HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09_SP-19-39_793 907 Shelburne Rd_R L Vallee
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
TO: South Burlington Development Review Board
FROM: Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
SUBJECT: SD‐19‐39 793 & 907 Shelburne Road – Site Plan Application
DATE: April 21, 2020 Development Review Board meeting
R. L. Vallee, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the applicant, is seeking site plan approval to demolish the existing
structures at 907 Shelburne Road and a portion of an existing service station at 793 Shelburne Road and
construct an expanded service station with two additional fueling positions for a total of ten and an associated
4,265 square foot retail sales and restaurant building, 793 and 907 Shelburne Road.
CONTEXT
The Board held its initial site plan hearing on February 4, 2020, continued on March 4, 2020 and now to April
21, 2020. The applicant submitted a set of revised materials on April 8, 2020. Staff therefore recommends the
Board take testimony on the below topics, and any other topics the Board wishes to discuss, and determine
whether the applicant intends to close the hearing.
Staff refers the Board to the packets from February 4 and March 4, 2020 for a full review of all applicable
criterion. Staff has excluded from this memo criterion for which in their opinion the Board has concluded their
discussion.
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
This complete application was submitted on October 25, 2019. The applicant requested the Board consider the
project under the LDRs effective October 28, 2019 based on the fact that the City Council published a warning
on the proposed amendments on August 29, 2019. The Board determined in deliberative session to accept the
applicant’s request therefore these notes have been updated to reflect the applicable criteria under the
October 7, 2019 LDR.
COMMENTS
Planning Director Paul Conner and Development Review Planner Marla Keene (“Staff”) have reviewed the
revised materials submitted on 4/8/2020 and offer the following comments. Comments for the Board’s
attention are indicated in red.
ZONING DISTRICT & DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS
1. The sketch plan application to consolidate the two lots into a single lot of 0.95 acres was heard on March 4,
#SP‐19‐39
2
2019, and the related final plat application will be heard concurrently with this application on April 21,
2020. Staff continues to recommend the Board review this application but not close the hearing until the
final plat hearing on the proposed subdivision is closed. The decision on the subdivision will inform whether
this project meets certain standards, including dimensional standards.
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
C. Parking, Access and Internal Circulation
(3) Access improvements and curb cut consolidation may be required.
The applicant is proposing to modify the three (3) existing site driveways so that there is one two‐
way curb cut to the north and one two‐way curb cut to the south. They are also proposing a
connection to the shopping center to the west, and a connection to the south.
The Director of Public Works expressed significant concerns about the safety of the proposed
driveways in his comments of November 22, 2019.
In reviewing the traffic memo prepared by RSG I could not find any information (other than a
brief mention on the bottom of page 5) on the project’s overall impact on safety to the public
relative to Route 7 and turning movements in and out of the proposed site. The proposed plan
appears to allow for full movements at each driveway. It’s worth noting that by the north
driveway Route 7 has a cross‐hatched median which would not allow left turns into or out of the
proposed site. This section of Route 7 is generally at or above it’s vehicle to capacity ratio,
meaning there is no room or safe manner for cars to leave the proposed site and head north;
given that those movements should not be allowed.
Similar properties along Route 7 (and over on Route 2 west of the Exit 14 interchange) have
successfully implemented proper access management by having right only ins and outs. The
traffic memo should be updated with a full safety review of the proposed movements in relation
to the adjacent roadway’s volumes and capacity and provide an opinion on what turns should
be allowed from a safety standpoint.
Thank you,
Justin
The applicant has provided a memorandum dated February 18, 2020 prepared by Corey Mack of RSG
attempting to address these comments. The points made in that memo are that the project removes
one of three driveways, the driveways are separated by a greater distance, driveway widths are
reduced, connections are provided to adjacent properties, the applicant is proposing pedestrian
crossing improvements, gas pumps will be removed on the opposite side of Rte 7, and the driveway
width for the gas station on the opposite side of Rte 7 is being reduced.
Staff notes the applicant has repeatedly indicated the receipt of a VTrans Letter of Intent (LOI)
constitutes approval, or intent to approve the project as designed. Staff repeats the following
statement from James Clancy of VTrans on 2/18/2020 regarding the LOI:
Only a Letter of Intent was issued, and we are waiting on local approval. I don’t believe ACT250
is required with this. Plus, I am waiting on a Traffic Control Plan, Landscaping Plan, and
importantly, and Inspection Agreement. They are not ready to proceed yet without a permit.
#SP‐19‐39
3
2. The applicant’s statement that VTrans has approved the project is incorrect. Staff recommends
the Board not allow their evaluation of the proposed driveway configuration to be influenced by
the issuance of a LOI.
Staff solicited additional feedback on safety from James Clancy of the Agency of Transportation and
received the following additional statement on safety.
Hello Marla,
I consulted with our Traffic Engineer and I offer the following regarding the southern
access. Given that only the Letter of Intent was issued I want to say that the DRB has the
authority to address safety concerns and can make their own requirements regarding
safety. RSG did do a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) with only one left turning accident within a five
year span at this location and VTrans does not feel there is a left turning safety issue. The TIS
did not show a crash history here and since the northern access is restricted to a right‐in/right‐
out only and we feel that since the distance from Queen City Parkway to the second access is
reasonable we have no concern here.
A few additional comments I have are… there are numerous examples of left turns all along US7
and given that we have restricted the northern access feel this is in keeping with the pattern
along US7; and additionally, the left egress on the southern access is reasonable because it
gives that land use traffic an easy means of going northbound on off‐peak times as opposed to
“jug handling” around to the traffic signal to the south.
Again, VTrans will not issue the permit until the City has given their approval.
Thank you for the e‐mail and please contact me with any questions or concerns. I hope this has
been helpful.
Sincerely,
Jim
James Clancy, Permitting Services
Vermont Agency of Transportation
On February 4, the applicant testified that the southern curb cut is sized to accommodate fire trucks.
The Fire Chief’s comments of February 26, 2020 indicate a left turn in/out is unnecessary for the south
driveway, as a truck responding from the north will either pull into the site or set up in Shelburne Road,
and a truck responding from the south will be able to enter the site using a driveway only supporting
right hand turns.
3. While the northern curb cut is proposed to be a right‐in and right‐out only, Staff considers the only
impediment to left turns into the site from Rte 7 is the striped median and recommends the Board ask
the applicant to describe additional measures which can be added to provide additional visual and
physical impediments to left turns into the site.
4. While Staff concurs that elements of the project do represent safety improvements, Staff considers the
presence of a left turn driveway may be unnecessary where there is the opportunity to direct
northbound traffic out to a signalized intersection by exiting the rear of the site. Staff recommends the
#SP‐19‐39
4
Board explicitly consider the safety issues raised herein and consider whether to require the applicant to
modify the southern driveway to become a right in right out only, in order to support reduced
pedestrian crossing width, limit vehicle movements opposing the flow of traffic on this busy state
highway, reduce front setback coverage and enhance the appearance of this important gateway.
10.02 TRAFFIC OVERLAY DISTRICT
The project is located in the traffic overlay district. The property has a traffic generation budget of 15.56 vehicle
trip ends per PM peak hour. The applicant’s traffic memo concludes that the proposed project will generate 242
trips. As discussed at previous hearings, the applicant must make physical improvements to offset the trips beyond
the budget. The applicant is proposing to use a combination of trip credits, which are quantified in the LDR, and
a mitigation project to increase their traffic budget to meet the projected project generation.
At the March 4, 2020 hearing, the Board authorized a technical review of the applicant’s proposed traffic study,
proposed trip generation credits, and traffic mitigation. Staff has included that technical review in the packet for
the Board. A summary of trip credits requested by the applicant and supported in the conclusions of the traffic
technical review follows.
Connection to the parcel to the west – the applicant concludes the internal capture associated with the
adjacent shopping center land use is 66 trips. Based on the LDR guidelines for uses on separate parcels, that
would be a 33 trip credit, which the technical review recommends using assuming a complete integration
into the adjacent shopping center.
Eliminating one existing curb cut – the LDR allows a 20 trip credit for removing the driveway.
Reducing the width of the gas station curb cut and moving it south. – City Staff recommend a credit of 20
trips for this improvement.
Connect to the parcel to the south. The minimum credit for connection to an adjacent parcel is 15 trips,
which is what is proposed by the applicant and supported by the traffic technical review. The LDR states
that the connection must also include a pedestrian path between the buildings on both parcels. The
pedestrian path can be a separate path or a striped walkway along the traffic lanes. The LDR also states that
these connections must be practicable all year long. The applicant has proposed a 20‐foot wide driveway to
the adjacent parcel but has not included a sidewalk.
5. Staff considers the Board should require a sidewalk along this connection, and require that site plan approval
for completion of the connection on the southern site must be obtained prior to zoning permit approval for
this project.
These four improvements taken together result in a trip credit of 88 trips, leaving a deficit of 139 trips that the
applicant must mitigate1. As previously discussed, the applicant is proposing to construct a bicycle and pedestrian
project previously scoped by the City as mitigation for the remaining trips. Section 10.2H allows the DRB to allow
adjustments other than those specified in Appendix B.
(1) The Development Review Board or, within the Form Based Code District the Administrative Officer, may
allow adjustments to the project’s traffic generation or may approve peak hour traffic volumes above the
standards set forth in Section 10.02(F) above for a lot in a traffic overlay zone if the Development Review
Board, or within the Form Based Code District the Administrative Officer, determines that other site
improvements with respect to improved access management, internal circulation, connections between
1 If the Board requires the southern driveway to be modified to be right in right out, the applicant would be eligible
for trip credits for that reduction as well.
#SP‐19‐39
5
adjacent properties, and improved pedestrian and/or transit access, will produce a net benefit for traffic
flow in the immediate vicinity of the project. See Appendix B for guidance on adjustments.
Staff notes the applicant has identified five reasons they believe the proposed bicycle and pedestrian project will
result in net improvements to the intersection. They have not attempted to quantify the credits for each of the
elements. Staff supports this approach and recommends the Board consider the mitigation project as a whole
rather than as individual elements.
Staff continues to recommend the Board take into consideration the number of trips credits for each other type
of improvement provided when evaluating the bicycle and pedestrian project, to provide a sense of scale based
on guidance provided in the LDR.
6. On February 4, the Board indicated they generally felt that the proposed off‐site mitigation could provide credit
for the trips not otherwise credited by on‐site improvements. Staff recommends the Board revisit the number of
trips requested now that the independent technical review is complete (139 trips).
The Board asked the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee to take a look at the proposed off‐site mitigation project.
This was done at their February 12, 2020 meeting. Staff has included the Bike & Pedestrian Committee
recommendations memo below.
After discussion, the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee approved the redesign of the bike‐pedestrian
crossing at Shelburne Road and Queen City Parkway worked out by the applicant and VTrans. This
includes moving the bike‐pedestrian crossing to the south end of the intersection, and widening bike‐
pedestrian sidewalk/path on the east side of the road. If possible, the Committee would prefer the
crossing and the path on the west side of the road be in alignment but understands that may not be
physically possible due to immovable objects or intersection stopping lines.
7. Staff has reviewed the proposed configuration and recommends the Board require the applicant to
reconfigure the proposed sidewalk at the west end of the crosswalk by replacing and expanding the final
section of pavement to reduce the angle required of bicycles using the crossing, shown in orange in the below
screen shot.
7. if the Board accepts the applicant’s proposed off‐site mitigation, Staff recommends the Board require the
applicant to amend the site plan for the
10.06 URBAN DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT (UDO)
The project is located within the urban design overlay district. Only new buildings are subject to compliance with
these standards. Portions of an existing building not being modified may remain as is, provided alterations do
not increase the degree of nonconformity.
(1) Entries. Buildings on subject properties must have at least one entry facing the primary road in the
corridor. Any such entry shall:
(a) Be an operable entrance, as defined in these Regulations.
#SP‐19‐39
6
(b) Serve, architecturally, as a principal entry. Front entries shall be a focal point of the front façade
and shall be an easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include accenting front
entries with features such as awnings, porticos, overhangs, recesses/projections, decorative
front doors and side lights, or emphasis through varied color or special materials. This
requirement does not preclude additional principal entry doors.
(c) Shall have a direct, separate walkway to the primary road. This walkway shall be at least eight
(8) feet in width and may meander for design purposes, but must serve as a pedestrian‐oriented
access.
The applicant has proposed the entrance nearest Shelburne Road to be operable and has provided
a walkway. However the portion of the building containing the entry nearest Shelburne Road has
no articulation or architectural emphasis, either along the roofline or the façade. Staff recommends
the Board require the entrance to be operated in a manner which meets the definition of operable
entrance.
8. As it pertains to the entrance being principal and a focal point, Staff notes the entrance features none
of the elements described in the related criterion. Staff recommends the Board require the applicant
to improve this entrance to better meet criterion (b).
SITE PLAN REVIEW STANDARDS
14.06 General Review Standards
B. Relationship of Proposed Structures to the Site.
(2) Parking:
Parking location is a complex issue on this property because it both has multiple fronts and multiple
structures. Staff has again provided all the relevant criteria, and then consolidated the discussion
because the criteria are interrelated.
(a) Parking shall be located to the rear or sides of buildings. Any side of a building facing a public
street shall be considered a front side of a building for the purposes of this subsection.
(b) The Development Review Board may approve parking between a public street and one or more
buildings if the Board finds that one or more of the following criteria are met. The Board shall approve
only the minimum necessary to overcome the conditions below.
(i) The parking area is necessary to meet minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act;
(ii) N/A;
(iii) The lot has unique site conditions, such as a utility easement or unstable soils, that allow for
parking, but not a building, to be located adjacent to the public street;
(iv) The lot contains one or more existing buildings that are to be re‐used and parking needs
cannot be accommodated to the rear and sides of the existing building(s);
(c) Where more than one building exists or is proposed on a lot, the total width of all parking areas
located to the side of building(s) at the building line shall not exceed one half of the width of all
building(s) located at the building line. Parking approved pursuant to 14.06(B)(2)(b) shall be exempt
from this subsection.
#SP‐19‐39
7
The property has two fronts – that which faces VT Rte 7 and that which faces Queen City Park Road.
The applicant has requested the Development Review Board consider the fueling canopy a building
for the purposes of this standard. A building is defined, in part, as a structure having a roof
supported by columns or walls, and used or intended for the shelter or enclosure of persons,
animals, or equipment, goods, or materials of any kind. Considering the fueling canopy as a building
for the purposes of this standard only, the applicant is proposing five (5) parking spaces to the front
on the Queen City Park Road frontage.
Staff considers that the fueling canopy may be a building by the definition, but it does not appear to
meet the intention of these standards of providing screening of parking from the street. If the Board
does not consider the fueling canopy a building for the purpose of these standards, there are nine
(9) parking spaces to the front on the Queen City Park Road frontage.
Two of the proposed front parking spaces are located on the existing underground storage tank area.
On February 4, the Board was amenable to considering these spaces allowed under (b)(iii) above if
the applicant provided additional screening of the spaces from Queen City Park Road.
13.01C(5): All parking areas adjacent to a public street shall be screened from the street by fencing,
walls, or vegetation measuring at least three (3) feet in height.
The applicant has proposed to screen these spaces with arborvitae installed at 5‐ft height. Staff
considers the screening met for these two spaces.
The remaining three front parking spaces are located in an existing vegetated area. The applicant
requested on March 4 that the Board find these parking spaces also exempt under (b)(iv) above.
Staff considers 14.06B(2)(b)(iv) does not require the Board to allow parking to the front; rather it
allows the Board to consider the location of the parking and the building relative to one another, and
if necessary parking cannot be accommodated to the side or rear due to site conditions, allows
parking to be located to the front.
9. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider the three (or seven, if the canopy is not a
building) front parking spaces not on the existing underground storage tank and in an existing
vegetated area to be necessary and not possible to accommodate to the rear and sides of existing
buildings. Staff notes, as discussed above, the Board determined they would review the project under
the Land Development Regulations adopted on October 7, 2019, and therefore there are no required
parking minimums for this use.
14.06B(2)(c) above limits the width of parking areas to the sides of buildings when there is more than
one building on a lot to no more than 50% of the width of the building. Along the Queen City Park
Road façade, the portion of the fueling canopy on the property is 75 ft long, therefore the parking
area may be no wider than 37.5 feet. The applicant is proposing 40‐feet of parking area width,
consisting of 18‐feet of parking stall and 22‐feet of drive aisle, along Queen City Park Road. 3‐feet of
this parking area is under the fueling canopy.
10. The applicant has requested the Board find 14.06B(2)(c) not applicable to parking which is on the
Queen City Park Road side of the building and instead find it exempt under 14.06B(2)(b)(iv). Staff
recommends the Board discuss whether to accept the applicant’s request.
Along Shelburne Road, the total width of the retail and restaurant building and the fuel canopy at
the building line is 79‐feet. Therefore the total width of parking spaces at the side of buildings along
Shelburne Road is limited to 50% of 79‐feet, or 39.5 feet. The applicant is proposing 40‐feet of
parking area width, excluding the ADA space.
#SP‐19‐39
8
11. The applicant could address this problem on the Shelburne Road side by increasing the width of the
building, or several other solutions. Staff considers the parking along the Shelburne Road is not
exempt under 14.06B(2)(b)(iv) as it is in an area of the site which is proposed to be completely
reconstructed, and recommends the Board discuss.
C. Relationship of Structures and Site to Adjoining Area.
(2) Proposed structures shall be related harmoniously to themselves, the terrain and to existing
buildings and roads in the vicinity that have a visual relationship to the proposed structures.
In addition to the proposed building, other proposed structures on the site include several retaining
walls. The retaining wall on the west of the site are proposed to be approximately 8 feet at their
highest points. The retaining wall south of parking is a maximum of approximately 4 feet tall. The rear
of the building is proposed to act as a retaining wall as well, with the ground being approximately 9 feet
lower than the finished floor elevation to the west side.
12. As requested, the applicant has provided a rendering showing how the retaining walls will look from the
adjacent properties. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they consider this criterion met.
14.07 Specific Review Standards
In all Zoning Districts and the City Center Form Based Codes District, the following standards shall apply:
D. Landscaping and Screening Requirements. See Article 13, Section 13.06 Landscaping, Screening, and
Street Trees.
The applicant submitted a revised planting plan on 4/8/2020. The revisions include replacement of proposed
shrubs between the site and Queen City Park Road with arborvitae (a minimum 3‐ft screening height is
required), and addition of two maples between the site and the residential property to the west, and enlarging
the size of the proposed maples from 2‐in to 2.5‐in (2.5‐in minimum size at planting is required). The minimum
required landscape value for the Project, based on an estimated building construction cost of $2,500,000 is
$32,500. The applicant is now proposing $36,045 worth of landscaping on site in the form of trees and shrubs.
The City Arborist reviewed the originally submitted landscaping plan on November 7, 2019 and indicated there
were no issues. The City Arborist has not reviewed the revised landscaping plan. Staff does not consider these
changes warrant a second review.
Additional outstanding landscaping standards applicable to this property follow.
13.06B Landscaping of Parking Areas
(6) Snow storage areas must be specified and located in an area that minimizes the potential for
erosion and contaminated runoff into any adjacent or nearby surface waters.
Proposed snow storage areas have been relocated so as to not conflict with proposed landscaping. The
applicant has further indicated their intent to remove snow from the site if necessary. Staff considers this
criterion now met.
13.06C Screening or Buffering
(1) All off‐street parking areas, off‐street loading areas, outdoor storage areas, refuse, recycling, and
compost collection (excluding on‐site composting) areas, and utility improvements such as transformer(s),
external heating and cooling equipment shall be effectively screened.
#SP‐19‐39
9
a. Such screening shall be a permanently maintained landscape of evergreen or a mix of
evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs, and/or a solid fence.
b. The landscaping shall be designed to minimize erosion and stormwater runoff, and to protect
neighboring residential properties from the view of uses and parking areas on the site. The
landscaping shall be of such type, height, and spacing, as in the judgment of the Development
Review Board, will effectively screen the activities on the lot from the view of persons standing
on adjoining properties. The plan and specifications for such planting shall be filed with the
approved plan for the use of the lot.
(4) A solid wall or fence, of location, height, and design approved by the Development Review Board,
may be substituted for the required planting.
(5) Modifications. Where the existing topography and/or landscaping provides adequate screening or
would render the normally required screening inadequate, the Development Review Board may modify the
planting and/or buffer requirements by, respectively, decreasing or increasing the requirements.
12. The Board requested a rendering showing the proposed view from the adjoining residential property. Staff
recommends the Board review the rendering and consider whether these criteria are met.
F. Low Impact Development.
12.03 Stormwater Management Standards
13. At the previous hearing, the applicant indicated they felt they would be able to address the outstanding
comments of the City Stormwater Section. The applicant provided revised materials on 4/8/2020, which Staff
forwarded to the City Stormwater Section. Staff anticipates they will have an update by the time of the
hearing.
G. Standards for Roadways, Parking and Circulation. Standards of Section 15.12 Standards for
Roadways, Parking, and Circulation shall be met.
See comments under Supplemental District Standards as they pertain to roadway safety and entrances/access.
