc ely, Raymond J. Belair, Zoning and Planning Assistant Encls RJB/mcp City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 30, 1992 John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street. South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place. , Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the January 14, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. iLy , Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp cc: Randall Munson Lai -ice Llewellyn City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 27, 1992 John Jeager South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street. South Burlinton, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jea -er . ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the Findings of Fact & Decision on the above referenced project. Please note the conditions of approval and the requirement that the final plat plans be recorded within 90 days of approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/recap cc: Randall Munson Lance Llewellyn City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 March 20, 1992 John Jeager South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jeager: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find a copy of the February 4, 1992 Planning Commission meeting minutes. If you have any questions, please give me a call. n rel Joe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Randall Munson Lance Llewellyn PLANNING COMMISSION 4 FEBRUARY 1992 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, 4 February 1992, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present: William Burgess, Chairman; Terry Sheahan, David Austin, Mary - Barbara Maher, William Craig, Ann Pugh, Catherine Peacock Also Present: Joe Weith, City Planner; Dick Underwood, Bob, Carol & Bruce Erdmann, Dick Fisher, Greg Rabideau, Lance llewellyn, Brad Merritt, Harry Davison, Harry Wallace 1. Other Business: No issues were raised. 2. Minutes of 3 December 1991: Mr. Sheahan moved to approve the Minutes of 3 December as written. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing: Consider request of S. Burlington Realty to continue revised final plat application for construction of a 49,000 sq. ft. building for general office use (38,000 sq. ft.), retail use (9400 sq. ft.), and mechanical space (1600 sq. ft.) on 39 acres of land along Corporate Way to the 3 March 1991 meeting: Mr. Craig moved to grant the applicant's request. Ms. Peacock seconded. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Sketch Plan application of Robert Erdmann for subdivision of 18.7 acres of land containing a single family dwelling into two lots of 11.2 acres (single family dwelling) and 7.5 acres, Swift Street: Mr. Erdmann showed the proposed plan. Mrs. Maher noted the City Engineer has made a strong case for one access for both lots. Mr. Erdmann agreed there might be a question on this but he said Swift St. becomes steep at their dirve then levels off. It is almost dead level at the proposed curb cut for the new lot. He said he had timed the visibility factor at 35 mph and there are 10 seconds from the time you see a car till you are at the drive- way. He felt this was plenty of time to see a car approaching the driveway. Mr. Weith suggested he and the City Engineer meet with the applicant to discuss this further. Mr. Burgess noted the City Engineer had also raised the question of left turns at the proposed driveway. The applicant agreed to donate land for to extend the Swift St. WMAI_� Olr 3/3/92 JW MOTION OF APPROVAL I move the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the Revised Final Plat application of South Burlington Realty for construction of.a. 49,000 square foot building for general office use (38,000 square feet), retail use (9,400; square feet) and mechanical space (1,600 square feet) as depicted on a seven (7) page set of plans, page one entitled "Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont, South Burlington Realty Corporation, Proper- ty Plat" prepared by Webster -Martin, Inc., and dated September, 1981, last revised, 2/1/92, with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall post a $36,500 , 3-year landscaping bond prior to permit. The landscaping plan shall be revised.prior to recording to show 3 - 3 1/2 inch caliper street trees. The Planning Commi.==ion $12,300 waver of required landscap- ing 2. A sewer allocation of 1,125 gpd is granted. The applicant shall pay the required sewer allocation fee prior to issuance of a --oning/building permit.. 3. The Planning Commission approves 14 "on -street" parking spaces for the project. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to show the on street handicapped space within the fi.iture GO foot shiftef3 one space to the south. The area currently shown as a handicapped space shall not be striped for parking in order to maintain adequate site distance. Note #7 on sheet 1 of 16 sha''_ he corrected prior to record- ing to indicate seven (7) handicapped spaces to be provided. 5. The plan shall be revised prior to recording to show the new street centered within the 60 foot future street r..o.w. The ace of curb on the east side shall be located ten (10) feet from the r.o.w. line and proposed trees shall be planted three (3) feet off the clirb face. 6. The lighting note on page 3 of 6 shall be revised prior to permi to indicate a 16 foot high street light to be approved by City 7. Prior to permit, the Planning Commission shall review and approve final streetscape plans based o:: input provided by the City Center Streetscape Design Committee. The plans shall ad- dress streetscape issues including roadway width; street tree species)< location and size; sidewalk width; sidewalk material and design; and street lighting. 8. Prior to recording the property plat, the applicant shall submit a revised plat showing the 60 foot future street r.o.w. The plat shall be certified and signed by a licensed surveyor. 9. Prior to permit, the applicant shall submit an Offer of Irrevocable Dedication and Warranty Deed for the 60 foot future street r.o.w. These documents shall be approved by the City Attorney and recorded prior to permit. 10. In an effort to find that the proposed development will not adversely affect traffic flow and safety, the applicant shall be responsible for the following: a) As expressly represented by the applicant, prior to occu- pancy of the proposed building, the applicant shall complete Corporate Way including construction of the Corporate Way/Hines- burg Road intersection. Prior to issuance of a zoning permit for the building, the applicant shall submit a plan of the proposed Corporate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection to the City for approv- al. The applicant shall also submit to the City a letter from AOT approving construction and signalization of the intersection. (This condition does not negate any agreement between the City and applicant regarding this intersection). b ) Pri nr t rt_�—,r��,r,; r,o L , applicant shall contribute a payment to the Williston Road Area 1 Improvement Fund, or other Traffic Improvement Fund in existence at time of permit. application. The current fund would require a payment of $15,413 based on an estimated 129 peak hour trip ends to b geneated by this _project. :a (N� /�+N S be �u-••s-c Core . Ws. s r ; Fi e i -� fT' f 11. The final plat plans shad !--:e recorded in the South Burling- ton land records prior to issuance of a zoning permit, and within 90 days, whichever is sooner, or this approval is null and void. The plans shall be signed by the Planning Commission Chairman or Clerk prior to recording. �ll j7rG✓�-6 �I 41", / & -Wom� � 001. Alt w- S/Y 1/ ✓n i /� ti/ f%r eL" f' 15 C_� "d"& Ylv(I"--ee -47 '- J�� "� Ei;3� L/3 92 /OL wGL�7 ia�r1� ✓� % ICA �� �p r w,i ✓ �K li�t.e.�s�ty � ��(fly� �-.� -Z`'-eCZ4-- Y City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 28, 1992 John j aeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street. South Burlington, Vermont. 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enciosed is an agenda for next 'Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and comments from City Engineer Bill Szymanski and my- self. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 3, 1992 to present your request. If you have any questions, please let me know. ;ty rely, tVe1�� eit.h, Planner F:n 1. JW/mcp cc: Randall Munson Lance Llewellyn Memorandum January lu , January 10, Page 5 - Planning 1992 agenda items 1992 Sidewalk: The applicant will be required to construct a sidewalk along Kimball Avenue. This was a requirement of the August 22, 1989 approval. The applicant is proposing to construct the sidewalk at the time Phase II is built or within two (2) years, whichever comes first. Staff feels this is a reasonable propos- al. The Public Works Director was consulted on this matter and it is his recommendation that the applicant contribute $15 per linear foot instead which would amount to $8,919. Conservation Zone/Flood Plain: The plan shows the 100 foot conservation zone from the center of Potash Brook and the limits of the 100 year flood plain. This information was requested to be placed on the plans as part of the 1989 approval. No cutting of trees or disturbance will take place in the CO zone and no construction will take place in the flood plain. Lighting: Exterior lighting will consists of ten (10) 175 watt metal halide lights with cutoff luminaries on 15 foot poles. There will be no exterior lighting attached to the building. Tower: The proposed tower will exceed the height limitations. The applicant will be required to obtain a conditional use permit from the Zoning Board of Adjustment to allow the tower to exceed the height limitation. Approval extension: Pursuant to Section 20.302 of the zoning regulations, the applicant is requesting a two (2) year approval for Phase II of this multi -phase project instead of the normal six. (6) month period. Staff feels this is a reasonable request. Phase I will still be subject to the six. (6) month requirement. Other: --- a gravel turnaround is being provided at the end of the new street as required in the 1989 approval. 7) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY - CITY CENTER - OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING South Burlington Realty proposes to build a three (3) story 49,000 square foot mixed retail/office building on Corporate Way. A total of 38,000 square feet of gross floor area will be devoted to general business offices including all of the top two (2) ' 5 Memorandum January 14, January 10, Page 6 - Planning 1992 agenda items 1992 floors and a portion of the first. The remaining 11,000 square feet of the first floor will be devoted to retail and non - leasable space (9,400 square feet retail and 1600 square feet non-leaseable). Previous considerations of this project include a discussion on February 13, 1990, sketch plan on April 17, 1990 and a discussion of wetlands on this site on April 9, 1991 (minutes enclosed). The property is zoned Central District 1. The building site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Corporate Way and the China Lite/Central School drives. Access/circulation: This building will have two (2) access points on the China Lite driveway. One access will be 30 feet wide and the other one will be 24 feet wide. These access points do not line up with the two (2) China Lite access points, howev- er, it is staff's position that the locations of the new access points are more desirable and that the China Lite access points should be relocated the next time that project comes in for site plan review. Circulation of traffic through the site is adequate. Setbacks/coverage: The proposed building does not meet the 0-80 foot building envelope setback along the north side of the build- ing. The building has an L-shape which is designed to be on a corner. Since the drive serving the building and China Lite is not proposed to be a public street, an L-shaped building- cannote be approved. However, the building should be set back 3 fet to from the potential 60 foot r.o.w. as recommended by the Street- scape Committee. Building coverage is 1.2% (maximum allowed is 40`/0). Overall coverage is 8% (maximum allowed is 90%). Parkin;__ The entire 49,000 square foot buildin requires a total of 202 parking spaces. This assumes 38,000 square feet of office space and 9400 square feet of gross retail space (7,500 square feet retail floor area). The plan shows 201 on -site spaces and iu ori- si_i•eet- spaces on Corporate Way. The l�ianning Commission may count on -street spaces to satisfy parking requirements. The on -street spaces must be increased in size to 9'x 221. 6 Memorandum - Planning January 14, 1992 agenda items January 10, 1992 Page 7 r Three (3) additional handicapped spaces will have to be provided �0 to comply with the new ADA Accessibility Guidelines which take effect on January 26, 1992. The applicant is proposing a truck loading area within the pro- posed "China Lite" street r.o.w. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant redesign the on -site parking area to accommo- date off-street loading and unloading spaces.a� Provisions should be included in the tenant leases which prohibit 00 pF- employees of the office/retail space from parking on -street. These spaces should be reserved for short term users. U Landscaping: The landscaping requirement for this project is $36,500. The applicant is proposing $43,700 in planting, plant- ers, benches and brick work thereby contributing $7200 more than is required. Applicant is proposing 2 1/2" - 3" caliper Little Leaf Linden along the street. Staff recommends that 3" - 3 1/2" trees be used instead as this is the size being used along Dorset Street. Other planting in the development will include Maple, Ash, Honeylocust, Crabapple, Pine, Juniper, Contonester, Lilac and Yews. *rl yew,>r: A sewer allocation of 1125 gpd should Leia,ic.eu\- 75 employees. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to permit. Lighting: The following exterior lighting is proposed: /V",`I 1. Nine (9) parking lot lights on 20 foot poles. Lights will be 250 watt high pressure sodium with luminaire. 2. Two (2) walkway lights on 1-1 loot poles. Lights will be 100 watt high pressure sodium with cut off lumanaires. 3. Nine (9) courtyard lights, bollard type with 50 watt high pressure sodium lamps. 4. Three (3) street lights on 20 foot poles to be approved by the City. Approval of streetscape issues should he postponed uncii or streetscape committee are complete. Building Heights: Building elevations provided indicate that the building will exceed the height limitation by 1.5 feet and the � (' tower will exceed the height limitation by 7.5 feet.. The Plan- ning Commission can allow the increased height as a bonus for the provision of additional public space (parks, courtyard, etc.) or amenities. The applicant is providing a courtyard and amenities 7 Memorandum January 14, January 10, Page 8 - Planning 1992 agenda items 1992 such as benches, planters and brick work which amounts to $7,200 above the landscaping requirement. Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission allow the increased height. Traffic: The November 17, 1981 final plat approval for the Corporate Way PUD (minutes enclosed) required that certain im- provements be made relating to traffic if certain conditions are reached. Condition #5 no longer applies because we have been told by the applicant that they can't open up a public street over the Lake Buick property. This item is therefore moot. In the R.S.G. Traffic Study, the 1995 build scenario assumed to have 45,000 square feet of retail and 145,000 square feet of office space. This application is for only 38,000 square feet of office space and 9,400 square feet of retail space. The 1995 scenario also assumed that six (6) intersections would be im- proved in addition to the construction of Dorset Street, a traf- fic signal at the Corporate Way/Hinesburg Road intersection, and a north bound ramp added to Exit 13. Condition #6 of the 1981 approval requires the complete construc- tion or establishment of bonding and a timetable for completion of Corporate Way if any on -site development will create or add to a LOS below C on any of four (4) intersections. One of these intersections is the Williston Road/Dorset Street intersection which currently operates at a LOS of C or below. The applicant has indicated that he will comply with condition #6. The improvements to the Dorset Street/Corporate Way intersection referred to in, condition #7 have already been completed. Staff recommends that as a condition to this approval Corporate(.--) Way be constructed to Hinesburg Road and that the intersection be ° signalized. The applicant is subject to the Williston Road Traffic Impact Policy for Impact Area 1. Assuming 129 P.M. peak hour trips for this development using the I.T.E. manual, the applicant must contribute $15,412.50 to the Williston Road Improvement. Fund (Area 1). The applicant should contribute 2.6% of the cost of the north- bound on -ramp at Exit 13 as has been applied to other develop- ments in the area. This contribution is based on total traffic west bound at the intersection. Assuming a construction cost of' $400,000 for the ramp ($200,000 to be assessed to developers) the applicant mist contribute $5,200 towards its constriction. 8 Memorandum January 14, January 10, Page 9 Other: - Planning 1992 agenda items 1992 --- the applicant is proposing to locate all trash storage inside the building accessible by an overhead door. This should be noted on the plans. --- the title of the survey plat should read "plat" and not "site plan". --- applicant should be required to obtain a Statement of Condi- tions regarding the wetlands prior to permit. --- legal access for the China Lite property across applicant's property should be referred to in a note on the plat. Unresolved Issues: There are a number of unresolved issues with this project which the applicant wanted to discuss with the Commission prior to revising the plans. They include the follow- ing: --- the issue of street trees over the storm drains must be resolved prior to permit. --- the location of fire hydrants must be decided upon prior to plat. approval. --- the issue of storm drainage must be resolved prior to plat approval. Bill Szymanski has suggested an underground retention system. --- the issue of the proposed building exceeding the maximum allowed percentage of flat roofs must be resolved prior to plat approval. Section 1.603 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum of 50% of the roof tops on any development to be flat. The proposed building is 100% flat roofed except. for the tower area. The applicant disagrees with staff's interpretation of the 50% rule. Applicant's interpretation would allow the building as proposed. The City Attorney was consulted and he agrees with staff. Since it. is not possible for the applicant to meet. section 2.07 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance which allows the modification of standards, either the 50`/o rule would have to be met or the regulations amended to allow 100% flat roofs. - - all : t.ree'-scape issues, i.e. lighting, sidewalk ma1_erial and design, etc. --- the buildings noncompliance with the 0-80 foot building envelope setback oIi the rior`h side. 9 0 FITZPATRICK-LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering & Planning Services The Kbn - 15 Brickyard Road ESSEX JUNCTION, VERMONT 05452 (802) 878-3000 To 4��7- &101141'm I kl�- Z�25 qZ4,3 Wow -n� .� o V&Aec OX21A L] Please reply ❑ No reply necessary o LETTER Date eject 4�. - !46 South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorsct Street South BurUngton, Vermont 65403 (802) 863.9039 PHONE NUMBER: (802) 863-9039 FAX NUMBER: (802) 863-6395 TELECOPIER COVER SHEET PLEASE DELIVER THS FOLLOWING PAGE(S) TO: NAME: ft � 'V> &-'"-" A I FIRM: 7S?7 C— " TELECOPIER NO: L -!S�— F-s- ` — H f__ DATE: ( 2, { i q r 1 U I f f TIME: � --I-- A, TOTAL NUMBER OF AGES (including cover sheet) FROM: r L-- IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (802) 863--9039 TRANSMITTED BY: COMMENTS: G-ovt V e.v'S ��l avt 0 C C O L i Yl "'� v� e- 0.c��'i iovt4,� Ye- Priittc R,:id I:swte — Conmt%:rdLd, Rcsiclentild, I..clt�5 ri+:1 Dc-t-clopment Dcsign, Build, Lcuse, C:onstilung INV 306.95 ,_INV 30760 ° C LITE RESTAURANT ' - " - ✓ . SIDEWAALKC TF II RIM(, JI 8S CHINA RE I' oII" INV IN OJ.44 /. - I I.. h —_•_�••"�..�,�.. i o —_.COCA nON Of EXISTING FLECTRIQ o • ii JI i INV OU JO_i 4(r �....,��---___1 IFLEPHONE AND GAS LINES �m I l .���� ASPHALT I I r EXTEND ]A" CMY 6(t)� INV _ J., I I l / i_ �.�_ PROVIDED BY DIG SAFE SIDEWALK TO DAYLIGHT USE �06 0 /yam, ��-- FLARED FNO - l ..� �..� .�.. ..�..�� (SEC M M/l ) ,_ • / I !�4 _ I i 6U ._.. OF PAVEMENT I SOHOQI__- / y b ; \ \-! - . PROPOSED DI I ' \ .. F TURF 4 •, I I L - . �J SfRCC f .I/IM 170 - _J .S' MNI (.... R, O. W. "J INV. J05.5 ' it RIM Jl .9 1 TOP OF SPILLWAY -.. viA_ _ k�< -...9 /N/JF/i'UHAIN - _. - .__ _._ ...._. __ __ __ _. .._ _ _ _ __ _ - �, _ _— -. 1- INV, i 9f EiFRMNfD OVERFLOW - Cl EV. J06.571, - ° _._ _ _— _ _ _- _ - — IN FIELD .. ' INV. J05. 50-- /gyp /•� ; p % C. - 9• m. _ ..... �..... Y, vrn - V JI/4.62 ;;' \ / _ - . _ _ I l .\11 �' (((• l ..�. 1� N Jna \� S IA 1 I5�7 _ b 11 _ 3 - ^.�. '_.�\ EIAN�I Al(I PANS Ir(� 1 J / •.� -"„ i � 1RNf i • � .'� INV _504. A.7 (, '. 1 Jo' I —L_... A-• Q ; // y }l� F AVEA'S r ,:.I II I i j - 4' UNOERORAIN REMOVE ANO '.�. \ 1 1 Jrr _� �,.0 / / �/ c uu �� DISPOSE OF ,>� 1� f - ' / I LOADING/TRASH REM VAL .• I V — I kIS BNG 'J I .; ,. J, 6. D -� �/y 74,.. �. � \ .. II �i //� � i °''I � 1 = I RIM 3/057 INV OUI JOZ10 7 v �v Ivp fTl ` I 1 EXIST CS ADXi$ r ce RIM to I I I I t - I RIM J1066 hgappsEO Er.fuAnDrJ I IN _ ,,c 1 \ _�' ...•- ",: / SEE. R0AOt4AY - - 1 '� l II IS:. INV OUt .J0772 v' _ Jo .0 , \. 4" uNDERURA/PN\\ ` N \.> , C WDMNo bETAK J _ - I ' ,.. � \ "cl f h� HANDICAP I i i "o � � I ` V A rr.. x ' /1 / / I �a 1i EXIST CB A� A la. f�'e(7• '� ✓ }+1 } ,*I III ^yr RIM JI100 _... \ ; 1 N INV IN JU5..7f>(1N'7 111 m \ ` \ / i4 Aw•rnrw! _ 4 .'„k, ./. ' Tnn+. 4' UNIRlJRAIN J Q INV /N J02 5J(A") RpqAOWAI IN N 6 l f# ` -- lrn°J _ c.AewnP, - ❑-WfOfNILJG Of All y II i N A6 1(,' oqIN V OUt01 w , \ / • — IIN !)RAIN , N C.O. \ _ .. - f»0- ._..� D . DO LAPD LIONl, (TWj r l IOCA110N OF C STING I , \.. ... ' , �' ., /. %" Lrh;i O' \ a...n , \ roi A R" WA " 7AKE� FROM \ \.., ..✓ \ \ / 1` PLANS I ROVIDE BY L7'. C,IY' F SOU rH I I \ I u ! / \f _. ♦ -.._.. 1 �• _ ♦' '\y BURUI•f GTON I TYP —EXIST MH RIM J10.64 TYPE"A"-20' 66 5 I�� INV, rJ02 INV UU 12 72 PARKING LOT LIGHT N \ .` `� - n B , B 1. TYPfI 'C'-2O' 4pn7I:El LIGH DESIGN IO BC A ,newn,tr \ /' ,�urin.... �,•�...,.rw, /' ••.�•c.N II 1`APPI�oV£D BrICI rr ; WALKWAY 1I6HT END P OPOSEDI \, A •� \ ., - �f PAVFMiNr IOPI CQAT �\� ALL CONSTRUCTION MfIHODS AND MATERIALS Cy/I I \ ALONG CORPORATE WAY TO CONFORM WITH / / \ ;� \ ` CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGfON STANDARDS A \ . -- - J \ ', \ IN EFFECT Ar THE AM£ OF ISSUANCE OF t' \ � , ..,, \ `\� •.`� �..�'` f _-i�`•..T�- \\\\ � a� \• BUILDING PERMITS r, loR Jn9 GkAPII1G SCAII,F; INDICATES EXISTING DASH DOT SINE \ i E+h \�` C `• \ \ -- , LT R E I Ines IN FB2 f n. \ \ \ N£ILAND LIMITS \ 1 � 1992 C E N T E __-- ---- -__ L- A---C E yti `. ,\. City of So. ington -SITE AND UTILITIES PLAN - - - �' „.'^90DJ9... -- If IS THE USERS RfSPONSl8IL1TY TENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE_..__ Ff9�1991 _ THE LATEST RENSIONS \ FOR DETAILS SEF ,HEFTS � \ \ — - �INCORPORATED SLM PRELIM/NARY PI AT ACT 250 `•. C E 0/? LE CENU ! ' NT 1 2 J na nw ww61r- i ___--'-- — ----- — CONSTRUCTION -- -- —� PLAN— uPnus D J840 :' r, , �- �� -vn ., „ : nn: ,n �ii: n•' S'ACfS FINAL PLAT BQk INOICAiFS APPROVALS 1AF.E ,ME BESICN /S CURRCN R. N. ,... .. .. .. _ Ih _ - .. \���. Mom'\ FOR. NO TF S - SEE SHL.I ' it �vo (j l_i M4Yu[t .__...__. f,�ti_ __...... Nv nnrr DI5 ,r WILLI�Rc Aeo eau>nnN STON VERMONt 3 n s P x 306, no IVoAT# o/) " Ail,, � ex T i3 4- 9ga /o, 46 7o 41 ;r�4 3 Ole EN #' toj am 1 4 J a k4l City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET -- SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7955 658-7958 January 31, 1992 John Jeager South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jeager: Enclosed is an agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 4, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. to present your request. Sincerely, AA ���� oe Weith, A�%d City Planner Encls JW/mcp cc: Randall Munson Memorandum - Planning February 4, 1992 agenda items January 31, 1992 Page 6 The LTH subdivision was first approved in 1982 and revised in 1985. The development has reserved sewer capacity of 5,400 gpd for 5 remaining duplexes (10 units). The Howard Johnson's ball- room addition was approved last month. The addition was granted a sewer allocation of 3174 gpd, however, it was placed on the waiting list until such time as sewer capacity is available. The applicant is proposing to transfer 3,174 gpd of sewer capaci- ty from the approved reserve capacity of the LTH development to the Harbor View development for purposes of constructing the 250 seat ballroom. The ballroom addition will be moved to the re- serve capacity list. Capacity for 3 of the 5 duplexes will be moved to the waiting list. Therefore, there will still be capac- ity available for 2 duplexes (2226 gpd). The sewer policy requires that both property owners involved in the transfer of reserved sewer capacity submit letters approving such transfer. Enclosed is an agreement between both owners for the transfer. This agreement should be signed by both parties prior to Planning Commission approval. 8) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY = CEO PLACE - CORPORATE WAY This application was continued to this meeting from the January 14, 1992 meeting (minutes not available) to give the applicant time to address the issues raised. The applicant was unable to submit revised plans in time for staff to adequately review the plans prior to Tuesday's meeting. Staff and applicant recommend- ed that this item be tabled to the March 3 meeting. 1.1 CUP 6T: EIIENO 16- IO DAIIEND u5[ FLARM(5[E OCIA4) A --Jp---- 1` - MEYOYE AND \ DIWIY Of / � c En51w0 , \\ \ / I 1 IT IS 1Hf USERS T"--D THE LATEST REN90NS. CHINA LJTE RESTAURANT sw I 1 1 / I 1 PROPOSED ewLaNc I (xr51 CB Pw 3r052 I� I I I I wv W> JOl r0 \ \ 1 I I 1 1 ii£ J/NO I I 1, Q I I rsw) I co J ` \\ `� wv w J02 PIV w !ae w s-) WI JMSJ(2. ) \ \� \\j \ • �.G/ \\ F. I \ \ ` r \ \ ' \ 1 IOCA, 01 [.I I Ddl \` \ 4 \ 1 It PIANSII�IONO(D 1 1 all 0E SWIn I' EXIST Rw Jr Nl7V. . lT / IV ENDco W�OSE� I X14, \\\ \ • \ , , , II PAK•Nr/I IMI COAT jap \ 1 /GRAPHIC SCALE tl I CENTER P L A C E __SITE AND UTILITIES PLAN �. ----------, o'Di9 10 ENSURE THESE ORAM7NG5 INCLUDE O li \\\ FQR D£TAKS SEE SHEETS 4-6 \ \ FOR I IJ�J� INCORPORATED E£B 1991 ACT ISO \\ LEGEND SEE SHEET 2 ..�..... CONSTRUCDON I^ \6 FQ9 MJTfS SEE SHEET / AND6 \ """"" ^ ••ems WILLISTON .. ..� VERAIONT 0;RD v 6 _— 0 C) 0 L V_ M r� V '0 64 / u o 0 C.3 IF Eo,, i WARRANTY DEED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS THAT, LAURA DUCHAINE McKENZIE AUDETTE, of South Bl-rlinr*ko�n, in the County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont, Grantor, in the consideration of ONE AND MORE DOLLARS paid tj my full satis by VER-MADA, INC., a Vermont corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Vermont, with principal place of business at South Burlington, County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont Grantee, by these presents, do freely GIVE, GRANT, SELL, CONVEY and CONFIRM unto the said Grantee, VER-MADA, TNC. , and its successors and assigns forever, a certain right of way in South Burlington in the County of Chittenden, and State of Vermont, described as follows, viz: Said right of way is fifty feet (501) in even width leading easterly from the easterly side of Dorset Street, the northerly line of said right of way being 413. 4 feet, more or less, northerly of the northerly line of property now or formerly owned by Angelo Pizzagalli. Said northerly line is an extension of the southerly boundary of land now or formerly owned by McKenna. Said right of way leads from the easterly side of Dorset Street for a distance of approximately 385 feet to the land now owned by the Grantee herein. Said right of way is granted to the Grantee herein for use in common with others. Being that part of the same land and premises conveyed to Laura Duchaine McKenzie by Warranty Deed of James P. McKenzie et al dated May 31, 1950, recorded in Volume 25, Page 537, of the Land Records of the Town of South Burlington. Said Laura Duchaine McKenzie has remarried and i?3 now Laura Duchaine McKenzie Audette. Said right of way is more specifically laid out on a Plan of Land recorded in Volume 80 , Page / 7 9 of the Land Records of the City of South Burlington. Reference is made to the above deed and Plan in further aid of this description. kWUELSON, BLOOYBERG t PORTNOW ATTORN[t) 4T LAW iURLINGTON, VERMONT rr•1 C 1011 Pag( SAMUELSO N. BLOOMBERG ►oRTNOW ATTORN[T, AT W BURLINGTON.VERMONT TO HAVE AND TO HOLD said granted premises; "with all the privileges and appurtenances thereof, to the said Grantee, VER-MADA, INC., its successors and assigns, to its own use and behoof forever; and I the said Grantor, LAURA DUCHAINE McKENZIE AUDETTE, for myself and my heirs., executors and administrators, do covenant with the said Grantee, VER-MADA, IN-., its successors and assigns, that until the ensealing of these presents I am the sole owner of the premises, and have good right and title to convey the same in manner aforesaid; that they are FREE FROM EVERY ENCUMBRANCE; and I hereby engage to WARRANT -AND DEFEND the same against all lawful claims whatever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal this LY day of May, A. D. , 1971. IN PRES CE OF: Laura Duchaine McKenzie Audette STATE OF VERMONT CHITTENDEN COUNTY, SS. At ate - this y -/ day of May, A. D. , 1971, LAURA DUCHAINE McKENZIE AUDETTE personally appeared, and she acknowledged this instrument, by her sealed and subscribed, to be her free act and deed. Before me, 1 ) �466 No ary Public Vermont Property Transfer Tax 32 V.S.A. Chap. 231 -ACKNOWLEDGMENT- Return Rec'd.••Tau Peid—Sosrd of Htsilh Cori. Rot'd.- Vt. Land Use d Development Plans Acl Gat, Ned'd, Return No Slgr►ed rk Oats C eceived for record June 24, 1971'at 8:25 A.M. Attest M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. S_-ymanski, City Engineer Re: March 3, 1992 agenda items Date: February 28, 1992 MUNSON PROPERTY, 1860 WILLISTON ROAD 1. Existing curb cut should be closed. 2. Site plan dated September 1991 prepared by Fitzpatrick - Llewellyn is acceptable. CENTER PLACE, CORPORATE WAY 1. An agreement between the owner and the City should be entered into to allow City equipment to use the parking lot as a turn- around for the short '- -' , + - � � � : 4- _. ,., the City. 2. Corporate Way shall have a temporary gravel turnaround where the paved area ends. L&M PARK - SHELBURNE ROAD Plan dated June 1990 with latest revision dated 1/30/92 prepared by Fit--patrick-Llwellyn Associates is acceptable. :GAL NOTICES 1 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION ie South Burlington anning Commission will )Id a public hearing at e South Burlington City all, Conference Room, 75 Dorset Street, South urlington, Vermont on uesday, January 14, 992 at 7:30 p.m. to con - der the following: levised final plat applica- on of South Burlington lealtyty for construction of 49,000 square foot ,uilding for general office ,se (38,000 square feet), etail use (9,400 square eet) and mechanical ;pace (1,600 square feet), m 39 acres of land lo- :ated along Corporate Nay. This property is )ounded by Vermada, no., J. O'Brien, H. Dolan, he City of South Burling - on, Brassard Automotive Services, Lodges of Bur- ington, E. Chastenay, E. a oue, Hinesburg Road, W. Parkes, N. Kohler, J. Benedict, A. Chastenay: P. Magnant/Perkins, A Continued -ext Column LEGAL NOTICES Wheel, L. Gerlack, G. Hart, J. Menard, W. Hur- tubise, Mona/Burns, Du- m8nt Construction. ontinued Next Column LEGAL NOTICES 1 Bouchard & Sons Inc., P Mahoney, Lakeview Buick, Senesac, GLR As- sociates, E. Foley, and China Lite. Continued Next Column LEGAL NOTICES 11 LEGAL NOTICES 1 Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Continued Next Column William Burgess Chairman, South Burling- ton Planning Commission December 28. 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION 13 FEBRUARY 1990 page 2 2. Discussion with South Burlington Realty Corp. regarding 190,000 sq. ft. of office, retail and restaurant_ use i_n_3 buildings, Corporate Way, City Center Mr. Craig stepped down due to a potential conflict of• interest. Mr. Dicovitsky said the property is located in CD-1 of the City Center Zone. He noted that in the citizen participation forums, participants always placed establishment of a City Center in the top 3 priorities and that the Regional Planning Commission also designates this area as a growth center. He felt the proposed project would promote the concept of a City Center. He then out- lined the parcel which is 39.6 acres, noting that the Corporate Way configuration was approved by the Commission in 1982. Mr. Dicovitsky noted that the City Center plan cites 3 major fun- damentals: diversity (balanced mixed us), proximity,(accessibility and intensity of use), and a sense of place (positive identity). He said they want to apply those principles to their site. He also noted that Act 250 now reserves the right to re -address all 10 criteria on a 2-3 year basis if construction of a project is not complete. Mr. Dicovitsky said their approach is not to plan the full 40 acres but to plan for the principles of the 40 acres with a plan for a rational portion of it. Mr. Burgess noted that one problem of the City Center plan is that the traffic impact now makes the plan practically impossible. He said the Dorset St. Committee will be meeting again with an eye to reducing something to make traffic less of a factor and to make building possible. The Commission will therefore want to know what the owner proposes for the full lot, particularly from the point of view of traffic. Mr. Dicovitsky said Tom Adler is doing a traffic study. He said they are not asking to change anything that the Commission would want in terms of a traffic analysis. He noted that Corporate Way has to be extended to Hinesburg Rd. at the next piece of development, and that Midas Rd. Extension will be done soon after that. Mr. Dicovitsky said the proposal has a majority of office use with some retail. In later plans, they will also have more residential use. The plan would have 2 buildings at street side with an eye toward creating a street scene. There is one other 60,000 sq. ft. building shown that is not in the current plan. A pedestrian corridor with outdoor plazas, green areas, etc. is also proposed. These would be linked to the Dumont Park. PLANNING COMMISSION 13 FEBRUARY 1990 page 3 Mrs. Maher said the plan does not convince her this is a city scape because of all the parking lot. Mr. Dicovitsky said economically they cannot compete if they have to put in a parking garage. He felt that in the course of time they could compete with downtown Burlington and then would put in parking garages. Mrs. Maher asked why they didn't come up with a plan for both sides of Corporate Way and thus create a real cityscape. Mr. Dicovitsky said the piece across Corporate Way is a difficult tri- angular parcel and there is also a problem with the fact that there is no p.u. d. wording for the property. Mr. Burgess said that the proposal did not seem to him to advance the City Center concept. He didn't want to see 2 more office buildings and more surface parking. He wanted to see something on the rest of the property that lives up to the City center concept. Mrs. Maher said she would like to see a residential element to have a true mix. Mr. Dicovitsky said they still don't know if people in S. Burlington are willing to move into a downtown core. Mr. Weith said he would like to see this proposal on a plan with adjoining properties and new quadrants that would be framed by public streets and hookups with a pedestrian route. Mrs. Maher said she would favor a p.u.d. but would never go for a big building in the center of parking lots. Mr. Dicovitsky asked about 3 and 4 story buildings and how to get them approved. Mr. Burgess said the theory is you gain in height as you provide more green space. Mr. Weith said it was his understanding there would be a specific policy developed with specific rules for increasing height. Mrs. Maher said if parking were a part of the building, she would easily go for 3 or 4 stories. Ms. Peacock said she had no problem with higher heights but didn't want to see a sea of parking. She also didn't like the building in the middle. Mr. Austin had no problem with more than 2 stories but didn't like the large sea of pavement. Mr. Burgess said he wasn't convinced this was the beginning of anything. Ms. Pugh said the plan reminded her of Paramus, N.J., and she hated the parking. Mr. Dicovitsky asked about on -street parking. Mr. Burgess said he wasn't opposed if it didn't impede traffic or future intersection improvements. Mrs. Alger said she wasn't impressed with the plan and felt there should be some styling to buildings, not just L-shaped, and there should be parking under the buildings. PLANNING COMMISSION 17 April 1990 page 2 2. Minutes of 3/13, 4/3/90 Mr. Austin requested in the introduction to the denial motion that the wording read: "...that the Planning Commission adopt the fol- lowing order denying the..." It was also noted that Stipulation 8 on p. 4 should end with the words "turning vehicles." Mrs. Maher moved to adopt the Minutes of 4/3 as amended. Mr. Austin seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Peacock and Mr. Craig abstaining. Ms, Pugh moved to approve the minutes of 13 March as written. Mrs._9aher seconded. Motion passed 4-0 with Ms. Peacock and Mr. Craip_abstaining,_ 3. Sketch Plan application of South Burlington Realty Co. for con- struction of a_49,000 sq, ft. building in 2 phases for office/ retail use, Corporate Way Mr. Craig stepped down during this discussion due to a conflict of interest. Mr. Dicovitsky showed a plan of .the whole Corporate Way area including a suggested plan for the applicant's buildings. There would be a mix or 2 and 3 story buildings. Mr. Weith suggested leaving open a future connection to San Remo Drive. Mr. Dicovitsky said the emphasis would be on buildings along the Street. There will be an attempt to relate to Dumont Park. The buildings will include residential town houses, also possibly apartments. There would be no single family detatched lots. The first building to be considered would be next to China Lite. The building would have a corner that opens up and welcomes people to the City Center. It will be designed with a clock tower and will begin to give a sense of place. It will be L-shaped and will go out to the property line. The first floor would be limited commercial use, the second and third floor for offices. It would open into a court yard in back and there will be the beginning of a pedestrian corridor. Mr. Dicovitsky noted there is a question as to whether to allow parking in the first 80 ft. They feel there should be none on the Corporate Way side, but that it should be allowed on the other road. Mrs. Maher asked who would construct the city street at China Lite. Mr. Weith assumed it would be the developer and that PLANNING COMMISSION 17 April 1990 page 3 it can be required as part of this development. There would have to be a 60 ft. right of way, a sidewalk on one side, and curbs. Mr. Dicovitsky said they have no objection to that. They plan for sidewalks on 3 sides of the building, a row of trees on the other side of the sidewalk. Mr. Weith had no objection to violating the 80 ft. parking setback in some places. He felt this revision of the plan was an im- provement. Mr. Dicovitsky showed a concept sketch of the building. It featured large first floor windows, outside seating areas, and the clock tower. Regarding the traffic study, Mr. Weith asked what will be done to tie Corporate Way to Hinesburg Rd. Mr. Dicovitsky said that the approval for this building should require that be done. Mr. Burgess said the Commission will want a level of service analysis by final review. Mr. Weith asked about widening Corporate Way to allow for on - street parking. Mr. Dicovitsky said they were planning to do that. Mrs. Maher preferred nothing bedone until Dorset St. is rebuilt. She said opening Corporate Way to Hinesburg Rd. might mitigate that concern, however. Mr. Dicovitsky wanted clarification as to whether the Commission would allow 3 story buildings. The Commission had no problem with that. They did ask for elevations as part of the package. Mr. Dicovitsky asked that the City Center/Dorset St. Committee be re -activated. 4. Review Draft #1 of proposed amendment to Article II, Flood lain District, of the South Burlington Zoning Regulations Mr. Weith recommended this district be an overlay district and that only uses allowed in the floodplain overlay district would be allowable uses. Mr. Craig felt that would have to be made clearer because as it was currently written you could put in IC uses if you could prove it was "flood safe." He felt there was also clarification needed as to the potential for zone changing. He said there was a question of changing a zone of an area where the flood plain location may change to allow a buffer zone for res- idential zones. Mrs. Maher felt the zone line should be left as is with the overlay on top. She didn't want to change any R-4 or I-C Zone and that what is floodplain should be zoned CO. Mr. Weith will warn a public hearing. Y 3. NJV'.I MB EI 11 17, 1981 'di l li ;ton connector." :fir. Schner said this referred to a road from the edge of the Lnre Buick property up throul-h to the a(-hool property. Ile paid that fro:% dn;✓ 1 the developer had been willin,, to give the city a 60' right of way in those areas, but now he was being asked to build those two sections of road. He said that all his development needed was the Corporate 'day road plus a cul-de-sac road coming off that. They will give the right of way but they will not build those other sections of road. Mr. Spitz said that from his study of the traffic numbers, it seemed possible that the development would need 4 lanes going toward Dorset street or two access points, which they would have to construct, but he felt that possibility was covered in # 5 and he was willing to remove that section, so 'c' was removed. Mr. Schner showed the proposed curb cuts. There are 6, in 3 pairs opposite each other. He said the cuts near Hinesburg Road would probably be for service roads, since they probably cannot use that land for building anyway. Mr. Poger felt those were the least useful of the cuts. Mr. Schner said the developer would deed over the entire 90' strip in this area, rather than have two 5' strips left over. Xr. Walsh asked if the Iby Street residents' concerns had been met in this area. Mr. Jacob thought a chain -link fence wits going to be put up behind the homes. Mr. Mona was more concerned about removal of trees when the road went in. Mr. Schner thought the residents had been more concerned about buildings being put in their backyards and he noted that they could not develop in that area, so most of the trees would be left in their natural state. He said some of that land might be used for parking. Mr. Mona felt that was a bad use. Mr. roger said the most southeasterly curb cut should be removed from the final plat. It can be put back later if it is needed, Mr. Mona said. In d16, Mr. Spitz felt the word "executed" should be changed to "signed", and he explained why. tie said the deeds stated that if the project were not built, the deeds would be given back. Mr. Jacob moved that the Louth Purliniton Planning Commission approve the final plat application of South Burlington Realty Corporation for streets_ and utilities to serve a 40.6 acre_ commercial dcveloip ent as depicted on a 7 %age_plan entitled "Corporate Circle", prepared by Webster -Martini Inc., Consulting ::rcineers, dated ::eptember, 1981, subject to the following St ;)ulnticn3: 1. If existing drainageways at the southern edge of the applicant's property interfere with the designated pedestrian trail, then the easement shall be ey.tended westerly for a sufficient distance to allow a satisfactory crossir• Additional pedestrian walkways shall be reviewed as specific developments are proposed. 2. An area at the end of Farb 'treet, sufficient for a "Y" turnaround for City :�_aintenance vehicles and for snow storaC.e, shall oe marked on the final plat. Screening shall be shown, with the words "to be supplied by the city per Planning Commission request". 3. A right of way to serve the School Department for school use, shall be reviewed prior to approval of any development immediate y adjacent �Fo— the school propertyy. 4. The major street through the property shall be called "Corporate way". 4. I'I.Al4NTNG COMMISSION NOVFMB4 :R 17, 1981 The Ntinnint! Comminsion nhnll nnprove a name for the secondary street, stations 50+100 to 55+I1.51 ;lug the connections_ to_the _Lake Buick and School P-2partment properties, i)ricr to approval of any development. Until then, the secondary street shall be described as the Dorset -Williston connector. 5. A second access to Dorset Street over the Lake Buick property for use as a public street shall be resolved before any of the following conditions are reached: a) Approval of any development that will create or add to a level -of -service below C on Corporate Way or its intersection with Dorset Street or Hinesburg Road. b) Approval of any development with access onto the Dorset -Williston connector other than a corner lot with frontage on both connectors. c) Construction of the cul-de-sac on the Dorset -Williston connector. 6. T_he applicant shall complete construction or shall establish bonding and a timetable for cowpletion of Corporate Way before any of the following conditions are reached: a) Approval of any on -site development that will create or add to a level -of -service below C on any of the following intersections: (i) Williston_RoadZDorset Street (ii) Corporate hay%Dorset O`treet (iii)^ Dorset -Williston_ conriecto�Dorset Street, and (iv) Williston Roadinesbu_g Road._ b) Approval of any on -site development that will bring total floor area to more than 100,U,,O sq. ft. of office or research uses or 50,000 sq. ft. of retail uses or their equivalent in terms of traffic generation. 7. Improvements to the intersection of Dorset Street and Corporate W 1_ includinL upLrading of s nals_nnj oible new turning lanes, shall be reviewed_ prior to approval of _the _first specific development proposal and may be imposed as a condition of approval. 8. The PlanninpCommission shall continue to review the need for other on -site and off -site street and intersection improvements as new developments are proposed and may require improvements as conditions of approval. The Commission shall require u.-dating of traffic data as it deems necessary. Potential improvements include but are not limited to the following: a) New traffic signals and turning lanes at all intersections of ,streets crossing this property and existing city streets. The Williston - Dorset and Williston -Hinesburg intersections shall also be included. b) Widening of the entire length of Corporate Way to four lanes. c) Widening of Hinesburg Road and Dorset Street to four lanes in the vicinity of the development. I ANNUL Cs`XMTa ;ION NUVr.MBER 17, 1981 The applicant shall be responsible for making all on -site street imnroveme nts. For improvements within existing city rights of way the Planning Commission shall determine the applicant's portion of responsibility ------------ - -—--------------- ----- based upon the net impact of — new site --generated traffic and on -site street improvements made by the developer vicinity. In all cases. attainmen nt on the overall level -of -service in the of level of service C must be assure The South Burlington Triangle Traffic Study final report. dated April 1981 shall be used as the base year impact analysis. 9. Curb cuts on Corporate Way shall be limited_ to those shown on the final plat unless the Planning Commission determines that additional curb cuts will not substantially impede traffic flow. 10. The need for additional fire hydrants, other than those shown on the final plat, shall be reviewed as specific developments are proposed. 11. A sewer allocation of 10.000 azallons per day shall be reserved for this project for a three year period. 12. Bonding for street improvements_ shall include an amount for street trees L in addition to all other bonding requirements. Credit shall be granted in areas whereexistingtree's_are-saved. 13. Permitted densities shall be determined as specific developments_ are proposed. The initial guideline shall be a base developable acreage times 3&r coverage for buildings and 70Yo coverage for buildings-_lus_parking areas. The Planning. Commission may modify permitted densities based on considerations of aesthetics and total traffic generation. 14. Permitted_ni front yard setback_ s _shal_l be 40 feet except�may _b_e modified by_future_zong regulations relating permitted setbacks for a_ building to its height and width. 15. Review of specific developments within this project shall be in the form of revised final plat public hearings. The City Planner may require a sketch pinnOreylew to precede any final hearing. 16. All required legal documents including deeds and offers of dedication for streets and the pedestrian trail, shall be signed and delivered to the -city- prior to -the recording of the final plat. 17. An offer of dedication and warranty deed for the section of Corporate Way_ currently owned by_Ver-Laada.__ Inc. shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and shall be signed and delivered prior to issuance of any building permit or public use of Corporate Way. 18. The final plat. containing required changes as designated by stipulation two, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner and shall be recorded within 90 days. Mr. Mona seconded the motion, and all voted for it. LEGAL NOTICES 1 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, January 14, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. to con- sider the following: Revised final plat applica- tion of South Burlington Realty for construction of a 49,000 square foot buildingg for general office use (A000 square feet), retail use (9,400 square feet) and mechanical space (1,600 square feet), on 39 acres of land lo- cated along Corporate Way. This property is bounded by Vermada, Inc., J. O'Brien, H. Dolan, the City of South Burling- ton, Brassard Automotive Services, Lodges of Bur- linggton, E. Chastenay, E. Lahoue, Hinesburg Road, M. Parkes, N. Kohler, J. Benedict, A. Chastenay, P. Magnant/Perkins, A. Continued ..ext Column Wheel, L. Gerlack, G. Hart, J. Menard, W. Hur- tubise, Mona/Burns, Du- msnt Construction. ontinued Next Column Bouchard & Sons Inc, P Mahoney, Lakeview Buick, Senesac, GLR As- sociates, E. Foley, and China Lite. Continued Next Column Copies of the application are available for public nspection at the South Burlington City Hell. Continued Next Column William Burgess Chairman, South Burling- ton Planning Commission December 28, 1991 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 John Jeager South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street. South Burlington, Vermont 05403 ��' : l t-nte-r Plal-�e . ('.t73`po-j- ate Way Dear Mr. Jeager: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 !'.i2cl'7 .P 1S an `tg i-ida foli- .Ilex-t. Planning Corrmii_ision- meeting and comments trom City Engineer hill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, January 14, 1992 to present your request. if you have any questions, plezise let me .know. v`L i e Weit.l, �.t.y Planner Encls ow/nic.p M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: November 19, 1991 agenda items Date: October 24, 1991 OFFICE BUILDING. 20 FARRELL STREET 1. Drainage easement should extend across the entire frontage. 2. Farrell Street is being reconstructed and will be paved within a few days. Connections for water and sewer should be made before the street is paved. Curb work for entrance should also be made. CENTER PLACE, CORPORATE WAY 1. Parking should not infringe upon a future street r.o.w. The proposed street should be centered within this r.o.w. 2. There should be provisions for storm water retention. This could be an underground system. 1. A 3 or 4 foot planter adjacent to the addition would do a lot for the site. 2. Existing green space north of the building stores two dump- sters and a wrecked car. The surface is gravel. This gravel should be removed and top soil added if it is to be a green space. This area and the area adjacent to the fence should be protected with curbs or a low fence. The area near the fuel island should also be landscaped and protected with curb or fence. To: Project Files cly From Raymond T_ Belaia , Zsz''sning and Planning Assistant Re: Preliminary Comments, January 14, 1992 agenda items Date: December 200 1991 VERMONT COSTA SHEET METAL - ADDITION - 5 ET -BAN AL __EN DRIVE --- plans submitted are acceptanle. ---- applicant must submit a "lot merger agreement" for review by he City Attorney. SOUTH PURL r NGTUN BQ _TY - CITY CENTER OFF I CE I RETA I L PU I LD I NG - 202 parking spaces required and plan shows 201 on site spaces and 10 additional off -site (on -street) spaces. --- the Webster -Martin plan should read "Plat" and not "Site Plan". - parallel parking spaces along Corporate Way must be 9'x22'. --- all dumpsters must show on the plain and must be screened. _-- applicant will be required to obtain a Statement of Condi- tions regarding the wetlands prior to obtaining the zoning permit. --- legal access for the China Lite property across applicant's property should be shown, If not presently defined by length and width then this should be done as part of this revised final plat. This could be done in the same manner that the school access is s.lown. --- will there be any exterior lighting on the building? --- Section 1,603 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance allows a. maximum of 50% of the roof tops on any development to be flat with a maximum height of 35 Oxyt- This develop- ment has more than 50% of the rooftop flat and exceeds the height limitation by 1.5 feet. Also, the tower on the nuilding exceeds the maximum height allowed by 7.5 feet. The Planning Commission could allow The increased height as a bonus for the provision of additional public space (parks, courtyards, etc.) or amenities. The zoning regulations dc, p.. - 3 the 50% ( nc�., make provisions sion�. for i:'�c',-eas� r?� flat 1 ;,i,f tc� limitation howevn? i Preliminary Comments, January 14, 1992 agenda items December 20, 1991 Page 2 --- handicapped parking spaces must comply with the new ADA Accessibility Guidelines. --- the proposed building does not fit within the allowable building envelope of between 0 and 80 feet from the nearest street right-of-way due to the'elimination of the proposed future pubic street along the northerly boundary. it is staff's position that the area between the proposed building and the northerly boundary be designed in such a way that were a public street constructed in this area that the City Center street standards would be met. These standards include 40 foot wide pavement, trees 2.5 feet off the curb ann the b :ilding setback th o _. . feet from the edge of the street right-of-way, ----- applicant should submit to the Planning Commission a list of all modifications being requested and an explanation why the standard can not be met and why the modification should be granted. --- applicant shall address opening of Corporate Way to Hines- burg Road including geometric plans, signalization, etc. --- streets small consist of a 40 foot wide X-section from curb face to curb face and shall be centeced in both the future 60 ' and 80 ' r . o w . ` = as recommended by 3tree'tscape Commit- tee). --- building should be setback 63 feet from northerly boundary (China Lite boundary) in the event that a. future street is constructed .along this boundary. ---- the issue of street trees over storm drain must be resolved prior to issuance of a permit. --- the number and location of fire hydrants must be agreed upon ,it7 L _ Piro C ._ - prior t:. approval. or nut TiNurlington +fire +B evnrtmrnt f 575 +�urset street �auth +ilnrtinutrm. Ilermunt 05403 (802) 658-7960 TO: SO. BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: CHIEF GODDETTE RE: TUESDAY NOVEMBER 19,1991 AGENDA YTEMS DATE: THURSDAY OCTOBER 24,1991 Plans have been reviewed by this department on the following projects; A. Hertz BURLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ADDITION B. CENTER PLACE CORPORATE CIRCLE PROPOSED BUILDING C. OFFICE BUILDING 20 FARRELL STREET AT THIS TIME I DID NOT FIND ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDINGFOR GIVEN EMERGENCY PROTECTION, BUT I DO NEED MORE INFORMATION SUCH AS SIZE OF BUILDING, LOCATION OF HYDRANTS WATER FLOW FOR EACH AREA AND SIZE OF WATER MAIN. WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION REQUESTED IT WILL GIVE ME WHAT IS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW. leaf 0 tendo%l -f �-- � 1,,Vj / 'e- vvt '-6/7 -.