Parking is discussed under Site Plan Review Standard 14.06B. Connections to adjacent parcels are discussed under
Site Plan Review Standard 14.07A.
As it pertains to circulation, the applicant has provided a fuel delivery truck turning movement plan which shows that
trucks cannot navigate the site when there are other vehicles present, particularly at the proposed additional pump,
the parking located along the northwest property line, and at the ADA compliant parking space. At the previous
hearing the applicant testified that the fuel truck is the largest delivery truck they anticipate at the site. They also
testified that the facility is proposed to be a 24‐hour facility with monitored sales, in other words there would be the
potential for parked cars at all times. It should also be noted that the applicant has testified that fuel deliveries will
occur during the day, which makes circulation in the presence of other site users even more critical.
14. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they have any additional questions for the applicant as it pertains
to adequacy of circulation for delivery vehicles.
The Fire Chief has provided comments indicating a fire truck would access the site from the north either by puling in
or setting up in Shelburne Road, and from the north by pulling into the south driveway. The applicant has provided
a fire truck turning movement plan, which shows that the fire truck is expected to back onto VT Route 7 when
providing service to the site. While as noted above the Fire Chief has indicated the way a fire truck would get into
the site is acceptable, he has stated unequivocally in his comments of February 26, 2020 is not acceptable for a fire
truck to back onto VT Route 7 when exiting the site. The applicant indicated in their cover letter submitted on
4/8/2020 they believe the project provides adequate circulation although they were unable to meet with the Fire
#SP‐19‐39
10
Chief.
15. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they have any further questions for the applicant as it pertains to
emergency access.
OTHER
Lighting
The applicant is proposing 7 building mounted lights, 4 soffit lights, 10 canopy lights and 6 pole mounted lights.
This reflects an update made since the March 4 hearing. LN Consulting has performed a technical review of the
proposed lighting and coordinated with the applicant, the result of which is the proposed plan. A memo
summarizing the technical review is included in the packet for the Board. In general, LN consulting recommended
the applicant provide additional screening for the canopy lights, which the applicant did, and recommends to the
Board that they accept the spillover that exceeds 0.3 footcandles to the east and in the southwest corner as they
consider it to have been minimized to the extent possible. Other elements of lighting standards are met.
Staff coordinated with the Public Works Department and with Green Mountain Power who is responsible for
lighting on Shelburne Road, and provided the applicant with the relevant information. At this time the applicant
has not indicated any intention to work with Green Mountain Power to increase lighting levels at the driveways.
Should the applicant wish to do so in the future, Staff considers this can be handled administratively within the
Planning and Zoning department.
16. Staff recommends the Board review the lighting technical review memo and discuss whether they need any
further information from either the applicant or technical reviewer to make their determination on lighting
criterion.
A.3 Noise Performance Standards
Appendix A provides the following limits on noise between midnight and 8:00 AM.
a. 45 dBA based on a one‐hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise
emanates adjoins any property used for residential purposes
b. 60 dBA based on a one‐hour average measured at any point where the property on which the noise
emanates adjoins any property used for commercial purposes.
The property is immediately adjacent to a multifamily residential property to the west. On February 4, the
Board expressed concern about increased noise levels at the adjoining residential property due to the removal
of an existing building. The applicant has prepared a noise study of ambient sound levels on the property. Staff
notes the applicant says the performed daytime and nightime measurements, and found the background noise
levels were on average 50 dBA at night and 54 dBA during the day. The sound meter was unmonitored but the
applicant estimates that the average noise levels were unchanged during a fuel delivery during the time of the
study.
17. Staff recommends the Board discuss whether they have any further questions for the applicant as it pertains to
noise.
Signage
Staff notes the Board may not approve plans showing signage. The applicant has removed the signs from the
plans.
Water Supply
#SP‐19‐39
11
Champlain Water District provided comments on both the relocation of the transmission main and the service
for the proposed project, and provided testimony at the March 4 hearing. They testified that there are significant
outstanding issues with the proposed water main relocation, and strongly requested the Board not defer
resolution of those issues as conditions of approval. As of this writing, CWD has not received any revised plans,
but understands the applicant has hired Aldrich and Elliot to work on the design of the water main relocation.
18. CWD indicated by email to Staff on April 13, 2020 that because they understand the applicant is continuing to
work to address CWD’s comments, they recommend the Board continue the hearing to allow those efforts to be
completed. Staff recommends the Board consider this recommendation in light of the other issues identified
herein in making their decision on whether to close or continue the hearing.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board strive to conclude their review, and continue the hearing for the narrow purposes
of conducting deliberations, receiving feedback from Champlain Water District, and asking questions which may arise
during deliberative session prior to issuing a decision.
Respectfully submitted,
Marla Keene, Development Review Planner
#SP‐19‐39 – 793 & 907 Shelburne Road
R. L. Vallee, Inc
April 21, 2020
Packet Table of Contents
Technical Reviews & Committee Feedback
Bike & Ped Committee Written Comments 3/12/2020
Traffic Technical Review, prepared by BFJ Consulting 3/20/2020
Lighting Technical Review, prepared by LN Consulting 4/15/2020
Plans
Architectural Plans 4/8/2020
Perspective Rendering 4/8/2020
Civil Plans 4/8/2020
Landscaping and Lighting Plans 4/8/2020
Documents
Applicant cover letter 4/8/2020
Landscape Estimate 4/8/2020
Sound Memo 4/8/2020
Crosswalk Alignment Review 4/8/2020
Traffic Memo 9/25/2019
Supplemental Traffic Impact Study 3/30/2020
Applicant response to Traffic Technical Review 4/7/2020
575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
TO: Marla Keene, PE, City of South Burlington Development Review Planner and Staff Liaison
to the Development Review Board
FROM: Ashley Parker, City Project Manager and Staff Liaison to the Bike & Pedestrian Committee
SUBJECT: Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee Recommendations re: the Maplefields Project
DATE: March 12, 2020
This memo is in response to the Development Review Board’s (DRB) request that the Bicycle &
Pedestrian Committee meet with the applicant for the Maplefields project and provide recommendations
for the project back to the DRB. The Committee reviewed the project and discussed it with the applicant,
Skip Hockner, at its meeting on February 12, 2020, and provided the following feedback:
After discussion, the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee approved the redesign of the bike-pedestrian
crossing at Shelburne Road and Queen City Parkway worked out by the applicant and VTrans. This
includes moving the bike-pedestrian crossing to the south end of the intersection, and widening bike-
pedestrian sidewalk/path on the east side of the road. If possible, the Committee would prefer the
crossing and the path on the west side of the road be in alignment but understands that may not be
physically possible due to immovable objects or intersection stopping lines.
Additional comments and discussion can be found in their minutes from the February 12th meeting. If
you have any questions about the Committee’s feedback, please let me know.
MEMORANDUM
BUCKHURST FISH & JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494
Date: March 20, 2020
To: Marla Keene, PE, Development Review Planner
Paul Conner, AICP, MCIP, Director of Planning & Zoning
From: Georges Jacquemart
Contact Information: T. 212.353.7477 F. 212.353.7494 E. G.Jacquemart@bfjplanning.com
Subject: DRAFT Review of Traffic Impact Assessment and Traffic Budget Credits for
Proposed Maplefields Application at the north end of Shelburne Road
The purpose of this memorandum is to review the September 25, 2019 Memo by RSG regarding the Maplefields
Traffic Generation and traffic budget credits. The following are our comments:
1. Traffic Generation and Traffic Budget:
We agree with RSG’s calculation of the PM peak hour traffic generation of 242 vehicle trips for the proposed site
and the budget as per the LDR regulations of 16 vehicle trips, a gross shortfall of 226 trips.
2. Credits for the Former K Mart Road Traffic and for Potential Internal Capture
Since the development site is bounded by the former K Mart Road on the west side and has an access driveway
to that street, the applicant can claim credit for that connection. RSG claims a 29-trip credit based on a 461 vph
traffic flow on the K Mart Access Road in the PM peak hour. Based on past conversations with Corey Mack the
461 volume is felt to be from a 2011 count on that road. Vtrans traffic data show that in September 2019 this
volume was 85 vehicles in the PM peak hour. It is assumed that the difference between the two values is due to
commercial activities in 2011 and the absence of any significant activity on that site in 2019.
If we use the 85 vph instead of the 461 vph, the credit for this connection would be 5 trips instead of 29.
Separately, RSG argues that the adjacency of the approved Burlington Plaza/Hannaford supermarket will attract
some trips from the project site by the fact that users will have an opportunity to combine their trips between the
two sites and keep them “internal”, on foot or via car. RSG uses the “shopping center” effect showing that as
shopping centers get larger their traffic generation rates per 1000 SF decrease. This is due to the internal
capture effect within shopping centers and has been integrated in the traffic generation equations for retail
centers. This effect is the same as in downtown areas. It is covered under “Connection to Adjacent Parcel” in the
traffic Overlay District Regulations Appendix B.
The result of the calculation shows that the two retail centers combined would generate 225 fewer vehicle trips
compared to a scenario where the two centers are separated, a reduction of 27.3% in PM peak hour traffic
generation. This reduction represents 93% of the traffic generation of the Super Convenience Store proposed on
the project site. This traffic effect may be reasonable if the Super Convenience Store was completely integrated
into the Burlington Plaza/Hannaford supermarket, or if the Burlington Plaza/Hannaford supermarket were to
expand by 4,260 SF, but not in this case, where two sites are separated by a public road and large parking lot
and there is a distance of more than 500’ between the buildings.
MEMORANDUM
BUCKHURST FISH JACQUEMART, INC. 115 FIFTH AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10003 T. 212.353.7474 F. 212.353.7494
Page 2
The RSG calculation suggests a credit of 66 trips. If we assume a 50% credit as per LDR guidelines for uses on
separate parcels, that would be a 33-trip credit. As mentioned above that assumes a complete integration into
the Burlington/Hannaford Center.
BFJ concludes that the original calculation of a 29-vehicle trip credit based on 461 vph on the “K Mart Access
Road” does take into consideration commercial activity in that center and is a reasonable credit for this land use
adjacency.
3. Other Trip Credits and Trip Credit Summary
BFJ agrees with the other trip credits in the RSG memo (closing one curb cut, reducing the widths of the other
curb cuts, and connecting to the site to the south –assuming a common easement). BFJ concludes that the
credits would add up to 84 (29 + 20 + 20 + 15), and that with the site budget of 16 trips the applicant has a
total of 100 trips as budget and credit, a shortage of 166 trips.
4. Other Mitigation Measures
The RSG memo outlines other mitigation measures that the applicant is prepared to undertake to improve local
safety and multi-model travel conditions. The proposed measures are significant and will enhance pedestrian
and bicycle circulation and safety on both sides of Shelburne Road and for the crossing of Shelburne Road.
The applicant could consider another access management measure that is discussed in the LDR, and that would
be the prohibition of left turns out of the southerly driveways. This should be feasible since the site will have an
access to the “K Mart Access” Road and from there to the traffic signal on Shelburne Road where those turns
can be made in a safer manner. The LDR regulations allow a credit representing 50% of the left-turn movement.
For the northerly access, left turns across the cross-hatched area in the median would be illegal, but that
prohibition could be made more real by a raised median island that would extend further north and create a
pedestrian refuge for the pedestrian crossing in the middle of Route 7. We recommend that the applicant
consider this mitigation measure as well.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
1
April 14, 2020
Marla Keene, PE
Development Review Planner
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
793 and 907 Shelburne Road Lighting Design Review
L.N. Consulting, Inc. (LNC) has been retained to review the lighting design package, dated
March 26, 2020, for the exterior lighting at the proposed site improvements at 793 and 907
Shelburne Road, South Burlington. This location is presently the Gulf gas station at the corner
of Shelburne Road and Queen City Park Road. The lighting design package included a
submittal package for the light fixtures being used as well as a lighting design photometric plan
for the site. The lighting design package was provided by TJ Boyle, a landscape architectural
firm in Burlington, VT. The LNC review will be based on the South Burlington Land Development
Regulations (LDR), Section 13.07 Exterior Lighting, adopted October 7, 2019. The report will
also reference relevant input from the City of South Burlington Development Review Planner.
The report will indicate where the design does or does not meet the requirements above as
interpreted by L.N. Consulting. Where the regulations have not been met, the report will provide
recommendations to meet the standards. The report will also indicate any conditions that,
although may meet the technical requirements of the LDR standards, should be evaluated
further. The site will be considered a commercial 1- residential 15 district; a commercial district
as defined by South Burlington.
Using IES Guidelines, the location is being reviewed as three separate site types: under the gas
station canopy area, parking lot and circulation area, and the building entrance/façade area.
A mitigating condition is that the gas station fuel canopy extends into the Shelburne Road right
of way.
The City of South Burlington, VT does not have lighting standards for fuel dispensing canopies.
Since there is no standard, LN Consulting is recommending using the City of Burlington
regulations. Based on the City of Burlington Article 5 Citywide General Regulations, section
5.5.2(f)3, the average illuminance for canopies in commercial zones shall not be more than 10.0
foot candles (fc).
Per LDR Appendix A.9 Direct Glare on page 310, luminaires shall not be placed more than thirty
feet (30’) above ground level and the maximum illumination at ground level shall not be in
excess of an average of three (3) fc. The highest poles are 16’ and typically set on a 6” base so
it is understood the luminaire will not be above 30’.
Based on the lighting design shown on drawing “2020-03-26 Vallee_South_Burlington L101
Lighting Plan 5MDP.pdf” furnished with the design package, there are instances where the peak
2
fc in the parking areas are above 3 fc. However, the average for this parking lot will be lower
than 3 fc and will meet the LDR requirement. The highest peak values are immediately
surrounding the canopy.
The 3-26-20 canopy design utilizes a combination or recessed (C1) and “spotlight” type (C2)
fixtures. These spotlight fixtures along the perimeter are aimed to shine directly on the fuel
dispensers. With these fixtures pointing towards the fuel dispensers, particularly along the
eastern portion of the canopy, the amount of light spilling beyond the eastern property line can
be decreased. The average foot candles, although not noted, appears to be a little above 10 fc.
The lighting design also includes a “screening bracket” to help block some of the light along the
eastern property line. Per the photometrics provided, this appeared to result in a drop off from
approximately 12 fc just to the west of the property line to a value less than 2 fc to the east.
Beyond the canopy and within the proposed sidewalk the values drop to below 1 fc. Considering
the canopy itself extends beyond the eastern property line, that the property to the east is a
major thoroughfare and a value below 0.3 fc under the canopy would be impractical, LN
Consulting believes this should be acceptable.
The one concern with the aimed fixtures however is glare. Since the fixtures point towards the
fuel dispensers like a spotlight, the internal components of the fixtures aiming to the east may
be visible to traffic or pedestrians more easily that if the fixtures are fully recessed. In effect, the
glare will be more pronounced. It was recommended to the lighting designer to change those
fixtures to a recessed fixture with an asymmetric output. The asymmetric output “points” towards
the fuel dispensers, however since it is recessed the amount of glare should be significantly
decreased.
The average light level below the canopy was not noted on the 3-26-20 drawing however per
discussion with lighting designer a value of 10 fc would be the design target.
North and west of the canopy the light levels in some spots exceed 3 fc. Most of this is due to
spillover from the canopy. Even with the aimed light fixtures some light will spread to the
immediate surroundings. This is typical. However, the average for the entire parking area is
less than 3 fc and meets the ordinance requirements.
The light levels immediately around the proposed restaurant, including entrances, is less than 5
fc with averages under 2 fc. As a result, LN Consulting has no concerns with these areas.
The only other area of concern is the southwest entrance into the site. Like what is occurring at
the canopy, the light levels at the property line within the driveway is above 0.3 fc. Per the
calculations, the maximum value is 0.37 fc. This is technically above what the city ordinances
allow. It is LN Consulting’s opinion however that due to the fact this is a driveway connecting to
a road that gets significant traffic, a value above 0.3 fc is recommended. Even the Federal
Highway Administration’s “Guidelines for the Implementation of Reduced Lighting on
Roadways”, 2014, with more stringent guidelines than the IESNA RP-8 “Recommended
Practice For Design and Maintenance of Roadway and Parking Facility Lighting”, recommends
for even the lowest road classification an average foot candle reading of 0.3 fc.
Based on the above, the lighting designer provided a new lighting design package “2020-04-08
Landscape 5MFD.pdf”. Within this package, an updated L101 Proposed Site Lighting Plan,
3
along with L201 Lighting Details plan was provided. These new plans utilized an alternate
canopy light to reduce glare. This design reduced the number of fixtures used under the canopy.
All other lighting remained the same.
The new canopy light fixture C1 is a recessed type with an asymmetric light output. The model
number is on sheet L201. This fixture is somewhat unique and there did not seem to be any
manufacturer’s other than the one selected by the lighting designer who produce an asymmetric
recessed canopy light. As a result, only a wattage value higher than required is available for
this fixture. To reduce the light output, the fixtures are to be provided with dimming capability.
With that in mind, the lighting calculations are based on the fixtures being dimmed to 70% their
full output.
Per the new drawing L101, the average illuminance under the canopy is approximately 10 fc.
The foot candle levels to the east of the property line are slightly elevated from the original
design. This is partially due to fact the design no longer is using “spotlight” type fixtures but
rather recessed type to reduce glare. These recessed asymmetric light fixtures have most light
directed towards the fuel dispensers but will also have a little more of the light spread out.
However, particularly at the north entrance from Shelburne Road, the light levels are more
uniform. Considering the fact this is a Commercial zone and the amount of car, bicycle and
pedestrian traffic in this location, the slightly higher foot candles are more in line with what
typically would be designed for where an urban street, sidewalk and driveway meet. The use of
screening is being used in this design as well to help reduce light output to the east of the
canopy.
Because the canopy lighting would be via a dimmer switch to reduce the output, once the
lighting is installed it would be recommended to take final foot candle readings. The dimmer
switch could raise or lower the light levels to meet the design light levels. The dimmer switch
should be located where not readily accessible to anyone without authorization to adjust the
output.
The above report is L.N. Consulting’s interpretation of the design and regulations as well as our
opinion based on our lighting experience. Please feel free to contact us if you have any
questions or comments.
Sincerely,
John Askew, P.E.
L.N. Consulting, Inc.