- j4ldn Noises '7)La7 40(, 11 I � I+ � V,, -pr-- "I qp�,o 'd�� Im A�O' Y / to I :1 V, 7 130 3� 1,12.7s y7o�3o r J a' LJ i 5 e)oi CfUD 0755b0 on X 5 vz� ----------------- PUBLIC HEARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING COMMISSION The Soucii isurlington Plann-trig uu.-tunission wiii hoid a puoii.c hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street.. South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, January 14, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: Revised final plat application of South Burlington Realty for construction of a 49,000 square foot building for general office use (38,000 square feet), retail use (9,400 square feet), and mechanical space (1,600 square feet), on 39 acres of land located along Corporate Way. This property is bounded by Vermada, Inc., J. O'Brien, H. Dolan, the City of South Burlington, Brassard Automotive Services, Lodges of Burlington, E. Chastenay, E. Lahoue, Hinesburg Road, M. Parkes, N. Kohler, J. Benedict, A. Chastenay, P. Magnant/Perkins, A. Wheel, L. Gerlack, G. Hart, ? , Manard , W. HurtL l.--iF e , Mond./Burn-, Dumont Constr'_lr't inn !?o,i- chard & Sons, Inc., P. Mahoney, Lakview Buick, Senesac, GLR Associates, E. Foley, and China Lite. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. ,dilliam Burgess Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission December 28, 1991 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 December 20, 1991 Mr. John Jaeger South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Jaeger: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find my preliminary comments on the above referenced project. Please try and address the items in the memo at least one (1) week prior to the January 14, 1992 meeting. Since,rely, Raymond J. Belair Zoning and Planning Assistant RJB/peh South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (802) 863-9039 I >--/ Cr 7( Cam, NI i, � CU TI f Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting M E M O R A N D U M To: Project Files From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: Preliminary Comments - November 19, 1991 agenda items Date: October 28, 1991 SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY - CITY CENTER - OFFICE/RETAIL BUILDING Additional information required: --- total acreage of entire Corporate Circle development, --- total acreage of all right-of-ways in the development in- cluding the proposed 60 foot right-of-way between this project and the China Lite. --- building and overall coverage percentages for this project (the base acreage to use would be the difference between the overall Corporate Circle development and the right-of-ways). --- statement from the State of Vermont regarding their position relative to the applicant filling in the wetlands on site. --- estimated cost of building. --- square footage of building including a breakdown of the square footage for each proposed use (if retail is included indicate square footage of retail floor area, if office, indicate type of office, (i.e. business, medical). --- building elevations and floor plans. --- see Fire Chief Goddette's memo. --- five (5) copies of a subdivision plat certified by a land surveyor, this plat shall show the proposed 60 foot right-of-way between this project and the China Lite proper- ty. --- the plans and plat should show the cul-de-sac on the Dorset -Williston connector for which the City has an irrevo- cable offer of dedication. --- applicant must address stipulations 5,6,7 and 8 of the 11/17/81 final plat approval. --- applicant shall address opening of Corporate Way to Hines- burg Road including geometric plans, signalization, etc. Other: --- section 2.042 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance re- quires that the location and design of project access ad- dress the criterion of alignment of access points with existing intersections or curb cuts. The proposed access to this building is not aligned with the China Lite curb cut. 1 Preliminary Memo - Planning November 19, 1991,meeting October 28, 1991 Page 2 --- parallel parking spaces along Corporate Way must be 9'x22'. --- landscaping plan is $20,220 short of the requirement.., --- the plans submitted indicate that the plans are at the preliminary plat stage when in fact they are at final plat, this should be noted on the plans. --- some of the parking fronts along a future public street, Section 2.053 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance requires that parking areas be behind building and that the Planning Commission may approve a portion of a parking area to front a public street if it determines the goals of the City Center Plan are being met. --- streets shall consist of a 40 foot wide X-section from curb face to curb face and shall be centered in both the 60' and 80' r.o.w.'s (as recommended by Streetscape Committee). --- building should be set back 3 feet from 60' r.o.w. as recom- mended by Streetscape Committee. --- parking lot shall not protrude into the 60 foot r.o.w. and shall be adequately screened from street. --- truck loading should be on -site and on -street parking pro- vided in front of building. --- street shall be constructed to City standard in 60' r.o.w. to southernmost parking lot entrance. --- the issue of street trees over storm drain must be ad- dressed. DAVIS COMPANY - OFFICE BUILDING - 20 FARRELL STREET --- parking aisle serving double row of parking must be in- creased to 24 feet in width. --- any outside trash storage must be shown on the plan and it must be screened. --- exterior lighting details must be submitted, all lights must be cutoff type luminaries. --- total acreage of lot must be submitted --- coverage percentages submitted do not add up to 100%, land- scaped areas are indicated to be 58% and the overall cover- age is indicated to be 33%, these 2 figures should add up to 100%. --- landscaping requirement is short $7618, it appears that the applicant is requesting that a credit be given in that amount for existing trees. The Planning Commission may grant some credit for existing trees under Section 19.104(a) as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced N mx � /,�r,..�� .Oct. ,//u�or�, � �'�-r�a�,,.�� p2 f(t C\ C1'I'Y ON SOUP11 UUItL,lWION Subdivision Application - FINAL 1'111'.I' 1) Nme of A14)lieant South Burlington Realty 2) Name of Subdivision Center Place 3) Indicate any changes to ncuue, address, or LA-ione nuuJxxr of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor,• attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: None 4) Indicate any changes to tale SulxliViaiOn, such as nLuidxer of: lot: or unite, property lines, applicant's legal interest in Use prolxxrt-y, or develo[Awntal. t-iiwt-able, since preliminary plat application: None 5) Sulxnit four copies of a final scat ol: hLins consisting of a final Mat- LAW; engineering drawinrls and containing all_ information recluirW urxler section 20:_.1 of the Sulxiivision regul.ltion:; 1`ur a minor SULx�1.LViJ ::und under scc:ti.c„� 204.1(1-t) for a iivijor subdivision. G) Submit two draft copies of all legal cicx;unK-nt:_s reduired under section 202.1- (11) and (12) of the subdivision wowl.,ition.:; for a miner sul-xlivision turd under section 204.1(h) for a nkijur :_OK1.1vision. (Signature) applicant or contact lx.!rsorl U..,te r �rT / r 1 �b e0 O tl0 2(i lOD KXX 1. We•,M(•r yAY f�6J<OLT�►�.All( .4 RECE QEC 0 t ltV of On � <'riM Yf('I I:u YLtx .�� tn.• :.q • o lot local •e •011t N(Il. nna cu(.•... n L,e eif+m.oN •long oen eA(Lyt.e, •rl,er • Of fh,• plan V Ivi p.qe a .,e in..I er of auuen �, forn•. ,lutlon O( the Yl•nntiq COrlulon oe t>•n irllrpton, q•— o the e.y . 19 •obit-= teto tn. r cow of Zd's..oluam. _ e.y oe is VED 1991 0-11 , 4on CWTRWT NO. A/V/ (22 3 /(!� n *k-� Chapter 6 The Sensed Landscape and Its Materials The sensed quality of a place is an interaction between its form and its perceiver. It is irrelevant in a sewer layout or in an automated warehouse. But wherever people are, it is a crucial quality. Sensuous requirements may coincide or conflict with other demands but cannot be separated from them in judging a place. They are not "impractical," or merely Reference 56 decorative, or even nobler than other concerns. Sensing is being alive. Perception includes the esthetic experience, where the dialogue between perceiver and object is im- mediate, intense, and profound, seemingly detached from other consequences. But it is also an indispensable component of every -day life. The designer shapes his form so that it will be a willing partner in that sensed interaction, helping the perceiver to create a coherent,- meaningful, and moving image. What wev look for is a landscape, technically organized so that its parts References 32, 44, 81 work together, but perceptually coherent as well, one whose visual image is congruent with its life and action. In nature,' an integrated landscape is shaped by the consistent impact ', of well-balanced forces. In art, it is the result of compre- hensive purpose skillfully applied. The designer works to enhance the expression of place: to communicate its nature as a system of living things residing in a particular habitat. To this end, he will open up a wood- 153 FicuxE 65 . The famous water displays of the Villa dEste, near Rome. down stepped cascades, concealed them, and caused them to spurt up, only to disappear once more. The Japanese may use only a slow -dripping source in the shade, or even a symbolic stream of rock and sand. So magnetic is the attraction of water that observers look inward toward it, and so it can be the centerpiece of a design. Its edge is the important feature and requires careful thought. That edge can be abrupt and definite, or low, shelv- ing and obscure. A simple form conveys clarity and stability. If complex and partly hidden, it evokes expectancy and ex- tended space. Stones just below the water surface make its fe- depth legible. Objects at the water's edge are sharply seen; 0 O the Japanese place their waterside stones with great care. o� To make a natural shore one must attend to the ways of water in that region. But if there will be many people about, it will be wiser to pave the water's edge, since it is sure to attract hard wear. For all its quality, water can be expensive to introduce and to maintain, especially in an urban setting. It may raise safety problems. It catches trash and dust, and exhibits them proudly. It breeds insects and weeds; it floods, erodes its banks, and fills with silt. It is a dynamic, transitory element of the ecosystem. The designer must decide whether to pro- vide clean water, free of plants and other living things, or to make a balanced ecological system. If the former, he uses filtered and recycled water in artificial basins and provides for frequent cleaning. In the winter and during shutdowns for repairs or scrubbing, these containers will be dry and ' must be handsome in that guise. If the latter, he introduces the bottom soil, plants and fish which will compose a com- plete nutrient cycle. Along with them, of course, come the algae, mud, and insect life which are part of that cycle, just as down timber and brush are part of a natural woodland. A "clean" pond can be extremely shallow and can be located anywhere. A balanced pond needs sunlight, and of at least a foot and a half of depth, if small fish are to -survive the winter. Either pond requires a watertight lining of masonry, , �\ puddled clay, or plastic sheeting. Next in importance is the living plant material, the trees, `, Plants shrubs, and herbs, the material popularly associated with landscape work, which is usually thought to be concerned withie spotting of trees on a plan after buildings and roads have been located. More correctly, the plant cover is one , elenkent in the organization of outdoor space. Some great lan scd-'apes ire tree ess and there are handsome squat ? ' 178 179 FIGURE 66 The Riverwalk through the heart of downtown San Antonio: a small, neglected stream, which was about to be thrust into a sewer, has been transformed into a delightful, active promenade. FIGURE 67 A sparing use of vegetation may enhance its visual power: a street in the Cyclades, Greece. do not include a plant of any description. Nevertheless, plants are one of the fundamental materials. If in public we worship the tree, in practice we destroy it. Planting is the "extra" in site development, the first item to be cut when the budget pinches. = a = ; 4 (...i Site planning is concerned with groups of plants and the general character of planted areas rather than with in- dividual specimens. `Trees, shrubs, and ground coven are the basic materials. Trees are the backbone; they form the structure of the plan, while the occasional specimen tree may be used for particular effect. Simple in essence, intricate in form, fluttering and swaying in the wind, leafless or deep with foliage, they are enduring and yet alive. The shrubs, man height, are the effective space formers. They are privacy screens and barriers to movement. Plants take on a bewildering variety of forms under the influence of their environment, and those forms change as the plant grows and ages. But each species has its own habit of growth, its own way in which leaves, stems and buds are connected and succeed each other. This pattern, distorted in any one individual by the accidents of age and exposure, produces the characteristic mass, structure, and texture of that species. When working at the site planning scale, dispose plants according to their habit of growth, their texture, and mass as a group, rather than by their individual form, since the former are the features that can be predicted and are less likely to vary from different points of view. The surface of a plant may have a texture that is fine or coarse, shiny or dull, closed or open, stiff or trembling, clustered or even, smooth or modeled in depth. The habit may be prostrate, upright, vasiform, fastigiate, main -stemmed, crookedly branching, or high canopied. Other characteristics, such as growth rate, eventual size, color, life span, scent, and seasonal effect, are the next con- siderations. Species must be chosen which are hardy for the given microclimate and soil condition. They must stand up to the expected traffic, be resistant to disease and insect attack, and demand no more care than can be furnished at the expected level of maintenance. Dense urban areas are particularly difficult for plants because of the lack of water, light, and humus, as well as the air pollution, the reflected heat, and the presence of poisonous chemicals. Trees must be specially chosen for this harsh habitat. Impervious paved surfaces must be kept at least three feet from their trunk. Appendix I lists a selected number of trees, shrubs, and References 10, 37, 77 180 IR1 filters the view through its countless holes. Along with as- phalt paving, it is one of our less than happy contributions — to the beauty of the world. Unfortunately, like asphalt, it is cheap, durable, and effective. To reduce its visibility, it should be dark in color and it can be planted out. There is a large vocabulary of alternative fencings, from low, polite reminders to high, solid barriers. Wooden fences —rails, pickets, stakes, lattice, close boarding, sheets, or woven saplings —are in our tradition but require frequent painting and must be protected where in contact with the ground. Cast and wrought iron openwork is splendid and durable but quite expensive or even unobtainable today. It is sometimes imitated in painted plastic or cast aluminum, or more often in mild steel, which must be frequently painted to prevent rust. The modest stretched wire fence, with its wood or metal posts, is cheap, appropriate, and does not interrupt the view, but is easily damaged by fence climbers. Brick and stone make the finest solid walls, but stone is very costly, and brick not cheap. If their material is well chosen, they weather beautifully, and can support fine climbing plants, mosses, and lichens. In a brick wall, the choice of brick, the bonding, the coping, and the treatment of the joints determine the visual texture. Concrete block is a less expensive material and makes a good masonry wall if care- fully laid and given a well -designed coping. It can be pat- temed or perforated. Fieldstone can be laid up in a dry wall. Even earth makes a good fence, whether as a planted berm or as a rammed earth wall with a weatherproof coping. A fence is subject to severe exposure on both sides, and must be well made. But the trace of time and weather on an old, substantial fence is its greatest charm. The height of a wall in relation to the eye defines its meaning for us. It can be perforated to permit vision, but even a perforated fence will seem opaque if seen obliquely or if light in color. To make a fence transparent, its members should be thin and black. An obtrusive fence can be lost in a hedge or under a vine, or set at the bottom of a swale. Many of these variations will be part of a regional tradition, and their symbolic con- j� notations strong. Throughout the world, gardens are a rich source of fence patterns, and new forms are always being j� invented. etails A site includes many other man-made details. Think of _ the normal furniture of any urban area: seats, traffic signals, ces 9, 16, 18 signs, utility poles, light poles, meters, trash cans, fireplugs, manholes, wires, lights, plant containers, alarms, newsstands, telephones, bollards, bus shelters, notice boards —the list goes on. It is curious that that mere list conveys a sense of disharmony, a feeling quite opposed to that evoked by saying: houses, trees, water, walls, paths. This near world of detail affects the appearance of the whole, and if it accumulates ` without design, as it usually does, it can create a sense of clutter. And yet designers may put too much stress on these lllj details or stress the wrong details. The user is affected by the texture of the floor, the shape of the steps, or the design of a bench because he uses them and is in direct contact with them. Other details, not directly used, may escape his conscious attention. He sees the light but not the light pole, uses the telephone but does not notice the wires overhead. The designer invents a special form for the light pole, and at some expense puts the wires underground, while ne- glecting to put a back on his bench. Details require an in- vestment of design and supervision if they are to be finely shaped, and the effect for the user should justify that investment. Most details are normally left to the customary oper- ations of many separate agencies. This may be successful where there is a strong tradition or when the particular detail is not crucial. The designer focuses on the details critical for the perception and use of the site, which brings her to putting telephones, alarms, and mailboxes where they can be found; makes her think about how the trash cans are moved; re- minds her to provide comfortable seats and public toilets.. Instead of hiding the power lines, she might think how they could be made handsome. When possible, she installs ex- amples of the features crucial for the user —such as benches, walks, or pedestrian lights —for trial and comment before the entire landscape is furnished. If lamps and benches are donated by individuals, the setting will acquire a further, more personal meaning. One site detail merits additional discussion: the signs Signs that have become so dominant in what we see. Design theory thinks of them as ugly necessities to be suppressed or min- imized. But a landscape must communicate to its users. In a complex and mobile world, many messages must be carried by contrived symbols. If signs are ugly, it is not by their nature but because they are thoughtlessly used, ambiguous, redundant, and fiercely competitive. They are intended to deceive or manipulate, or at least to dominate someone else's sign. On the other hand, signs could make us aware not only of goods and services, names and prohibitions but also 186 I W of history, ecology, the process of production, weather, time, politics, events to come, and many other interesting things. A spectacular sign can be a dazzling piece of scenery. It should be our objective to enhance these beneficial powers — not to suppress, but to clarify and regulate, even amplify, this flow of information. Therefore the designer is concerned that signs be accurate, rooted (that is, located in the same _ space and time as the thing to which they refer), and in- telligible —in other words, that they communicate well. onmental �,; The purpose of other details is solely visual and sym- bolic: those traditional sculptural memorials to distinguished persons and events, for example, or those more recent em- bellishments of civic space funded by the "1% for art" pro- anti visions of public budgeting. Occi;sionally these works catch at the public mind, and become well -loved landmarks: the ( lions before the Art Institute in Chicago, Daniel French's Lincoln in the Washington Memorial or his Minute Man in Concord, the memorial to Lewis Carroll's Alice in Central Park, or, more recently, the monument to Einstein in Wash- ington. Far more often, public sculpture is ignored by the passerby, and at times even resented. It commemorates someone he never heard of and has no love for; it is a thing put there by some remote official for reasons of state or status or because the expense was mandatory. Savage civic battles erupt over these expensive objects, particularly if they are "modern," and therefore puzzling, in their form. Art and architecture, or art and landscape design, are still in a very uneasy alliance, although the recent murals painted on urban facades have been more happily received. One answer is the collaboration of artist and site designer from the beginning of a project, but such team efforts have at times been stormy. Another piece of the answer, and perhaps a more fundamental one, is to bring the user into the process of programming and judging the artistic project. It may be wiser, for example, to allow a site to accumulate some experience of use, and a basis for an organization of users, before its special works of art are created and placed. People who have participated in this process will be far more interested in its results. Recent efforts at "place -making," which develop objects or murals that commemorate, and are particular to, the local community, seem to generate attachment to their products. Perceiving an environment is creating a hypothesis, Perceptual building an organized mental image of space and time that organization is based on the experience and purposes of the observer as well as on the stimuli reaching his senses. In building this organization, he will seize on congenial physical character- istics: symmetry, order, repetition; continuity and closure; dominance, rhythm, common scale or similarity of form or material. Sharp variations are also a way of relating parts, if there is some underlying continuity between them. A dark, Q narrow street is related to the broad avenue on which it emerges, a quiet park to the intensive shopping that fronts on it. Related contrasts bring out the essence of things. The Chinese garden masters made much use of complementaries, pairing rough with smooth, upright with recumbent, rock with water, mountain with plain. Near and far may be set together, fluid and fixed, familiar and strange, light and dark, solid and empty, ancient and new. Continuity depends on the important transitions: the joint between house and ground, gateways, decision points on a path, skylines, sun- sets, shorelines, the edges of a wood. These transitions must -72 be articulate if the times and spaces are to be readable and well joined. The classic architectural emphasis on cornices,_ base courses, and door moldings can be echoed in the edges,_ — entrances, and pivotal events of the site. _ As a consequence of the great numbers of objects and events in the outdoor scene, grouping and contrast must be used to bring it under perceptual control. The sought -for effect is usually broad and simple. Richness is inherent in the material; an intricate plan may end in confusion. The material is complex, in motion, and seen on different oc- casions, and the scene must accept this variation without losing its form. This does not demand formal geometry but simplicity. A good site plan, while highly refined at some critical point, may be almost coarse overall. The principal structure of the plan is often some type of hierarchy or centrality. There may be a central space to /(�l• which other spaces are subordinated or a main path linking many minor paths. There can be a principal approach, en- / ,R tered by a gateway and reaching a climactic point where �Y one is at the heart of things. Such hierarchies are not the only possible structural plan, especially in large, complex, changing landscapes. The designer may use many -centered Lamp posts are made from a wide variety of materials, including wood, cast iron, steel, aluminum, concrete, and plastic. From the standpoint of contemporary design, single purpose posts have increasingly tended to be made from aluminum and lightweight steel. More functional and economical equip- ment has been made from high -strength steel and concrete, and these have often suffered somewhat aesthetically. Cast iron has been in use in lamp posts longer than any material other than wood and currently is being used in high -quality reproductions of traditional styles and designs. Wood is also beginning to reappear, largely as a material for contemporary design rather than being used in reproduc- tions. Design Guidelines -- The choice of lighting equipment should be made on the basis of its contribution to the overall image of the central business district. As one of the most visible elements in the daytime downtown landscape, lighting systems must blend in well with all other fur- nishings of the CBD's streets, sidewalks, and plazas, as well as being com- patible with the buildings in the area. In addition, the components which go into the make-up of lighting equipment --such as luminaires and posts -- should work together as visual units. Contemporary posts and fixtures fit well in an updated setting which stresses well -landscaped and well -outfitted pedestrian areas. Like other elements of the street furniture, they should be designed in good taste, so that they will have timeless appeal, rather than short-term attraction on the basis of novelty or gimmickry. In downtowns in which the architecture and history of the area are being stressed, lighting of older design may well be appropriate. If possible, the lighting should be selected to match that which was originally used in the area. If this is impossible for reasons of practicality or cost, a number of manufacturers produce outdoor lighting equipment which taste- fully captures the flavor of older American communities. STREET FURNITURE While the term "street furniture" might apply to all outdoor stationary objects except buildings and vegetation, the term may more logically be re- stricted to all those manmade objects which have potential for enlivening and giving variety to -streets, sidewalks, plazas, malls, and other outdoor spaces open to, and used -by, the public. In this manual, the following are con- sidered street furniture: lighting equipment, plant containers, tree grids, --__J outdoor seating, sculpture, children's play equipment, trash receptacles, kiosks, fountains, telephone booths, information signs, and bus shelters. The first three of these have already been discussed in varying degrees of detail in Chapters 11 and 13. The last two (informational signs and bus shelters) are discussed in Part V-(Circulation). What follows are general guidelines for the selection and coordination of all types of street furni- ture. Gllidpl inPR The general principle that should be followed in selecting, placing, and maintaining street furniture is that it should contribute positively to the CBD's image and, if possible, do so as part of an overall design scheme. Most street furniture serves a utilitarian function, as well as an aesthetic one; if indiscriminately chosen, it can become just another eyesore. Trash baskets, for example, are a part of every town's landscape but often are a detrimental element. If, however, in their design and placement they are carefully considered as components in a system of street furniture, they can become visual assets. The following are other considerations which generally should go into making decisions about street furniture: Function -- Be sure that the furnishing is actually needed, both in general and specifically where it is to be placed. In selecting the proper equipment, all of the functions to be served by the furniture must be kept clearly in mind and preferably should be put in the form of a list prior to making a selection. Durability -- Equipment should be appropriate for the climatic conditions of the area as well as for the amount of exposure it is to receive. If it will be subject to intensive use, vandalism, or other abuse, these factors should be considered. The period of months or years over which the furniture is expected to be used may be an additional factor in determining the durability required. Cost -- Cost should be figured in terms of not only acquisition, but also local availability, transportation, installation, maintenance, efficiency, and anticipated life. Coordination of Design The selection, siting, and layout of different elements of street fur- niture should, ideally, be the responsibility of a single architect, land- scape architect, or other project designer. This will assure that each article selected will be designed and situated so as to be sympathetic with both surrounding furnishings and the area as a whole. If, however, differ- ent items of street furniture will be the responsibility of different par- ties (such as the municipality, a downtown association, and individual businesses), it is very important that their selection and placement be coordinated by a single designer. Consolidation of Existing Street Furniture The clutter of traffic signs, lamp posts, trash baskets, parking meters, and mail boxes on downtown sidewalks not only can be ugly but frequently uses up valuable pedestrian circulation space. The elimination of unnecessary items (such as redundant signs), repositioning of other equipment, and, where practical, the consolidation of equipment into multi -purpose units all play a role in enhancing pedestrian circulation and unifying the down- town streetscape. 