Attachments:
2020-04-08 Landscape 5MDP.pdf
9 DOOR COOLER $$BEER CAVE 5 DOORCOOLERCOOLERFREEZERICE CREAMOFFICECOOLERMOPSYRUPWINEDISPLAYBREWER19"x20"CAPPUCINO21"x24"ICEDCOFFEE12"x20"ICEMAKERCOFFEE MUGSBREWER19"x20"DISHWASHERWALLMOUNTEDSINKFREEZERPIZZA CUTTING66"X36"PIZZA PREP67"X39"PIZZA SERVICECTR 42"X39"SERVICE CTR65"X39"SANDWICHPREP 60"X39"PIZZA DISPLAY40"X22"GRIDDLE36"X39"FRYER18"X27"FRYER18"X27"PIZZA OVEN51"X33"VEGGIESINK23"X24"BREADCOOLING21"X28"PROOFER/OVEN32"X32"PREPCOUNTERHANDWASHSANITA16"X30"PREP ISLAND30"X66"HOT FOODSATMRETAILCOOLERCOFFEEAA-102DA-103BA-103CA-102LOCKERSREMARKS:REV NO. DATE:DATE:PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:SEAL & SIGNATUREPROJECT:DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:SLAS NOTEDISSUE: DATE:REMARKS:092489/27/19ENGINEER19/27/19ISSUED FOR REVIEWOWNERR.L. VALLEE280 SOUTH MAIN STREETST ALBANS VTMAPLEFIELDS793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VTANTONIO LEO ARCHITECT3 GIFFORD STREETTUCKAHOE, NY 10707914-337-9770info@aleoarchitects.com22/19/20ISSUED FOR REVIEW3 4/8/20ISSUED FOR REVIEWFIRST FLOOR PLANFIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE:1/4"=1'-0"A-100.00
BIKE STORAGEGENERALSTORAGE ANDWATERUTILITIESELECTRICROOMREMARKS:REV NO. DATE:DATE:PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:SEAL & SIGNATUREPROJECT:DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:SLAS NOTEDISSUE: DATE:REMARKS:092489/27/19ENGINEER1 9/27/19ISSUED FOR REVIEWOWNERR.L. VALLEE280 SOUTH MAIN STREETST ALBANS VTMAPLEFIELDS793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VTANTONIO LEO ARCHITECT3 GIFFORD STREETTUCKAHOE, NY 10707914-337-9770info@aleoarchitects.com2 2/19/20ISSUED FOR REVIEW34/8/20ISSUED FOR REVIEWCELLAR PLANA-101.00CELLAR PLANSCALE:1/4"=1'-0"
REMARKS:REV NO. DATE:DATE:PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:SEAL & SIGNATUREPROJECT:DRAWING TITLE:SCALE:SLAS NOTEDISSUE: DATE:REMARKS:092489/27/19ENGINEER19/27/19ISSUED FOR REVIEWOWNERR.L. VALLEE280 SOUTH MAIN STREETST ALBANS VTMAPLEFIELDS793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON VTANTONIO LEO ARCHITECT3 GIFFORD STREETTUCKAHOE, NY 10707914-337-9770info@aleoarchitects.com22/19/20ISSUED FOR REVIEWRENDERINGSA-104.001RENDERINGSCALE: NTSRENDERINGSCALE: NTS4RENDERINGSCALE: NTS2RENDERINGSCALE: NTSRENDERINGSCALE: NTS3RENDERINGSCALE: NTS
View from East (Route 7)Maplefields - South Burlington
View from NorthMaplefields - South Burlington
View from WestMaplefields - South Burlington
View from SouthMaplefields - South Burlington
SHELBURNE ROAD GULFPROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROAD, SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTR.L. VALLEE
20' FRONTYARD SETBACK30' REARYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACK10' SIDEYARD SETBACKEX. CWDEASEMENTEX. GAS VENTSEX. BOLLARDSEX. COVERSEX. ELEC.VAULT.EX. PLANTERW/ SIGNEX. TRAFFICLIGHT POLEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEEX. ELEC METEREX. VENTFF. CONC.ELEV.=208.4FF. CONC.ELEV.=200.9WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWW
W WWWWWWWEX. JERSEYBARRIER (2)EX. CONC.VAULTEX. DOWNSPOUTEX. MH#2RIM=206.8(SEWER)EX. MH#1RIM=207.4(SEWER)EX. CB#1RIM=206.4EX. TELEPHONE /CABLE SERVICECONNECTIONEX. LANDINGWOODTHRESHOLDELEV.=208.8EX. GAS SERVICECONNECTIONEX. CONC. WALKEX. CONC. SIDEWALKEX. ROOF OVERHANGEX. GAS CANOPYFF. TILEELEV.=208.4EX. DUMPSTEREX. BOLLARD(TYP. FOR 4)EX. COLUMN(TYP. FOR 4)UEUEUE UEG G
NO VT GASPAINT MARKINGS40'EASEMENT20'EASEMENT40'EASEMENTEX. STAIRSTO 2ND LEVELEDGE OFEXISTINGCONC.EDGE OFEXISTINGPAVEMENTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W WW
EX. RETAININGWALLGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
GGGGGG GGG GG
G
G
G GGGGEX.PAVEMENTEXISTINGSTORE(TO BEREMOVED)(1,680 s.f.±)PILE6"EX. SWALE16" SPRUCE3.3 CMF0.3 BG16" SPRUCEEX. CONC.EX.GRAVELEX.CONC.EX. CONC.EX.PAVEMENTCMFFLUSHEX. CONC. SIDEWALK1" IPF1.4 BG16" CEDAR20" MAPLE(2 BOLE)STUMP14"MH14" SPRUCEMH16" SPRUCEEX.PAVEMENTEX.GRAVELEXISTINGBUILDINGEX.PAVEMENT24" MAPLECMF1.0 AG10" SPRUCE1" IPF0.1 BGDISTRUBED22" OAKSIGN9'±177'±138'±59'±126'±126'±125'±125'±138'±LINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADEXISTINGBUILDINGQUEEN CITY PARK ROADEX. CONC.EX.PAVEMENTEX.PAVEMENTEXISTINGMOTEL(TO BEREMOVED)(1,315 s.f. ±)EXISTINGMOTEL(TO BEREMOVED)(2,310 s.f. ±)APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UTILITIESBASED ON A PLAN ENTITLED "MCDONALD'S CORPORATION WESTWOOD,MASS. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY"PREPARED BY BUCK & PIERCE CIVILENGINEERS DATED SEPTEMBER 197434" REBAR0.3 BGEXISTINGCANOPY w/(2) MPD'sOE OEOE OEOE OEOEEX. PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK MARKINGEX. PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK MARKINGEX. RECREATION PATHEX. PEDESTRIANCROSSWALK MARKINGEX. CONCRETESIDEWALK(±5' WIDE)EX.PAVEMENTEXISTINGSTOREWATER VALVE(NOT FOUND)WATER VALVE(NOT FOUND)APPROXIMATELOCATION EX. CBRIM=192.3±INV.=184.8±ST
STSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSMH
WW WWW
WWWW WEX.PAVEMENTWWWWWW
W WWWWSSSSSSSSSST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
SSSSSSSTO EXISTINGREC. PATHAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN- COORD. DISCONNECTION OF WATER SUPPLY w/CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONEX. 24" D.I. WATER MAIN- IN 36"Ø (71' LONG) STEEL SLEEVE UNDER ROUTE 7- C.L. SLEEVE ELEVATION = 198.5±APPROX. LOCATIONEX. SEWER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWNAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. SEWER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWNAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWNEXISTINGCANOPY(1,835 s.f.±)WWWAPPROXIMATE LOCATION EX.24" Ø CLASS I D.I. WATER MAIN±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)204199208208207207207206206206206205205205204204203203203202202202201201201200200200199199198198198197197197196196196196195195194194194193193193192192192191190201202203205BARBBARABBBRRRNTTTNTTNOEOSNNNNEOOSSEEEEEEEOOOOONNNNNSSSNEXNO8RDEGVEXCLADOESNEGAX2RCJGJLMPJMC1.0EXISTINGCONDITIONSPLANACER.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478LEGENDFMFMEEEGGGSTSTSSSTTTWWWW207EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEWETLANDSWETLANDS BUFFEREXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERSTREAMTEST PITPERCOLATION TESTPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUND1" = 20'15104.07SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTS793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT2/1/2019NOTES1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALLUTILITIES LOCATED UPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES.EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTORSHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHALL BEREPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIG SAFE(888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.2. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON PLAN ENTITLED " ALTA/ACSM LANDTITLE SURVEY BURLINGTON PLAZA" PREPARED BY DUBOIS & KING INC. DATEDJANUARY 1997 AND A PLAN ENTITLED " LADNS OF MARTIN'S FOODS OF SOUTHBURLINGTON, INC. - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION" PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX &DICKINSON DATED APRIL 29,2008. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY ANDIS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. MONUMENTATION RECOVERED ISCONSISTENT WITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS.3. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY PERFORMED BY CIVILENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC JANUARY 2018. CIVIL ENGINEERINGASSOCIATES, INC. SURVEY ORIENTATION IS "GRID NORTH", VERMONTCOORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983 (HORIZONTAL) AND NAVD88 (VERTICAL)ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SITE.4. DATTILIO LOT HAS NOT BEEN SURVEYED AT THE TIME OF PLAN PREPARATION.LOT LINES ARE BASED ON EXISTING TAX MAPS. SITE INFORMATION IS BASED ONAVAILABLE IMAGERY.UTILITY NOTE:EXISTING WATER & SEWER SERVICE LINELOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ONAVAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THETOWN AND OWNER. UTILITY SIZE AND TYPE AREUNKNOWN. VERIFICATION OF SERVICELOCATIONS AND DEPTHS WILL BE REQUIREDPRIOR TO START OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION9/27/19 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALLOCATION MAP1" = ±4000'BURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATIONSO. BURLINGTONEXIT13SWIFT STBREWER PKWYLINDENWOOD DRQUEENCITYHANNAFORDDR77LAUREL HILL1898910/21/19 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS 1/03/20 CJG MINOR PLAN REVISIONS 2/1/19 CJG LOCAL SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL2/19/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALP:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 4/8/2020 1:32:41 PM, pmead
PROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTAURANT±4,110 s.f.F.F. ELEV. = 207.7520' FRONTYARD SETBACK30' REARYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACK±25.3'10' SIDEYARD SETBACKEX. CWDEASEMENTEX. COVERSEX. ELEC.VAULT.EX PLANTEREX PLANTEREX PLANTEREX. PLANTERW/ SIGNW/ SIGNEX. TRAFFICLIGHT POLEOEOEOE
OE
OEE
OE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOOOOEOEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEOEOEOOEOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOEOEOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOOEEEOEOEOEOEOEOOOEEEOOOOEOEOEOEEEOOEOEOEEOEOOEOEEOEOEEEEEOEOEOEOEOOOOEEOEEE
/////SSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLIIIAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW WWWWWWW WWWWWWW WWWWWWWWW WWWW WWWWWWW
EEX. JERSEYBARRIER (2)EX. MH#2RIM=206.8(SEWER)EX. MH#1RIM=207.4(SEWER)EX. CB#1RIM=206.4ONC. SIDEWALKOEX. COLKXLXXXXXLLKLSOSSOOOOSSSSNCOEALNCEXKSICOEXALALDEXXXXNCDEWALKDEIDSIDSWWWWDEWLLLLLWSNXXXXLLLWWNNXXXXXXXXXXXNNSSWWLLLLLLLLCNCCNCNCDDSNEDDNEENNNSDDDDEEKLSSCCCNOOCXEEKALALWADSSCCNCXEKLWAEIDSSCNCCEXWADICNCNCOXXXEC. SIDEWALKCONOOOEOEOOOOOOOOOOOEC.C.SIDSIDDEDDEEWAWWWWWEWAOEOEOEOEOEOELKKLLKEX. GAS CANOPYUEUEUEUE
G 40'EASEMENT20'EASEMENT40'EASEMENT#0R)MXIMSEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW W W WW
EX. RETAININGWALLGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
R.L. VALLEE ACCESSEASEMENT73EX.PAVEMENTPAVEMENTTTGREEN SPACENEWGREENSPACEEXISTINNGNSTORESTORERERE(TO BEREMOVED)(1,680 s.f.±)EXISTINGFUELCANOPY & MPD'STO REMAIN±11%EX. SWALEEXGG
3.3 CMF0.3 BGEEX.ENTPAVEMMECMFFLUSH1" IPF1.4 BGMHMMHMHMHMHHMEXEX.X.PAVEMENTEEEENEEEENTNEEEEMEXISTINGBUILDINGCMF1.0 AG1" IPF0.1 BGDISTRUBEDNSIGSIGNSIGNIGNNNNNNNNNNN9'±177'±138'±59'±126'±126'±125'±125'±138'±LINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADEXISTINGEXISTINGBUILDINGQUEEN CITY PARK ROADHANNAFORD DRIVEEXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXEEEXEEXEEEEEGGGGNGNGNGISTINGISTINGISTINGISTINGISTINISTINIISTINXIGGELEMOOTEMMMMMMMMMMMEBEBEBEBEBTOO B(T((REVRRRRRVED)VED)VED)VED)))))))))))MOOVEMf)f±)f±).f. ±)s,315 ss1,(((NGNGNGINGINGEXISTINEXISTINEXISTINEXISTINEXISTIEININMOTELTEBEBE(TO B(TO BBB))D)D)D)D)D)ED)ED)))))))))))))))))VED)VED)VEDVEDVEDVEDVEDVEDVEOREMOVREMOVREMOVREMOVREMOVREMOVREMOVREMOVREMOVRRROOO(2,310 s.f. ±)ssPROPOSED CONNECTIONTO ADJACENT PROPERTYPROPOSED RETAININGWALL w/HANDRAIL(TYPICAL)RE-CONSTRUCTCONCRETESIDEWALKADDITIONAL GREENSPACE WITH CURBIMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN PAVEMENTAND SIDEWALKAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UTILITIESBASED ON A PLAN ENTITLED "MCDONALD'S CORPORATION WESTWOOD,MASS. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY"PREPARED BY BUCK & PIERCE CIVILENGINEERS DATED SEPTEMBER 1974WW20'20'22'24'1834" REBAR0.3 BGEXISISTINGCANOOPY w/C/CC(2) MPPD'sW
W W W W
W WWWWWWWWW±6%%%%%6%66±6±±±±±194194 0194 0194 0194 0194 0194.001++208.0+++OEOE
OE OE
OE OE
OE
2PROPOSED30" VALVEPROPOSED30" VALVEPROPOSED REALIGNMENTOF CWD WATER MAIN- 30" D.I. CLASS 52PROPOSED CANOPYEXPANSION w/(1) MPD(320 s.f. ±)EX. RECREATION PATHECEX. PEDESTRIANNCROSSWALK MARKINGEX. CONCRETESIDEWALK(±5' WIDE)TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS- REMOVE EXISTING CROSSWALK/ LANDINGS- ADD NEW CROSSWALK/LANDINGSAS SHOWN25'REDUCE EXISTINGACCESS FROM±40' TO 24'ADD LANDING FOR NEWCROSSWALK- IMPROVE GREEN SPACE- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDINGADD LANDING FOR NEWCROSSWALK- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDING- COORDINATE DESIGNAND LAYOUT WITHVTRANSCOORDINATE RELOCATION ORREPLACEMENT OF PEDESTRIANCROSSING CONTROLS/SIGNALS WITHSTATE OF VERMONT & TRAFFIC ENGINEERWEX.PAVEMENTEXISTINGSTOREWATER VALVE(NOT FOUND)FOWATER VALVEE(NOT FOUND)T ST ST ST ST STSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST
ST ST ST%8%8±8±±±8%±8%%%APPROXIMATELOCATION EX. CBRIM=192.3±INV.=184.8±ST
ST2195
196
198
2200
20022WEBBVVVVVVVVVNNINIINNN207f. ±f. ±RRG2222200000666660000002222RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
204204204204204204042205205205206203
STTSTSTTSSTTTSTSTSTTSTSSTSSSTSTSTTTTTTTTTTSTTSTSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT2077MATCH EXISTINGPAVEMENT GRADE(TYP. @ RT 7)NEW EDGE OFPAVEMENT/CURB(MATCH EX. GRADE)NEW CONCRETECURBPROPOSED RETAININGWALL w/HANDRAIL(TYPICAL)1955511919797RETAINING WALLw/ RAILING19819888DDST ST
ST
S S S SS
S
ST0.3 0B' SRY198
199EX.0RD0'0193191939319292192192088((7197979919199777717
1981988999898981
PROPOSEDFENCE20720722222020202000707077720622222MOOTEOTOT2055MOMOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTESSPPMMSSSSMHMHSISIGNGNNSSSSSWW WWURURURURWWWW RUUCTTWWEX.PAVEMENTPROPOSEDBIKE RACK1911919191WWFUEEEEELLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW22066WWWWW
WWW WWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSST STT ST STTSSTTSTT STS ST ST ST STST STSTST STSTTTSTSSST STS
SSSSSSSSSSSPROPOSED 6" SDR 35 PVCSEWER CONNECTION w/OIL/WATER SEP.- SLOPE @ 14"/FT. (MIN.)PROPOSED 1" TYPE KCOPPER WATERSERVICETO EXISTINGREC. PATHAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN- COORD. DISCONNECTION OF WATER SUPPLY w/CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONEX. 24" D.I. WATER MAIN- IN 36"Ø (71' LONG) STEEL SLEEVE UNDER ROUTE 7- C.L. SLEEVE ELEVATION = 198.5±OOX. LOCATIONAPPROOOLINEEWWER SERVICE LEX. SELLEEWNE/TYPYPE UNKNOW- SIZEWWEEAPPROX. LOCATIONOEX. SEWER SERVICE LINEE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN/OEAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWNGGNGNGGLMMM&MMEXISTINNFUEELNOPY &NOPY &CANOPYYNOPY & MOPY & MTO REMATO REM(1,835 s.f.±)O REMAO REM8'5'4'4'5'EEPROPOSED UNDERGROUNDELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATIONPROPOSED SEWERINV. = 202.4±- FIELD VERIFY EXISTING INVERT- COORD. w/ENGINEER & PUBLIC WORKSINV. = 204.4±INV. =204.0±"NO LEFT TURN"SIGNPROTECT/MAINTAINEX. UTILITY POLE- COORD. CURB INSTALLATION w/UTILITY COMPANIES/VTRANSWIDEN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO8 FEET FROM NEW LANDING TOLINDENWOOD DRIVE- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDING- COORDINATE DESIGN ANDLAYOUT WITH VTRANSPHASE II CONSTRUCTION:ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PEDESTRIANCROSSING OF ROUTE 7 & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTSTO LINDENWOOD DRIVE TO BE SCHEDULED INCONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE OF VERMONTSIGNAL PROJECT "SHELBURNE-SOUTH BURLINGTONNHG SGNL(51)". (CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FALL2020 TO SUMMER 2021)WW WGGGAPPROXIMATE LOCATION EX.24" Ø CLASS I D.I. WATER MAINxxx207.9x2xx2x2xx2x2x2x2x2x2x06.8x206.xx2x2x2x6806.86868x2x206.2x2x2xx22x207 507.5x207.x2x2x2xx2x208.1xx2xx2xx2x2xxxxxx2x2x2xxxxx207.5x2075x5x5x5x5x5x07 0207.0x70x70x0x70x70x0x0x7070x0x0xxxxxxxxx206 8x206.8x68x8x68x68x68xxxxxxx464x206.4x2NTT207.7022202022020000202077x7x77x7x777x777777x77x207.320773x3x3x73x73x73x73x73xxx2007 807.8x207.x20x20x20xx2xx202207.220x202020x20x20x2x20x20x20x2xx2x206.2x2x206.4xxx0x60x206.0xxxxx206.0x0x0xx0x0xx205.7x±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)MPMPGGNNGGGGGNGGGMMGGGMMLGGLPMM&M&&N&&MPPMMPGGGGLNGGGNGGNGNNGGGLNLLLL&NLN&N&&MMMMMMNLLNNLNLNNPPPPPPPPPPPP23'x207.5x2xx2x2x2xxx2x2x2x2x2x2x2x2x22222x11x206.1xx2xxx2x2xx2207.9x9x9x9x9x9xx207207072072020207770700707.4x4x4x4xx07070755WW
W
W
CLEANOUTx206.5x2x22x2x2x2x2x2xxxxxx2xx206.6xxxxx2xx206.6x2xx2xxx206.8xxxx20x2xxx207.0xx7x207.5x2xxxxxxxxxx2xx2x2xx2xxxxxx20xx207.4xx20007020020202020x22x2x2x2x2x2xxxxxxxx2xx22020202020x2x2x2xxx2xx2193.4xx193 4xx193.4x193.1xxxx19666666666666666666666666666666669666666666666969666699666111G 204199208208207207207206206206206205205205204204203203203202202202201201201200200200199199198198198197197197196196196196195195194194194193193193192192192191190DDSTSTSTSTSTST196
EAEAE195 201202203205DESSSSEEEEESSS75O8R5OES2R9'194DSMCJGPJM 1" = 20'15104.07C1.12/1/2019SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSPROPOSEDCONDITIONSPLANACER.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VTZONING DISTRICT: COMMERCIAL 1 - RESIDENTIAL 15NORTH LOT (793 SHELBURNE ROAD)REQUIREDEXISTINGLOT AREA 40,000 S.F. ±15,810 S.F.FRONT SETBACK 20' 0'SIDE SETBACK 10' 25'REAR SETBACK 30' 30'BUILDING COVERAGE 40% 11%*LOT COVERAGE 70% 68%LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 94%SOUTH LOT (907 SHELBURNE ROAD)REQUIREDEXISTINGLOT AREA 40,000 S.F. ±25,700 S.F.FRONT SETBACK 20' 9'SIDE SETBACK 10' 11'REAR SETBACK 30' 59'BUILDING COVERAGE 40% 14%LOT COVERAGE 70% 53%LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 68%COMBINEDREQUIREDEXISTINGPROPOSEDLOT AREA 40,000 S.F. ±41,510 S.F. ±41,510 S.F.FRONT SETBACK 20' 0' 0'SIDE SETBACK 10' 11' 11'REAR SETBACK 30' 30' 63'BUILDING COVERAGE 40% 17% 10%*LOT COVERAGE 70% 58% 70%LOT FRONTAGE COVERAGE 30% (MAX.) 80% 65%2/11/19 CJG ADDED PROPOSED GRADING5/15/19 CJG SITE REVISIONS/CWD REVIEW PLAN1. UTILITIES SHOWN DO NOT PURPORT TO CONSTITUTE OR REPRESENT ALL UTILITIES LOCATEDUPON OR ADJACENT TO THE SURVEYED PREMISES. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY CONFLICTS. ALLDISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT DIGSAFE (888-344-7233) PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. IN ADDITION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE APRIVATE UTILITY LOCATING FIRM TO LOCATE OWNER OWNED UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TOSTART OF ANY EXCAVATION.2. ALL EXISTING UTILITIES NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DESIGN SHALL BE REMOVED ORABANDONED AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS-BUILT PLANS (WITH TIES) FOR ALL UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. THOSE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE OWNER AT THE COMPLETION OF THEPROJECT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR/RESTORE ALL DISTURBED AREAS (ON OR OFF THE SITE) AS ADIRECT OR INDIRECT RESULT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.5. ALL GRASSED AREAS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL FULL VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED.6. MAINTAIN ALL TREES OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION LIMITS.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL WORK NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE ANDOPERABLE FACILITIES AND UTILITIES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL ITEMS AND MATERIALSINCORPORATED INTO THE SITE WORK. WORK SHALL NOT BEGIN ON ANY ITEM UNTIL SHOPDRAWING APPROVAL IS GRANTED.9. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET IN THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL PERMIT CONDITIONS ANDANY LOCAL PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS.10. THE TOLERANCE FOR FINISH GRADES FOR ALL PAVEMENT, WALKWAYS AND LAWN AREAS SHALL BE0.1 FEET. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ALL EXISTING MANHOLES, COVERS, VALVES, CURB STOPSAND OTHER ITEMS TO REMAIN SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO THE NEW FINISH GRADE.11. ANY DEWATERING NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE SITEWORK SHALL BE CONSIDEREDAS PART OF THE CONTRACT AND SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY.12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK WITHIN TOWN ROAD R.O.W. WITH TOWNAUTHORITIES.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL THE ELECTRICAL, CABLE AND TELEPHONE SERVICES INACCORDANCE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES REQUIREMENTS.14. EXISTING PAVEMENT AND TREE STUMPS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE DISPOSED OF AT ANAPPROVED OFF-SITE LOCATION. ALL PAVEMENT CUTS SHALL BE MADE WITH A PAVEMENT SAW.15. IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OR INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS, THECONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE WORK CONTINUES ONTHE ITEM IN QUESTION.16. PROPERTY LINE INFORMATION IS BASED ON PLAN ENTITLED " ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYBURLINGTON PLAZA" PREPARED BY DUBOIS & KING INC. DATED JANUARY 1997 AND A PLANENTITLED " LADNS OF MARTIN'S FOODS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, INC. - 2 LOT SUBDIVISION"PREPARED BY LAMOUREUX & DICKINSON DATED APRIL 29,2008. THIS PLAN IS NOT A BOUNDARYSURVEY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS ONE. MONUMENTATION RECOVERED ISCONSISTENT WITH RECORDED DOCUMENTS.18. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING TESTING AND INSPECTION SERVICESINDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, TYPICAL FOR CONCRETE AND SOIL TESTING.19. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAYOUT AND FIELD ENGINEERING REQUIRED FORCOMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WILL PROVIDE AN AUTOCAD FILEWHERE APPLICABLE.GENERAL NOTESUTILITY NOTE:EXISTING WATER & SEWER SERVICE LINELOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND BASED ONAVAILABLE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THETOWN AND OWNER. UTILITY SIZE AND TYPE AREUNKNOWN. VERIFICATION OF SERVICELOCATIONS AND DEPTHS WILL BE REQUIREDPRIOR TO START OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION9/27/19 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL10/21/19 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTSLOCATION MAP1" = ±4000'BURLINGTONPROJECTLOCATIONSO. BURLINGTONEXIT13SWIFT STBREWER PKWYLINDENWOOD DRQUEENCITYHANNAFORDDR77LAUREL HILL1898911/13/19 CJG REVISIONS PER VTRANS COMMENTS 1/03/20 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTSLEGENDFM
FM
EEGGSTSTSSTTWW207EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERSTREAMTEST PITPERCOLATION TESTPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDSTSTSSWWEEPROPOSED CONTOUR207PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED WATERPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED SIGNx206.6EXISTING SPOT GRADEPROPOSED SPOT GRADE+207.5* BUILDING COVERAGE DOES NOT INCLUDE CANOPY2/19/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALD3/04/20 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS4/08/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALP:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 4/7/2020 3:40:57 PM, pmead
PROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTAURANT±4,110 s.f.F.F. ELEV. = 207.7520' FRONTYARD SETBACK30' REARYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACK±25.3'10' SIDEYARD SETBACKEX. COVERSEX. ELEC.VAULT.EX PLANTEREX PLANTEREX PLANTEREX. PLANTERW/ SIGNW/ SIGNEX. TRAFFICLIGHT POLEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOEOEOEEEEEEEEEEOEOEOEOOEOOEOEOEOEOEOEEOEOEOOEOEOOEOEOEOEEOEOEOOOEEEEEEOOEOEOEOEOEOOOEEEOEOEOEOOEEEOOEOEOEEEOEOOEOEEOEOEEOEOEOEOEOOOOEEOEEE
/////SSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLIIIAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWW WWW WWWWWW WW WWWW WW
EEX. JERSEYBARRIER (2)EX. MH#2RIM=206.8(SEWER)EX. MH#1RIM=207.4(SEWER)EX. CB#1RIM=206.4ONC. SIDEWALKOEX. COLKXLXXXXXLKLKLSOSSOOOOOSSSSNCOEALNCEXKSICOEXALALDEXXXXNCDEWALKDEIDSIDSWWWWDEWALLLLLLWSNXXXXLLLLWWNNNXXXXXXXXXXXNNNSSWLLLLLLCNCCNCNCDDSNEDDNEENNNSDDDDKLSSCCCNOOCXEEKALALWADSSCCNCXEKLWAEIDSSCNCCEXEWADICNCNCOXXXEC. SIDEWALKONOOOEOEOOOOOOOOOOOEC.C.SIDSIDDEDDEWAWWWWWWAOEOEOEOEOEOELKKLKLKEX. GAS CANOPYUEUEUEUE
G #0R)MXIMSEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
EX. RETAININGWALLGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
R.L. VALLEE ACCESSEASEMENT73EX.PAVEMENTPAVEMENTTTGREEN SPACENEWGREENSPACEEXISTINGFUELCANOPY & MPD'STO REMAIN±11%EX. SWALEXGG EX.ENTPAVEMMEMHMMHMHMHMHHEXEX.X.PAVEMENTEEEENEEEENTNEEEEMPAVEMMEXISTINGBUILDINGNGGNNNNSIGSIGNSIGNIGNNNNLINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADEXISTINGEXISTINGBUILDINGQUEEN CITY PARK ROADHANNAFORD DRIVEPROPOSED CONNECTIONTO ADJACENT PROPERTYPROPOSED RETAININGWALL w/HANDRAIL(TYPICAL)RE-CONSTRUCTCONCRETESIDEWALKADDITIONAL GREENSPACE WITH CURBIMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN PAVEMENTAND SIDEWALKAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UTILITIESBASED ON A PLAN ENTITLED "MCDONALD'S CORPORATION WESTWOOD,MASS. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY"PREPARED BY BUCK & PIERCE CIVILENGINEERS DATED SEPTEMBER 1974WW20'20'22'24'18EXISISTINGCANOOPY w/C/CC(2) MPPD'sWW
W WW WW W
W W'W00WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW±6%±6%194.0+208.0+OEOE
OE OE
OE OE
OE
EEX2NNOCKCPROPOSED CANOPYEXPANSION w/(1) MPD(320 s.f. ±)EX. RECREATION PATHECEX. PEDESTRIANNCROSSWALK MARKINGEX. CONCRETESIDEWALK(±5' WIDE)TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS- REMOVE EXISTING CROSSWALK/ LANDINGS- ADD NEW CROSSWALK/LANDINGSAS SHOWN25'REDUCE EXISTINGACCESS FROM±40' TO 24'ADD LANDING FOR NEWCROSSWALK- IMPROVE GREEN SPACE- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDINGADD LANDING FOR NEWCROSSWALK- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDING- COORDINATE DESIGNAND LAYOUT WITHVTRANSCOORDINATE RELOCATION ORREPLACEMENT OF PEDESTRIANCROSSING CONTROLS/SIGNALS WITHSTATE OF VERMONT & TRAFFIC ENGINEERWEX.PAVEMENTEXISTINGSTOREWATER VALVE(NOT FOUND)OWATER VALVEE(NOT FOUND)T CB #1(2'x2')RIM=206.4INV.=203.4ST ST ST ST +207.7+207.75+207.75+207.75+207.5+207.5STSTSSTS7STSSTST207.2+CB #3RIM=206.5INV.=202.5+207.5207.5+207.5+T.O.C.=207.6B.O.C.=207.0207.75+207.75+207.0+DMH #1RIM=206.5INV.(15"N)=201.9INV.(24"W)=201.9INV.(15"S)=203.3SSST SSTT 2020STS ST ST 207.5+207.5+203.7++197.2ST STT ST
CB #5RIM=194.5INV.=191.5SUMP=186.5207.2+207.5+±8%±8%APPROXIMATELOCATION EX. CBRIM=192.3±INV.=184.8±ST
ST195
196
198
200
202
197.8+207
206
204205206203
TSTSTTTSTSTTTTSTSTSTTSSTTSTSTSTSTTSTSSTSSSTSTSTTTTTTTTTTTTTSTTTSTTSTTSTSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT207T.O.C.=199.3B.O.C.=198.7T.O.C.=196.8B.O.C.=196.2199.1196.6199.3199.1MATCH EXISTINGPAVEMENT GRADE(TYP. @ RT 7)NEW EDGE OFPAVEMENT/CURB(MATCH EX. GRADE)NEW CONCRETECURBPROPOSED RETAININGWALL w/HANDRAIL(TYPICAL)195197T.O.W.=202.0B.O.W.=199.0RETAINING WALLw/ RAILINGT.O.W.=203.0B.O.W.=199.0198DDCB #2RIM=207.5INV.=203.0+207.9207.9+DDDDDDDSSTT SSSSTTT ST75
S S S S+++SS +.5+++++SS MMCB #6RIM=203.6INV.=199.6TSTSDDMH #2RIM=205.5INV. IN=199.5INV. OUT=199.0198
T.O.W.=195.0B.O.W.=193.0INV.=191.019912" STORM15" STORM15" STORM15" STORM15" STORM15" STORM12" STORMDMH #1ARIM=206.4INV.(24"E)=199.5INV.(12"SW)=199.2+207.9+208.4+207.9193192208197
198
PROPOSEDFENCE207206CHAMBERSYSTEM+205.9206205SSSSSSSSSSSVM##SSSSTTESSPPMMSSSSMHMHSISIGNNNGNSSSSSWW WWURURURURWWWW SRUUCTTWWEX.PAVEMENTPROPOSEDBIKE RACK191CB #4RIM=202.0INV.=195.6SUMP=190.6RISERRIM=192.55' WIDE OVERFLOWTOP STONE=193.25BOTTOM STONE = 192.75WWFUEEEEELLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW22066WWWWWWW
WWW+WWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSTTST STTSSTTSTT STS ST ST ST STST STSTST STSTTTSTSSSTSTTTSTSS STS
2.8S88989SSSSSSSSSSTO EXISTINGREC. PATHAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN- COORD. DISCONNECTION OF WATER SUPPLY w/CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONEX. 24" D.I. WATER MAIN- IN 36"Ø (71' LONG) STEEL SLEEVE UNDER ROUTE 7- C.L. SLEEVE ELEVATION = 198.5±OOX. LOCATIONAPPROOOLINEEWWER SERVICE LEX. SELLEEWNE/TYPYPE UNKNOW- SIZEWWEEAPPROX. LOCATIONOEX. SEWER SERVICE LINEE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN/OEAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN208.4±T.O.W.=209.5±B.O.W.=201.0±T.O.W. SLOPES FROM209.5± TO 207.0±B.O.W. SLOPES FROM201.0± TO 206.5±8'5'4'4'5'EEPROPOSED UNDERGROUNDELECTRICAL SERVICE LOCATION"NO LEFT TURN"SIGNPROTECT/MAINTAINEX. UTILITY POLE- COORD. CURB INSTALLATION w/UTILITY COMPANIES/VTRANSWIDEN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO8 FEET FROM NEW LANDING TOLINDENWOOD DRIVE- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDING- COORDINATE DESIGN ANDLAYOUT WITH VTRANSPHASE II CONSTRUCTION:ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PEDESTRIANCROSSING OF ROUTE 7 & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTSTO LINDENWOOD DRIVE TO BE SCHEDULED INCONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE OF VERMONTSIGNAL PROJECT "SHELBURNE-SOUTH BURLINGTONNHG SGNL(51)". (CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FALL2020 TO SUMMER 2021)WW WGGGAPPROXIMATE LOCATION EX.24" Ø CLASS I D.I. WATER MAINx207.9x206.8x206.2x207.5x208.1207.5x207.0x206.8xx206.4207.7x207.3xx207.8x207.2x206.2x206.4206.0x206.0x205.7x±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)MPMPGGNNGGGGGNGGGMMLP&MMM&&&&MPPMPGGGGLNGGGNGGNGNNGGGNLLLLL&NL&&&&MMMNLLLPPPPPPPPPPP23'x207.5x206.1207.9x207.4x070707070707070750777520077555+5+2055575WWWW 2WWW
W NGGNGNx206.5x206.6x206.6x206.8x207.0x207.5x207.4193.4x193.1x19688888.888204199208208207207207206206206206205205205204204203203203202202202201201201200200200199199198198198197197197196196196196195195194194194193193193192192192191190DDSTTSTSTSSTST197STS1198STSTSTSTSSSSTSTSTTTSSSSSTSSSSSSTSTSTSTSSTSTTT+205.912" STORMDMH #4RIM=195.5±INV.=191.4194.9+194.9+194.6+196195 203.9+201202203205+203.5DDMH #3RIM=199.0±INV.=195.5199.5DD6" ROOF DR.WPRWWPWWWPPPRRTORTOTORTOORRT± SE20SSSSOTT±±2020SSEEEEE00SSSSSSOOO075O±F2MO58RSOEOW±5±OMXOESM7TO±202O7W6R9'194
193.5+193.5+193.5+193.5+DSMCJGPJM1" = 20'15104.07C1.29/27/2019SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSPROPOSEDGRADINGPLANACER.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT10/21/19 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS11/13/19 CJG REVISIONS PER VTRANS COMMENTS 1/03/20 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTSLEGENDFMFMEEEGGGSTSTSSSTTTWWW207EXISTING CONTOUREXISTING CURBEXISTING FENCEEXISTING GRAVELEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING GUARD RAILEXISTING SWALEEXISTING ELECTRICEXISTING FORCEMAINEXISTING GASEXISTING STORMEXISTING GRAVITY SEWEREXISTING TELEPHONEEXISTING WATERSTREAMTEST PITPERCOLATION TESTPROJECT BENCHMARKEXISTING WELLEXISTING SEWER MANHOLEDEXISTING STORM MANHOLEEXISTING CATCH BASINEXISTING HYDRANTEXISTING SHUT OFFEXISTING UTILITY POLEEXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY WIRE/POLEEXISTING SIGNEXISTING DECIDUOUS TREEEXISTING CONIFEROUS TREEEDGE OF BRUSH/WOODSAPPROXIMATE SETBACK LINEAPPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD/PIPE FOUNDCONCRETE MONUMENT FOUNDSTSTSSWWEEPROPOSED CONTOUR207PROPOSED CURBPROPOSED PAVEMENTPROPOSED ELECTRICPROPOSED STORMPROPOSED GRAVITY SEWERPROPOSED WATERDPROPOSED STORM MANHOLEPROPOSED CATCH BASINPROPOSED SHUT OFFPROPOSED SIGNx206.6EXISTING SPOT GRADEPROPOSED SPOT GRADE+207.59/27/19 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL2/19/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALCOORDINATE FINAL GRADING @CONNECTOR WITH AS-BUILT CONDITIONSOF ADJACENT PROJECTCOORDINATE CONNECTION OFRISER AND GRADING @OVERFLOW WITH AS-BUILTCONDITIONS OF ADJACENTPROJECT4/08/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALP:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 4/7/2020 3:41:14 PM, pmead
PROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTAURANT±4,110 s.f.F.F. ELEV. = 207.7520' FRONTYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACK10' SIDEYARD SETBACKOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOOEOEOEEOOEEEEEEEEEOEOEOEOOEOEOOOOOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOEOEOOEOEOOEOEOEOEEOEOEOOOEEEEEEOEOEOEOOOEOEOOOEEEOOOOEOEOEOOOEEEEOOEOEEEOEOOEOEEOEOEEOEOEOEOOOEEOEEEE/////SSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLIIIAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRW WWW WWW WWWWW WW WWWW WW
EEX. GAS CANOPYUEUEUEUE
G WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW W W W WW
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
EX.PAVEMENTTTEXISTINGFUELCANOPY & MPD'STO REMAINEX. SWALEXGG EX.PAVEMENTMEMHMHMHMHEX.X.PAVEMENTEEEENEEEENTNEEEEMEXISTINTINGBUILDINGGSIGNNNNNLINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADQUEEN CITY PARK ROADEXISISTINGCANOOPY w/C/CC(2) MPPD'sWWWWWWWWWOEOE
OE OE
OE OE
OE
EX. RECREATION PATHEC25'WEX.PAVEMENTEXSST ST ST ST STSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST
DDST ST ST
S S S SS
S
STSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSMHMHSIGGNNW WWURURURURWWWW WWEX.PAVEMENTWWFUEEEEELLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWW WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSTST ST STS ST ST ST STST STST STSTTTSTSSST STS"NO LEFT TURN"SIGNPROTECT/MAINTAINEX. UTILITY POLE- COORD. CURB INSTALLATION w/UTILITY COMPANIES/VTRANSWW WGGG±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)MPMPPGGNGGGGGNGGGMMLP&MMM&&MPPMPGGGGLNGGGNGGGNNGGGNLLLLL&NL&&&&MMMNLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPP23'WW
W
W36' PROPOSEDCURB CUT40' PROPOSEDCURB CUT104' EXISTINGCURB CUT29' EXISTINGCURB CUT40' EXISTINGCURB CUTDSTSTSTSTD9'PROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTAURANT±4,110 s.f.F.F. ELEV. = 207.7520' FRONTYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACK10' SIDEYARD SETBACKOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOOEOEOEEEEEEEEEEEOEOEOEOOEOEOOOOOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOEOEOOEOEOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOOEEEEEOEOEOOOEOEOEOOOEEEOOOOOEOEOEOOOEEEEOOEOEEEOEOOEOEEOEOEEOEOEOEOOOEEOE
W WWW WWW WWWWW WW WWWW WW
EEX. GAS CANOPYUEUEUEUE
G WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG G G G G
EX.PAVEMENTTTEXISTINGFUELCANOPY & MPD'STO REMAINEX. SWALEEXGG EX.PAVEMENTMEMHMHMHMHEX.X.PAVEMENTEEEENEEEENTNEEEEMPAVEMMEXISTINTINGBUILDINGGSIGNNNNNLINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADQUEEN CITY PARK ROADEXISISTINGCANOOPY w/C/CC(2) MPPD'sWWWWWWWWWOEOE
OE OE
OE OE OE
EX. RECREATION PATHEC25'WEX.PAVEMENTEXSST ST ST ST STSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST
DDST ST
ST
S S S SS
S
STSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSMHMH
SIGGNNW WWURURURURWWWW WWEX.PAVEMENTWWFUEEEEELLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWW WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSTST ST STS ST ST ST STST STST STSTTTSTSSST STS"NO LEFT TURN"SIGNPROTECT/MAINTAINEX. UTILITY POLE- COORD. CURB INSTALLATION w/UTILITY COMPANIES/VTRANSWW WGGG±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)MPMPGGNGGGGGNGGGMMLP&MMM&&MPPMPGGGGLNGGGNGGGNNGGGNLLLLL&NL&&&&MMMNLLLPPPPPPPPPPPPP23'WW
W
W36' PROPOSEDCURB CUT40' PROPOSEDCURB CUT104' EXISTINGCURB CUT29' EXISTINGCURB CUT40' EXISTINGCURB CUTDSTSTSTSTD9'DSMCJGPJM1" = 20'15104.07C1.39/27/2019SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSPROPOSED TRUCKTURNINGPLANACER.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT9/27/19 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL10/21/19 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS11/13/19 CJG REVISIONS PER VTRANS COMMENTSFIRE TRUCK TURNINGFUEL TRUCK TURNING 1/03/20 CJG REVISIONS PER STAFF COMMENTS2/19/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTAL4/08/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALP:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 4/7/2020 3:41:38 PM, pmead
PROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTRESTAURANT±4,110 s.10 s.f.F.F. ELEV. = 207.7507.7520' FRONTCKYARD SETBAC30' REARYARD SETBACK20' FRONTYARD SETBACK±25.3'10' SIDEYARD SETBACKEX. COVERSEX. ELEC.VAULT.EX. PLANTERW/ SIGNEX. TRAFFICLIGHT POLEOEOEOEOEOEOE
OE
OE
OE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOOEOEOEEOEEEEEEEEEOEOEOOOEEEOEOEOEOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEEOEOEOOEOEOEOOEOEOEOEEOOOOEEOEOEOOOEEEEEEOOEOEOEOEOEOOOEEOEOOOEEEOEOEOOOOEOOOEEEEOOEOEEEOEOOEOEEOEOEEOEOOOEOOEOOOEEOE EE/////SSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLIIIAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWW WWW WWWWW WW WWWW WW
EEX. JERSEYBARRIER (2)EX. MH#2RIM=206.8(SEWER)EX. MH#1RIM=207.4(SEWER)EX. CB#1RIM=206.4ONC. SIDEWALKOEX. COLKXLLLLKLKLSOSSOOOOOSSSSNCOEALNCKSICOALALDEXEXEXXXXXXXXXNCSIDEWALKWWWWDEWALLLLLLLWSNXLLLLWWNNXXXXXNNNSSWLLLLLLLCNCCNCNCDDSNEDDNNEENNNSDDDDKLSSCCCNOOCXEEKALALWAWDSSCCNXEKLWAEIDSSCNCCEXEWADICNCNCOE C. SIDEWASIDEWAWDLKLKWWLAACONOOOEOEOOOOOOOOOOEC.SIDSIDDEDDEDWAWWWWWWAWWWOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOELKKLKLKLEX. GAS CANOPYUEUEUEUE
G #0R)MXIMSEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
EX. RETAININGWALLGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
R.L. VALLEE ACCESSEASEMENTW73EX.PAVEMENTPAVEMENTTTGREEN SPACESSNEWGREENSPACENGEEXISTINGGLFUEFUELPMPMPMMPPCANOPY & MPDPD'SCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCANNNNANNAAAAANMMTO REMAINTTNAAA±11%EX. SWALEXGG EX.ENTPAVEMMEMHMMHMHMHMHHEXEX.XXPAVEMENTEEEENEEEENTNEEEEMPAVEMMEXISTINGBUILDINGNSIGNNNNIIGIGIGIGIGIGIGIGNLINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADEXISTINGEXISTINGBUILDINGQUEEN CITY PARK ROADHANNAFORD DRIVEPROPOSED CONNECTIONTO ADJACENT PROPERTYPROPOSED RETAININGWALL w/HANDRAIL(TYPICAL)RE-CONSTRUCTCONCRETESIDEWALKADDITIONAL GREENSPACE WITH CURBIMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN PAVEMENTAND SIDEWALKAPPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UTILITIESBASED ON A PLAN ENTITLED "MCDONALD'S CORPORATION WESTWOOD,MASS. MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY"PREPARED BY BUCK & PIERCE CIVILENGINEERS DATED SEPTEMBER 1974WW20'0'2022222222222'24'18EXISISTINGCANOOPY w/C/CC(2) MPPD'sWW
W W W W
W W'W00WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW±6%±6%OEOE
OE OE
OE OE
OE
EEXWWWWWOE2 NNOOOOEOOCKCCKPROPOSED CANOPYROEXPANSION w/(1) MPDXS(320 s.f. ±)(3fEX. RECREATION PATHECEX. PEDESTRIANNCROSSWALK MARKINGEX. CONCRETESIDEWALK(±5' WIDE)TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS- REMOVE EXISTING CROSSWALK/ LANDINGS- ADD NEW CROSSWALK/LANDINGSAS SHOWNREDUCE EXISTINGACCESS FROM±40' TO 24'ADD LANDING FOR NEWCROSSWALK- IMPROVE GREEN SPACE- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDINGADD LANDING FOR NEWCROSSWALK- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDING- COORDINATE DESIGNAND LAYOUT WITHVTRANSCOORDINATE RELOCATION ORREPLACEMENT OF PEDESTRIANCROSSING CONTROLS/SIGNALS WITHSTATE OF VERMONT & TRAFFIC ENGINEERWEX.PAVEMENTEXISTINGSTOREWATER VALVE(NOT FOUND)OWATER VALVEE(NOT FOUND)T CB #1(2'x2')RIM=206.4INV.=203.4ST ST ST ST STSTSSTSSTSTSTCB #3RIM=206.522INV.=202.52T.O.C.=207.6B.O.C.=207.0DMH #1MRIM=206.5MINV.(15"N)=201.9=VINV.(24"W)=201.9=VINV.(15"S)=203.3=NWSSST SSTT ST ST ST
ST ST ST
CB #5RIM=194.5INV.=191.5SUMP=186.5±8%±8%APPROXIMATELOCATION EX. CBRIM=192.3±INV.=184.8±ST
ST195
196
198
200
202
207
206
204205206203
TTSTSTSTTSTSTSTSTSSTSTSTSTSTTSTSSSSSTSTSTTTTTTTTTTTTSTTSTTSTSTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT207T.O.C.=199.3=B.O.C.=198.7=T.O.C.=196.8=WW
B.O.C.=196.2.199.1196.6199.3199.1MATCH EXISTINGPAVEMENT GRADE(TYP. @ RT 7)NEW EDGE OFPAVEMENT/CURB(MATCH EX. GRADE)NEW CONCRETECURBPROPOSED RETAININGWALL w/HANDRAIL(TYPICAL)195197B.O.W.=199.0RETAINING WALLw/ RAILINGT.O.W.=203.0B.O.W.=199.0B.O1982205PAVEMEEEEM%206202058%8±±±±±±±6%6%66%±±±±±±±±±±±±±66%%6%%%%6%66DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDCB #2RIM=207.5207 5INV.=203.0DDDDDDDSSTT TTTTSSSSTT ST
S S S SSS
S MMCB #6CB #6CB #6CB #6CB #6CB #6RIM=203.6INV =199 6INV.=199.6STSDDMH #2HRIM=205.5=INV. IN=199.55.INV. OUT=199.09.198
T.O.W.=195.000B.O.W.=193.0INV.=191.019912" STORM" STORMMMRMMMMMMMMM15" S15" STORM15 STORM15 STORMTOTO15" STORM15" STORM15 STORM15 STORM15 STORM15" STORMMMMMRMRMRRRROOOOOOTTTTSSSS15" STORM5555555512" STORMDMH #1ARIM=206.4RRRRRIIMMMMMMM====INV.(24"E)=199.5444""EEEINV.(12"SW)=199.2IINNNVVV.((11222SS)99999999WWWWWWWWWWW)))193192208197
198
PROPOSEDFENCE207206AMBAMBEREECHACHACHCHAMBEREREERRAMBERAMBEREEEEECHAACHAHACHAAAAMBEREAARAAAMBEAMBEREEAARRRRRRRRSTSTEMMMMSYSSYSSSYSTEMEMMMSTEMSTEMMMMMSYSYSSYSYSSYSSSSTEMMSSSSSTESTEMMSS±8206205SSSSSSSSSSSVM##SSSSTTESSPPMMSSSSMHMHSIGIIGNNSSSSSSW WWURURURURWWWW SRUUCTTWWEX.PAVEMENTPROPOSEDBIKE RACKE5" S191CB #4RIM=202.0INV.=195.6SUMP=190.6RISERRIM=192.55' WIDE OVERFLOWTOP STONE=193.25BOTTOM STONE = 192.75.7STSSTSTTSTTTTTTTTTWWFUEEEEELLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW22066WWWWWWW
WWW WWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTSTTST STST STS ST ST ST STST STST STSTTTSTSSSTSTTTSTSS STS
2.8S88989SSSSSSSSSSTO EXISTINGREC. PATHAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN- COORD. DISCONNECTION OF WATER SUPPLY w/CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTONAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONEX. 24" D.I. WATER MAIN- IN 36"Ø (71' LONG) STEEL SLEEVE UNDER ROUTE 7- C.L. SLEEVE ELEVATION = 198.5±OOX. LOCATIONAPPROOOLINEEWWER SERVICE LEX. SELLEEWNE/TYPYPE UNKNOW- SIZEWWEEAPPROX. LOCATIONOEX. SEWER SERVICE LINEE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWN/OEAPPROX. LOCATIONEX. WATER SERVICE LINE- SIZE/TYPE UNKNOWNT.O.W.=209.5±B.O.W.=201.0±T.O.W. SLOPES FROM209.5± TO 207.0±B.O.W. SLOPES FROM201.0± TO 206.5±ORANGE CONSTRUCTIONFENCE TO BE INSTALLEDAROUND PROJECTPERIMETER (TYPICAL)SILT FENCE TO BE INSTALLEDDOWN SLOPE OF ALLDISTURBED AREAS(TYPICAL INSTALLATIONSHOWN)5
%±2551
6%6%222266%551159
%%±±299
%%±6±22%%6699
2±66%%99
22±±6%6995
22222'25555119555555555
222222221111111
%%''55551911
%%%22222222SS
5559
2222SS
555
SS
22222'222'555511
%%%222''111555555
'''22222222''''''2222222222SSSS
555
2222222222222'''%%%%%%%555
2%%1155
6%%%%11115555
%%%±±±222111555
%%%2222229
%±6221119559
%%%%666222±±±%%%222222±±±%%%99
666666%%%%%11111195555559
222222±±±±±±%%%%%%222±±±95
6%%%1959595111
%%666±±229999555555
TST
%±±±±2222222222%%%%%%%%±±±±2222STST
9999
2222±±±±±±±±%%%%%%%STT
9999999
222222222222±±±±±SS
5555555559999999999
22222±±666666999999
222222222±±±±±±±6%6666699999999
222222±±±±±±6%%%%6%TTTTT
9999999
TTTT
%%%%%%%±±±±±±22222299999999
T
%%%%%%%%±±±±±±222222299999
%%%%%%%%%±±±±±±±±±222222222222299999999
222222222222±±±±±±±±±6%6%66666666%EX72
STT
7722
66EE
TTT
6666666
7722EXEX.CCC602200CCC000000
MOCCMMMM0000
0
W0000 WW00X
20006 WW00XXXXXE
TTTT
6666222
77200EEE77777772222222
66666666666
TTTTTTTT
2222EEEEEEEEX.X.COCO777202
66666662222226666622222222X.XX.X.XX.E720
666222222EXXEEEEEX 772000020
66
7777EEEEE2222
666
TTTTTTTEEEEE 0002202277777
6666666
TTTTT
66
020220202020077777777EEEEEEEEEEEE777777722222222
TTTTTTTEEEEEE22222O 66666
22 77
MM222222 6666666
22222 77777EXEXEXEX77
2EEEEEEE222222222222 666666
77 EC2
000
07
MMSO222 770707
SS00606600
MMMMSS77EXEXEXEX0000000CCEXEXSSSS
60060660
22 77EXE
STST
77777222EXEXEXEXEXEXEX777222
00
SSSSSTEXEXEX 777
WW222
0000000EXEXEX
SXXXXXXEEEEEE 0000000
66666XXXXXXEE0000000
00 O0200000000000000666X.X.XX666666666222220222222220220X.X.X.X.X.X.00000 WWWWW07077222EXXXEXEXX
000000000000 WWWWWWW000000XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX00000 OOCCCCXXXXXXXXE000000000000XXXCCCCCCCC0000000000
077
SSSSEXEXXXEXXXXXXSSSCCCCCC0000000000000WWWWWWWW07777077777222222222
00000000EXEXXEXEXEXEXXEXEXEXEX
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE (TYPICAL)STABILIZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE (TYPICAL)2
CATCH BASIN INLETPROTECTION TO BEINSTALLED AT ALLCATCH BASINS88'888888888888888888885''''4'44444444'4445'5119999 988
1993991939398 786.8.8962296 226.29699966668S888999866628228773399993782229.33389899898198
1991199919119
18198197111981711199999797711111999998888INSTALL EROSION CONTROLMATTING WHERE INDICATEDAND AS NEEDED TOESTABLISH VEGETATIONEXISTING 14" SPRUCETO REMAINEXISTING 16" SPRUCETO REMAIN"NO LEFT TURN"ETUNSIGNSPROTECT/MAINTAINAOTNEX. UTILITY POLEPUELOLLOLO- COORD. CURB INSTALLATIONUANONSBINNN w/UTILITY COMPANIES/VTRANSCEAUUSSSWIDEN EXISTING SIDEWALK TO8 FEET FROM NEW LANDING TOLINDENWOOD DRIVE- DETECTABLE WARNINGSURFACE ON LANDING- COORDINATE DESIGN ANDLAYOUT WITH VTRANSPHASE II CONSTRUCTION:ALL WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE PEDESTRIANCROSSING OF ROUTE 7 & SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTSTO LINDENWOOD DRIVE TO BE SCHEDULED INCONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE OF VERMONTSIGNAL PROJECT "SHELBURNE-SOUTH BURLINGTONNHG SGNL(51)". (CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR FALL2020 TO SUMMER 2021)WW WGGGON EX.APPROXIMATE LOCATIOOO24" Ø CLASS I D.I. WATER MAINØ CLASS I D I WATEØ CLASS I D I WATE24" Ø CLASS I D I WATEN)SR±37.0'(PER TAX MAPPING)(PMPMPGGNNGGGGGNGGGMMLP&MMM&&MPPMPGGGGLNGGGNGGNGNNGGGNLLLLL&NL&&&&MMMNLLLPPPPPPPPPPP23'55WWWW
WW
W GNGN196 204199208208207207207206206206206205205205204204203203203202202202201201201200200200199199198198198197197197196196196196195195194194194193193193192192192191190DDSTTSTSTSTSTSSSTSTSSSSSS797191997STS11S11ST1111119898STSTSTSTTTSSSSSTSSSSSSTSTSTSTSSSSTSTTTS2" S2" 12121MRMORTORSTOSTTTSTSTSTSSSSSTTSTSTSDMH #44MHRIM=195.5±9MINV.=191.419NV196195 201202203205DDMH #3RIM=199.0±INV.=195.50199.5DDFDR.6" ROOF DRRR RRRRROOOWPRWWWPPWWWPPPRRTORTOTORTOORRT± SE20SSSOTT±±2020SSEEEEE00SSSSSSOOO0O±F2MO58RSOEOW±±OMXOESM7TO±202O7W6R9'999'194DSMCJGPJM 1" = 20'15104.07C1.410/25/2019SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSEROSIONCONTROLPLANACER.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT2/19/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALCATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTIONN.T.S.PLANCROSS-SECTIONGRAVEL-FILLED SANDBAGS,PACKED TIGHTLY TOGETHERMIN. 6" ABOVE GRADEADDITIONAL BAGS MAY BE NEEDEDTO SEAL JOINTSSANDBAGS FILLED, WITH 1/2"TO 1" CLEAN STONE,PACKED TIGHTLY TOGETHERPAVEMENTSURFACEINSTALL COIR INLETFILTER MAT ONGRATE WITHZIP TIESRELOCATE BAGSWHEN MAXIMUMCATCHMENT OFFLOW IS DESIREDFLOW(W/ COIR MAT)WINTER SEASON (OCTOBER 15TH - APRIL 15TH)EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLNOTES:EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLNOTES:10/25/19 CJG PLAN ADDED PER STAFF REVIEW4/08/20 CJG LOCAL PERMIT SUBMITTALFINAL SEEDING NOTE:UPON COMPLETION OF FINAL GRADING, WHICHINCLUDES A MINIMUM OF 4" OF TOPSOIL AT ALLEXPOSED SOIL AREAS, CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED ANDMULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS.P:\AutoCADD Projects\2015\15104.07\1-CADD Files - SB Gulf\Dwg\15104.07 - Site.dwg, 4/8/2020 1:32:58 PM, pmead
802-864-2323 FAX: 802-864-2271 web: www.cea-vt.comCIVIL ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.ACE- Location Map -NOT to SCALEP1SOUTH BURLINGTON, VTPROPOSED PARCEL MERGERUPDATEfor ReviewRECEIVED FOR RECORDING IN THE LAND RECORDS OF THE CITYof SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, AT______________ O'CLOCK ONTHE ______ DAY OF __________, 20_____.ATTEST: ____________________________, CITY CLERKAPPROVED BY RESOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWBOARD OF THE CITY of SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON THE_____ DAY OF _____________, 20____, SUBJECT TO THEREQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID RESOLUTION.SIGNED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________, 20______.BY ___________________________________, CHAIRPERSONPROJECTLOCATIONTo the best of my knowledge and belief this platdepicts the results of a survey conducted by meas described in "Survey Notes" above, basedupon our analysis of land records and evidencefound in the field. Existing boundaries shownare in substantial conformance with the records,except as noted. This plat is in substantialcompliance with 27 VSA 1403, "Recording ofLand Plats". This statement valid only whenaccompanied by my original signature and seal.____________________________________Timothy R. Cowan VT LS 597OTHER PROPERTY LINEIRON ROD / PIPE FOUNDSUBJECT PROPERTY LINE- Legend -IRF/IPFABOVE / BELOW GRADEAB / BGA."ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey - Burlington Plaza - 935-947 Shelburne Road" datedJanuary 1997 by DuBois & King, Inc. Volume 495 at page 12, South Burlington LandRecords.B. "Lands of Martin's Foods of South Burlington, Inc.- 2 Lot Subdivision" dated June2008 by Lamoureux & Dickinson. Volume 516 at page 2, South Burlington Land Records.C. "McDonald's Corporation, Westwood, Mass., Map of Boundary Survey" dated Sept.1974 by Buck & Pierce. Volume 105 at page 81, South Burlington Land Records.D. "Champlain Water District - Right of Way - Property of Justgold Holding Corp." lastdated January 14, 1971. by Paulsen Associates, Inc. Map Slide 99-7 , South BurlingtonLand Records.E. "Champlain Water District - Transmission Mains Plan & Profile - Shelburne Street toLindenwood Dr. ..." last dated November 19, 1973. by Paulsen Associates, Inc.Champlain Water District files.- Referenced Plats or Plans -RECORD VOLUME & PAGEV.__ P.__CAPPED ROD PROPOSEDCRPCALC. POINT (NO MRKR.)EGTWOVERHEAD ELECTRICNATURAL GASOVHD. TEL/COMM.WATER MAINETCOVERHEAD EL, TEL, COMM9/27/191. Purpose of this survey and plat is to depict the PROPOSED merging of two (2) parcelsof land into one (1) through extinguishing the line between the two. The subject parcelsare:a.) land and premises (currently a filling station) conveyed to PHOENIX2 LLC by deed ofERNEST C. HOECHNER, JR., dated December 31, 2016, and recorded in Volume 1398at Page 34 of the South Burlington Land Records, andb.) land and premises (currently a motel) conveyed to SKIPCO INC. by deed ofCHITTENDEN BANK, dated November 2, 1993, and recorded in Volume 353 at Page508 of the South Burlington Land Records. Other neighboring property lines shown arefor reference purposes only, and MAY be shown approximately.2. Field survey was conducted during January 2017 utilizing an electronic total stationinstrument. Bearings shown are from Grid North, VT. Coordinate System of 1983(Reference Frame NAD83 (2011, Epoch 2010)) based upon our GPS observations at oradjacent to the site.3. Iron pipes found are described hereon with inside diameters; iron rods with outsidediameters. Concrete monuments found are typically 4" square. All monumentation foundwas in "good" to "fair" condition unless otherwise noted. Survey was conducted duringmid-winter conditions so descriptions of markers MAY vary from actual. Proposedmarkers shall typically consist of 58" diameter rebar with aluminum caps marked "CivilEngineering Assocs. - VT LS 597", typically set flush with grade.4. Shelburne Road and Queen City Parkway are public streets or highways with variableright of way widths.5. It is not the intent of this survey to depict all utilities. Any utilities shown hereon do notpurport to constitute or represent ALL utilities located upon or adjacent to the surveyedpremises. Subsurface utilities, if shown are located approximately only, based on surfaceindications and/or available plans.- Survey Notes -NOW or FORMERLYN/FCMFCONC. MON. FOUNDRECORD OWNERS 793 Shelburne Rd.:Phoenix2 LLC (Vol. 1398 Pg. 34) 907 Shelburne Rd.:Skipco, Inc. (Vol. 353 Pg. 508)GRID NORTHSURVEY NOTE 2Lot Areas907 Shelburne Rd. - 0.590 acres (Existing)793 Shelburne Rd. - 0.363 acres (Existing) - 0.953 acres (Combined)
OEOEOE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEWWWWWWUEG WWWWWWWWWWW W
GGGGGGGGGG G
GGGGG GGMHMHOEOEST STST ST
STDD ST
S SSSSSSSSMHWWWWWWWSSSST ST ST ST
SSSEGGGWWGGGWWWGGGWWWWWGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGWGGGGGWWWWWWWWWGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
EEEEEEEEEEOEOOEOEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOEOEOEEEEEEOOOOEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEOEEEEEEEEOOOOEOEOEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEOEOEEOOOOOOOOWDDSTDLINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADQUEEN CITY PARK ROADPROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTAURANT$55 (;,67,1*9(*(7$7,21725(0$,1(;,67,1*9(*(7$7,21725(0$,165,6352326('%,.(5$&.6OOEOOOOOOE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEGGGDD$[& $[& WSS&.) &6$) &$,+ $[&(;,67,1*9(*(7$7,2172%(5(029('3* 036 STSTSTT%1+ &$,+ 65,6%1+ GGGGGGGG029$%/(3/$17(56 %<2:1(5 3* 721 612:6725$*(612:6725$*(612:6725$*(JBOJBODADE1" = 20'15104.07L-10004/08/2020SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSPROPOSEDLANDSCAPEPLANPROGRESS PLANSR.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT4/08/2020