13-14 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 October 31, 1991 John Jeager South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Jeager: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed please find some preliminary comments on the above referenced project from City Engineer Bill Szymanski, Fire Chief Jim Goddette and myself. I will contact you in a couple of days to set up a meeting to discuss these comments. In the meantime, if you have any questions please give me a call. Encls JW/mcp %P4 Sal c�, r-re <<tt- INV 306.95 INV JOz 6o CHINA LITE RESTAURANT II I' II 'I rI EXIST IMH - R/M 5' CONCRETE I =r. • • SIDEWALK III INV OU JOJ.,O - - - - I LOCATION OF EXISTING ELECTRIC. -- o------� TELEPHONE AND GAS LINES _ _ - _ 5' ASPHALT • -�- ` I �'- -� EXTEND IB' CUP 6•(±) PRO NOfD BY DIG SAFE C= _—___ I,' -SIDEWALK I I TO DAYLIGHT.USE 06.0• �JI/ FLARED END ` - _ _ / II i 1 (SEE DETAIL / o��- _ - -- -- - — - - C I I � II TO l / '�s ♦,ob 6 \ \� - - _ _ _ _ PROPOSED DI II EXISTING (EDGE I �N +I� '\O• _ - - -. - _ _ o �• PUN rEO STRIPES RIM JIO. 5 %MrfAi£NT I -JO. - - / ♦ _ •' UNDfRDR - 4� - - _ - - -� INV -5. 517 III CX OA NG RC m - _} ��-1 I E I I •VA MOLEE - __II\\ � ----- -- 111 I ---JO - -- I � , --- ----- -_ JIT_ ___-_ _ Po3ED ISTMNI oO r I IRAN/A/C A _ - RI JI l+,U )AANSRI9YEH J09 _ \ _ - J / :4�4 ( '� I - - - IN TQ B DET N£D I PAO I I �INV J0,.6J � ,- UNDERORA/N \ \\\ REMOVE AND \ , \ IC.U. c. I y EXI$nNG i I I I I I II I I re' I I I II 6. 0 JO' CMj� - / \ .e � � I EX/S 1. CB Ili/ // 2.' \ I I I (1✓P.) 4 II I RIM 310.52 PROPOSED Im I I Y I /Nv our Jo710 rsev / 46 _ ! \ \ 1 _♦ I .� II EXIST. CB RIM J10.66 � v / n- � `•Ioa�� \\\ \\ \ v \ \ '• i I I IS• ,Lj INV OUT J0771 AIN \ \\\\\ \ \, CO. .\ \ D ♦D � \ -1`� I I (>� -� ♦ \\\ \ \\\Yb•� \\\•,` \\ m.` \ m .. \ C I III III Ex/srl ce \ \ •••• RIM 3/100 \ G 0 IN JO 0 I I o I 1 I \ 1 i i i i 1 � � 60 1 y � I DESCRIPTION 1 ' I \\ 1 � I IT IS THE USERS RESPONSIBILITY THE LATEST REWSIONS. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINAL PLAT Sam BOX INDICATES APPROVALS SL \ A ' INV 1N 100211(1B f ❑ ❑ A 1 I r O II INV IN J06.06( 5-) I 1 I I INV OUT 305.53(24) t�— J" .� .u� •, e �j— I 411 I \ \ Jro \ _ I ��\DRAIN �\'\ \�.\ \ / - �' oI1 I '\ \ \` C.O. \' D 1 IIL j1 \ m \ \ \ \ \ I LOCH 7/041 OF EXIT+IN,; I II I PLANIF $ E; rA,E0 CY ♦ _\ II I CITY OF SOUTH II BURL/NG�ON 1 I \• \ \ \ \ \ `3'lTYPI _ V \ ♦ / 1 I II EXIST MH \ II I RIM JI0.61 \ \ \ \ ♦ ♦ I ❑ I II II INV IN J02.72 ♦ II 11 I INV OUT 302,66 It TR -.tiA _ Aa•.•A.Ia• \\ A..rw.n ...R n� ,who•. III I LIGHT bESAON T, BE .� II I APPROVE= er CIIrIr 3 WALKWAY LI6H l / /) - I END P O \ \ \\ ♦ \ 7 / / I co/ I PAVEM r TO PI COAL / I I II \ I I A \ \ \\ \ C 1 GRAPHIC SCALE Ii I JIO \ \\\\ \ \ \ '\ \ \ \ II _ _ _ \ •.nr.r r.ras \ DASN - DOT LINE -- \ ,\ _ _ _ _ \ \ \ \�/\ \ \ INDICATES EXISTING \ IN FEET I 'o\ \ \ \ \l WETLAND LIMITS \ ,r ` \ l Inch - 20 IL \ „T \\ CENTER P L A CE \ ` \\\ \\; \ \ \ \ � \ \ \ \ \ - \ \ � \ \\ \ � �\ \� \ \ 50UM BURUNG rCw _—_ -__ _ _ - ♦f'RYOv r - 'SITE AND UTILITIES PLAN OCT231 9007 TO ENSURE THESE DRAWINGS INCLUDE �� \\\ FOR DETAILS SEE SHEETS 4-6 (\j\ jf �(j �\/J j\Jj FEB 1991 LL\ / LiL U R ..., .. I ACT 250 City o sa. Burlingto \ \` \ FOR LEGEND SEE SHEET 2 1 INCORPORATED SLA4 CONSTRUCTION 1 \ % FOR MOTES SEE SHEET l ANO 6 e, EnfNEE-G . o a.Re.c sE. a3 D 3840 \ WILLISTON VERMONT dB OE ME OES'LN /S CURREN r(✓ W, / \ \ , 3 CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address:, phone # ) Randall G. Munson, dba South Burlington Realty, 366 Dorset St., So. Burlington, VT 05403 2) APPLICANTr (name, address, phone #)South Burlington Realty, 366 Dorset .Street, So. -Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 863-9039 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone 4) Gregory A. Dicovitsky, 366 Dorset St., So. Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 863-9039 4).PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Corporate Way 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Office, 'Ieta 1-1 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, * units, maximum height and # floors, square feet per floor)io,000 s.f.g.f.a., 1 building, 3 story 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES not applicable 9).LOT COVERAGE: building L.%; landscaped areas % building, parking, outside storage 4. % 10) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings $1 650,000•, Landscaping $25,000. Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) f Paving -an(l misc. $100,000. 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: November, 1991 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out)to be supplied Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday To he supplied 11-12 noon ; 12-1p.m. 1-2 p.m. ; 2-3 p.m.- 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. 5-6 p.m. ; 6-7 p.m. 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: To be supplied 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: To be s�.pl1ed' DATE OF SUBMISSION SIG AT E OF APPLICANT DATE OF HEARING FITZPATRICK•LLEWELLYN INCORPORATED Engineering and Planning Services One Wentworth Drive WILLISTON, VERMONT 05495 [LIEUTEM VF TD RSEDUMU (802) 878-3000 TO U VI (qC DATE 1 O . ZZ .cl I JOB NO. OO ATTENTION RE: we v (a c.Q, > WE ARE SENDING YOU �( Attached ❑ Under separate cover via &_L_l Lx_t� the following items: ❑ Shop drawings X Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION `/ - C4 e v THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: 9 For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO SIGNED: PRODUCT 240.2 Ee$ Inc., Groton, Max 01471. It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Memorandum - City Engineer April 3, 1990 agenda items March 30, 1990 page 2 8? SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY SQUARE, CORPORATE WAY 1. There should be a sidewalk along the Corporate Way frontage for the limits of this development. 2. Trees should not be planted where a future expansion is planned. The area should be grassed. 3. A storm drain system plan shall be submitted. ` MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Engineer Re: February 13, 1990 agenda items Date: February 9, 1990 CORPORATE AM CITY CENTER 1. Streets with designated parallel parking should be at least 44 feet in width. 2. Storm water retention areas must be included to handle the runoff. 3) DESIGN DEVELOPMENN INA, 357 PATCHEN ROAD 1. Parking spaces #17, 18 & 19 should be placed somewhere else and the island landscaped. It should also be curbed (concrete) to protect it. 2. The 6 inch sewer from existing manhole to new manhole shall be 8 inch. 3. There should be a sidewalk assessment in lieu of constructing the sidewalk along the Patchen Road frontage. 4. The drive and parking area should be lined with curb (con- crete) to protect the sidewalks and the lawn area. 5. The 170 foot 4 inch sewer service shall have a clean out about midpoint in the lawn area. 4) JIFFY LUM BARTLETT BAY ROAD 1. A grease and grit interceptor shall be installed in the plumbing serving the lube area of the building. 2. The new paved parking area shall drain toward the ditch to the west. City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 May 15, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Square, Corporate Way Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the March 17, 1990 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. S' erel , Joe Weith, City Planner 1 Encl JW/mcp Memorandum - Planning April 3, 1990 agenda items March 30, 1990 Page 6 Traffic: This property is located in traffic Overlay Zone 5 which allows 42 peak hour trips to be generated. Based on I.T.E. code 320 (motels), the use will generate 29 trips during the peak hour. The applicant will be required to contribute $180 to the Shelburne Road Intersection Improvement Fund based on the 7 additional trips to be generated by this project. Sewer: An additional sewer allocation of 2,200 gpd will be required assuming 4 sleeping spaces per room. The applicant will --- be required to pay the $2.50 per gallon fee prior to permit. landscaping: The project requires $3,750 in new landscaping. The plan proposes 8 new 1 1/2 inch caliper Norway Maple along the Hadley Road frontage. This is valued at only $1,000. Increasing the sizes to 3 1/2 inch caliper would meet the required value. 8) SOUT BURLINGTON REALTY, CITY SQUARE South Burlington Realty proposes to build a 48,000 square foot mixed retail/office building in t�,.7o phases on Corporate Way. the first phase would consist of 30,000 square feet while phase II would consist of 19,000 square feet. The entire 49,000 square feet would be broken down into approximately 16,300 square feet of retail and 32,700 square feet of office. The property is zoned Central District 1. The building site is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Corporate Way and China Lite/Central School drives. I spoke with Steve Stitzel regarding the proper way to handle this application. He advised that we continue to treat it as a revision to the originally approved plat in 1981 (minutes en- closed), however, under the requirements of the new zoning dis- trict. The 1981 approval contained a number of requirements affecting future development, especially as it relates to traf- fic. Access/Circulation: 2 primary points of access are proposed. One via l20 foot wide curbcuton Corporate Way and the other <,; i r.j t t; ? 10 7- i`? i. +. Vi i It � �- urati i 'U t . Cm i=f f ft. i � : N, hi r-4 F. +:1t_C:1 I P' o a d . 6 Memorandum - Planning April 3, 1990 March 30, 1990 Page 7 The China Lite Road should be constructed and/or planned as a future public road. This road will serve as a vital link in the City Center grid network. I recommend that a 60 foot r.o.w. be reserved and a 42 foot wide curbed street (to allow for parking on both sides) be installed. A City scape sidewalk should be shown along the frontage side of the development. The 80 foot Corporate Way r.o.w. should also be shown. Also, this seems like the right time to widen the road at least in front of the build-_ ing to allow for on -street parking. Setbacks/coverage: The proposed building meets the 0 - 80 foot building envelope setback. The intent of the zoning ordinance is to keep parking in the middle of blocks behind buildings. Even though it is not clear, I interpret section 1.602 of the Central District Zoning Ordinance to mean that no parking is allowed within the 0 - 80 foot setback unless it is a parking structure. The plan shows parking within the 0 - 80 foot setback on Corpo- rate Way. The applicant has agreed to move the parking out of this area. Coverage requirements are met. Parking: The entire 49,000 square feet requires 196 spaces. This assumes 32,700 square feet of office and 16,300 square feet of gross retail space (9,780 square feet retail floor area) as expressed by the applicant. The plan shows 130 spaces, however, this was designed based only oil phase I. I strongly recommend that the applicant construct on -street parking. This is essential to a City Center. Section 1.70 allows parking requirements to be met off -site if within 700 feet. The applicant should be allowed to count on -street parking toward their requirement as long as it is only counted once. Provisions should be included in the tenant leases which prohib- it employees of the office/retail space from parking on -street. These spaces should be reserved for short term parkers (i.e., customers of the businesses and retail establishments). Sewer: A sewer allocation of 1125 gpd should be granted assuming 75 employees. The applicant shall pay the $2.50 per gallon fu:_: prior to permit. Landscaping: A landscaping plan shall be required for final plat. it Memorandum - Planning April 3, 1990 March 30, 1990 Page 8 Traffic: The City and South Burlington Realty has entered into an agreement to hire Resource Systems Group to do a comprehensive traffic analysis of City Center including an interchange analy- sis. The analysis will evaluate the impacts of 200,000 square feet of retail/office space on the South Burlington Realty property in the year 1995. The study will also evaluate project- ed growth for the entire City Center area for the year 2000. The Planning Commission need5to decide what analysis is required for this development. A ments were stipulated in 1981 which relate to of C or better at area intersections. type of traffic number of require - maintaining a LOS 0 yr, ) 7� �/ 3 (o°l.0 P- R"vI 3z , 709/2 sa �A-�2Ka�G Ga LDS Ga l 9 7&0/ l 3/ s,,a c,J % 7(f'U To; From; Re; Date; 2. 3. �Llutb �Gktrlirtr lnn Virc Departinent '. 575 "Burset -41trcct �?vutlj T13urlintlttin, 11crIntint 115�i113 :i % (802) 658 7060 So. Burlington Planning Commission Chief Goddette Tuesday April 3,1990 Agenda Items Thursday March 29,1990 355-357 Patchen Road Plans reviewed by this department and at this time I do not see a problem for the department in given emergency protection. South Burlington City Square Corporate Way Office & Retail Bld. Plans reviewed and more information is on the following; A; Trees around building so not to effect emergency operations. B. Water System and hydrant locations. Vermont Tire & Service 1877 Williston Rd. Plans reviewed and at this time I do not see a problem with the department given emergency protection. 4. Pillsbury Manor Phase III Williston Road Plans reviewed and the following must be done if we are to beable to give proper protection; A. Hydrant by the North West e-nd of existing building must be relocated. At this time is to close to building making it unusable. B. One hydrant installed by drive on Williston Road and the water service must be a loop system M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe'Weith, City Planner Re: April 17, 1990 agenda items Date: April 13, 1990 ** MEETING STARTS AT 7:00 P.M. ** 3) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY, CITY CENTER Enclosed are staff memos regarding the proposed building on Corporate Way. Also enclosed are the minutes of the meeting (2/13/90) at which the Commission reviewed a larger proposal for 190,000 square feet. 4) BIA MASTER PLAN UPDATE Representatives of BIA will be present to discuss the draft BIA Master Plan update. Enclosed is a summary of major concerns addressed in the update including operating capacity, physical constraints, future emplanements, etc. The major recommendation is to eliminate runway 1-19 and con- struct a parallel general aviation (small planes) runway near the Air Guard area of the airport. Removing runway 1-19 would free up a significant amount of space in the southwestern portion of the airport near Williston Roz_+d and Kennedy Drive. The plan proposes to move the terminal and parking to this area of the airport and provide access via Williston Road and the Williston Road/Kerinedy Drive intersection (see enclosed site plan). I generally support the concept.. It would move the majority of traffic and parking impacts away from the residential neighbor- hood. I do have a couple of concerns: 1 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 April 9, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the 2/13/90 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Please call if you have any questions. ncerely, "(Clv- JOe Weith, City Planner Encl JW/mcp South Burlington Traffic Analyses / April 2, 1990 Run;Year SF Our ;SF Rest of ;SF Rest of- ;Variable Site ;8B :Region Assumptions: ---'-----'---------- I I '----------- I '----------- 1 '--------------------- � 1 :1990 0 :1990 Actua1;1990 Actual;CCRPC Base Condition 1.1; 1995: 0 ;Med Growth ;Med Growth ;Corp Way not compl. 2 :1995 190,000 ;Med Growth ;Mr-d !growth :1.5% per year ' 3 ;2000 0 :Joe's Est. ;Med growth ;w/out N on ramp at 13 4 :2000 :Joe's Est.;Joe's Est. ;Med Growth ;w/ N on ramp at 13 5 ;2000 ;Joe's Est.;:Joe's Est. ;Mod I,rowth ;w%out N on ramp at 13 6 ;2000 ;Joe's Est. ;Joe's Est. :Med Growth ;w/-full exit at - 122a 7 :2000 :Joe's Est.;Joe's Est. ;Med Growth ;w/ full exit at 13 8 :2000 :Joe's Est.;Joe's Est. ;Med Growth ;w/ full exit at 12a I I & partial at 13 I BRC (CITY X X X X X X SH City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 March 30, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset. Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place, Corporate Way Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddett.e's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, April 3, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. i cere y, Joe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp No Text South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05403 (2? -L 863-039ll') go fa Cli , Mr. Joseph Weith, City Planner City of South Burlington South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place Dear Joe, Enclosed is a listing of the traffic analyses that were discussed in our meeting Monday. Also shown is our suggestion about which party pays for each analysis. I discussed this listing with Chuck and have a few questions. First, we aren't sure why "Run 2" would be done UrljeSS RUAI 3 demonstrated insurmountable impacts. I suggest that this run be eliminated if run 3 results ,,i manageable conditions. Next, both Chuck and I won&eL about the need for high growth modelling in the year 2000. Is it really necessary or wl.11 we still have a realistic picture from th(-- It may be. I to get the data the ci t.y wants while c'imdriatiog iuns 1, 7 and 8. Please let me have your thoughts as soon as possible as Tor,,-, :idler's availability is very limited. We hav(, already directed Tom to proceed with ran: 1, 3, 5 arid 6. As soon as you let us know which runs are desired, we can get an estimate from 7urri, che(A,, it with you and start the work. I call and check in within a few days. Sincerel y I G //-C t j A. Dicovl: 4s1--.y CC: Chuck Hafter Tom Adlei. Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting South Burlington Traffic Analyses / March 1, 1990 --------------------------------- --------------------------------- Run;Year ; SF Our Site 1 ;1990 ; 0 2 ;1995 190,000 3 ;1995 190,000 4 ;2000 ; 0 5 2000 ;Joe's Est. 6 ;2000 ;Doe's Est. 7 ;2000 ;Doe's Est. 8 '2000 ;Joe's Est. 9 ;2000 ;Joe's Est. 10 ;2000 ;Joe's Est.. 11 ;2000 , ;Joe's Est. :SF Rest of :SF Rest of Wa fable ; SBRC ;SB ;Region ;Assumptions: ;Cost ----------- ;--------------- ;------------------- --- ;1990 Actua1;1990 Actual;CCRPC Base Conditio ;No growth ;No growth ;None ;Med Growth ;Med Growth ;1.5a per year , , , ;Joe's Fast. ;High growth;w/ N on ramp at 13 I ;Joe's Est. ;Med Growth ;w/ N on ramp at 13 ;Doe's Est. ;Med Growth ;w/out ramp ;Joe's Est. ;High Growth;w/ N on ramp at 13 ;Doe's Est. ;High Growth;w/out ramp ;Joe's Est. ;High Growth;w/ full exit at 12a ;Joe's Est. ;High Growth;w/ full exit at 13 ; ;Joe's Est. ;High Growth;w/ full exit at 12a; ;& partial at 13 City;Share; Cost;Cost ; , * * , , INTERSECTIONS TO BE EXAMINED= For all runs - Williston Rd / Dorset St -- Dorset St / UMall North / Corp Way - Dorset St / Kennedy Dr -- Kennedy Dr / Hinesburg Road - Hinesburg Rd / Corp Way - Hinesburg Rd / Williston Rd - Williston Rd / White St For runs 7,8,and 9 (add new I89 exit 12A and/or 13) - 189 Exit 14 - I89 Exit 13 I89 Exit 12A (new interchange) I89 Exit 11 ( possibly ) J South u r gto Reafty Company 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, NTee inont 05403 { a?P 3-,9�990 Mr. Joseph Weith, City planner 'ity of South Burlington .,outh Burlington, Vermont 05403 e: Center place Dear Joe. Enclosed is a listing of the traffic analyses that were discussed in our meeting Monday. Also shown is our suggestion about which party pays for each analysis. I discussed this listing with Chuck and have a few questions. First, we aren't sure why "Run 2" would be doric. t.i::less Run 3 demonstrated insurmountable impacts. i suggest that this run be .eliminated if run 3 results .n. manageable conditions, Next, bdtL'l Chuck and I,wonder about the need for high growth modelling in the year 2000. Is it really necessary or will we still have a realistic picture from the moderate growth assumptions? It Islay be possible to get the data the city wants while -liminating tuns 4, 7 and S. Please let me have your thoughts as soon as possible as Tom Adler's availability is very limited. We have already directed Tom to proceed with runt 1, 3, 5 and 6. As soon as you let us know which runs are: desired, we can get an estimate from ur,,, check it with you and start the work. I call and check in within a few days. Sincerely, G e or A. Dicovi.t ky Chuck Haf ter Tom Adler Prime Real Instate -- Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting i i� TpT� 7Ted r. P.v IP Nita ill /M'UIMC,' 1D1tY E,r30r UC' Jt , t .. ram:. pZ t - ..1 �- t(`�t Y; h its ;Z�.1 '1 C`. t -� c•4 C r ��i� f l+ U©' 7. .. V t vV� El'3I'?z t; 17 -- t _r }$^„ `'t 30i t Av t�v L C vi !t'� l-':J -1y}if �SZ . , ^' .. 1ST S�O 000Z 9 t 7 J t T i i I l ltt . T . 2 to.1,7. ri 'J r 1 '.A: -J.r,. F�Y.1 ':.;,.m(.:-:.0 -0Ll (�� 000'061 /G�LC� I 1 S66T. OT1TDUO a'Pa J66i i Tnnq id 16 v - I r O �_ 't c-• 0 0 t q S Q - - ' 1. -t. - ,. i, 7- - 4 T- ; aiUTI 4 T-,); ouz _ � rr- : Z inrj S T1 ZZ t Tr y rRSEC:TIONS TO BE EXoMINED: -r ,f I 1 runs - Williston Rd / Dorset St - Dorset St / UMa11 North / Corp Way - Dorset St / Kennedy Or Kennedy Or / Hine�,hurg Rload Hinesburg Rd / Carp Way - Hinesburg Rd / Williston Rd Williston Rd / White St I_Ir runs 7,8,zand 9 ( add new I8.9 exit 12A and/or 13 ) - I89 Exit 14 - I8? Exit. 13 I89 Exit 12A (new interchange) I09 Exit 11 ( possibly ) ]7,,3, le 5� 4- (Ajar*4'O rJ -�- 1, lo/ o� �i°o v . �. �rrv►Stort r ice .-�.� ..1,-e..r �e 7► 0,� mot'•— 1 i �N- (-A) 2-pa#eATC,- w�tt AP#09 s VAL, �JI--- x 7— 7-1 0', C M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Joe Weith, City Planner Re: 13, 1990 agenda items Date: February 9, 1990 2) SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY, CITY CENTER South Burlington Realty proposes to construct 190,000 square feet of office, retail and restaurant use in three buildings in the Central District 1 zone off Corporate Way. This meeting is being treated as a discussion since there are a number of issues which need to be addressed by the City and developer in the development of a City Center. Basically, the plan does not meet the zoning requirements in terms of number of buildings on a lot, parking space location and height of structures. The applicant is trying to meet the goals and intent of the City Center plan, however, has run into trouble with meeting some of the zoning requirements. The purpose of the meeting is to identify these problem areas and try and establish a direction for both the City and developer to proceed. The primary problems are identified in the enclosed letter from Greg Dicovitsky and my summary below: Number of buildings: The present ordinance requires one building per lot. The applicant is finding it difficult to provide a building at a desirable density and also be able to provide required parking on the same site. The parking requirements are substantial and it is very difficult to provide all the necessary spaces and still meet the intent of buildings up front and park- ing in the center of the block. There just is not enough space. The applicant would like an amendment to the ordinance to allow P.U.D.'s. The P.U.D.'s would allow greater flexibility in siting buildings and arranging shared parking. In addition, the P.U.D. would allow greater flexibility in meeting the require- ments of the Traffic Overlay Zone (zone 6). I see no problem with allowing P.U.D.'s as long as the goals and desires of the City Center Plan are met. 1 Memorandum - Planning February 13, 1990 agenda items February 9, 1990 Page 2 Parking: As already mentioned, parking will be a serious issue to resolve in creating a city center. The only way to meet parking requirements will be to provide on -street parking and parking structures. The applicant has expressed that the econom- ics of the project do not lend themselves to constructing a parking structure at this time. Every effort should be made to allow the construction of parking structures at a later date while still meeting the goals of the City Center plan. The current zoning does not allow parking up near the front property line. This plan shows areas where this requirement is not met. I strongly recommend on -street parking. On -street parking is essential to a successful City Center. It helps keep activity focused on the public street. The proposed roadways as shown will need to be widened in order to provide two travel lanes and parallel parking on each side. Heijzht of Structures: See letter from Greg Dicovitsky. Eleva- tions of all buildings should be submitted so that staff can determine whether height requirements are being met. Setbacks: Allowable building envelopes shall be between 0 and 80 feet from the nearest street r.o.w. The 2 front buildings on Corporate Way meet this provision. The 72,600 square foot office building on White Street Extension does not meet this provision. Layout: I feel we should take this opportunity to take a look at the entire 40 acres and plan future public roadways, connections to adjoining properties, blocks and pedestrian connections. The plan should show the road along China Lite as a public road and should respect a future connection over the Lakeview Buick property to Dorset Street. Lot Density/Coverage: Lot density and coverage cannot be deter- mined until the P.U.D. issue is resolved. * PLEASE READ OVER THE CITY CENTER PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS BEFORE THE MEETING. 2 L City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403 PLANNER 658-7955 February 9, 1990 Mr. Greg Dicovitsky South Burlington Realty Company 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Re: Center Place Dear Greg: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed is the agenda for next Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting and my comments to the Planning Commission. Also en- closed are Bill Szymanski's and Chief Goddette's comments. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, 2/13/90 at 7:30 P.M. to represent your request. Sincerely, Joe Weith, City Planner Encls JW/mcp nutl� urlingtun N ire Department 575 ?9nrset -tree# Y' �nutb Nurlingtnn. 7germont 05403 1 �, • — s � 002) 65&7960 TO; S O . BURL. I NGON PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; CHIEF GODDETTE RE; TUESDA`r` F EBRUr RY 1 3 , 1. 990 AGENDA ITEMS DATE; WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY 7,, 1990 1. „ CORPORATE CIRCLE w 3--OFFICE BUILDINGS OVER ALL I DO NOT SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE LAY OUT OF THE BUILDINGS BUT THE FOLLOWING WILL BE. REQUIRED FOR FIRE PROTECTION; A. WATER MAIN MUST SUPPLY c_ 5 0 GPM. AND BE A LOOP' SYSTEM. B. A tT LEAST TWO HYDRANTS WILL BE REQUIRED AT A LOCATION APPROVED BY THIS OFFICE. 2. JIFFY LUBE SHELBURNE ROAD AT THIS TIME I DO NOT SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THIS PROJECT., S. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT INC. PATCHEN ROAD THIS PLAN WAS REVIEWED WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ALL CORRECTIONS WERE MADE EXCEPT THE HYDRANT WHICH WAS TO BE INSTALLED HAS BEEN LEFT OFF THE SITE: PLAN. . Planning File Data for Computer Input 1 . Original Property Owner_ 2. Developer's Name 3. Name of Development 4. Address of Development or Project _ Lcsr �� 0�_ L-J O-A.A-- 5. Type of Projects / _' . Minor Subdivision ( I) Major Subdivision (MS) Site Plan (SP) 6. Zoning District 1 c 2 7. Zoning District 2 8. Zoning Board Approval date if Required 9. Date of Planning Commission Hearings/Meetings Site Plan Date _ or ' Sketch Plan Date 10. Preliminary Plat date 11. Final Plat Date 12. Revised Final Plat Date 1 (if applicable) 13. Revised Final Plat Date 2 (if applicable) _ 14. Acreage of 'rotai Project 15. Use of Land 1 C' 1 K . Use of hand 2 UsE, of Land 3 1 l tics o l' Land 4 19. ,)umber of Lots f tium1) e r of Single Faini I t'rri t ; l Numher of Mu l t i- f"nm i I ['n i t ti rtwt Iml Cost of, liui Idin� ��j�s r7ov f. . 23. Size of Building (Square footage) !� 24. Streets City Street CS Private Street PS 25. Date of Acceptance of streets by City 26. Bond -Landscaping 27. Bond -Streets 28. Bond -Sewer 29. Bond -Water _ 30. Bond -Other 31. Date Mylar Due (90 days after approval) 32. Date Recorded - 33. Expiration date of Approval 34. Date of First Building Permit 34 . Tax Map Number a L! • 1 36. Map File Location 1 37. Map File Location 2 38. Map File Location 3 Other fees ('Type and amount) Preparers Name:_ Date: Posted in Computer (Name, Date): 4 S�U'w GJ¢'_ ti4��v GTY 51UAR� GOIDSMITH & MORRIS I-- ' ��te o•G - - - 6.lIt1Lk ARCHI1 =-l• 1.7 YpIHQ ,•—� 'sl'G erwV - O� AwD6 •A+. h 41 go Z•.tEC7"/.��� .-�/ STI= yE s7iT2� t � G. (��co v►7'�k r� , , �/cam �r�c t d�Cc CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) OWNER OF RECORD (name, address, phone #)Randall G. Munson, dba South Burlington Realty, 366 Dorset St. So. Burlington, Vt 05403 (802) 863-9039 -- 2) APPLICANT (name, address, phone #)South Burlington Realty 366 Dorset St. So. Burlington, VT. 0-5--II3—(3077- - - - 3) CONTACT PERSON (name, address, phone #)Greg A. Dicovitsky _ 366 Dorset St., So. Burlington, VT 05403 (802) 863-9039 4).PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Corporate Way 5) LOT NUMBER (if applicable) 6) PROPOSED USE(S) Office, retail, restaurant 7) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e. total building square footage, # units, maximum height and 4 floors, square feet per floor)190,000 s.f.g.f.a., 3 buildings, 3 and 4 story 8) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES Not Applicable 9).LOT COVERAGE: building 4. %; landscaped areas 5• % building, parking, outside storage 20.% le 10) COST ESTIMATESt Buildings $ 10,450,00g Landscaping S 120,000 Other Site Improvements (please list with cost) S • •. 11611 11) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 1995 12) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in and out)To Be Supplied Estimated trip ends (in and out) during the following hours: Monday through Friday 11-12 noon 12-1p.m. ; 1-2 p.m. 2-3 3-4 p.m. 4-5 p.m. ; 5-6 p.m 6-7 13) PEAK HOURS OF OPERATION: To Be Supplied 14) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION: To Be S DATE OF SUBMISSION �- DATE OF HEARING C"%7NERS OF PROPERTY ABUTING PROPERTY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY AT CITY SQUARE IN SOUTH BURLINGTON Molly Kohler 8 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Yvonne & John Benedict 10 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Anita E. Chastenay 12 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Christine & Philip Magneat 14 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Alice Wheel 16 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Lawrence Gerlack 18 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 George Hart 22 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 James Menard 24 Iby Lane South Burlington, VT 05403 Wilbur Hurtubise 26 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Hugh Burns 28 Iby Street South Burlington, VT 05403 City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Dumont Construction 12 Woodland Place South Burlington, VT 05403 Bouchard & Sons, Inc. Box 2371 South Burlington, VT 05403 -2- James & Madine Simpson 1927 Spear Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Lake Buick Inc. 222 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Joseph Senesac 444 South Union Street Burlington, VT 05401 Mervin Brown Dorset Street Assocation 200 Twin Oaks Ter. -Suite B South Burlington, VT 05403 SBRI Thomas Little, Esq. Portnow, Little, & Cicchetti P.O. Box 907 Burlington, VT 05401 John O'Brien 33 Mary Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Howard & Patrick 28 Mary Street South Burlington, VT 05403 South Burlington School Department 550 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 Brossard Automotive Services David C. Brassard 1255 Williston Road South Burlington, VT 05403 Raymond Unsworth Ledges of Burlington P.O. Box 4060 South Burlington, VT 05403 Edmund & Stella Chastnay 97 Hinesburg Road South Burlington,:VT 05.403, -3- Elliot Lahove 113 Hinesburg Road South Burlington, VTr 05403 Mehaler Parkes 10378 Akron Street Spring Hill, FL 33526 //919G August 16, 1983 page 3 Mr. Jacob then made a motion which was amended in several instances. Thc: final motion voted upon was as f V11uws That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the revised final plat application by SouthBurlington ea Corporation for one new commercial of as ep cted on a plan entitled "Lot Dimensions Added Corporate Circle, Site an prepared by Webster -Martin, Inc., last revised , with the following stipulations: 1. All stipulations from the original approval, dated 11/17/81, shall remain in effect. 7. Bonding for all street, sidewalk necessary to serve the proposed new to issuance of a building permit. and intersection improvements of sHall be submitted prior . The following signalization improvements shall be provided at ae Dorset Street/Corporate Way intersection: a. New signal heads facing Corporate Way b. oop detector in Corporate Way c. Anv new signal control hardware needed for three-phase operation as described in traffic consultant Joseph 0 enlander's letter dated 8 1 83 4. A temporary turn -around shall be j2rovided at the end of the initial segment of Corporate Way to be dedicated -to the City. 5. The applicant shall provide $34 400 as his contribution to Dorset Street improvements. Up front monies and the agreement for the remaining payment shall be worked out agreed o an signed between the City Council and the developer. 6. A bVpass lane on the westerly side of Dorset Street to a length as determined by the City Engineer, shall a provided zne aeveioper. 7. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion which received unanimous aDDroval. Mr. Jacob then made a second motion which was amended. The final motion voted upon was as follows: The the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the Site-Flan—Appl-i-cat ion oy eun Foon ror a Uninese restaurant n Uorporate UIrcle as depicted on a plan entitlein Restaurant, Site an, prepared by Lawrence Atklnrcnrr6-cT-,- 1. All sidewalks including the private 5" sidewalk adjacent to zne east property line shall be concrete. 'r e nee or a rifiion 01 the easterly sidewalk along tn balance ol the"new road"--EnTll e reviewed upon application ror development or the adjacent pro- . `If M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: Next week's agenda items Date: 6/24/83 3) Pet Lodge, Williston Road 1. There should be a buffer strip of at least 5 feet along westerly line in area defined as existing paved area to serve for snow storage and to discourage snow plowing onto adjacent property. 2. Sewer contribution of this facility, estimated at 100-150 gal per day, will be substituted for existing residential and business uses which will be removed. 4) Commercial Development, Shelburne Road 1. Method of handling storm water should be shown. I recommend the parking area be intercepted with inlets and piped into the Imperial Drive system. 2. A sidewalk along Imperial Drive should be considered. 5 Proposed�Resta`urant,•Corporate Circle 1. A large drainage swale exists along the westerly boundary. This swale also drains property to the west. It will have to be piped with provisions to in- tercept runoff from the west as well as from proposed parking lot. 2. Sidewalks should be included along the main road and along the service road. 3. The service road should include curbs. 4. This proposed restaurant will use up a substantial amount of the sewage flow reserved for the first phase of the Corporate Circle project. 5. Entering parking spaces at an angle greater than 90 degrees may be difficult. From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Next Week's agenda items Date: 6/24/83 C `'V 2) Church, Swift Street Driveway has been widened to 24 feet and second entrance has been deleted. Landscaping information is now complete and appears to be fairly substantial. I see no remaining problems with this application. 3) Tate, Williston Road The Zoning Board has approved this proposal for combined use of a new building as a pet shop and industrial building. One stipulation was that the existing front building (Imported Car Parts) be removed within 5 years. A storage building will be removed immediately. The existing entrance will have to be defined at a width of no greater than 36 feet. Also, a 6 foot wide offer of dedicationfor future road widening must be provided. Concerning a sidewalk, the administration does not feel that a single unconnected stretch, 140 feet in length, is useful at this time. In one other application we required an amount to be placed in escrow for a future sidewalk; however, because of the small amount involved and the bookkeeping requirements we don't recommend that approach either. Landscaping, parking, drainageand other required information appears to be complete and satisfactory. 4) Davis, Shelburne Road Application will go before the Zoning Board Monday evening for a front yard dimensional variance. Proposal is to add a 3900 square foot addition to a building previously occupied by John Hancock Insurance. New use will be a retail clothing store. Projected traffic volumes meet the standard for that location. A sidewalk exists on the property's Shelburne Road frontage. However, the City's sidewalk plan also calls for a future sidewalk on Imperial Drive and this applicant should be responsible for constructing it now. Front and rear circulation aisles should be widened to 20 feet. If necessary, several parking spaces should be removed to accomplish this. Also, a large amount of paving has been included so as to provide three spaces near Shelburne Road - not an aesthetically desirable arrangement. Proposed plantings shown within the City right-of-way will have to be relocated onto the applicant's property since there is an existing water line in that location. $) Chinese Restaurant, Corporate Circle This is the first proposed development in Corporate Circle. The review procedure will be a sketch presentation followed by a revised final plat (public hearing). Re- levant stipulations from the original approval must be reviewed along with normal sub- division and site plan items. Traffic and Access. The benefit of this application is that the greatest traffic volume will be later than the normal peak traffic in the area. Based on previous stipulations, the through road need not be completed now; however, the next building almost definitely will trigger the requirement for completion. Memorandum Next week's agenda items 6/24/83 Page 2 Complete details for signalization of the Corporate Way/Dorset Street intersection must be presented and approved along with this application. The entrance arrangement conforms with the shared curb cut arrangement as envisioned in the original approval. Sidewalks. I concur with the City Manager's comments. Parking and Circulation. Parking is very tight and several items appear not be be in conformance with our standards - including parking space and aisle widths, front yard coverage, and total coverage. Overall parking area must be carefully designed prior to the final hearing, and a slightly larger lot may be necessary. Utilities. Anticipated sewer volumes must be submitted to insure conformance with the initial 10,000 gpd allowance for Corporate Circle. The need for additional fire hydrants must be reviewed. See the City Manager's comments concerning storm drainage. Landscaping. Information will be submitted with the final plat application. 6) V.L. Properties The recently approved V.L. Properties application consolidated five properties into one development. From the start, the developer planned to build a new store in his shopping center for one of those property owners, Presto Music. We are now informed that the arrangement includes land ownership of .2 acres by Presto Music in addition to building ownership. From the City's viewpoint it is obviously preferable to have one landowner for the shopping center. However, that may not be a possibility. I have asked the Presto Music owner, David Arnold, to attend the meeting to answer any questions. The Planning Commission must decide whether it is willing to allow a "second- best" land ownership arrangement to exist. We can set up legal documents to guarantee proper access and maintenance. And City Attorney Spokes will be reviewing the "non -conforming" status of the previous Presto Music lot to see whether procedural requirements can be met without creating inadvisable precedents. 7) Subdivision Revisions Following the recent work session,I have made several revisions as suggested by the Planning Commission. The proposed draft is now complete except for one section, and I am hoping to get your initial approval so that a public hearing may be scheduled. South Burlington Realty Corporation August 24, 1984 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-6391 �f. 1,. William Szymanski, City Manager City of South Burlington 475 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 RE: CHINA LITE RESTAURANT, CORPORATE CIRCLE Dear Bill: RECEIvrD A +_' % 1yb/4 MANAGER' ; Qr: F�fCE CITY SO. BURLING I UN It is my understanding that the Vermont Agency of Environmental Conversation, due to capacity limitations at the Airport Parkway treatment plant, has restricted the seating capacity of China Lite restaurant to 320 seats, 105 less than originally approved. Further, the Agency advises us that increased seating to full capacity can be accomplished if the City of South Burlington allots China Lite some of its reserved capacity at the Airport Parkway waste treatment fac- ility. Please allow this letter to serve as a formal request for this allotment so that China Lite can realize its full potential as originally approved at the municipal and State levels. Very truly yours, CORPORATION cc: Sheun Poon Douglas C. Pierson Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting Date Received By Date Application Completed and Received By By CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 7-26-83 APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIE11 1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF: (a) Owner of Record Sheun peen CIO China Lite Restaurant, Colonial Plaza, Wpst Lehnnnn, N_N_ 03784 Telephone No.: (603) 298-8222 (b) Applicant Northern Design, Tnc., 138 Main Street, Montpelier, V.T. 05602 Telephone No (80P) 2PS-3484 (c) Contact Person Robert Haynes, at Northern Design, Inc. 2) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: Corporate Circle, South Burlington, V.T. 3) PROPOSED USE (S): 4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., # of units,floor area, etc.) 420 Seats, 9,600 sq.ft., one floor with basement of 2,000 sq. ft. 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) Twenty-five (25) per shift (60 total). 6) COST ESTIMATES: (a) Buildings $450.000.00 (b) Landscaping $12,500.00 (c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work) $150,000.00 7) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE January 1, 1984 8) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) 550 9) PEAK HOUR(S) OF OPERATION 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. 10) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION Friday and Saturday City of South Burlin ,,ton 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT05403 FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 September 18, 1995 Mr. Shun Poon Orchid Restaurant 5 Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 05403 Dear Mr. Poon: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Your request to increase your seating capacity at the Orchid Restaurant was reviewed by this office on February 7, 1992. A copy of that ruling is enclosed. The parking is still a problem, the minimum number of spaces for 420 seats would be 140. Your would be required to provide additional parking plus the aisle width must change from 20 feet to 24 feet. Additional sewer allocation would also increase which would result in a sewer impact fee. Yours truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcp 1 Encl City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH RURI INrT(')N, VFRAAnNT n5dnz FAX 658-4748 PLANNER 658-7955 February 7, 1992 Mr. Sheun Poon China Lite Restaurant 5 Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 0540" Re: Request of increase seating Dear Mr. Poon: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 In August 1983, your application to construct a restaurant con- taining 420 seats was approved with a sewer allocation of 9700 gallons per day. The State cut back your approval to 320 seats based on that sewer allocation. To date, sewer allocation is not a problem. Your main problem is on -site parking. Presently you are providing 1�, spaces, however, the viidtr, i.s only 20 feet. We require a milli.:;un '4 fo_-)t. aisle. The minimum parking requirement for a restaurant use is one space for each 3 seats, plus one space for each 200 square feet of additional floor area provided for patron use. Another provision allowed within the Central District is off -site parking (review Section 1.70 of the City's Zoning Regulations). mince you may be proposing mayor inter.ic>r renovations to your restaurant, seating capacity may be an issue. I'm of the opinion that restriping your existing parking lot would provide you with more parking spaces, plus 24 foot travel aisles. Should you be allowed additional seating, your sewer allocation would also requr- an adjustment which would result in a sewer impact fee. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14 1983 The South Burlington Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, August 16, 1983, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Room, City Hail, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Sidney Poger, Chairman; Judith Hurd, John Belter, William Burgess, Mary -Barbara Maher, Peter Jacob Member Absent George Mona Others Present David Spitz, Planner; Vernon Hurd, Gene Beaudoin, John Canlo, Lawrence Atkin, Sheun Poon, Yiu Poon, Robert Haynes; Barry Carris „ Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission; Ruth Poger, The Other Paper Joint minutes of August 2, 1983 Mr. Jacob moved that the minutes of the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting of August 2, 1983, be approved as written. Mrs. Maher seconded with unanimous approval. WARNED PUBLIC HEARING: Final plat application by South Burlington Realtv Corporation for a -lot subdivision in Corporate Circle and Site Plan application by S eun Poon for a restaurant in the above of in Corporate Circle It was decided that since the two items were so closely related they would be discussed together then voted on separately. Mr. Spitz said the lot arrangement is acceptable as long as the Commission is satisfied with their layout. The curb cut is on the main road, below the property line. He stressed that the China Lite application will use up the sewer capacity allotted to Corporate Circle, 9,700 gpd out of 10,000 appropriated. The remainder of the subdivision will thus have to go to the bottom of the waiting list. He noted that the allocation had been made on the basis of 15 gallons per seating, 2 seatings per day. He added that the road system fits the requirement, and the developer won't have to paye it all the way or open it up until the next occupancy. They will, however, have to provide a temporary turn- around. It will also be necessary for them to put in a signal to face their direction. He noted that no new turning lanes are proposed; however, with additional uses, a turning lane may be required. Mr. Poger said he could see a problem with left turners and with those turning left out of Corporate Way. Mr. Spitz said the Commission could require a by-pass lane south of the University Mall entrance. Mr. Spitz noted that the developer would have to pay for a %pass lane, and they already are having to con- tribute about5,000 to the Dorset Street improvelent. Mr. August 16, 1983 page 2 Poger then polled the members, half of whom favored the -by-pass lane and half of whom did not or felt it was too much of a burden on the developer. Mr. Beaudoin. of South Burlington_ Realty said the by-pass lane would pose no problem for them if the City pro- vided the land. Bob Haynes and Larry Atkin then spoke on the China Lite appli- cation. Mr. Haynes noted that at the last hearing there was a question of drainage. They consulted with Webster-ZHartin and with John Thetford and feel they have adequately addressed that concern. Regarding parking, they are satisfied they meet all code requirements, e.g. minimum setbacks, percentage of green belt along the front of the building, etc. He noted the City Engineer had some reservations about the drainage swale and wanted the area grassed, which will be done. Mr. Atkin said the landscaping will consist of about half evergreen with some Oriental trees as well. There will be an Oriental garden in the section closest to the entrance. Regarding lighting, the building will be lit from the pronounced overhand. They would prefer low pole illumination on the rest of the lot and lighting on the edges of the lot, but the State won't permit this. Mr. Poger said he was uncomfortable with the absence of a lighting plan. Mr. Jacob noted that Environmental will have a lot to say about lighting and Act 250 will get what they want. Mr. Spitz said that the reason there is not so much on lighting is because it is not directly mentioned as a site plan item. Act 250 does a good job in this area. Basically, he felt they should stipulate "down lighting." Mr. Atkin said the restaurant will have 420 seats. The 131 parking spaces are 6 less than required; however, in visiting other restaurants and counting spaces, they found they were within the average. Mr. Spitz said he felt there was enough parking. Mr. Haynes said they could add the 6 spaces, but it would not look as nice. Mr. Spitz noted that the question of fire hydrants still had to be addressed by the Fire Department. A lengthy discussion then arose on the payment of the developer's share of the Dorset Street improvements. Mr. Spitz said it would be good to have the money up front, but a timetable for payment could also be considered. Mr. Beaudoin indicated they are pre- pared to pay pro rata as they build, on a square foot basis. Mr. Poger noted that this would result in only a payment of $500 or so for the China Lite project. Mr. Beaudoin said they felt it unfair to have to pay $10,000 on a very small development, with no assurance that the other lots can be developed because of the sewer capacity problem. Mr. Haynes stressed that they have spent an enormous amount of time trying to give the City what it wants and that it would have been much fairer if the de- veloper had known about the payment mechanism before now. Mr. Spitz agreed that the oversight was unfortunate. Mrs. Maher said she did not see why approval could not be granted with adequate stipulations. Mr. Spitz said the only major concern was the money item and he felt it could be worked out August 1.6, 1983 page 3 Mr. Jacob then made a motion which was amended in several instances. The final motion voted upon was as follows: That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the revised final plat application by South Burlington ea Corporation for one new commercial of as depicted on a plan entitled "Lot Dimensions Added Corporate Circle, Site Plan prepared by Webster -Martin. Inc.. last revise . witt the ollowina stipulations: 1. All stipulations from the original approval, dated 11/17/81, shall remain in effect. 7. Bonding for all street sidewalk and intersection improvements necessary to serve the proposed new lot shall e submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The followin si realization improvements shall be provided at the Dorset Street/Corporate Way intersection: a. New signal heads facing Corporate Way b. Loop detector in Corporate Way c. Any new signal control hardware needed for three-phase operation as described in traffic consultant Joseph Oppenlander"s letter dated 8 1 83 4. A temporary turn -around shall be rovided at the end of the initial segment of Corporate Way to be dedicated to the City. 5. The applicant shall provide $34 400 as his contribution to Dorset Street improvements. Up front monies and the a reement for the remaining payment shall be worked out agreed o an signed between the City Council and the developer. 6. A bypass lane on the westerly side of Dorset Street to a length as determined by the City Engineer. shall e Prov'1d_e_J b the developer. 7. The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion which received unanimous approval. Mr. Jacob then made a second motion which was amended. The final motion voted upon was as follows: The the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for t-e Site Plan Application by eun Foon or a Uninese restaurant n Corporate Uircle as depicted on a plan en i e in es auran e an, prepare y Lawrence Atkin, rc i c , last revised f121765, with e -toll-owing stipulations: 1. All sidewalks including the private 5" sidewalk adjacent to e east property line MIT e concrete. Ine need fore3ffinflon ol the easterly sidewalk along the balance ol tne,new roact,, s ll e reviewed upon application tor development or the adjacent pro- August 16, 1983 page 4 2. Revised storm drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the City Manager prior to issuance of a buiMing permit. 3. Location of fire hydrants, as may be required by the fire chief, shall be indicated. 