75((3/$17,1*'(7$,/6+58%3/$17,1*/$:1 6((',1*$5($176176*(1(5$/3/$17,1*127(6 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$///2&$7($1'9(5,)<7+((;,67(1&(2)$//87,/,7,(635,257267$57,1*:25.&217$&7',*6$)(7:2)8//%86,1(66'$<6%()25(3/$17,1* +2850,1 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//6833/<$//3/$170$7(5,$/,148$17,7,(668)),&,(1772&203/(7(7+(3/$17,1*6+2:121$//'5$:,1*67+(3/$148$17,7,(66+$//$/:$<6683(5&('(7+(3/$17/,67 $//3/$170$7(5,$/6+$//&21)250$1'%(,167$//('727+(*8,'(/,1(6(67$%/,6+('%<7+(&855(17$16,= 123/$176+$//%(387,1727+(*5281'%()25(528*+*5$',1*+$6%((1),1,6+('$1'$33529('%<7+(352-(&7/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&725(48$/ 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//3529,'($0(1'('3/$17,1*62,/$63(57+(&2175$&763(&,),&$7,216 62,/'(37+6+28/'%($6/,67('%(/2::,7+$3/$17,1*62,/72&2032670,;(;,67,1*62,/216,7(:+,&+0((767+(&2175$&763(&,),&$7,2160$<%(86('5(029(68%*5$'($1'27+(5*5$9(/),//,13/$17,1*$5($6216,7(*5281'&29(5%('6 ´'(37+/$:1$5($6 '(37+6+58%3/$17%('6 ´'(37+ 3/$1766+$//%(,167$//('68&+7+$77+(5227)/$5(,6$7256/,*+7/<$%29(),1$/*5$'( '8(721856(5<35$&7,&(67+,60$<5(48,5(5(029,1*62,/)5207+(7232)7+(5227%$//72/2&$7(7+(5227)/$5( $//3/$1766+$//%(%$//('$1'%85/$33('25&217$,1(5*52:1$663(&,),('12&217$,1(5*52:1672&.:,//%($&&(37(',),7,65227%281'$//5227:5$33,1*0$7(5,$/0$'(2)6<17+(7,&6253/$67,&66+$//%(5(029('$77+(7,0(2)3/$17,1* :,7+&217$,1(5*52:1672&.7+(&217$,1(56+$//%(5(029('$1'7+(&217$,1(5%$//6+$//%(&877+528*+7+(685)$&(,17:29(57,&$//2&$7,216 7+('$<35,25723/$17,1*7+(/2&$7,212)$//75((6$1'6+58%66+$//%()/$**(')25$33529$/%<7+(352-(&7/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&725(48$/ /$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&70$<5(48,5($//3/$176%(635$<(':,7+$1$17,'(66,&$17:,7+,1+2856$)7(53/$17,1*,17(03(5$7(=21(6$//3/$1766+$//%(635$<(':,7+$1$17,'(66,&$17$77+(%(*,11,1*2)7+(,5),567:,17(5 67$.,1*3/$176,6$77+(',6&5(7,212)7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&72521/<67$.(3/$176,17+(0$11(563(&,),(',17+(3/$17,1*'(7$,/6 $//3/$1766+$//%(:$7(5('7+2528*+/<7:,&('85,1*7+(),567+2853(5,2'$)7(53/$17,1*$//3/$1766+$//7+(1%(:$7(5(':((./<,)1(&(66$5<'85,1*7+(),567*52:,1*6($621 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//5()(5727+(&2175$&763(&,),&$7,216)25$'',7,21$/5(48,5(0(176 7+(/$1'6&$3(&2175$&7256+$//5()(5727+(3/$17/,67)256($621$/5(48,5(0(1765(/$7('727+(7,0(2)3/$17,1*17675((3/$17,1*216/23('(7$,/176/3581(725(029('($':22'$1'&5266,1*%5$1&+(67232)5227%$//72%(6$0(+(,*+7$635(9,286/<*52:1),1(&+,33('3,1(%$5.08/&+127025('21273/$&($*$,1673/$1767(0($57+6$8&(5$0(1'%$&.),//$663(&,),('%5($.83&/2'6$1'5(029('(%5,6$1'6721(681',6785%('25&203$&7('62,/5(029(%85/$3)5207232)7+(5227%$//1(9(5/($9(%85/$3(;326('$%29(7+(62,/,)&217$,1(5*52:15(029(327&203/(7(/</226(152270$667235(9(17*,5'/,1*7,0(6',$0(7(52)5227%$//7,0(6',$0(7(52)5227%$//86(:,'(%(/77<3(7,(6 '212786(523(25:,5(,1+26(6/((9(6x3581('$0$*('25%52.(1%5$1&+(65(86$%/(3(5)25$7('3/$67,&75((:5$3 72%(5(029('21(<($5$)7(53/$17,1* 86(,)1(&(66$5<;+$5':22'67$.(6+(,*+72)75((250,12)$//2:)25$'(37+2)%(/2:81',6785%('*5$'( 67$.,1*72%(5(029('21(<($5$)7(53/$17,1* 5227)/$5(6+$//%(3/$17('$756/,*+7/<$%29(),1$/*5$'( '8(721856(5<35$&7,&(67+,60$<5(48,5(5(029,1*62,/)5207+(7232)7+(5227%$//72/2&$7(7+(5227)/$5( ),1(&+,33('%$5.08/&+127025('21273/$&(08/&+',5(&7/<$*$,1677581.($57+6$8&(5$0(1'%$&.),//$663(&,),('%5($.83&/2'6$1'5(029('(%5,6$1'6721(6$''3/$170,;&217$,1,1*3/$17,1*62,/$1'&2032670,;0,;&203267,17+(723)5207+(),1$/*5$'(6&$5,)<68%*5$'(72x&87 5(029($//2)7+(:,5(%$6.(7(;&(377+$7:+,&+,681'(57+(5227%$///($9(12%85/$3(;326('$%29(7+(62,/685)$&(5(029(%85/$3)5207+(7232)5227%$//,)%85/$3,60$'(2)1$785$/),%(5,)%85/$3,63/$67,&2575($7('&87$1'5(029($//%877+$7:+,&+,681'(57+(5227%$//81',6785%('25&203$&7('62,//226(168%*5$'(%<'5$**,1*7((7+2)7+(%8&.(70,1,0803/$17%(''(37+&217$,1,1*3/$17,1*62,/$1'&2032670,;///86(:,'(%(/77<3(7,(6 '212786(523(25:,5(,1+26(6/((9(6x3581('$0$*('25%52.(1%5$1&+(6,)67$.,1* ;+$5':22'67$.(6+(,*+72)75((250,12)$//2:)25$'(37+2)%(/2:81',6785%('*5$'( 67$.,1*72%(5(029('21(<($5$)7(53/$17,1* 5227)/$5(6+$//%(3/$17('$756/,*+7/<$%29(),1$/*5$'( '8(721856(5<35$&7,&(67+,60$<5(48,5(5(029,1*62,/)5207+(7232)7+(5227%$//72/2&$7(7+(5227)/$5( ),1(&+,33('%$5.08/&+127025('21273/$&(08/&+',5(&7/<$*$,1677581.($57+6$8&(5$0(1'%$&.),//$663(&,),('%5($.83&/2'6$1'5(029('(%5,6$1'6721(6$''3/$170,;&217$,1,1*3/$17,1*62,/$1'&2032670,;0,;&203267,17+(723)5207+(),1$/*5$'(6&$5,)<68%*5$'(72x&87 5(029($//2)7+(:,5(%$6.(7(;&(377+$7:+,&+,681'(57+(5227%$///($9(12%85/$3(;326('$%29(7+(62,/685)$&(5(029(%85/$3)5207+(7232)5227%$//,)%85/$3,60$'(2)1$785$/),%(5,)%85/$3,63/$67,&2575($7('&87$1'5(029($//%877+$7:+,&+,681'(57+(5227%$//7,0(6',$0(7(52)5227%$//(;,67,1**5$'(JBOJBODADE1" = 20'15104.07L-20004/08/2020SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSLANDSCAPEDETAILSPROGRESS PLANSR.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT4/08/2020
OEOEOE
OE OEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEWWWWWWUEG WWWWWWWWWWW W
GGGGGGGGGG G
GGGGG GGMHMHOEOEST STST ST
STDD ST
S SSSSSSSSMHWWWWWWWSSSST ST ST ST
SSSEGGGWWGGGWWWGGGWWWWWGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGWGGGGGWWWWWWWWWGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
EEEEEEEEEEOEOOEOEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOEOEOEEEEEEOOOOEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEOEEEEEEEEOOOOEOEOEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOEOEEOOOOOOOOWDDSTDLINDENWOOD DRIVESHELBURNE ROADQUEEN CITY PARK ROADPROPOSEDRETAIL SALES/RESTAURANT$3352;
)5203523(57</,1(72&/26(67(;,67,1*675((7/,*+7726287+(;,67,1*675((7/,*+725,(17('21/,1'(1:22''5,9( 127,1&/8'(',1&$/&8/$7,216 $3352;
)5203523(57</,1(72&/26(67(;,67,1*675((7/,*+7721257+ 127,1&/8'(',1&$/&8/$7,216 :,'(;+,*+6&5((1,1*%5$&.(76$77$&+('7281'(56,'(2))8(/&$123<612:6725$*(612:6725$*(612:6725$*( /(*(1'6,7(/,*+7&$123</,*+76,*1/,*+7:$///,*+7JBOJBODADE1" = 20'15104.07L-10104/08/2020SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSPROPOSED SITELIGHTING PLANPROGRESS PLANSR.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT4/08/2020666666:: : &&&&&&&&&&&&&&
('*(2)6,'(:$/.&85%3$9(0(17$1&+25%2/76&21),50:,7+32/(25'(5,1*,1)250$7,21',$0(7(539&&21'8,75(,1)25&('&21&5(7()281'$7,2135(&$6725&$67,13/$&(&203$&7('*5$9(/81',6785%('25&203$&7('68%*5$'(
;
&233(5*5281'52'&211(&772*5281'/8*,132/(:&233(5:,5(
127(6 &21),50/,*+732/(%$6('(7$,/:,7+(/(&75,&$/(1*,1((525&(57,),('(/(&75,&,$16((/,*+7,1*6&+('8/(21/,*+7,1*3/$1$1'63(&6+((76)2525'(5,1*,1)2
)520),1,6+('*5$'(72%$6(/6,7(/,*+7),;785(176)8(/&$123</,*+7),;785(1766,7(/,*+732/(%$6('(7$,/1766,7(/,*+732/(176:$///,*+7),;785(176JBOJBODADE1" = 20'15104.07L-20104/08/2020SHELBURNE ROADGULFPROPOSED SITEIMPROVEMENTSLIGHTINGDETAILSPROGRESS PLANSR.L. VALLEE,INC.282 SOUTH MAIN STREETP.O. BOX 192ST. ALBANSVERMONT 05478793 & 907 SHELBURNE ROADSOUTH BURLINGTON, VT4/08/2020(175$1&(&$123</,*+7),;785(1766,*1/,*+7),;785(176//////
JON T.ANDERSON
ADMITTED IN VT
janderson@primmer.com
TEL:802-864-0880
FAX:802-864-0328
30 Main Street, Suite 500│ P.O. Box 1489 │Burlington, VT 05402-1489
4279681.1
April 8, 2020
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner
Planning & Zoning Department
City of South Burlington
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
Re: 793 & 907 Shelburne Road, South Burlington, VT
Dear Ms. Keene:
This letter responds to staff comments prepared for the March 5, 2020 Development Review Board
(“DRB”) meeting and comments from DRB members and as follows:
1. Subdivision – We anticipate that the subdivision application will be approved at the
April 21, 2020 DRB hearing.
2. Five Pump Application – We anticipate that the five pump application will be considered
at the April 21, 2020 DRB hearing.
3. Four Pump Application – In case the five pump application is not approved, we are
prepared to submit a four pump application including a table of changes made to the five
pump application.
4. Sufficiency of Parking – We understand that the issue has been resolved through
consultation with the City Attorney.
5. Drive Aisle Width – As requested by staff, plans have been updated to show correct
dimensions.
6-7. Design of Route 7 – We are using the design for which VTrans has provided a LOI. VTrans
specifically requested a raised median as suggested by the City’s Traffic Engineer.
8. Technical Review of Traffic Memo – We understand that the City Traffic Engineer
completed at Vallee’s expense his review of RSG’s traffic analysis. We are submitting a
response to the review of the City Traffic Engineer. As you can see, RSG disagrees with
some of the comments by the City’s Traffic Engineer. If the DRB accepts RSG’s analysis,
Vallee needs for the DRB to find that Vallee’s improvements for which the City’s Traffic
Engineer did not estimate a value offset at least 76 trips. If the DRB accepts the City’s
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner
April 8, 2020
Page 2
4279681.1
engineer’s analysis, the DRB would need to find that Vallee’s proposed improvements for
which the City’s Engineer did not estimate a value offset at least 166 trips (142 trips if RSG
is correct that the City’s Engineer made a math error). Everyone including the City’s
Traffic Engineer recognizes the tremendous value of Vallee’s proposed improvement for
which the City’s Traffic Engineer did not estimate a value including the bike path
connection and the removal of gas pumps from the site across the road. We ask the DRB
to approve a 166 trip offset.
9. Connection to the Store – We have again reviewed the design of the planned connection
and confirmed with the tire store that it is acceptable. Before construction of the project,
we will negotiate and record an acceptable cross-easement and obtain site plan approval
for the changes to the tire store property.
10. Technical Review of Traffic Memo – See Item 8.
11. Review of Traffic Overlay Mitigation – We agree that the DRB should review our
mitigation request. We are proposing ample mitigation including design changes,
interconnections, the bike path connection and the elimination of gas pumps at the gas
station located across Shelburne Road.
12. Change in Bike Connection Design – As requested, we reconsidered the design of the bike
path crossing Route 7. See memo from Vallee’s traffic engineer that is being submitted.
We believe the design is appropriate and should not be changed. This design was carefully
considered previously and vetted with VTrans.
13. Store Entry Redesign – We have modified the design as requested.
14. Walkway to Front Store Entrance – The walkway has been modified as requested.
15. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan – We believe the proposal is consistent with the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. We are not eliminating multi-family housing and we are
substantially improving pedestrian connectivity.
16. Screening – We have increased screening along Queen City Park Road.
17. Width of Parking Area Versus Building Width – The project complies with this
requirement along Shelburne Road. The total width of the store building and canopy are
80 feet while the parking area is no more than 40 feet wide. The requirement does not
apply along Queen City Park Road if the location of the parking spaces near the canopy is
approved pursuant to Section 14.06B of the Zoning Ordinance.
18. See Item 17.
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner
April 8, 2020
Page 3
4279681.1
19. Renderings – The requested renderings have been provided.
20. Internal Landscaping – Although internal landscaping is not required, planters in the
fueling area are being provided as requested.
21. Size of Plantings – Plantings of the required size are now being proposed.
22. See Item 20.
23. Snow Storage – The plan has been modified to show snow storage that will not impact
proposed landscaping as well as temporary storage in the parking areas. Snow will be
moved off site as soon as feasible and as necessary for the proposed parking spaces to be
used.
22. Rendering – The requested rending has been provided.
24. Waiver of Article 16 Planting Requirements – We are no longer proposing a waiver.
25. Stormwater Concerns – We are submitting a stormwater memo addressing the City
comments along with updated Civil and Utility plans reflecting the stormwater changes.
26. Circulation – We believe that the project provides adequate circulation although we were
unable to meet with the Fire Chief despite many efforts to do so.
27. Changes to Highway Design – See Item 6-7.
28. Remaining Fire Chief Comments – We believe the remaining comments from the Fire
Chief have been addressed although we were unable to meet with the Fire Chief despite
many efforts to do so.
29-30. Housing Replacement Fees – We are not proposing to pay any housing replacement fees
since the project is not eliminating any non-commercial residences.
31. Technical Review of Lighting Plan – The applicant has paid for this review, which is now
complete. Vallee’s lighting consultant has been in contact with the City consultant and the
plans have been revised accordingly. Formal comments have not yet been received from
the City Consultant but the plans have been revised based on the discussion between
lighting consultants.
32. Street Light Design – No street lighting is proposed.
33-34. Lighting Design – See Item 31. All lighting concerns have been resolved.
Marla Keene, P.E., Development Review Planner
April 8, 2020
Page 4
4279681.1
35. Bicycle Parking and Locker Location – The required facilities are being provided.
36. Noise – No further work is proposed. Vallee sees no reason to believe the applicable noise
standards will not be met.
37. Signage – All references to signage have been removed from the site plans. Renderings
show project signage in the allowed amounts.
38. CWD Concerns – CEA is working with Aldrich & Elliot and CWD to evaluate options to
address all of CWD’s concerns and will continue to work to satisfy all of CWD’s concerns.
As information is obtained, coordination between CWD, City of South Burlington and
CEA will continue.
Very truly yours,
Jon Anderson
JTA/alb
Shelburne Road Gulf Planting Plan
Prepared by T.J. Boyle Associates, LLC
April 8, 2020
Trees
Qty.Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes Unit Price Installed
7 ARR ACER rubrum 'Red Rocket'Red Rocket Red Maple 2.5" cal.B&B 290.00$ 5,481.00$
7 AxC ACER X freemanii 'Celebration'Celebration Maple 3" cal.B&B 290.00$ 5,481.00$
6 BNH BETULA nigra 'Heritage'Heritage River Birch 2.5" cal.B&B single stem 250.00$ 4,050.00$
5 MPS MALUS 'Pink Spires'Pink Spires Crabapple 2.5" cal.B&B 220.00$ 2,970.00$
7 PG PICEA glauca White Spruce 7' Ht.B&B 190.00$ 3,591.00$
2 SRIS SYRINGA reticulata 'Ivory Silk'Ivory Silk Tree Lilac 2.5" cal.B&B tree form 325.00$ 1,755.00$
9 TON THUJA occidentalis 'Nigra'Dark American Arborvitae 5' Ht.B&B 5' spacing 65.00$ 1,579.50$
Sub-Total 24,907.50$
Shrubs & Grasses
Qty.Code Scientific Name Common Name Size Spec Remarks Notes wholesale installed
11 CAIH CORNUS alba ' Ivory Halo'Ivory Halo Dogwood 24" Ht.#7 Cont.50.00$ 1,485.00$
64 CSAF CORNUS sericea 'Arctic Fire'Arctic Fire Dogwood 24-36" Ht.B&B 4' Spacing 50.00$ 8,640.00$
25 CKF CALAMAGROSTIS x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster'Happy Returns daylily Clump #2 Cont.15.00$ 1,012.50$
Sub-Total (NOT INCL. GRASS)11,137.50$
TOTAL TREES AND SHRUBS:36,045.00$
Planting Schedule
(Page 1 of 1)
MEMO
RSG 55 Railroad Row, White River Junction, Vermont 05001 www.rsginc.com
TO: Skip Vallee (RL Vallee) FROM: Ryan Haac (RSG) DATE: February 27, 2020
SUBJECT: Sound level monitoring at the existing Gulf Oil on Shelburne Road in South Burlington
RSG conducted unattended sound level monitoring at the site of the proposed
Maplefields on Shelburne Road in South Burlington. This memorandum provides an
overview of the sound level monitoring and results.
Project Context
RL Vallee is proposing a new Maplefields super convenience market and gas station at
the current site of a Gulf Oil service station at the intersection of Route 7 (Shelburne
Road) and Queen City Park Road in South Burlington, Vermont. The new Maplefields
will subsume the parcel directly to the south (currently the Maple Leaf Motel). A map of
the site is provided in Figure 1.
Background Sound Level Monitoring
To quantify existing sound levels at the site, we installed an ANSI/IEC Type 1 sound
level meter from Friday, February 14th to Wednesday, February 19th. The sound level
meter logged one-second 1/3 octave band sound levels as well as continuous digital
audio recording for sound source identification. A co-located anemometer measured
microphone height wind speed in one-minute periods. Periods of wind gusts greater than
5 m/s (per ANSI 12.9 Part 3) and temperatures below -10 ˚C were excluded from the
averages (per IEC 61672-1). Other anomalous events that caused excessive sound
levels (such as monitor maintenance at setup or takedown) were also removed.
The closest residential structure to the project is an apartment complex directly to the
west. Existing sound levels were measured at the location shown on Figure 1 at a point
representative of the property line as shown on the map. Photographs of the installed
monitor are provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The monitor was placed on the
northernmost portion of the property to minimize the barrier effect of the snowbank
present at this time of year, which can be seen in Figure 1. As shown in the map, the
western property line runs parallel to Route 7 through the mature spruce tree shown in
the pictures.
2
FIGURE 1: MAP OF PROJECT AREA
3
FIGURE 2. PICTURE OF SOUND LEVEL METER, LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3. PICTURE OF SOUND LEVEL METER, LOOKING WEST
4
Sound Level Results
Background Sound Levels
Overall one-hour equivalent sound levels over the monitoring period generally fluctuated
diurnally with human activity between 45 dBA1 at night and 55 dBA during the day. The
minimum, mean, and maximum hourly sound levels over the monitoring period, for
daytime and nighttime2 hours, are provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1: RANGE OF 1-HOUR AVERAGE SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FOR DAYTIME AND NIGHTTIME PERIODS
MINIMUM MEAN MAXIMUM
Daytime 47 dBA 54 dBA 58 dBA
Nighttime 43 dBA 50 dBA 57 dBA
Fuel Delivery at Gulf Oil
At your request, we also looked into sound levels during a fuel delivery for the currently
operating Gulf Oil service station at the site. Based on the unattended data collected, it
appears that the fuel delivery occurred on Tuesday, February 18th at about 3:25 PM. The
duration of the fuel delivery was nearly 45 minutes. Fill caps for the underground fuel
tanks are located in the northwest quadrant of the current service station near the
monitoring location, seen in Figure 1 as the small circles above the label “Gulf Oil.”
The average hourly background sound level at the representative property line location
during the fuel delivery was 57 dBA. Compared to this value, Table 2 shows that the
hour prior to the delivery was 1 dB lower yet the hour following the fuel delivery was the
same value. All three hour-long periods were higher than the mean daytime sound level.
The sound level from the fuel delivery at the property line was at or below overall
background sound levels during the delivery and thus the sound level attributable to the
delivery alone cannot be explicitly determined given the poor signal-to-noise ratio.
TABLE 2: BACKGROUND ONE-HOUR EQUIVALENT SOUND LEVELS DURING AND THE FUEL DELIVERY AND THE ADJACENT HOURS
HOUR PRIOR
(2:15 TO 3:15 PM)
FUEL DELIVERY
(3:15 TO 4:15 PM)
HOUR AFTER
(4:15 TO 5:15 PM)
56 dBA 57 dBA 57 dBA
1 A-weighting means that the sound level is adjusted to the typical sensitivity of human hearing, which is most commonly used in environmental acoustics or community noise.
2 Nighttime is considered 12 AM to 8 AM, which is the period during which the one-hour sound level limits in the South Burlington Land Development Regulations apply.
MEMO
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, Vermont 05401 www.rsginc.com
TO: Skip Vallee FROM: Corey Mack, PE
DATE: April 6, 2020
SUBJECT: Queen City Park Road – Proposed Crosswalk Alignment Review
RSG reviewed the proposed crosswalk alignment of the future crosswalk relocation to
the south side of the Queen City Park Road intersection with Shelburne Road. The initial
concept design is shown in Figure 1. Civil Engineering Associates (CEA) prepared the
initial concept design based on the preferred alternative from the 2005 Queen City Park
Road Crossing Scoping Report1, updated to meet current design standards and address
feedback following consultation with the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans).
FIGURE 1: PROPOSED CROSSWALK CONCEPT DESIGN, DATED 3/4/2020
1 https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Shelburne-Road-Queen-City-Park-Road-Crossing-Scoping-Report.pdf
2
VTrans is leading the design and implementation of the crosswalk reconfiguration as
part of a larger Shelburne Road corridor signal modernization project, SHELBURNE-
SOUTH BURLINGTON NHG SGNL(51).
The South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee requested to shift the proposed
west side crosswalk landing south, so the western end of the crosswalk is in east-west
alignment with the Queen City Park Road recreation path.
Our review recommends maintaining the current alignment for the following reasons:
1. The offset alignment requires people walking and biking to stop and turn before
crossing Shelburne Road; this change in alignment will provide further cue that
they are entering a roadway. Additionally, as the people walking and bicycling
eastbound approach the crosswalk and turn left, they will be looking at oncoming
traffic, improving their view to the vehicles on Shelburne Road.
2. Crosswalks are typically recommended to be perpendicular to the road to
maintain the shortest path. From the Vermont Pedestrian and Bicycle Facility
Planning and Design Manual2: “marked crosswalks should be placed as close to
perpendicular as possible”. Moving the western side south would create a
skewed crosswalk, increasing the length of the crosswalk and the associated
amount of time a pedestrian or bicyclist is exposed to traffic.
3. Moving the east side of the crosswalk to the south with the west side to maintain
a perpendicular crossing would excessively reduce the commercial driveway
width. The width in the current design is already proposed to be reduced to 24-
feet, the narrowest recommended commercial drive width.
4. Moving the crosswalk south would bring the crosswalk closer to and possibly
within the existing cross hatch striped median. This may be misunderstood by
pedestrians as a safe refuge from traffic. In fact, the cross hatch striped median
2 https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/highway/documents/publications/PedestrianandBicycle FacilityDesignManual.pdf
3
provides no protection from traffic. The existing size and alignment of the cross
hatched median is intended to discourage wrong-way left turns onto Queen City
Park Road; the northern end of the cross hatch median should not be moved
south. The crosswalk should maintain a minimum 1-foot buffer from the cross
hatch and double yellow line striping.
RSG recommends proceeding with the current crosswalk design layout within the
VTrans signal project. The pedestrian signal upgrades will be designed and installed by
VTrans. RSG recommends to VTrans that the pedestrian crossings are individually
actuated and are concurrent with traffic signal phases; RSG does not recommend an
exclusive pedestrian phase. The Shelburne Road crossing should be concurrent with the
eastbound Queen City Park Road left turn phase while a “no right turn” sign and red right
arrow are displayed to the right turn lanes; signal design timing, phasing, and details will
be completed by VTrans. RSG will provide these recommendations to the VTrans
project development team managing the SHELBURNE-SOUTH BURLINGTON NHG
SGNL(51) project. However, VTrans has jurisdiction over the highway and signal
improvements at this location and may choose to implement a different signalization
strategy.
MEMO
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com
TO: Skip Vallee (RL Vallee)
FROM: Corey Mack, PE
DATE: September 25, 2019
SUBJECT: Maplefields, S. Burlington, VT – Trip Generation
RL Vallee proposes to redevelop two parcels of land on the southwest corner of the intersection of
Queen City Park (QCP) Road and Shelburne Road (US-7). The proposal includes a convenience
store (4,260 gross square feet / GSF) and gas fueling business (10 vehicle fueling positions / VFP).
This memo addresses the proposed land use with respect to vehicle trip generation and the project’s
conformance to the relevant section(s) of the City of South Burlington’s Land Development
Regulation (LDR). This analysis will serve as the basis for the necessary traffic impact assessment.
1.0 TRIP GENERATION
This analysis considers the latest version (10th edition) of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (the
Manual). Since the writing of the LDR, the Manual now includes the Land Use “Super Convenience
Market/Gas Station” (LUC 960), which is appropriate for such uses with 2 specific characteristics:
▪ The gross floor area of the convenience market is at least 3,000 gross square feet
▪ The number of vehicle fueling positions is at least 10
As stated in the ITE Manual: “This land use includes gasoline/service stations with convenience
markets where there is significant business related to the sale of convenience items and the fueling of
motor vehicles.” [emphasis added].
While the ITE Manual presents average results for several independent variables, store size (GSF) or
fueling positions (VFP) are the most commonly used, and each method of estimation conform to the
LDR suggestion for such uses with the corresponding independent variable (convenience sales or
fueling) as the primary business. The resulting data plots for these variables are highly dispersed and
offer little clarity in the determination of expected vehicle trips (see Figures 1 and 2).
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 2
FIGURE 1: PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS BASED ON FUELING POSITIONS
FIGURE 2: PM PEAK HOR TRIPS BASED ON STORE SQUARE FEET
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 3
In the case of the RL Vallee proposal, the primary business is the sale of convenience items AND
fuel. Accordingly, the Manual provides a multivariate solution to trip generation for LUC 960:
Vehicle Trips = [(VFP Factor) x (Number of VFP)] + [(GFA Factor) x (GFA)] + (Constant)
where:
The above equation results in Vehicle Trips = 11.5 x 10 + 82.9 x 4.26 - 226 = 242 trips in the PM
peak hour with 50% entering and 50% exiting trips.
2.0 BASE BUDGET AND CREDITS
Traffic (Trip) Budget:
The project is located within the Traffic Overlay District – Zone 1. Per the LDR, the base traffic
budget for allowed trips in this zone is 15 trips per 40,000 SF of land parcel area. Given the two
parcels in question sum to 41,500 SF, the corresponding traffic budget is 16 trips.
Credits:
As allowed in the LDR1, trips can be added to the budget (or subtracted from the expected trip
generation) for certain improvements. RL Vallee proposes several measures that reduce trips on US-
7 and produce a net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project, as follows:
1. Non-US-7 Trips – Adjacent Roadway
As the primary concern for traffic in the overlay district is traffic and associated congestion on
US-7, RSG determined the proportion of traffic expected to access the site from US-7 vs. the
traffic expected to come from the roadway along the west side of the parcels (through the
former K Mart shopping plaza development). Since most convenience store and gas station trips
are based on trip passing by the site, traffic volume is a good indicator of access use. The most
recent available traffic counts from VTrans2, report the PM peak hour traffic for each roadway:
▪ 2-way traffic through shopping center parcel = X = 461 vph
▪ 2-way traffic on US-7 adjacent to the site = Y = 3,810 vph
Proportion = X/(X+Y) = 12.1%, or 242 trips x 0.121 = 29 trips
2. Non-US-7 Trips – Internal Capture
The proposed project site includes roadway and sidewalk connections to the redeveloped
Hannaford supermarket and shopping center (“Burlington Plaza”) property to the west. The
1 Article 10, Section 10.02, subpart H, Item 3
2 https://vtrans.ms2soft.com/tcds/
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 4
proposed secondary access points will allow internal capture between the retail shoppers in the
future supermarket and shopping center with the retail shoppers in the proposed super
convenience market/gas station. The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, does not
document a “Retail to Retail” internal capture rate, instead recommending the use of ITE LUC
820 Shopping Center for multiple retail stores on one site. From ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, 3rd Edition, the data behind ITE LUC 820 “reflect the effects of internal capture
and the mixed-use nature of the center”.
Accordingly, the effect of internal capture can be approximated by evaluating the combined trip
generation of the Burlington Plaza supermarket, retail center, and super convenience store as one
development described by ITE LUC 820 Shopping Center, compared to the individual trip
generations of the retail shopping center land use and super convenience store land use evaluated
separately.
TABLE 1: INTERNAL CAPTURE ESTIMATATION
Size
PM Peak External
Trip Generation
Approved Burlington Plaza: Supermarket /
Shopping Center
109,770 SF 582
Proposed Super Convenience Store 4,260 SF 242
824
Combined Overall Shopping Center 114,030 SF 599
Internal Capture (Total) (824 – 599) 225
Internal Capture (Rate) (225 / 824) 27.3%
As shown in Table 1, calculating the trip generation of the approved retail and supermarket at
the Burlington Plaza shopping center with the proposed super convenience store independently
totals 824 total PM Peak Hour trips. Analyzing all three land uses as a combined shopping center
leads to a trip generation calculation of 599 PM Peak Hour trips, or an effective internal capture
of 225 trips, or a 27.3% reduction.
The recommended internal capture credit associated with the adjacent shopping center land us is
27.3% of 242, or 66 trips
3. Close One Existing Curb-cut (10.02(H)(3)(a) and Appendix B.3)
The proposed development plan shows two curb cuts on US-7 accessing the proposed
development. The existing site has three driveways: two on the existing gas station, and one for
the existing motel. As discussed with City staff, the removed driveway shall be associated with
the abandoned motel land use. The LDR allows a minimum 20 trip credit for removal of this
driveway.
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 5
4. Reduce Width and Relocate Gas Station Curb-cut
The existing drive entrance to the gas station consists of two poorly defined entrances from
Shelburne Road / US-7 interrupted by a 20-foot long, 3” high curb. The drive to the north is
approximately 36 feet wide; the drive to the south is approximately 65 feet wide. After closing
the motel driveway, the proposed gas station curb cut will be reduced in width to approximately
40 feet and moved south away from the proposed northern curb cut.
FIGURE 1: EXISTING GAS STATION DRIVEWAY, WITH CURB HEIGHT MEASUREMENT INSET.
The LDR does not specify a methodology for calculating the traffic benefit of relocated and
reconfigured curb cuts. However, RSG expects the relocated and reconfigured curb cut to
provide a net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project. RSG has identified
the following benefits and estimated trip credits associated with each:
▪ Reduced width of driveway for better access management and slower vehicle
entering and exiting speeds (10.02(H)(3)(d)). Primarily an access management and
safety benefit for vehicles traveling along US-7. The VTrans Public Crash Data Query
Tool reports 26 crashes between QCP Road and Lindenwood Dr from January 1, 2014
to January 1, 2019. Of these 26 crashes, six crashes were broadside crashes. Access
management improvements similar to the proposed driveway reconfiguration may
reduce the occurrence of this crash type.
▪ Increased distance from the QCP Road and US-7 Intersection. The existing
southern drive is approximately 115 feet south of the QCP / US-7 intersection; the
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 6
proposed driveway relocation will increase this offset to approximately 240 feet. RSG
expects the southern driveway to receive three-quarters of the US-7 exiting trips, and
about half of the US-7 entering trips. This results in about 130 trips offset an additional
125 feet from the high-volume QCP / US-7 intersection. This increased offset is
expected to result in reduced vehicle conflict and improved traffic flow.
Discussion with city traffic engineering representatives indicated the total trip credit estimated
from the driveway reconfiguration is 20 trips.
5. Proposed Adjacent Land Use Connections (Appendix B.3)
The proposed site includes roadway a roadway connection to the Tire Warehouse to the south.
The minimum credit for a connection to an adjacent parcel is documented as 15 trips in the
LDR.
3.0 TRIP CREDIT SUMMARY
Base Budget: 16
Trip Credits:
1. Non-US-7 Trips – Adjacent Roadway 29
2. Non-US-7 Trips – Internal Capture 66
3. Close One Existing Curb-cut 20
4. Reduce Width and Relocate Gas Station Curb-cut 20
5. Proposed Adjacent Land Use Connections 15
Total Credits: 150
Total Trip Budget (Base + Credits): 166
Trip Generation: 242
Net Trip Budget Deficit: (76)
4.0 MITIGATION
The proposed Maplefilelds development program results in a 76-trip budget deficit following the trip
credit calculation guidelines set forth in the LDR. However, Section 10.02(H)(1) cites the DRB may
approve volumes above the standards set forth in the LDR for improvements that will “produce a
net benefit for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project”. The LDR further cites
“improved access management”, “improved pedestrian… access” and “any other criteria… the DRB
deems relevant” for consideration as site improvements that will produce a net benefit for traffic
flow.
RSG has identified the following features of the proposed development as producing a net benefit
for traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project. These proposed features do not have an
explicit method of calculating a trip credit in the LDR. These features include:
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 7
1. Improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian crosswalk at Shelburne Road / QCP Road
2. Reduced pedestrian crossing distance / exposure along Shelburne Road
3. Enhanced streetscape with plantings
4. Consolidation of gas station land uses
5. Reduction in width of existing Dattalio curb-cut
These features of the proposed development program are consistent with similar DRB-approved
features from projects in South Burlington used to demonstrate a net benefit for traffic flow in the
immediate vicinity of the project. The features implement a city-approved improvement plan at the
QCP Road / Shelburne Road intersection, improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, improve
access management within and outside of the proposed site, and consolidate gas stations resulting in
fewer fueling positions and a potential reduction in conflicting turning movements.
The proposed development program features resulting in a net benefit for traffic flow in the
immediate vicinity of the project are described in further detail:
1. IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BICYCLE / PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
The proposed development includes construction of bicycle and pedestrian improvements across
US-7 / Shelburne Road consistent with the recommendation of the 2005 QCP Road Crossing
Scoping Report3 preferred alternative. The bicycle and pedestrian improvements are expected to
produce a net benefit for vehicle traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of the project for two
reasons: the proposed infrastructure will encourage and facilitate non-motorized travel to the site
reducing vehicle trips, and the proposed improvements will improve a critical regional bicycle
and pedestrian link across US-7.
▪ Site related travel. The proposed development plan will include sidewalks along US-7, and
convenient sidewalk access to the Tire Warehouse, Hannaford Supermarket, and Limoge
Apartments. The landscaped island buffer along the US-7 frontage will create a more inviting
walking environment and reduce Pedestrian Level of Stress. Bicycle racks will be provided
near the entrance to the convenience store to serve customers accessing the proposed site on
bicycle. Both pedestrian and bicycle travel modes are expected to be relatively high due to
the proposed site location near the incoming Hannaford Supermarket, adjacent apartment
complex, residential land uses, and adjacent bicycle route to Red Rocks and the Burlington
Island Line Trail (BILT) along QCP.
▪ Regional bicycle facility improvements. The proposed site is located at a critical missing
link within the regional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure network. To the west lies a
short segment of shared use path leading to QCP Road, Red Rocks Park, and the BILT to
points north; to the east, at the end of low-volume Lindenwood Drive, lies a shared use path
network connecting to the Spear Street path towards UVM and the residential
neighborhoods along Spear Street, Dorset Street, and beyond. However, between QCP and
Lindenwood Drive, no appropriate shared use facilities exist. This missing link is identified
as a “Difficult Connection” by Local Motion, and VTrans has identified the US-7 corridor as
3 https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Shelburne-Road-Queen-City-
Park-Road-Crossing-Scoping-Report.pdf
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 8
a high use / priority improvement corridor. The proposed development will construct a
signalized bicycle and pedestrian crossing, with crossing phase, on the southern leg of the
QCP Road / US-7 intersection, and extend a 10-foot wide, raised asphalt shared use path
from this crossing location south to the intersection at Lindenwood Drive. The path will be
painted green across the southern Dattilio driveway. As appropriate and approved by
VTrans, the pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will be consistent with the preferred
alternative from the QCP Road Crossing Scoping Report.
FIGURE 2. NEW CONNECTION TO ALTERNATE ROUTES
FIGURE 3: BICYCLISTS WAITING TO CROSS SHELBURNE ROAD AT QCP ROAD
The City of South Burlington’s Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need for links between
“neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping and employment centers”. This project meets a
number of the Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Objectives:
o Objective 17: Complete Street mandates that maximizes efficiency and safety for all
types of users by completing a critical link in the bicycle and pedestrian network.
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 9
o Objective 18: Connecting neighborhoods with commercial areas via bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructure.
o Objective 20: Reduce the percentage of trips taken by single-occupancy vehicles by
reducing the barriers to non-motorized transportation.
o Objective 21: Provides an alternative congestion relief by offering a more robust bicycle
and pedestrian travel network.
RSG estimated the path usage to the east and west of the proposed site. Bicycle and
pedestrian counts compiled by UVM4 recorded a peak hour volume of 54 travelers along the
Szymanski Park Path and 39 travelers along the Spear Street Path near Farrell Street. The
southern end of the BILT recorded a peak hour volume of 162 travelers. It is reasonable to
assume that the QCP Road connection may funnel users of the Spear Street and Szymanski
paths to the BILT path for the complete journey, or to form recreational loops. RSG
estimated that 25% of these path users may cross US-7 at the enhanced QCP Road crossing,
or 63 bicycle and pedestrian crossings in the peak hour.
2. REDUCED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DISTANCE / PEDESTRIAN
EXPOSURE
Given the existing curb breaking the driveway is only 3” high (see inset photo on Figure 1) and
the entire site is paved, there is no impediment to vehicle travel over the entire length of the
existing sidewalk. RSG calculates the existing pedestrian crossing distance as approximately 110
feet (excluding the closed motel curb cut). The proposed site development program includes two
40 foot wide driveways separated by full height vertical curbed islands, reducing the pedestrian
crossing distance to approximately 80 feet. The net change in pedestrian crossing length is 30
feet, or almost 9 fewer seconds of exposure.
3. ENHANCED STREETSCAPE WITH PLANTINGS
The two proposed two driveways are separated by a curbed and landscaped island approximately
165 feet in length. This landscaped buffer is expected to enhance the gateway from the I-189
interchange entering the Shelburne Road corridor. The streetscape enhancements provide visual
cues to motorists to reduce speeds along US-7, and upon entering, exiting, and traveling through
the site.
4. CONSOLIDATION OF GAS STATION LAND USES
The existing site gas station contains eight fueling positions. Directly east of the site across US-7,
the Dattalio Sunoco site contains four fueling positions, for a total of 12 fueling positions in the
immediate vicinity of the project area. Through this project, the Dattalio site will no longer
provide gas fueling services and the proposed site will accommodate 10 fueling positions,
resulting in a net reduction of 2 fueling positions in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Additionally, all fueling positions will be located on one site. The turning movements associated
with the gas station land use is effectively consolidated to the two proposed, reconfigured, and
4 http://www.uvm.edu/~transctr/research/VTransBPPortal/index.html
Trip Gen Memo 9-25-19
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, VT 05401 www.rsginc.com 10
otherwise improved drives. RSG expects this to result in a net benefit for traffic flow in the
immediate vicinity of the project.
5. REDUCE WIDTH OF EXISTING DATTALIO CURB-CUT
The proposed development plan reduces the northern curb cut width of the existing Dattalio gas
station on US-7 directly opposite the proposed development.. The existing northern Dattalio
drive is 40 feet wide. The proposed driveway shall be reduced to 24 feet wide consistent with the
recommendation of the 2005 QCP Road Crossing Scoping Report preferred alternative.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
▪ The proposed Maplefields Super Convenience Store on Shelburne Road in South Burlington
is located within the Major Intersections – Zone 1 Traffic Overlay District.
▪ The proposed project is expected to generate 242 vehicle trip ends in the PM Peak Hour.
▪ The LDR allows for a trip budget of 166 trip credits.