4. The two northern most parking aisles shall be widened from 20 to 22 feet. 5. Sewer allocation for the restaurant is approved at 9700 gpd. The Citv Engineer may revise the allocation to a dower figure after occupancy if it is determined that actual flow will be less. 6. A landscaping bond of $12,500 shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. A revised site plan, cnntaining required changes from sti - ulations 2 3 and shall be submitted and approved by the Cit min stration prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Lighting shall be directed downward away from adjacent properties, and poles shall be no more than 15 feet high. 9. This approval expires in 6 months. Mrs. Maher seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Informal discussion with Barry Carris, CCRPC respresentative Mrs. Maher asked what CCRPC's major concern is now. Mr. Carris replied that they are finishing up the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization). He said he is on the Housing Committee which has made its preliminary report on Chittenden County. He noted that the situation of single family home availability was particularly interesting. The average wage in the County is $1413 per month, per worker. Average hosing cost was $64,691, with an average payment of $655 per month. Since most banks will allow only 28g6 of income for a mortgage, it is necessary for 2 people to be working from the home in order to afford single family housing. He added that they have a list of possible ways to develop af- fordable housing. Mrs. Maher asked what their data would be used for. Mr. Carris said Planning Commission could use it to get a better feel of the community in relation to other communities. GBIC also would find it useful. Mr. Poger noted that developers would find it useful. Mr. Burgess added that it could alse be used for changing of zoning. Mr. Jacob asked whether CCRPC had addressed the agricultural question. Mr. Spitz noted he had re- ceived a copy of the agriculture committee's report which said that any town withe 20% agricultural land should make all efforts to keep that land agricultural. Mr. Poger recommended giving Mr. Carris a copy of South Burlington's agricultural policy which the Commission feels is best for the City. Mr. Spitz said he felt the agricultural issue is the main one where City, State and Region are farthest apart. South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 (802) 863-6391 August 3, 1;84 City of South Burlington Attn: Dick Ward 575 Dorset Street So. Burlington, VT 05401 RE: CHINA LITE RESTAURANT Dear Dick; In response to your letter dated August 2, 1984, you are correct in that China Lite desires to open for business on Sunday, August 5, 1984. At this interim stage of the project, we are trying to complete that portion of work required to allow him to open. However, please keep in mind that we are not requesting acceptance of Corporate Way as a city street at this time. We are requesting; that only the necessary portions of utilities to =iina Lite Restaurant be approved. The sewer and water problems in regard to China Lite are being resolved and you shall have the results of testing within a day or two. The balance of work required to finish Corporate Circle is continuing and will be completed on a timely basis as soon as the city has the ability to provide sewer allocations to the site. I would like the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible, and discuss rectifying any other problems that may arise. Thank you, SOUTH BURLINGTON REALTY CORPORATION WoEer6ttkL. ovost Director of Development RLP/dmm cc: RGM Prime Real Estate — Commercial, Residential, Industrial Development Design, Build, Lease, Consulting August 2, 1984 Mr. Sheun Poon China Lite Restaurant Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Certificate of occupancy Dear Mr. Poon: Be advised that you will be issued a temporary certificate of occupancy for a term not to exceed sixty (60) days. Within that time you will be required to complete the site improvements and landscaping according to the approved plan of record. You will also be required to obtain a permit allowing for the erection of any signs. Enclosed is the necessary applications. Be advised that no off -premise sign will be permitted. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mcg August 2, 1984 South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Attn: Mr. Robert Provost Re: Corporate Circle Dear Bob: We understand that the China Lite Restaurant wishes to open for business on Sunday, August 5, 1984. Be advised that the City has a few problems with the construction of Corporate Circle which should be corrected as soon as possible. As you are aware the major problems are sewer and water. Both are subject to test prior to use. To date results of any test have not been submitted to the City. other problems that must be rectified are as follows: a) The sidewalk located at the entrance to the restaurant must be concrete and located according to the plan of record. b) The curb reveals are not proper, must be seven (7) inch after pavement. c) Metal pipe was used, should be P.V.C. or concrete. d) Traffic light loop detector yet to be installed in Corporate Way. e) Addition concrete sidewalk not yet installed. f) The temporary turn -around at the end of the initial segment of Corporate Way yet to be installed. The China Lite will be issued a temporary permit, with 60 days in which to complete their site improvements. South Burlington Realty Corporation Attn; Robert Provost August 2, 1984 PaaP 2 The problems listed above should be corrected within that time frame. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me. Very truly, Richard Ward, Zoning Administrative Officer RW/mca cc: Mr. Albert "Sonny" Audette, Superintendent of Highway Department Mr. T,rilliam Szymanski, City Manager Mr. Sheun Poon CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF:// a) Owner of Record _ v /� _G � y�C _ V7 s0a- 14W. m+5 . alit �vb b) Applicant (":-W7^'4 L 3A �k ( L(-fs �T c) Contact Person /doe,./ 2) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: s �l� �rlt % �,✓� 3) PROPOSED USE(s) AY 4) SIZE OF PROJECT: (i.e. Building Square Footage, #units, maximum height and #floors 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full and part time): 6) LOT COVERAGE: Building G 7 %; Building, Parking, Outside Storage: % 8) COST ESTIMATES: Buildings: $ / 6n C5?5^ Landscaping $ L Other Site Improvements: (Please list with cost) $ 9) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: h 4/� 8G 10) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ((in and out) 11) PEAK HOUR(s) OF OPERATION: 6.S0 PM — 12) PEAK DAY (s) OF OPERATION: j� j S✓i j SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT SITE PLANS MUST SHOW THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION (PLEASE SUBMIT 4 COPIES) Lot Drawn to Scale (20' preferred) Location of Streets, abutting properties, fire hydrants, existing buildings and landscaping Existing and proposed curbcuts, pavement, walkways Proposed landscaping plan (#, variety, size) equal to or greater than required amount in Zoning Regulations # and location of parking spaces (9'xl8') with 22 or 24 foot aisles as required # and location of handicapped spaces Location of Septic Tanks (etc) if on -site sewer Location of any easements Lot coverage ratio for building alone (foot print) and building, parking and outside storage Location of site (street # or lot #) Name of person or firm preparing Site Plan and date PLANNER 658.7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 March 31, 1986 Sheun Poon China Lite Restaurant Box 9475 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: China Lite expansion, Corporate Way Dear Sheun: ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 Enclosed are the minutes of the March 18, 1986 Planning Commission meeting at which your site plan was denied. Please call me if you have any questions. I will send you the Findings of Fact under separate cover. Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JBL/mcp cc: Lawrence Atkins PLANNING COMMISSION 18 MARCH 1986 PAGE 2 2. This approval includes a waiver of 34 parking spaces. One year after occupancy, the Planner shall review parking for adequacy. If parking is inadequate, the developer will come back to the Planning Commission to remedy the situation. 3. The Final Plat shall be submitted within 12 months. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion which passed unanimously. 3. Consider request of Sheun Poon'for a 720 sq. ft. green- house addition to the China Lite Restaurant and revisions to floor area resulting in no new seats at 5 Corporate Way Mrs. Lafleur noted this is the same site plan seen a few weeks ago. Mr. Poon noted that the parking is also the same. The only changes are inside with space being reorganized. They will build a corridor to the greenhouse area. Total seating will be 309, a reduction from 320. Lot coverage is now 69% and would be 70o with the addition. Mr. Jacobs asked what would have to be done to insure that seating re- mained at 309. Mrs. Lafleur said the only action would be to have Dick Ward keep track of it. If there is a problem, it would have to go to the City Attorney for recommended action. Mrs. Maher asked how they intend to improve parking. Mr. Poon said reducing seating from 320 to 309 would help. They are also eliminating the band music and are trying to draw more poeple at less crowded hours. Mrs. Maher felt something should be done to improve the ingress/egress. Mr. Poon said they are trying to buy more land which would accomplish that. Ms. Peacock asked how there can be assurance no seats are put in the "storage area." Again, Mr. Ward or the Planner could check on this. Mrs. Maher said she could not believe that the areas indicated for storage would not be used for seating. Mr. Poon said they plan to open them for seating when they purchase more land. Mr. Dooley then moved that the South Burlington Planning Com- mission approve the site plan application of Sheun Poon for construction of a 720 sq. ft. greenhouse addition to the ex- isting China Lite Restaurant at 5 Corporate Way as depicted on a plan entitled "China Lite Restaurant - Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont Site Plan" prepared by Lawrence Atkin, Architect, dated 12/l/83 and last revised 12/20/85 and "Seating Layout Plan" revised 3/7/86 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall reconstruct the entrance driveway into the parking lot to increase the turning radius in a manner approved by the City Engineer, including if necessary, the relocation of the fire hydrant. PLANNING COMMISSION 18 MARCH 1986 PAGE 3 2. The road from Corporate Way along the southern boundary of this property shall be widened to at least 24 feet_ prior to permit. 3. An additional $3,000 in landscaping shall be required. A landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Planner and a $3,000 landscaping bond posted prior to permit. 4. The site plan approval is conditional on revisions to the floor plan as follows: Dining Room 150 seats maximum Banquet room (esiting) 60 seats maximum Bar/lounge 47 seats maximum Greenhouse 52 seats maximum TOTAL ................309 seats maximum No seating shall be placed within areas shown on the plan as storage. 5. The applicant shall keep the number of parking places shown on the plan free of snow by trucking away snow as necessary so that it does not block any spaces. 6. The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months. Mr. Burgess seconded the motion. Mr. Burgess asked what ability the City had to enforce the seating maximums. Mrs. Lafleur said the Zoning Administrator could put them on notice and then, if needed, go to Court. Mr. Poon stressed that storage areas wouldn't be used for seating until they got more land. He added that there were times when it would be necessary to add an extra seat to a table for a larger party of guests and at those times seating totals might exceed the maximums. In the vote which followed, the motion was defeated unanimouslv. Mr. Dooley then moved that the application of Sheun Poon for a 720 sq. ft. greenhouse addition to the China Lite Restaurant be denied. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 4. Consider Final Plat application of Alan Gigure for a sub- division of land into 2 parcels of 16,977 sq. ft. with the existing single-family dwelling and 12,038 sq. ft. located on Airport Parkway and south of 237 Kirby Rd. 3/18/86 JBL MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Sheun Poon for construction of a 720 square foot greenhouse addition to the existing China Lite restaurant at 5 Corporate Way as depicted on a plan entitled "China Lite Restaurant - Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont -Site Plan" prepared by Lawrence Atkin, Architect, dated 12/1/83 and last revised 12/20/85 and "Seating Layout Plan" revised 3/7/86 with the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall reconstruct the entrance driveway into the parking lot to increase the turning Kadius. TirFs-nrry C—Cl involve moving the fire hydrant. -Aq .r 2. The road from Corporate Way along the southern boundary of this property shall be widened to at least 24 feet�tkcti tol4 1�"*."_ ,_ 3. An additional $3000 in landscaping shall be required. The plan shall be approved by the City Planner and a $3000 land- scaping bond posted p for to permit. 4. This approval includes the revisions fo the floor plan as follows: Dining room 150 seats AMiui( M v M Banquet room (existing) Bar/lounge 60 47 seats seats greenhouse 28 seats 24 seats N TOTA 309 seats ' ��_ � ( r\ 1_ _/ P�� `� �,�--�, ,tea `�j ° r The builds g permit shall Be obtained within 6 months. , I/VZ M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning CommissiO�j From: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner \ Re: March 18, 1986 agenda items J Date: March 14, 1986 3) LAKEWOOD ASSOCIATES, 1233 SHELBURNE ROAD The Lakewood developers have requested a slight amendment to the approved Preliminary Plat. Originally, the Commission approved 6 office building envelopes of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet with a 37,000 square foot maximum. The developer requests 48,000 square feet maximum. A revised traffic study has been submitted to illustrate the effect of this 11,000 square foot increase. Tom Adler claims that the change will add approximately 25 trips to intersections to the north of the development and ten to intersections to the south. Levels of service will not change although the average delay at each intersection will increase. Craig Leiner's response will be available at the meeting. We have submitted our requests to the State Department of Trans- portation for the integration of the required traffic improve- ments with their Shelburne Road plans. Craig is following up on this. We have not yet completed the intersection improvement formula. Assuming these traffic studv results are acceptable, there should he no problems with this approval and the develop- ment may proceed to Final Plat. 4) CHINA LITE, 5 CORPORATE WAY Sheun Poon requests approval for construction of a 720 square foot greenhouse. The internal floor reno,rations shown on this new plan use only a portion of the existing floor space for patron use and the remainder will be a storage area. The total number of seats will be as follows: Dining room 150 seats banquet room (existing) 60 seats bar/lounge 47 seats greenhouse 28 seats 24 seats TOTAL 309 seats The present approval is for 32.0 seats. Therefore, no new parking is required to keep the seat to parking space ratio at the present level. 1 There are several conditions that need improvement such as the entrance drive radius, snow removal, Proper installment of the hydrant and sidewalk and a $3,000 landscaping plan and bond prior to permits. 5) GIGURE, 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Alan Gigure requests Final Plat approval of this two lot subdivi- sion that was reviewed by the Commission several weeks ago. The new undeveloped lot is of adequate size for a duplex. See Bill Szymanski's memo regarding the triangular piece of land across Airport Parkway. It abuts City owned land and appears useless to anyone since it is a drainage way. He suggests it be dedicated to the City. 6) KW VENTURES, WILLISTON ROAD (MIDAS MUFFLER ROAD) KW Ventures proposes to construct a 108 room motel on 2.3 acres owned by Pomerleau. It abuts the Grand Union on Hinesburg Road, and the Midas Muffler property and is part and parcel of the property on which the Home Emporium, the Fassetts Bakery Thrift Shop, the Tackle Shop and a sign shop are located. It will be on land leased to KW Ventures. This 2.3 acre leased parcel, the frontage along Williston Road and the Grand Union property comprise the required 4 acre minimum for a planned commercial development. A traffic study is required showing the level -of -service calcula- tions at Hinesburg Road, White Street and the private Midas Muffler Street. The plan shows a connection to Hinesburg Road through the Grand Union lot to ease Williston road congestion. Obviously, this connection works to the benefit to both uses and perhaps to circulation in the area. The Grand Union lot configuration must be shown in order to evaluate this properly. The effect of this connection on traffic conditions at each intersection must be evaluated. The drainage way at the rear of the property is of significant size. A 50 foot setback of parking and building is required for this. (See Bill's memo) Sewer: This project requires 21,600 gpd of sewer capacity. There are presently 17,995 gpd available. Height: The proposed height is 3 stories and 34.5 feet. Other: The sign ordinance must be adhered to for on site signs. There shall be no off -premise (off leased -limit) signs except for standard Vermont State roadway signs. 2 ►may -7,TO �))<- OC.D /V U. C CjA new L5 ecdm44& . 5 57-- F3 L,� ham. P! t I N -T -f I~! r-i Off,J;fr,& ' G � B1 E5I5Y',1 :ih n' Fo) -v D Gr r'`Dr'` HEM l-OG� ! 'f'S (� C�/4 �Yo;w;��►J 5 � 5 � = 12 ' �/�.; I S� � tLz Z.- 5liUPftlkNU►M Tr-'IRr30M 4'- S3 (r P- l�v zE�` Tl-� sr I �7' AI FA mo��` DP .''� I Ffl L I/` �� ? �- �} G �KI,jToL �� Vv1(5iGl.�` ?�-4' �-rC--- LD(o►� r3111t�DiN�a�> wlw e3C ��v�� I , _ I - �. fzes--rt�U►�N-r po '� N. �-r`8 G L 3 �". O� Wit.. ;✓3i 3.5 � i 7 I r`, I a ° • Nv. Z' p WO --J 120 ,ti PLANNER 658-7955 City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-7958 March 13, 1986 Sheun Poon China Lite Restaurant Box 9475 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Expansion Request, China Lite, Corporate Way Dear Sheun: Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Commission. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, March 18, 1986 to represent your application. JB L/mcp Encls cc: Lawrence Atkin Sincerely, Jane B . Laf leur, City Planner March 11, 1986 Sheun Poon China Lite Restaurant Box 9475 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: Expansion Request, China Lite, Corporate Way Dear Sheun: Enclosed are the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting at which your expansion request was denied. If you are able to acquire other parking spaces, please call me to discuss it. S incerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner JB I..,/mcp 1 Encl cc: Lawrence Atkin PLANNING COMMISSION The South Burlington Tuesday, 25 February Room, City Hall, 575 Members Present Planning Commission held a meeting on 1986, at 7:30 pm, in the Conference Dorset Street Mary -Barbara Maher, Chairman; Judith Hurd, William Burgess, Catherine Peacock, Peter Jacob, John Dooley Others Present Jane Bechtel Lafleur, City Planner; Philip Mehler, John Dowling, Charles Leonard, Bill Rowell, Dick MacKenzie, Jim Cross, Lance Llewellyn, Mery Brown, Robert Deshelburn, Vince Foley, Skip McClellan Election of New Chairman Mrs. Maher said she will continue to devote her time to the Planning Commission but feels that a chairman with more energy, vigor and time will better serve the Commission. It was agreed to hold an election when the full Board is present. Review Minutes of February 4, 1986 and February 11, 1986 Ms. Hurd moved that the Minutes of 4 February 1986 be approved as written. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Peacock moved that the Minutes of 11 February be approved as written. Mr. Burgess seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Site plan application of Sheun Poon for construction of a 720 sq. ft. greenhouse addition and internal renovations resulting in 51 additional seats at China Lite Restaurant, 5 Corporate Way Mr. Poon explained that the greenhouse would have 2 separate entrances, each room being 301xl2'. They want to eliminate the entertainment business. One greenhouse room would be for a lounge, the other for banquet/storage facilities. Members raised the parking/traffic problem. Mr. Poon said this is a problem only in winter because of the snowbank which eliminates parking spaces. The biggest problem is Friday and Saturday nights from 7-9 pm when there is music. He felt if the music is eliminated, some cars will also be eliminated. They have 131 parking spaces, but in winter, with 80 cars it seems jammed because of the snow. They are not now removing snow, but will look into this option. Mrs. Lafleur said even if snow is removed and there are more spaces available, there PLANNING COMMISSION 25 FEBRUARY 1985 PAGE 2 would still be a deficiency. Mrs. Maher asked where people park when there is a parking shortage. Mr. Poon said they park along Corporate Way, sometimes in the fire lane, even though they are told not to. He felt that if they didn't take banquet parties at peak hours Friday and Saturday, there would be plenty of parking. A poll of commission members indicated the concensus that there is not enough parking to sustain additional seating in the restaurant. Mr. Dooley moved that the Commission deny the application of China Lite because of inadequate parking. Mr. Jacob seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 2. Consider site plan application of Maynard Auto Supply for conversion of existing building to a retail -wholesale automotive —parts store at 1725 Williston Rd. Chuck Leonard indicated they plan to use the existing building. They will put in a sidewalk and shrubbery, and the lot will look better than it does now. They ran a traffic count against their store on Shelburne Rd.. Mrs. Lafleur said she sees no problem with the plan as the site is being improved significantly. Traffic meets the standard which would allow 32 cars in a peak hour. They indicate only 28. There will be 9 customer parking spaces. Members agreed there would not be much gained by having accesses to adjacent properties. Mr. Leonard asked whether the 7 foot dedicated strip, if taken, would mean they would have to move their green strip back. Mrs. Maher said they would not. Mr. Dooley moved that the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Lee B. May- nard, Charles Leonard, agent, for conversion of existing building to a retail -wholesale automotive parts store at 1725 Williston Rd. as depicted on a plan entitled "Proposed May- nard Auto, 1725 Williston Road, South Burlington, vermont" prepared bv Joseph Zuhowski and dated 2/14/86 with the following stipulations: 1. A $4000 landscaping bond shall be posted prior to permit. 2. A bond shall be posted for the new sidewalk prior to permit. It shall be depressed concrete and continuous across the driveway. 3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for a 7-foot strip of land across the front of the property for future road widening shall be made prior to permit. ------- � � -' ��a__ . _cam ���-�-- . _-_!n-�-.�.� nl�-.=-- -5�`------- yz��m�9 n�.�� M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner W` Re: February 25, 1986 agenda items Date: 2/21/86 1) ELECTION: Mary -Barbara Maher is resigning from the Chair position. Please be prepared to elect a new Chairperson. 3) ROCKY CLEBORNE, 1432 SHELBURNE ROAD Rocky Cleborne requests an extension to the site plan that was approved by the Commission on August 6, 1985. This approval expired on February 6, 1986. Since this extension request was received on February 4, 1986 I suggest we consider it a request for an extension rather than starting over. There is some discussion about combining this property with the 4 + acre parcel to the south and east that is owned by Thomas Farrell. That parcel is zoned Commercial-1 and Residential-4 and will require a Planned Commercial Development approval as well as a full traffic study. I am enclosing the minutes of August 6, 1985 to answer your questions regarding the traffic figures. Cleborne should be present to answer any questions. 4) G.S. BLODGETT, 75 FARRELL STREET The applicant requests an extension to the site plan approval granted on September 17, 1985. It expires on March 17, 1985. The conditions of the property are essentially unchanged and the 6 month extension should be granted with the stipulation that all stipulations of September 17, 1985 shall remain in effect. The building permit will have to be obtained within 6 months of March 17, 1986. 5) CHINA LITE, CORPORATE WAY The applicant proposes to construct a 60' x 12' greenhouse addition to the northern end oL ffie restaurant for addition,,l seating. Other sections of the restaurant will be reorganised with a resulting capacity of 371 seats. The live entertainment will be eliminated. Memorandum February 25, 2/21/86 Page 2 1986 agenda items At the original approval, the Planning Commission granted approval for 420 seats and a 9700 g.p.d. sewer allocation. The Agency of Environmental Conservation cut this back to 320 seats and 9600 g.p.d. sewer capacity since they would not accept the argument that bar seats used less sewer capacity than a dining room seat. The Planning Commission also approved 131 parking spaces which was a ratio of 1 space/3.2 seats. (The AEC's ratio, of course, was higher with 1 space/2 .4 seats) . The total floor plan will be as follows: Add 60' x 12' greenhouse Convert 400 square foot lounge to storage area Convert bar/lounge to banquet room Consolidate bar, lounge and greenhouse Existing dining room Recent new booths Banquet room (southern end) Total 24 seats 0 seats 60 seats 83 seats 138 seats 6 seats 60 seats 371 seats (Our original approval was for 420 seats and the State cut it back to 320) . The applicant wants to keep the same amount of parking spaces (131) which gives a ratio of 1 space/2.8 seats. Our standard is 1 space per 3.5 seats. Since the parking is very tight geometrically with the aisles measuring only 20 feet between rows, rather than 24, and the lot is sometimes completely full, these 51 extra seats are likely to create a bigger parking problem. Also, the banquet facility will give this restaurant a new attraction. The sharp turn into'the property is especially bad and should be improved; this may require moving a hydrant. The access road is too narrow for two cars to pass in winter. Although the new seat -to -parking ratio is still better than the Memorandum February 25, 1986 agenda items 2/21/86 Page 3 Commission originally approved, I suggest that the applicant find additional parking spaces. There are outstanding oblig- ations of the developer such as installing a concrete side- walk instead of a blacktop sidewalk in the correct location and installing the fire hydrant correctly. Sewer: The original allocation was 9600 g.p.d. but the rest- aurant is actually using 12,500 g.p.d. Using these actual flows of 39 g.p.d./seat, a 1990 g.p.d. allocation will be needed. Landscaping: A $3000 landscaping plan is required. There is no new landscaping shown. Every tree shown today was on the original site original site plan. A new plan with $3000 in new planting is required. Other: Chief Jim Goddette sees no problem wi th the addition but recognizes the parking problem and reminds the applicant that a State review is required. 6) MAYNARD AUTO SUPPLY, 1725 WILLISTON ROAD The applicant proposes to convert the former monument building to an automotive parts store. It is zoned Commercial-1. Access and Circulation: Access shall remain from Williston Road through a 20 foot wide curb cut. The parking lot will be paved for adequate circulation. Parking: Nine parking spaces are .shown; four of these are parallel to the building. Landscaping: The applicant proposes to spend approximately $4000 on landscaping. A $4000 bond should be posted prior to permit. The property is improved with new grassed areas and landscaping in the front yard. Other : Since this is the only property without a sidewalk in this vicinity, the applicant will construct a new 5 foot. sidewalk. It must be depressed concrete and continuous across the driveway. Traf f is : This property is in overlay zone 5 which allows 32 trips during the peak four. Data submitted by the applicant (enclosed) shows ahigh count of 28 trips (in and out) during the noon peak. This meets our standard. February 20, 1986 Sheun Poon China Lite Restaurant P.O. Box 9475 South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: China Lite Expansion, Corporate Way Dear Mr. Poon: Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of my memo to the Commission regarding your request. Please be sure that someone is present on Tuesday, February 25, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. You should be sure to be able to respond to the landscaping and parking problems that I mention in my letter. JB L/mcp Encls cc: Lawrence Atkin Sincerely, Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner 0„f MOTION OF APPROVAL 2/11/86 JBL (� v That the South Burlington Planning Commission approve the site plan application of Sheun Poon for construction of a 720 square foot greenhouse addition to the existing China Lite restaurant at 5 Corporate Way as depicted on a plan entitled "China Lite Restau- rant � Corporate Circle, South Burlington, Vermont Site Plan" prepared by Lawrence Atkin, Architect, dated 12/1/83 and last revised 12/20/85 with the following stipulations: 1) The applicant shall reconstruct the entrance driveway into the parking lot to increase the turning radius. This may involve moving the fire hydrant. 2) The road from Corporate Way along the southern boundary of this property shall be widened to at least 24 feet. 3) The 51 additional seats require 15 new parking spaces. The applicant is required to find 15 additional standard size spaces prior to receiving a building permit. These spaces may not involve a reduction of green area. 4) A 1990 g.p.d. sewer allocation is granted for the 51 additional seats based on existing flows of 39 gallons per day per seat. The $2.50 fee per gallon shall be paid prior to permit. 5) An additional $3000 in landscaping shall be required. The plan shall be approved by the City Planner and a $3000 land- scaping bond posted prior to permit. 6) This approval includes the revisions to the floor plan as follows: a) Construct 60' x 12' greenhouse 24 seats b) Convert 400 square foot lounge to storage area 0 seats c) Convert bar/lounge to banquet room 60 seats d) Consolidate bar, lounge, greenhouse 83 seats e) Existing dining room 138 seats New booths 6 seats f) Banquet room - southern end 60 seats TOTAL 371 seats 7) The building permit shall be obtained within 6 months. sCA All 33 � Ce Oo Ll 9 a `0 33 Li cs on (0 8 _ �'� 33L( "-A0 M E M O R A N D U M ._._To_: South Bur ling ton Planning Commission From: Jane B. Lafleur, City Planner \� Re: February 11, 1986 agenda items J Date: February 7, 1986 2) NORDIC FORD, 1620 SHELBURNE ROAD The site plan approval granted on September 24, 1985 expires in a month. The applicant requests a 6 month extension to the approval. Over the past 5 months the applicant has been working with Wagner, Heindel and Noyes and the City to meet our erosion control policy for this development. After numerous reconfig- urations of green space, retention ponds and drainage areas, the plans meet our requirement for the runoff to not exceed pre -development conditions for the entire site. (See attached letter from Alexander/Truex/de Groot, Inc.) I see no reason why this can not be'extended for 6 months. 3) ROCKY'S CAR WASH, SHELBURNE ROAD The applicant requests an extension to the site plan approval granted on August 6, 1985. I received this request prior to February 6, 1986, the date of expiration. (See enclosed letter) 4) DESLAURIER, EAST TERRACE The applicant requests a clarification of the Planning Commission's intent for the 50 foot right-of-way to this 1.29 acre parcel. It is his contention that the land was rezoned to R4 from C-1 so that this property and the Quarry Hill Club property could -use this r.o.w. to East Terrace. If the Commission intends to not allow any other access through this r.o.w., Mr. Deslauriers requests that the 4 acres of the golf course that are presently, R4 be rezoned to C-1. (See enclosed map) 5) CHINA LITE, CORPORATE WAY The applicant proposes to construct a 60' x 11' greenhouse add- ition to the northern end of the restaurant for additional seat- ing. Other sections of the restaurant will be reorganized with a resulting capacity of 371 seats. The live entertainment will be eliminated. Memorandum February 11, 2/7/86 Page 2 1986 agenda items At the original approval, the Planning Commission granted approval for 420 seats and a 9700 g.p.d. sewer allocation. The Agency of Environmental Conservation cut this back to 320 seats and 9600 g.p.d. sewer capacity since they would not accept the argu- ment that bar seats used less sewer capacity than a dining room seat. The Planning Commission also approved 131 parking spaces which was a ratio of 1 space/3.2 seats. (The AEC's ratio, of course, was higher with 1 space/2.4 seats). The total floor plan will be as follows: Add 60' x 12' green house 24 seats Convert 400 square foot lounge storage area �;"Gt, 0 seats Convert bar/lounge to banquet lroom 60 seats Consolidate bar and lounge and green- house 83 seats Existing dining room 138 seats Recent new booths 6 seats Banquet room (southern end) 60 seats Total 371 seats (Our original approval was for 420 seats and the State cut it back to 320) . The applicant wants to keep the same amount of parking spaces (131) which gives a ratio of 1 space/2.8 seats. Our standard is 1 space per 3.5 seats. Since the parking is very tight geometrically with the aisles measuring only 20 feet between rows, rather than 24, and the lot is sometimes completely full, these 51 extra seats will probably create a burden. Also, the conference facility will give this restaurant a new attraction. The sharp turn into the property is especially bad and should be improved; this may require moving a hydrant. The access road is too narrow for two cars to pass in winter. Although the new seat -to - parking ratio is still better than the Commission originally approved, I suggest that the applicant find additional parking spaces. There are outstanding obligations of the developer such as installing a concrete sidewalk instead of a blacktop side- walk in the correct location and installing the fire hydrant correctly. Sewer: The original allocation was 9600 g.p.d. but the rest- aurant is actually using 12,500 g.p.d. Using these actual flows of 39 g.p.d./seat)a 1990 g.p.d. allocation will be needed. Memorandum February 11, 1986 agenda items 2/7/86 Page 3 Landscaping: A $3000 landscaping plan is required. There is no new landscaping shown. Every tree was on the original site plan. A new plan with $3000 in new planting is required. Other: Chief Jim Goddette sees no problem with the addition but recognizes the parking problem and reminds the applicant that a State review is required. 6) LAKEWOOD ASSOCIATES, 1233 SHELBURNE ROAD Traffic: The applicant has provided a traffic study prepared by Thomas J . Adler (enclosed) . Craig Leiner has given his critique of it (enclosed) . Both will be present at the meeting to discuss their concerns. In sum, the proposed development adds 125 new P.M. peak hour trips to Shelburne Road. Both agree that Holmes Road will require a traffic signal as a result of this development and can be brought to level of service Bwith proper signal timing The applicant should expect to pay for this signal. A number of intersections were analyzed as we suggested. The Bartlett Bay/Green Mountain Drive intersection and the Shelburne Road/Imperial Drive intersections have been below level C for a number of years. Adler suggests that Green Mountain Drive can be brought to level C with a properly timing signal as can Baldwin Avenue. Imperial Drive is not signalized. Craig Leiner suggests that the morning peak hour trips are also important to measure and suggests that a south bound deceleration lane for right turns into the development should be constructed. Tom Adler does not totally agree since A.M. traffic from the north is not the peak flow i .e . the peak traff is flow in the A.M. is from the south. Adler also points out that this has not been required for other projects except K-Mart. I believe we should still require a deceleration lane since it will help the situation and whether or not we required it for others or made mistakes in the past is irrelevant. State approval is required for any work in Shelburne Road. This should be u-icluded in their design work for Route .7. Instead of tearing up Shelburne Road twice, we should escrow the funds for this, to be used if and when the State does the work. If the State improvement schedule is too long, or un 1 ike ly, it should be constructed by the applicant in conjunction wi th the deve lopment. This should be f irmed up by Final Plat. kaISO IDcccD February 7, 1986 Sheun C. Poon China Lite Restaurant 5 Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Re: China L i to , expansion and floor plan revisions Dear Mr. Poon: Enclosed are the agenda and a copy of our memos to the Commission regarding your site plan application. Please be sure someone is present on Tuesday, February 11, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. to re- present your request. Sincerely, Jane B . Laf ewer, City Planner JBL/mcp Encls City of South Burlington 575 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 PLANNER 863-2882 August 17, 1983 Gene Beaudoin South Burlington Realty Corporation 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Gene, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR 658-2486 Enclosed is the South Burlington Planning Commission's approval with stip- ulations for subdivision of your first lot in Corporate Circle. Please note that all your stipulations as well as those for the China Lite restaurant must be satisfied before a building permit may be issued. Make sure that the milar copy of the plan is recorded within 90 days or your approval will expire. Please make arrangements with the City Council to discuss a payment schedule for your share of the Dorset Street improvements. I will be providing a re- commendation to them. You should contact Zoning Administrator Richard Ward if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg 1 Encl August 17, 1983 Robert Baynes Northern Design, Inc. hits i0llain Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear. Bob, Enclosed is the South Burlington Planning Commission's site plan approval with findings of fact and stipulations for the China Lite restaruant in Corporate Circle. Please note that a number of :stipulations must be satisfied. You must then su'A.ni" a revised site plan with all required changes for the City Administration's approval. I suggest that you deal directly with the Fire Chief, City Bn(4ineer, etc. as needed and then go over final details with Zoning Administrator Richard Ward. All stipulations both for you and for South Burlmngton Realty Corporation must be satisfied before a building permit may be issued. Please call this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David H. Spitz, City Planner DHS/mcg 2 Enc is E'.3 t,ELPE- S. , E'ORS • APPRA:SEP: _aGUE DRIVE -057 UFFICE BOX 1062 MON7PE.IER, VERMONT 05602 TELEPHONE (802) 223.6748 August 15, 198-, Mr. Robert E. Haynes Northern Design, Inc. 138 Main Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Re: China late Fes`aura South Burl ingt.or. , "=-Anon' Dear Bob: n1tl_ re. erence -L.G VDui, re -en. rEgC (z;sl. _:. ding on the referenced restaurant. For the restaurant sewage flows, a figure of thir,y gallons -__ day per seat is recorimended and fifteen gallons per day for the �r seats, then: 25v seats C 30 ga-./day = ,5u: 150 seats C 15 gal./day='2,250 Total = 9,750 gal,/day I, is my opinion and experience that these figures are for pca17 weekend usage and that during the week the sewage flow wouia probably be in the 5,000-to 7,000 gallon per day ranee. Average flows would then be about 7,000 to 8,000 gallons per aa;:. '"he best way tc determine the sewage flowF wouia ce c, morf_z.Or ^em for a year or so by installing a water meter. 1f vo,,: have any questions or reoUirE rllr".".?r iI!f':�:"_^.:9',�0::, __c _`eel {'ree to call. ar; t,raly yours;; ohr F. ^heord ' J H7 - day DHS 8/15/83 MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the Site Plan Application by Sheun Poon for a Chinese restaurant in Corporate Circle as depicted on a plan entitled, "China Lite Restaurant, Site Plan," prepared by Lawrence Atkin, Architect, last revised 7/27/83. Stipulations: 1) All sidewalks including the private 5' sidewalk adjacent to the east property line shall be concrete. The need for extension of the easterly sidewalk along the balance of the "new road" shall be reviewed upon application for development of the adjacent property to the east. 2) Revised storm drainage details shall be submitted to and approved by the City Manager prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) Location of fire hydrants, as may be required by the fire chief, shall be indicated. 4) The two northern most parking aisles shall be widened from 20 to 22 feet. 5) Sewer allocation for the restaurant is approved at 9700 gpd. The City Engineer may revise the allocation to a lower figure after occupancy if it is determined that actual flow will be less. 6) A landscaping bond of $12,500 shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 7) A revised site plan, containing required changes from stipulations 2,3, and 4 shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit. 8) This approval expires in 6 months. DHS 8/15/83 MOTION OF APPROVAL That the South Burlington Planning Commission grant approval for the revised final plat application by South Burlington Reatly Corporation for one new commercial lot as depicted on a plan entitled "Lot Dimensions Added, Corporate Circle, Site Plan," prepared by Webster -Martin, Inc., last revised 8/10/83: Stipulations: 1) All stipulations from the original approval, dated 11/17/81, shall remain in effect. 2) Bonding for all street, sidewalk, and intersection improvements necessary to serve the proposed new lot shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 3) The following signalization improvements shall be provided at the Dorset Street/ Corporate Way intersection: a) New signal heads facing Corporate Way. b) A loop detector in Corporate Way. c) Any new signal control hardware needed for three-phase operation as de- scribed in traffic consultant Joseph Oppenlander's letter dated 8/l/83. 4) A temporary turn -around shall be provided at the end of the initial segment of Corporate Way to be dedicated to the City. 5) The final plat shall be recorded within 90 days. M E M O R A N D U M To: South Burlington Planning Commission From: William J. Szymanski, City Manager Re: China Lite Restaurant Date: 8/12/83 4) China Lite Restaurant 1. The design of the storm drain system shall be submitted for review. Pipe other than metal or aluminum is recommended. 2. An asphalt paved drainage swale instead of the crushed stone is recommended. It will be easier to maintain. Additional inlets may also do the job instead of the paved swale. 3. Sidewalk shall be concrete. 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: 8/12/83 3) Corporate Circle The proposed restaurant is within the limits allowed for the first stage of the Corporate Circle development. Sewer usage is 7,500 gpd out of an initial allocation of 10,000 gpd. Traffic generation is not high enough to trigger the requirement for road completion to Hinesburg Road. However, it is very likely that the road must be completed as part of any approval for a second building. The only immediate requirement for the subdivision is that the Dorset Street/Corporate Way intersection be adequately designed. Professor Oppenlander has reviewed the intersection and his suggestions essentially are as follows: a) the existing signal controller is adequate and will just need the necessary new components. b) New signal heads are needed facing Corporate Way. c) A loop detector in Corporate Way must be provided. d) Level of service A can be achieved at the intersection without re- quiring any new turning lanes on Dorset Street. I agree with the above comments, particularly since Dorset Street is expected to be reconstructed shortly. However, if any further development is proposed prior to Dorset Street reconstruction, turning lanes and signalization requirements must again be reviewed. 4) China Lite Application is essentially the same as at sketch plan. However, the applicant has somewhat broken up the mass of parking via two methods. (1) The center of the parking row closest to the road (55 feet wide) has been deleted and replaced by a sign and landscaping. (2) A 10 to 15 foot wide landscaped strip extends between the restaurant and sign across two double rows of parking. The new layout is now slightly below the maximum 70% coverage. Parking spaces have been reduced to 131. Based on the enclosed survey, I feel that the proposed parking area should be sufficient. The size of parking spaces also now meets standards. However, due to concerns about aisle widths in two recent shopping centers, I strongly recommend that the two aisles serving double rows of parking be increased from 20 to 22 feet. The need for additional fire hydrants still must be reviewed by the Fire Chief. Storm drainage plans still must be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. LAWRENCE ATKIN, ARCHITECT 138 Main Street MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 LIEUMEM (IF TEQASOETrUL Phone 223-3484 TO DATE JOB NO jt9d7 ATTENTIO RE: / WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Attachedvv❑ Under separate cover via__ _ the following items: ❑ Shop drawings XPrints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ .•DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: )II(For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ _ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE _ ❑ Resubmit copies for approval [J Submit copies for distribution [] Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US ! I COPY TO PRODUCT 240-2 NNW,-) Inc, Groto,. Mass. O 14/1 SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. LAWRENCE ATKIN, ARCHITECT 138 Main Street MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 (802) 223-3484 TO Mr. David Spitz gouth 'Burl i ng .on, V rmon . Planning Commission WE ARE SENDING YOU CX Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings ® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ ILFETTEEIM of URUZOMUTTZU DATE 7-26_83 JOB No.190-102 ATTENTION RE: The China Lite Restaurant the following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 ea. 7-25-83 Site Plan Perspective Floor Plan ( First Floor and Basement ) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: X For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO Munson SIGNED: PRODUCT 2403 ne s Inc.,crton,Mm. man. If enclosures are not 8s noted, kindly notify us at once. Lawrence Atkin, President i i Ory o ap Zti• �c ,BL'8Z No�1T�_S �135 , b6 °5'Z M. NORTHERN DESIGN, INC. 138 Main Street MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 Phone 223-3484 TO planning office City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 WE ARE SENDING YOU M Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings 7] Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ [LIFEUTEE (IF DATE August 24, 1983 JDB 190-102 ATTENTION Ri-ba.-rd Ward RE: China Lite Restaurant at Corporate Circle Development following items: ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION (last revised) 2 8-16-83 Site lan revised as per minutes of meeting held 8-16-83. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: [N For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution IM As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 1)- T am sPndi i� this at. the request of David Spitz. 2). Site lighting will be addressed in the Act 250 Ammendment application. 3). If you have any questions, please call. COPY TO L SIGNED: FROM 240-3 es Inc, Gramm, Mast 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. ect NORTHERN DESIGN, INC. 138 Main Street MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 Phone 223-3484 TO Planning nffirP City of South Burlington 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 WE ARE SENDING YOU IN Attached ❑ Under separate cover via_ ❑ Shop drawings M Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ DATE August 29, 1983 JOB NO. 190-102 ATTENTION Mr. Richard Ward RE: China Lite Restaurant at Corporate Circle Development ❑ Samples following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 last revis d Site plan for your records. 8-29-83 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: iX For approval ❑ Approved as submitted EX For your use ❑ Approved as noted CX As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Addled ma.nholes and sidewalk per today's phone conversation. I COPY SIGNE`B�" " " PRODUCT240-3 Inc.c�,Mm. 01471 It enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify „$ at once. uy Teschmacher, Project Architect Sew-7sao ,4 mac.. 2 -�- ", � z a,, &,, _ ^ `rr NORTHERN DESIGN, INC. 138 Main Street MONTPELIER, VERMONT 05602 DATE (802) 223-3484 TO SUBJECT -------- - - -- - — -- — ------- > ...... .... - - ------- -/ 15irf" I. [] PLEASE REPLY TRANS/OP INC. SYSTEMS ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS P. O. BOX 2304 - SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 Phone (802) 878-5977 August 1, 1983 Mr. Eugene W. Beaudoin South Burlington Realty Corp. Munson Earth -Moving Corp. 366 Dorset Street South Burlington, Vermont 05401 Dear Mr. Beaudoin: In accordance with directions from Mr. David H. Spitz, City Planner for South Burlington, trip generations and traffic signal timings were developed for your 1983 level of commercial activity at Corporate Circle. This 10,000 sq ft quality sit-down restaurant is expected to generate the following traffic volumes. 1. Average daily traffic volume. a. Enter - 374 vpd. b. Exit - 375 vpd. 2. Morning peak hour of street traffic. a. Enter - 7 vph. b. Exit - 3 vph. 3. Afternoon peak hour of street traffic. a. Enter - 38 vph. b. Exit - 23 vph. Movement distributions of these developmental volumes are diagrammed along with the existing traffic volumes at the intersection of Dorset Street, Corporate Way, and University Mall North Driveway in Table 1. These values represent average afternoon peak -hour (1600-1700) volumes for 1983 weekday travel patterns. To accommodate the new trips on Corporate Way, the existing traffic signal should be operated as a three-phase system with the following sequence arrangement. Interval OA OB 0C Sec. % of Cycle 1 G R R 27.0 45 2 Y R R 4.0 7 3 R R R 2.0 3 4 R G R 7.0 12 5 R Y R 3.0 5 6 R R G 14.0 23 7 R R Y 3.0 5 Total 60.0 100 N These interval timings represent maximum green times for peak -hour conditions. However, loop detectors should be placed on Corporate Way, as on the University Mall North Driveway, to permit semiactuated signal operation at this intersection. The following minimum times are also specified for pedestrian crossing maneuvers. Crossing Min. Time (sec) Dorset St. 17.5 Corporate Way 15.3 U. Mall N. Drive 18.5 The latter value can be reduced to 11.5 sec. if the divisional island is used for pedestrian refuge and the crossing is made in two parts. The proposed signal timing plan provides level of service 'A' at this inter- section. In addition, the critical -lane volume on each phase has a per- formance probability of at least 90 percent in being accommodated during the 1983 average weekday afternoon peak hour. Please advise of any further assistance that may be required in this matter. Thank you. Very truly yours, Joseph C. Oppenlander, P.E. Vice -President JCO:njk Enclosures TRANS l OP INC. 3 TABLE 1 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY South Burlington, VT DATE 1983 DAY of WEEK Ave." Weekday INTERSECTION Dorset St., Corporate Way, --and University Mall JOB No. CC-1 STREET ENTERING VOLUME PERCENT OF FLOW TIME of COUNT Afternoon average peak -hour VEHICLES COUNTED ALL VEHICLES XXX TRUCKS (XX TOTAL I PERCENT TRUCKS % v 3 /\-t-) 2-frA .I A A I's -t- -c- 7 .,7. . 77 , 0 . 9 F + i 7 '7 - 0,0 % - / , E,- -� 4- o I n L I = IT, /. %, ( epk-m P;k.4i-f-J'? ) -L —/ 5-7 3.-L.5- , 0, 1 ? f- '37 1 0 - C'Z , 1,-E" t. L 7- N -Y A .4 f- kl,/A LT 3 2 4 a c" 7- 77 (o7 /700 01 a 0 C) 44, -01 t I I/ ItA I 444 4-07 '7. t-g w,,., S-4 -C;- crl;l ". J. -. 17, r, � M, J.J �fi Pc - rte -A C. " c n . 1. / *1 ._.,....,I, .r n -'- , fj A - I ,0 " -L7. Oil azi-ii,� - 0. 0 17 L- 14,o - -7-3 P7 rk h v :5. o 5' V-114, ". 613, 10 /0 10 '� y - ..,4 c_ 0. C_F•.0-.�.�t� y'�..0s�. !, ,� '-(1 a:_ti..G.Q-/tom__.... `7 Q (_.. _ 7 4-o-, 4 -,67 ut t s7o J n, 499 Y 476 0 457 436 415 f94 :Aa A 373 35 331 340 :E9 2t 747 226 y 205 724 -� 42 'a7 C 720 96 96 R 311 X t 70 800 0 L 700 d a 600 L m ' 500 I ' 400 a 300 U c 200 rn 0 100 0 25 U U 20 0 Fig. 23-3. Probability of cycle performance (Source: Traffic Engineering Handbook, /TE, 7965, Figure 17.9) Cycle capacity probability design curves 90% 916t 100 sec 70% 60% — 50% L—J—J I I 1 J_-L_J__I __I_j__j--1- L_A__L_1__-L-J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Ave. no of vehicles per cycle sec sec 355 10--k I -L ( 13 6( /d 0 /00 i ) 11", 1 - 16 --, JI 0 7- Jam_ 1,04 /, 0 -L AQ 7' - - - -74.9 -),74 375' '74-7 13 14 3 S 23 �, JOHN H. THETFORD S ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERS - SURVEYORS - APPRAISERS 7 LAGUE DRIVE POST OFFICE BOX 1082 MONTPELIER. VERMONT 054502 TELEPHONE (802) 223.8748 September 23, 1983 Ms. Katherine Powers District 4 Coordinator Agency of Environmental Conservation 111 West Street Essex Jct., VT 05451 Re: China Lite Restaurant S. Burlington, VT State Case # 4CO503-2 Dear Katherine: Enclosed are the updated site plans to include input from the Soil Conservation Service (James Goodall). He agrees that due to the slight slopes mulching is sufficient and that no netting would be required. Winter rye grass and 3 inches of hay mulch will be placed on all drainage swales. We have requested site and foundation approval from Ernest Christianson. Also, the storm - water discharge permit has been filed. I met with Wilson Wheatly, a traffic engineer for the Agency of Transportation, and he expressed no concern for traffic impact at this time. A letter to this effect is coming. Your attention to this matter is appreciated. JHT/kg c.c. Northern Design, Inc. SEP 2 7 19M AGFSTATE OF VERMONT >Q Oo DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION ] 33 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 �SPOR�P' September 22, 1983 Mr. John H. Thetford John H. Thetford & Associates, Inc. 7 Lague Drive P.O. Box 1082 Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Dear Mr. Thetford: On September 20, 1983, you met with me relative to construction of a 9,600 SF restaurant with associated parking and development of 1,600 linear feet of roadway (Corporate Way) -'and 500' of.:access.drive: in the Corporate Circle development, -application #4C0503-2, in South Burlington. You stated that the proposed roadway construction would access only onto Dorset Street and would not involve access onto Hinesburg Road, Vermont Route 116. Since the roadway will access onto a city street, the State has no jurisdiction relative to this proposed access onto Dorset Street. The applicant must therefore contact appropriate city officials concerning access onto their roadway system. If you need any further assistance, please contact me at 828-2391. Sincerely, J. E. R. Landry Project Planning Engineer By: Wilson K. Wheatley III Research and Economics Engineer SEP 2 7 1984 PUBLIC HFARING SOUTH BURLINGTON PLANNING ODWISSION The South Burlington Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the South Burlington City Hall, Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont on Tuesday, August 16 1983, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the following: 1) Revised final plat application by South Burlington Realty Corporation for one new commercial lot within the "Corporate Circle" planned commercial development. Property is bounded on the north, east, and south by other lands of the applicant and on the west by Senesac, GLR Associates, and Foley. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the South Burlington City Hall. Sidney B. Poger Chairman, South Burlington Planning Commission July 30, 1983 State of Vermont LAND USE PERMIT AMENDMENT CASE NO. 4CO503-4 APPLICANT Sheun Poon ADDRESS China Lite Vermont, Incorporated 5 Corporate Way South Burlington, Vermont 05401 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151 (Act 250) and Vermont State Environmental Protection Rules Chapter 3, Subdivisions Chapter 4, Public Buildings Chapter 9, Plumbing District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues a Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0503-4 pursuant to the authority vested in it in 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in Book 181, Pages 145-149 of the land records of the City of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to Sheun Poon, the "Permittee" as "grantee". This permit specifically incorporates Certificate of Compliance #4C0503-4 which approves the relocation of the bar within the existing lounge of the previously approved China Lite Restaurant with 320 patron seats located on Lot #1 of Corporate Way in South Burlington, Vermont. The Permittee, his assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to complete and maintain the project only as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of Land Use Permits #4C0503 through #4C0503-3 remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. 2. This permit hereby incorporates all of the conditions of the Certification of Compliance #4C0503-4 issued on May 19, 1986 by the Regional Engineer, Division of Protection, Agency of Environmental Conservation in compliance with the Vermont State Environmental Protection Rules. Conditions #1, #2 and #3 of said Certification are as follows: (1) The project must be completed as shown on the plans Bar Wait Layout, Bar Waste Riser Diagram and Water Riser Diagram prepared by Gary Pape, Master Plumber and which have been stamped APPROVED by the Division of Protection. Page 2 Land Use Permit Amendment #4C0503-4 No alteration of these plans shall be allowed except where written application has been made to the Agency of Environmental Conservation and approval obtained. (2) A copy of the approved plans and the Certificate of Compliance shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or Local personnel. (3) The Vermont Department of Health is to be contacted in regard to any regulations and/or licenses required by their department. 3. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may be grounds for permit revocation pursuant to 10 V.S.A., Section 6090 (b) . Dated at Esser, Junction, Vermont, this RSS/aml day of June, 1986. By Raymond S. Stewar Assista t District #4 Coordinator State of Vermont i CqPAipg g;=VSR?i9iiy AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 4C0503-4 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED APPLICANT China Lite Vermont, Inc. Environmental Protection Rules ADDRESS 5 Corporate Way Chapter 4 - Public Buildings So. Burlington, VT 05401 Chapter 9 - Plumbing This project consisting of relocating the bar within the existing lounge (seating capacity for the lounge and restaurant remains as previously approved) within the China Lite Restaurant located at 5 Corporate Way in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL (1) The project must be completed as shown on the plans Bar Wait Layout, Bar Waste Riser Diagram and Water Riser Diagram prepared by Gary Pape, Master Plumber and which have been stamped APPROVED by the Division of Protection. No alteration of these plans shall be allowed except where written application has been made to the Agency of Environmental Conservation and approval obtained. (2) A copy of the approved plans and the Certificate of Compliance shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or Local personnel. (3) The Vermont Department of Health is to be contacted in regard to any regulations and/or licenses required by their department. (They may be reached at 60 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont, or by phoning 802-863-7220.) PLUMBING (4) The Division of Protection is to be notified prior to the closing or covering of any waste plumbing so that we may inspect the workmanship. (5) The Master Plumber responsible for the interior plumbing shall provide the owner of the project a written certifica- tion stating that the work has been done in accordance with the approved plans and the Environmental Protection Rules, Effective September 10, 1982. (6) The applicant is reminded that all plumbing material and workmanship must meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 9, Plumbing; the National Plumbing Code; and the requirements of the Vermont Fire Prevention Section of the Department of Labor and Industry. (7) No alterations to the existing building which would change or affect the interior waste plumbing, water supply, or wastewater disposal shall be allowed without prior review and approval from the Agency of Environmental Conservation. Dated in the Village of Essex Junction, Vermont this 19th day of May, 1986. FOR THE DIVISION OF PROTECTION Ernest P. Christianson Regional Engineer cc: Donald Robisky Katherine Vose Dept. of Health Dept. of Labor and Industry City of So. Burlington Gary Pape State of Vermont �t1 .v1 STATE OF WERMONT q` AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE CASE NO. 4C0503-4 LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED APPLICANT China Lite Vermont, Inc. Environmental Protection Rules ADDRESS 5 Corporate Way Chapter 4 - Public Buildings So. Burlington, VT 05401 Chapter 9 - Plumbing This project consisting of relocating the bar within the existing lounge (seating capacity for the lounge and restaurant remains as previously approved) within the China Lite Restaurant located at 5 Corporate Way in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby approved under the requirements of the regulations named above, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL (1) The project must be completed as shown on the plans Bar Wait Layout, Bar Waste Riser Diagram and Water Riser Diagram prepared by Gary Pape, Master Plumber and which have been stamped APPROVED by the Division of Protection. No alteration of these plans shall be allowed except where written application has been made to the Agency of Environmental Conservation and approval obtained. (2) A copy of the approved plans and the Certificate of Compliance shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or Local personnel. (3) The Vermont Department of Health is to be contacted in regard to any regulations and/or licenses required by their department. (They may be reached at 60 Main Street, Burlington, Vermont, or by phoning 802-863-7220.) PLUMBING (4) The Division of Protection is to be notified prior to the closing or covering of any waste plumbing so that we may inspect the workmanship. (5) The Master Plumber responsible for the interior plumbing shall provide the owner of the project a written certifica- tion stating that the work has been done in accordance with the approved plans and the Environmental Protection Rules, Effective September 10, 1982. (6) The applicant is reminded that all plumbing material and workmanship must meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 9, Plumbing; the National Plumbing Code; and the requirements of the Vermont Fire Prevention Section of the Department of Labor and Industry. (7) No alterations to the existing building which would change or affect the interior waste plumbing, water supply, or wastewater disposal shall be allowed without prior review and approval from the Agency of Environmental Conservation. Dated in the Village of Essex Junction, Vermont this 19th day of May, 1986. FOR THE DIVISION OF PROTECTION Ernest P. Christianson Regional Engineer cc: Donald Robisky Katherine Vose Dept. of Health Dept. of Labor and Industry City of So. Burlington Gary Pane \w page June 28, 1983 A petition was then presented on behalf of the residents of the area. Mrs. Maher expressed concern that people did not understand the limits of the Commission's power. Mr. Lewin asked if there were rigid rules. Mr. Spitz explained that the Commission concerns itself with landscaping and screening, parking and traffic and that traffic is a very inexact science. Mr. Lewin suggested that the current traffic situation on Shelburne Road is a piece of evidence that could be used to modify the rules. Mr. Cannizzari said he was concerned with runoff being piped into the Imperial Drive storm sewer, since he already has problems in average rainfalls. Mr. Davis advised that they had initially anticipated swales in the parking lot which would direct water to Imperial Drive and Shelburne Rd; however, they are willing to pipe water underground. The question of construction and lighting was then raised. The applicant advised that the building would be clapboard with brick relief. Mr. Poger advised that lighting must be directed downward and away from residential areas. Mr. Lewin said it would seem that in light of the success of the factory outlet center, that would be the proper location for a business of this sort. Mr. Poger explained that the applicant has presented an acceptable use within zoning standards. The fact that this is an outlet store does not make it of the same size as others in the Shelburne Road Plaza. Mrs. Hurd asked whether the fire chief had seen the plan. Mr. Spitz said he does not review most site plans. Mr. Poger said he would like this plan reviewed. A resident of the area asked whether the applicant could be re- quired to maintain the road and put in a sidewalk. Mr. Spitz replied that the road was the concern of the City but that a sidewalk was being requested as a condition of approval. Mr. Poger then outlined considerations for the applicant to con- sider in preparing a revised site plan: one curb cut on Imperial Drive, elimination of the back row of parking spaces, di.-covery of ownership of the hedge, the question of a second ro%q of hedges for better screening, sidewalk on the north side of Imperial. Dr, storm drainage. vis Sketch plan application Sheun Poon nd South Burlington Realty orporation for a Chinese re in Corporate Circle The architect's representative expplained that the applicants own the China Light Restaurant in Lebanon, N.H., and have been working for a year to find a Burlington area site. The proposed building would be 10,000 sq. ft., seating 450 people, with a lounge. The site would be as close to 2 acres as possible. The page F; June 28, 1983 building will be of traditional design with an oriental motif. Mr. Spitz noted the unusual pie -shaped piece of property and advised they were a little over in coverage and that there might be a parking problem. Mr. Poger asked why allthe parking was in front. Mr. Poon said this was to keep the food smells from the road area. Mr. Mona said he wasn't too put out by the fan shape if the applicant can come in with the correct numbers. It was suggested that one way to solve the parking/coverage problem is to reduce the number of seats. Mr. Poger said it would be to the applicant's advantage to enlarge the lounge and have fewer parking spaces with more green space. Mr. Mona noted this building would be behind other businesses and would pioneer the way into Corporate Way. He asked whether they anticipated they would be able to draw customers. The applicant noted the success of the Windjammer which has no visibility from Williston Rd. Mr. Spitz then noted that Corporate Circle will have to be a co - applicant, and the attorney for the owner of the property advised they were involved in the planning. Mr. Spitz noted that the signalization with Dorset Street will have to be worked out and a sewage estimate will have to be sub- mitted. Mr. Poger noted the City Engineer's memo indicated that drainage swales will be at the western boundary and water will have to be piped. Mr. Spitz said more information is needed on this. Mr. Spitz explained that V.L. Properties new development on Dorset street has been approved. Five properties were taken and put together. Traffic studies were done, and contribution to Dorset Street upgrading was approved. One owner, however, had made an agreement that he would maintain ownership of his property. The owner, Mr. David Arnold, had his business moved to a lot approximately the size of the previous lot. The City Attorney was asked to review the situation, and his reply is contained in a letter of June 27, 1983 (attached). Mr. Arnold explained that he was not interested in a lease, and his original negotiations had been on an ownership basis. Mr. Lisman advised that they are not overly concerned with the language of the requirements and don't see a concern with the paragraph on p. 2 of Mr. Spokes' letter. They are not persuaded that relocation of Mr. Arnold's lot within the PCD requires action of the Zoning Board. He said they are prepared to go to Mr. Ward and convince him variances are not required. Mr. Spitz said he would like to have the legal language in place and requested a continuation until July 12. Mrs. Maher moved that the reque3t of V.L. Properties be contin- ued untii Juiv ._ . IY85. a om . at Uitv Hall. Mrs. Hurd p1s F f ACT 250 NOTICE AMENDMENT pppLICATION AND HEARING 10 VSA, §6083-6088 Amendment Application #4C0503-2 was filed by South Burlington Realty Corporation, 366 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05401 on August 31, 1983 for the subdivision of a two acre parcel and construction of a 9,600 square foot restaurant with associated parking for 131 vehicles; development of 1,600 linear feet of roadway and 500 feet of access drive. The project will be located on Corporate Way, a planned commercial development between Dorset Street and Hinesburg Road in South Burlington, Vermont. This project will be evaluated in accordance with the 10 environmental cri- teria of 10 VSA, §6086(a). Statutory parties to this application are the muni- cipality, the municipal planning commission, the Chittenden County Regional Plan- ning Commission, and affected State agencies. Adjoining property owners may participate to the extent the proposal will have a direct effect on their prop- erty under the 10 criteria. Other persons may participate at the discretion of the District Commission. If you wish to participate, please contact the Coord- inator for further information before the first hearing or date as specified below. A public hearing is scheduled for 10:00 A.M. on TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1983 at the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission office, 58 Pearl Street, Essex Junction, Vermont. BY .C,iZ� Michael Zahner, ng Distric �_Loordinator 111 West Street, Essex Junction, Vt. 05452 0 Date Received By Date Application Completed and Received By By CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEGJ 1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND PHONE NUMBER OF: (a) Owner of Record i," . ct2.ri , f, C� • (b) Applicant (c) Contact Person Conn Pelf./ 2) PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 3) PROPOSED USE (S) : ��t 4) SIZE OF PROJECT (i.e., # of units, floor area, etc.) / Tew�,u� �r 5) NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (full & part time) . S J 6) COST ESTIMATES: (a) Building41�,��L (b) Landscaping��,f���� (c) All Other Site Improvements (i.e., curb work) 44 7) ESTIMATED PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 8) ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (in & out) 9) PEAK HOUR (S) OF OPERATION 10) PEAK DAYS OF OPERATION CITY OF SOUM BURLI NGTON Subdivision Application - FINAL PLAT 1) Name of Applicant South Burl i nat 2) Name of Subdivision Co�'� �roo_�^,��j,rcl e 3) Indicate any changes to name, address, or phone number of owner of record, applicant, contact person, engineer, surveyor, attorney or plat designer since preliminary plat application: 4) Indicat_e any, changes to the subdivision, such as number of lots or units, property lines, applicant's legal interest in the property, or developmental timetable, since preliminary plat application: A new lot line within ^_ Corporate Circle 5) Submit four copies of a final set of plans consisting of a final plat plus engineering drawings and containing all information required under section 202.1 of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under section 2.04.1(a) for a major_ subdivision. 6) Submit two draft copies of all legal documents required under: section 202.1 (1.1) and (12) of the subdivision regulations for a minor subdivision and under. section 204.1(b) for a major .subdivision. _7_/_27/83 Gen Beaudoin, outh Burling on ea y Corporation (Signature) applicant or contact person Date RECEIVED to State of Vermont IA)A A. --------- o� MAR - ,� '•, F/+ Oo MANAGER'S OFF►Ce w r � LAND J PERMIT CITY So. BURLINGTON Amendment CASE No. 4C0503-2 (B) LAWS/REGULATIONS INVOLVED APPLICANT Sheun Poon ADDRESS d/b/a China Lite, Inc. 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151 c/o Northern Design (Act 250) and Vermont General Contractors State Environmental 138 Main Street Protection Rules; Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Chapter 4, Public Buildings, Chapter 9, Plumbing District Environmental Commission #4 hereby issues a Land Use Permit Amendment pursuant to the authority vested in it in 10 V.S.A., Chapter 151. This permit amendment applies to the lands identified in Book 181, Pages 145-149 of the land records of the City of South Burlington, Vermont, as the subject of a deed to Sheun Poon, the "permittee" as "grantee". This permit specifically authorizes the permittee to revise and complete the interior plumbing and ventilation plans for the China Lite Restaurant with 320 patron seats located on Lot #1 of Corporate Circle off Corporate Way in the City of South Burlington, Vermont. The permittee, his assigns and successors in interest, are obligated by this permit to complete and maintain the project only as approved by the District Commission in accordance with the conditions of Land Use Permit #4C0503-2 except as amended as follows: 1. This permit hereby incorporates all of the conditions of the Certification of Compliance #4C0503-2(B) issued on March 17, 1984 by the District Administrator, Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Agency of Environmental Conservation in compliance with Environmental Protection Rules; Chapter 4, Public Buildings, Chapter 9, Plumbing. Conditions #1-10 of said Certification are as follows: 1. The project must be completed as shown on the plans Drawing Number P-1 dated December 10, 1983, revised December 23, 1983, December 27, 1983, January 10, 1984 and February 16, 1984 and on P-2 dated December 10, 1983, revised December 23, 1983, December 27, 1983, January 10, 1984, January 18, 1984 and February 16, 1984 prepared by John H. Thetford, P.E. and which have been certified by the Division of Protection. No changes shall he made to the approved plans without prior written approval from the Agency of Environmental Conservation. 4C0503-2 (11) Land Use Permit Amendment Page 2 2. A copy of the approved plans and the Land Use Permit shall remain on the project during all phases of construction and, upon request, shall be made available for inspection by State or local personnel. 3. The applicant is reminded that all plumbing material and workmanship, must meet the standards of the Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 9, Plumbing; the National Plumbing Code; and the requirements of the Vermont Fire Prevention Section of the Department of Labor and Industry. 4. Upon completion of the rough -in for the waste plumbing, and prior to said plumbing being covered or closed -in, the Agency of Environmental Conservation is to be contacted so that we may have an opportunity to inspect the workmanship. 5. Fixture K-41 with disposal shall be piped directly to the waste system with proper trap and vent. 6. The two inch employees water closet vent shall be taken off from the vertical closet drop at not less than a forty-five degree angle to vertical. 7. The Hobart C-44 diswasher shall be approved by the Department of Health. 8. The three inch waste line serving the prewash sink, dishwasher and disposal shall be carried full size up to a point above where the two inch disposal or grease trap waste lines enter the vertical waste line. 9. With the issuance of this Certification of Compliance, Condition #3 of Certification of Compliance has been satisfied and construction of the building may proceed. 10. This Certification of Compliance shall null and void Certification of Compliance 4C0503-2(A) dated January 18, 1984. Dated at Essex Junction, Vermont, this 29th day of March, 1984. BY* Katherine M. Vos Environmental---J�oard Coordinator for the District Commission #4 bk STATE OF VERMONT AGENCY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE Re: 4C0503-2 (B) Sheun Poon d/b/a China Lite, Inc. c/o Northern Design General Contractors 138 Main Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Certified to comply with Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 4 - Public Buildings and Chapter 9 - Plumbing This project, consisting of revising the interior plumbing and ventilation plans for the China Lite Restuarant (previously approved in Certification of Compliance 4C0503-2(A)) with 320 patron seats located on lot #1 of Corporate Circle off Corporate Way in the City of South Burlington, Vermont is hereby certified to satisfy the requirements of the rules named above if the following conditions are met: (1) The project must me completed as shown on the plans Drawing Number P-1 dated December 10, 1983, revised December 23, 1983, December 27, 1983, January 10, 1984 and February 16, 1984 and on P-2 dated December 10, 1983, revised December 23, 1983, December 27, 1983, January 10, 1983, January 18, 1984 and February 16, 1984 prepared by John H. Thetford, P.E. and which have been certified by the Division of Protection. No changes shall be made to the approved plans without prior written approval from the Agency of Environmental Conservation. (2) A copy of the approved plans remain on the project during all request, shall be made available personnel. and the Land Use Permit shall phases of construction and, upon for inspection by State or local (3) The applicant is reminded that all plumbing material and workmanship, must meet the standards of the. Environmental Protection Rules, Chapter 9, Plumbing; the National Plumbing Code; and the requirements of the Vermont Fire Prevention Section of the Department of Labor and Industry. 1 MAR 2 7 1984 4C0503-2(B) China Lite, Inc. (4) Upon completion of the rough -in for the waste plumbing, and prior to said plumbing being covered or closed -in, the Agency of Environmental Conservation is to be contacted so that we may have an opportunity to inspect the workmanship. (5) Fixture K-41 with disposal shall be piped directly to the waste system with proper trap and vent. (6) The two inch employees water closet vent shall be taken off from the vertical closet drop at not less than a forty-five degree angle to vertical. (7) The Hobart C-44 dishwasher shall be approved by the Department of Health. (8) The three inch waste line serving the prewash sink, dishwasher and disposal shall be carried full size up to a point above where the two inch disposal or grease trap waste lines enter the vertical waste line. (9) With the issuance of this Certification of Compliance, Condition #3 of Certification of Compliance has been satisfied and construction of the building may proceed. (10) This Certification of Compliance shall null and void Certification of Compliance 4C0503-2(A) dated January 18, 1984. Dated this seventeenth day of March 1984 in the Village of Essex Junction, Vermont. EPC/pl cc: Donald Robisky Katherine Vose John McPherson Bernie Young John H. Thetford Department of Health Fire Prevention Section City of South Burlington FOR THE DIVISION OF PROTECTION Ernest P. Christianson District Administrator t, LID l 1 � � �,�SaV No Text MEMORANDUM To: South Burlington City Council From: David H. Spitz, City Planner Re: Corporate Circle Contribution to Dorset Street Date: 8/19/83 Based on the Dorset Street policy adopted earlier this year, Corporate Circle's share of Dorset Street improvements is $34,400. At Corporate Circle's recent approval for their first subdivided lot, the Planning Commission stipulated that the $34,400 be paid according to a payment schedule to be approved by the City Council. It would be unreasonable to expect all payment up -front, but a signed, guaranteed payment agreement should be executed now. Contact the City Attorney for details. I recommend that the fee be paid on a per acre basis. A reasonable fee would be $3000 per acre, i.e. $6000 for this 2 acre lot. cc: Gene Beaudoin Attorney Richard Spokes L �---� ��--�-e- - � �� ��� �Oa,no.c9 �_�I�QQ�d ---- — °�f?Pr� �r�s9------ -------- %loo, pA a-ICoCCL�b-s 9t b 0 0 (S-Wt--Q- 2� � 15 9cs 5eai ln y � S�-Ci. 1'10 01060 /ajo0o i 3 �e CvU �aS uso-rc, I G.`�77.-L.._y.....' " f 4;A, MZIAA-� `A JJ r ` foe E P Sly 3 .30 1 j` a`L1 •._�—. s�=+ - d is t I OF 1� 3 q� DOD cp ._�__��a-a 33 -S__ 1 - Gofi c,�, �A�t"�-� � o�D©� C � �7,� � 3 ►s,.��_ .`��.__:"__� "'�:�_"_�_�'i_":._ �__. � �� Ste_ 4. f r wlef,_ _ idbc cf x -7.s - ►yi,000'go = 1sLO4. o2Qt7_c �.5 �,So��go_ = �35a rK `1 I�IC4 7. S �aa�o) _ �} l X?.� r _..._ . 1 SUMMARY OF ACTUAL DAILY WATER USAGE FOR SOUTH BURLINGTON RESTAURANTS September 7, 1984 Benes Inn 210 seats Yearly quarterly average 25,400 c.f. x 7.5=190,500/90=2117/210=10g/d/seat Last quarter 24,900 c.f. x 7.5=186,750/90=2075/210=10/g/d/seat Kohala Mauna 135 seats Yearly Monthly Average 10,200 c.f. x 7.5=76500/30=2550/135=18 g/d/seat Month 11,900 c.f. x 7.5=89250/30=2975/135=22 g/d/seat Kinfolks 120 seats Yearly monthly average 8200 c.f. x 7.5 = 61,500/30 = 2050/120 = 17 g/d/seat Monthly 6200 c.f. x 7.5 = 46,500/30 = 1550/120 = 13 g/d/seat Paulines 225 seats Yearly quarterly 34,000 c.f. x 7.5 = 255,000/90 = 2833/225 = 13 g/d/seat Last quarter 42,000 c.f. x 7.5 = 315,000/90 = 3500/225 = 15 g/d/seat Brick Oven 35 lounge/107 seats Year Quarterly aver. 18,800 c.f. x 7.5 = 141,000/90 = 1566.7/142 = 11 g/d/seat Last Quarter 16,200 c.f. x 7.5 = 121,500/90 = 1350/142 = 9.5 g/d/seat Rotisserie Pub 95 seats Year Month Aver. 22,700 c.f. x 7.5 = 170,250/30 = 5675/95 = 59.7 g/d/seat Last month 22,400 c.f. x 7.5 = 168,000/30 = 5600/95 = 58.9 g/d/seat Ground Round 260 seat Year monthly aver. 12,300 c.f. x 7.5 = 92,250/30 = 3075/260 = 11.8 g/d/seat Last month 14,000 c.f. x 7.5 = 105,000/30 = 3500/260 = 13.5 g/d/seat Lums Pre -Fire 110 seat Aver yearly 8,600 c.f. x 7.5 = 64,500/30 = 2150/110 = 19.5 g/d/seat C O N S U L T I N G E N C I M E E R S �p WEBSTEFt - MAFRTI N I N C 0 R P O R A T E D 1025 AIRPORT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 2246 • SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 • AREA CODE 802-864.0223 October 15, 1984 Mr. William Bohlen South Burlington Realty, Inc. 366 Dorset Street, P.O. Box 2267 South Burlington, VT 05401 Corporate Circle - Waterline Testing WM No. 06-3B16 Dear Mr. Bohlen: For the record, all pressure and leakage tests shown in the enclosed table of res;Lts were performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Disinfection was performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifica- tions. The waterline was originally chlorinated in July of 1984. Portions of the line which were subsequently disturbed by pipeline repair crews were rechlorinated during the first week in October. In all cases, 24 hr. residual chlorine levels were greater than 50 mg/l. Enclosed for the record are copies of the results of Bacteriological analyses performed by the Vermont Department of Health. Three samples were analyzed for coliform bacteria, all results were negative. Repair work continues on the final section of line from Station 23+50 to the Dorset Street connection. If you require any additional information, please call me. Very truly yours, Michael J. Tuttle, P.E. Project Engineer Enclosures cc: Robert Gardner - So. Burlington Water Dept. Al Burns - VT Dept. of Health Harold Sargent - VT Dept. of Health 285/0945 /1ti CF Vtk,sU' MICHAELi4� J. TUTTLE NO.4305 4 Mr. William Bohlen -2- October 15, 1984 Date Test Section 9/26/84 Sta 0+00 (Hinesburg Rd) - Sta 19+50± 1950' - 8" DI 10/2/84 Sta 19+50± - China Lite Service 150' - 6" DI 10/3/84 Sta 19+50± - 23+S0± 400' - 8" DI Allowable* Actual Leakage Leakage Gal/Hr Gal/Hr 1.65 0.9 0.26 0.20 0.56 0.33 * Allowable leakage is based on actual test pressure of 150± psi, and include all closed gate valves in the test section. 285/0945 VERMONT STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY S° /7�rcG I war sr I.T r, ' Cr+TD 3SE OF SAMPLE NAME O SAa1PlERq'�� ❑ R-,—, f ,❑�Follo- ��Gf/ "/'7/ TITLE OF SAMPLER ° •nj MwTdi OFRq» )oF�Odw L4 I P•�hl 4 ❑ O,"' }ram OF SAMPLE So.m A❑ Ry Dwrib.rion CURRENT QUORW&,RESID AL ❑ OtMr Cl Not Nor Appkco (•F-dhl r. ❑ Tool OF IN TIME �O�F,(��tPIING o'` ock _ .m./I RATORY PORT S.ordwd Plot. C— ml .m Bo ct Fo.M .�/l00 ml F.cd Cow— /I DO w -� NroOM .30 w ❑ &ok— .. T—i. ❑ Oh. (.P• ,fy) YST: /. NAME AND ADDRESS H.ollh OHiF VERMONT STATE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY VERMONTSTATE PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY /�'L BACTERIOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY G�ISlNome. APy« %ni1Qi)ilAf�/�1lfi / t C-/ R—fi- dJ fa--.p VTLE Of SAMPLFr, 4--l* OLRc.. ❑ AMPLE II —❑ Op.roto.l �.�� ❑ So..c. �Di.r.ib.fiw. RENT CHlO$�.E REDUAI Not App4066 O o.h. ... T iotol ;,,�,nl T g TIME OF.zAMP�NG �� k nm./1 DRY REPORT Stonda.�at. Co..f '"I w M.io Fowl /100 mt F.cd cowor.. /100 m7 Ofhr of Ae*..d ❑ > 30 It.— u+ Tron.R ❑ B.ck- k. T—f ❑ ah.. NAME AND ADDRESS FNofth OR RPOSE OF SAMPLE NAME Of SAMPLER ❑ R-'u. /— ❑ FoMo j� TITLE OF SAMPLER 7 N.ow O�« :O Sueenon`! I•wahl OF SAMPLE Op.roro. ❑ S.wc. r Dun-h- CURRENT-_HLOW RESIDUAL ❑ No. Apph-bl. ❑ O.Mr - ggn F... �i. 1•PKrh) f.. L-I Tolul TE Of SAMPL G TIME F MPLING P o'd«k TOO RE T SrondordFMor. Q.Flr _/1 ml Bocf..io Fowl /1 CD ml f.cal Cow t.Ta /100 ml CMh.. Not A—If.a ❑ > 30 horn i. T.o.oi. ❑ Brok- M Tro..ir ❑ oh. _ (.P-. rsr: NAME AND ADDRESS K—ilk ORK.i. t• v I - y'.r"d: R.po,r.d] TNr., R.p«r.d. 9 R«.i..d:18 >;R.pon.d: _b9 _ ubw: Jia Ldw. 1, Di « Qh .o f3'2oboDi.. •� w. , NMwnb.r. `" + Lob--y Dif« 30 = lCjO 'PC Gov 9o— lV C co nief-i 406" n � z -4h, -5kor«T Wu -at- (1,TtD\�� C4 r\ - CC�cA La.ti�, `hotwL 3 rl l �;L� 0114 - J11 -�," < -60q&- ll,�30yk Gre�nino.,.�L pox is �veuww� � l.owntt. �4-�a�-focsbrac� 400- `� Q 10 tam# �O�) Lao -t '�. Ll c; I ,?y N�i I gr'� �."<!I I b �, ` i j - y, ���, �` t, ,L� (' � I � i ',� i �� , I /±�1 Z ,� \� �Cr� � 1 OV 4 ------------- 17N/� _-____ _ -- `_____..._. � _ mow_ .� Ah. INS A 12 C;06; Psi'' % 7r7FA,L C,!.-5;kv of 70 S E-= A7 I tiJ NO 9CIA � 1 jl=�' 401*0- i 60. 0 3 .