▪ The proposed project has a trip budget deficit of 76 trips
▪ The proposed project includes five features that result in a net benefit to traffic flow in the
vicinity of the project, including:
1. Improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian crosswalk at Shelburne Road / QCP
Road
2. Reduced pedestrian crossing distance / exposure along Shelburne Road
3. Enhanced streetscape with plantings
4. Consolidation of gas station land uses
5. Reduction in width of existing Dattalio curb-cut
END OF MEMO
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
RSG 180 Battery Street, Suite 350, Burlington, Vermont 05401 www.rsginc.com
TO: Skip Vallee, R.L. Vallee, Inc. FROM: Corey Mack, P.E.
DATE: March 30, 2020
SUBJECT: TIS for Proposed Maplefields, Shelburne Road, South Burlington
RSG has prepared a Traffic Impact Study to the proposed renovation and reuse of the
existing Gulf Oil gas station and extended stay Maple Leaf Motel on Shelburne Road in
South Burlington, VT. The proposed site is located on the west side of Shelburne Road
south of Queen City Park (QCP) Road, with site access to Shelburne Road and the
Burlington Plaza Shopping Center (under construction).
The existing land use consists of a Gulf Oil gas station and service center with eight
fueling positions and a two bay garage; and the Maple Leaf Motel extended stay
efficiency apartments with approximately 14 dwelling units.
The proposed development will remove the existing service station garage and motel
dwelling units and construct two additional fueling positions (total of ten fueling positions)
and a 4,260 SF Maplefields super convenience store.
This memorandum documents the following information:
• The existing road network adjacent to the proposed site;
• The proposed development program;
• The trip generation estimate for the proposed development program;
• An evaluation of traffic operations at nearby intersections;
• A review of crashes near the proposed site; and
• Conclusions and recommendations.
1.0 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK
The proposed Maplefields super convenience store is located on the west side of
Shelburne Road (US Route 7), between two signalized intersections at QCP Road and
Brewer Parkway. Access to the existing land uses consists of two curb cuts from
Shelburne Road into the gas station, and one curb cut from Shelburne Road into the
motel. The redevelopment program proposes removing the motel driveway, relocating
one of the existing gas station driveways south, and providing access to the Burlington
2
Plaza site to the west, and adjacent retail tire center to the south. The location of the
existing land uses in relation to the local road network is illustrated in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: EXISTING ROAD NETWORK
Shelburne Road (US-7) is a five-lane roadway adjacent to the project site, consisting of
two lanes in each direction and a center two-way left turn lane. The roadway, classified
as an urban principal arterial state highway, provides a north-south connection from I-
189 and Burlington to the north to points south. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per
hour (MPH). Adjacent land uses along Shelburne Road are primarily commercial.
The Shelburne Road cross section includes five-foot concrete sidewalks on both sides of
Shelburne Road, but no infrastructure for on-road bicycles. Marked bicycle routes are
present on Swift Street and Lindenwood Drive east of Shelburne Road, and a bicycle
path exists adjacent to QCP Road west of Shelburne Road. Shelburne Road itself is a
significant barrier to bicycle travel as identified in the Queen City Road Crossing Scoping
Report1.
Transit service is provided by the Green Mountain Transit (GMT) Blue Line, with 20
minute headways before 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and 30 minute headways from 6:00 PM to
11:00 PM. Transit stops are provided at QCP Road (southbound, few amenities) and
Lindenwood Drive (northbound, shelter and bench provided).
1 https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Shelburne-Road-Queen-City-Park-Road-Crossing-Scoping-Report.pdf
3
QCP Road is a two-lane roadway west of the Burlington Plaza, with one lane in each
direction. QCP Road serves a mix of commercial, residential and industrial land uses to
the west and a connection to the Pine Street corridor into Burlington. East of the
Burlington Plaza, the roadway separates into two one-way approaches as it interacts
with the future Southern Connector interchange. Westbound QCP Road forms two lanes
at the signalized intersection with Shelburne Road: a right turn lane, and a dual left-right
turn lane; right turns on red are prohibited at this location. The posted speed limit of QCP
Road is 25 MPH.
The Burlington Plaza road network west and south of the site are private roads forming
an alternate route parallel to Shelburne Road. The Burlington Plaza signalized access to
Shelburne Road consists of two westbound approach lanes opposite Brewer Parkway: a
shared through-left lane, and a right turn lane.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The Maplefields site proposes to remove the existing motel and service station garage,
add two fueling positions, and construct a 4,260 SF super convenience store. The
proposed project is illustrated in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2. PROPOSED SITE PLAN (DATED 11/13/19)
The proposed layout of the project includes several enhancements to improve safety,
accessibility and circulation, including:
4
• Removing the existing Maple Leaf Motel curb cut;
• Relocating the existing second gas station curb cut south of the current location
of the existing motel curb cut;
• Reconstructing curb along Shelburne Road to reestablish full reveal curb height;
• Constructing secondary access to the QCP Road and Brewer Parkway
signalized intersections via the Burlington Plaza roadway.
• Enhanced landscaping along Shelburne Road;
• Improved site lighting; and
• Installing convenient bicycle racks and sidewalks through the site.
3.0 TRIP GENERATION
RSG followed the following process to estimate the new trip generation of the proposed
development:
1. Estimate the existing trip generation of the existing eight fueling position
service station using Institute of Transportation (ITE) trip generation rates;
2. Estimate the proposed trip generation of the ten fueling position, 4,260 SF
super convenience store using ITE trip generation rates;
3. Estimate the internal capture expected when considering the Maplefields
superconveneince store as part of a larger shopping center to include the
adjacent Burlington Plaza;
4. Estimate the net new external trip generation by subtracting the existing trip
generation from the proposed trip generation; and
5. Separate primary new trip generation from pass-by new trip generation using
established ITE pass-by rates.
3.1 EXISTING TRIP GENERATION
Using ITE land use code (LUC) 944 – Gasoline / Service Station and LUC 220 – Multi-
Family Housing, Low-Rise, the AM and PM peak hour trip generation is shown in Table
1.
5
TABLE 1: EXISTING LAND USE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE2
3.2 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION
ITE LUC 960 – Super Convenience Store, provides a multivariate approach to
estimating trip generation based on two variables: fueling positions and gross floor area
(GFA) of the proposed convenience store. The equation is:
Vehicle Trips = [(VFP Factor) x (Number of VFP)] + [(GFA Factor) x (GFA)] + (Constant)
where:
The above equation results in:
AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips = (16.1 x 10) + (135 x 4.26) – 483 = 253
PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips = (11.5 x 10) + (82.9 x 4.26) - 226 = 242
Both peak hour trip distributions are 50% entering and 50% exiting trips.
3.3 INTERNAL CAPTURE ESTIMATE
The proposed project site includes roadway and sidewalk connections to the
redeveloped Hannaford supermarket and shopping center within the Burlington Plaza
property to the west. The proposed secondary access points will allow internal capture
between the retail shoppers in the future supermarket and shopping center with the retail
shoppers in the proposed super convenience market/gas station. The ITE Trip
Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, does not document a “Retail to Retail” internal
capture rate, instead recommending the use of ITE LUC 820 Shopping Center for
multiple retail stores on one site. From ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, the
data behind ITE LUC 820 “reflect the effects of internal capture and the mixed-use
nature of the center”.
Accordingly, RSG estimated the effect of internal capture by evaluating the combined
trip generation of the Burlington Plaza supermarket, retail center, and super convenience
2 Rounding errors may be present resulting in simple math irregularities.
Description ITE LUC Variable Unit Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit
Existing Serv. Sta.944 8 VFP 82 41 41 112 56 56
Maple Leaf Motel 220 14 DU 6 1 5 8 5 3
89 43 46 120 61 59
AM Peak PM Peak
Base Trips
6
store as one development described by ITE LUC 820 Shopping Center, compared to the
individual trip generations of the retail shopping center land use and super convenience
store land use evaluated separately.
TABLE 2: INTERNAL CAPTURE RATE ESTIMATION
SIZE
PM PEAK EXTERNAL TRIP
GENERATION
Approved Burlington Plaza: Supermarket /
Shopping Center3 109,770 SF 582
Proposed Super Convenience Store 4,260 SF 242
Total PM peak hour trip generation when evaluated separately 824
Combined Overall Shopping Center 114,030 SF 599
Internal Capture (Total) (824 – 599) 225
Internal Capture (Rate) (225 / 824) 27.3%
As shown in Table 2, calculating the trip generation of the approved retail and
supermarket at the Burlington Plaza shopping center with the proposed super
convenience store independently totals 824 total PM Peak Hour trips. Analyzing all three
land uses as a combined shopping center leads to a trip generation calculation of 599
PM Peak Hour trips, or an effective internal capture of 225 trips, or a 27.3% reduction.
Since the supermarket will be open during the AM peak hour, RSG assumes the same
internal capture rate will be applicable.
The total peak hour trip generation and internal capture calculation is show in Table 3.
TABLE 3: PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION AND INTERNAL CAPTURE ESTIMATE
3 “Proposed Burlington Plaza Adaptive Reuse & Renovation Traffic Impact Study”, February 21, 2017
ITE LUC Description Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit
960 Prop. Sup. Conv.253 127 127 242 121 121
Internal Capture Rate 27.3%27.3%
Internal Trips 69 35 35 66 33 33
External Trips 184 92 92 176 88 88
AM Peak PM Peak
7
3.4 NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
RSG estimated the net new external trips resulting from the redevelopment of the gas
station by subtracting the estimated existing trip generation (Table 1) from the estimated
proposed external trip generation (Table 3). The resulting net new external trip
generation is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4: ESTIMATED NET NEW EXTERNAL TRIP GENERATION
3.5 PRIMARY AND PASS-BY TRIP ESTIMATES
External site generated traffic can be differentiated between primary and pass-by trips.
While primary trips represent people who leave their home, place of work, or other origin
expressly to visit the site and who would not otherwise have gotten into their vehicle to
make a trip, pass-by trips represent vehicles that currently pass by the site on the local
road network and who, when the proposed development is present, turn into the site on
their way to another destination. Pass-by trips are converted from through movements to
turning movements into and out from the site at the development access point, but do
not add new trips to intersections beyond the site access.
The percentage of trips that are considered pass-by is based on estimates from the ITE
Trip Generation Handbook, and only apply to vehicle-based external trips. Typically, gas
stations and convenience stores have a high rate of pass-by traffic. The ITE Trip
Generation Handbook reports an average pass-by rate for LUC 945 – Gasoline / Service
Station with Convenience Market of 62% in the AM Peak Period and 56% in the PM
Peak Period; RSG believes that this pass-by rate is lower than would actually be
observed in operation during the peak hours. The resulting separation of primary and
pass-by trips for the new trip generation is shown in Table 5.
TABLE 5: ESTIMATED NET PRIMARY AND PASS-BY TRIP GENERATION
As shown in Table 5, RSG estimates the proposed development will generate 25 new
external primary trips in the PM peak hour.
Description Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit
Proposed External Trip Gen 184 92 92 176 88 88
Existing Trip Gen 89 43 46 120 61 59
Net New External Trip Gen 95 49 46 56 27 29
AM Peak PM Peak
AM PM Total Enter Exit Total Enter Exit
Net New External Trip Gen 95 49 46 56 27 29
Pass-By Trips 62% 56% 59 31 28 31 15 16
Primary Trips 38% 44% 36 19 17 25 12 13
AM Peak PM PeakPass-By Rate
8
VTrans guidelines specify that a traffic study should be considered if the proposed
development will generate 75 or more peak hour trips. The geographic scope of the
study should also include the immediate access points and those intersections or
highway segments receiving 75 or more project-generated peak hour trips.4 With only 25
new primary trips in the PM peak hour, the proposed project would not require traffic
analysis by VTrans.
4.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
RSG evaluated the estimated the trip generation resulting from the proposed
development within the traffic network presented in the 2017 Proposed Burlington Plaza
Adaptive Reuse & Renovation Traffic Impact Study (Burlington Plaza TIS). Using the
Burlington Plaza TIS 2023 Build scenario in the PM peak hour, RSG added and adjusted
observed traffic volumes recorded by VTrans at the Shelburne Road / QCP Road
intersection.
These 2023 Burlington Plaza PM peak hour build scenario traffic volumes are presented
in Figure 3 as the proposed project no build PM peak hour existing conditions. Figure 4
illustrates the 2023 PM peak hour build volumes, including all external primary and pass-
by trips resulting from the proposed development.
While distributing trips, RSG considered that eastbound lefts out of the northern
driveway should be restricted due to the proximity of the QCP Road intersection. Half of
the eastbound left turning exits were instead routed Shelburne Rd via Burlington Plaza
and QCP Road. Given the presence of the two way left turn lane, northbound left turn
entrances were allowed at both proposed driveways, and eastbound left turning exits
were allowed from the southern driveway, similar to the current operating characteristics
of the existing land uses.
While none of the adjacent intersections warrant additional analysis based on the
VTrans TIS guideline recommendation, intersection capacity analyses were performed
on the Shelburne Road intersections with QCP Road, Brewer Parkway, and the southern
site driveway.
4 Vermont Agency of Transportation, Policy and Planning Division, Development Review and Permitting Services, Traffic Impact Study Guidelines (April 2019).
9
FIGURE 3: NO BUILD 2023 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
81 167 0 2018
0 392
320 I80 I20
326 8
202 0 80 2235
Shelburne Rd
25 2001
31
I30
25
31 2204
Shelburne Rd
2 2024
2
I70 I40
1
3 2233
Shelburne Rd
167 326 237 1759 29
228 158 248 23
228 I60 237 2 I50 2
261 9
Schematic representation of peak hour traffic turning movements; not to scale 155 1965 13
Traffic volumes may not add correctly due to minor rounding errors Shelburne Rd Brewer PkwyExisting Gulf
Gas Station
(two drives)
Existing
Maple Leaf
Motel
QCP Rd Shelburne Rd
Queen City Park RdQCP RdBurlington
Plaza
Burlington Plaza
10
FIGURE 4: BUILD 2023 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
4.1 LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND V/C DEFINITION
Level-of-service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing the operating conditions as
perceived by motorists driving in a traffic stream. To maintain consistency with past
81 167 0 2023
0 407
320 I80 I20
327 8
210 0 95 2219
Shelburne Rd
19 2012
0
I30
19
23 2219
Shelburne Rd
492 3 19 2012
24 23
I70 I40
2 19
385 2 23 2218
Shelburne Rd
167 326 237 1765 29
228 158 248 23
228 I60 237 2 I50 2
261 9
Schematic representation of peak hour traffic turning movements; not to scale 155 1970 13
Traffic volumes may not add correctly due to minor rounding errors Shelburne Rd
QCP Rd Shelburne Rd
Brewer PkwyQueen City Park RdQCP RdBurlington
Plaza
Redeveloped
Maplefields
Burlington Plaza
11
analyses, LOS is calculated based on the criteria published in the 2000 Highway
Capacity Manual5 (HCM 2000). In addition to traffic volumes, key inputs include the
number of lanes at each intersection, traffic control type (signalized or unsignalized), and
the traffic signal timing plans, if applicable.
The HCM 2000 defines six qualitative grades to describe the level of service at an
intersection. Level-of-service is based on the average control delay per vehicle. Table 6
shows the various LOS grades and descriptions for signalized and unsignalized
intersections.
TABLE 6: LEVEL-OF-SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED AND UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LOS Characteristics
Unsignalized
Total Delay (sec)
Signalized
Total Delay (sec)
A Little or no delay ≤ 10.0 ≤ 10.0
B Short delays 10.1-15.0 10.1-20.0
C Average delays 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0
D Long delays 25.1-35.0 35.1-55.0
E Very long delays 35.1-50.0 55.1-80.0
F Extreme delays > 50.0 > 80.0
The delay thresholds for LOS at signalized and unsignalized intersections differ because
of the driver’s expectations of the operating efficiency for the respective traffic control
conditions. According to HCM procedures, an overall LOS cannot be calculated for two-
way stop-controlled intersections because not all movements experience delay. In
signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections, all movements experience delay
and an overall LOS can be calculated.
The VTrans policy on level of service is:
▪ Overall LOS C should be maintained for state-maintained highways and other
streets accessing the state’s facilities.
▪ Reduced LOS may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis when considering, at
minimum, current and future traffic volumes, delays, volume to capacity ratios,
crash rates, and negative impacts resulting from improvements necessary to
achieve LOS C.
▪ LOS D should be maintained for side roads with volumes exceeding 100
vehicles/hour for a single lane approach (150 vehicles/hour for a two-lane
approach) at two-way stop-controlled intersections.
5 The most current editions of the HCM do not provide methodologies for calculating intersection
delays at certain intersection types including signalized intersections with exclusive pedestrian phases and signalized intersections with non NEMA-standard phasing.
12
In addition, the analyses included the volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of each approach.
The v/c ratio represents the sufficiency of an approach leg to accommodate the
vehicular demand. According to FHWA:
“As the v/c ratio approaches 1.0, traffic flow may become unstable, and delay
and queuing conditions may occur. Once the demand exceeds the capacity (a
v/c ratio greater than 1.0), traffic flow is unstable and excessive delay and
queuing is expected.”6
4.2 OPERATIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS RESULTS
RSG built a traffic model using Synchro version 10 for the Shelburne Road intersections
with QCP Road and Brewer Parkway, using the peak hour turning movement volumes
illustrated in Figure 4. The results of the LOS and capacity analysis, shown in Table 7,
indicate that the new trips associated with the proposed development make no
significant change in the existing traffic performance of the corridor.
TABLE 7: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
2023 NO BUILD 2023 BUILD
Location v/c Delay LOS v/c Delay LOS
Shelburne Rd / Plaza Dr / Brewer Pkwy 0.99 33.5 C 0.99 34.1 C
Shelburne Rd / QCP Rd Eastbound 0.97 28.9 C 0.99 31.3 C
The capacity analysis results presented in Table 7 reflect the operations of the
Shelburne Road / Brewer Parkway / Plaza Drive and Shelburne Road / QCP Road
intersections in isolation. The intersections are actually part of a larger coordinated
signal system along Shelburne Road which experiences peak period delay resulting
largely from sub-optimal signal timing allocations and mis-aligned signal coordination at
up- and down-stream signals.
There are two VTrans projects programmed and underway near the project site, including:
• SHELBURNE-SOUTH BURLINGTON NHG SGNL(51)C/1: Replacement and
rehabilitation of signals along US-7 in South Burlington and Shelburne
• SHELBURNE-BURLINGTON NH 019-4(33): Installation of automated traffic
signal performance measures and related equipment along US-7 from Shelburne
mm 2.456 to Burlington mm 0.2, with construction scheduled Summer 2020 - Fall
2021
These two VTrans projects will improve signal infrastructure along the corridor, connect
the signals with the VTrans ATMS system, provide more up-to-date performance
6 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide, 2004
13
measures, allow remote monitoring and adjustment, and improve signal optimization.
We anticipate that the new signal hardware will greatly improve corridor performance.
5.0 CRASH REVIEW
The proposed project site is near three state-designated 2012-2016 High Crash
Locations:
• High Crash Location Intersection at Shelburne Road and Swift Street
HCL Intersection #76; actual: critical 1.163
• High Crash Location Segment along Shelburne Road from QCP Road to
Hannaford Drive (MM 1.412 – MM 1.712)
HCL Segment #114; actual: critical 2.114
• High Crash Location Segment along Shelburne Road from Hannaford Drive to
Fayette Drive (MM 1.112 – MM 1.412)
HCL Segment #707; actual: critical 1.055
FIGURE 5: LOCATION OF NEARBY HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS
RSG reviewed all reported crashes near the site drives between mile marker 1.60 to
1.65 in the five-year period from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2020. In this time, 23
crashes were reported. Of these 23 crashes, 16 were rear end crashes (typically
associated with queues formed from signalized intersections), four crashes were same
14
direction sideswipes (typically associated with lane changes), two were uncategorized,
and only one crash was related to turning movements. Two of the 23 crashes, a rear-
end crash and a same direction sideswipe crash, resulted in an injury.
RSG does not expect the expanded operation of the Maplefields convenience store and
gas station to increase the rate of existing rear end crashes, and there is no pattern of
turn-related crashes to indicate unsafe turning conditions at this location.
FIGURE 6: REPORTED CRASHES ALONG SHELBURNE ROAD NEAR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE.
The proposed project includes several features to improve safe operation at the
proposed site accesses, including:
• Removal of the motel curb cut (for a total of two proposed curb cuts) along
Shelburne Road;
• Relocation of the gas station driveway curb cut to provide greater driveway
separation and further separation from the QCP Road intersection;
• Installation of full reveal curbing and associated landscaping to reinforce the
existing curbed island; and
• Alternate site access via the grid street network and adjacent signalized
intersections.
These site access and driveway improvements, coupled with the existing roadway
infrastructure, are expected to allow continued safe and efficient roadway operations.
The proposed development of the Maplefields convenience store will not cause or
exacerbate unsafe conditions on the local roadway network.
15
6.0 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION
6.1 SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE
The City of South Burlington enacted an impact fee ordinance7 as a mechanism to
distribute the cost of capital construction among new developments within the City. The
City of South Burlington has identified four impact fees, two of which may be applicable
to this project:
1. Road Improvement Impact Fee: $999.86 per PM peak hour trip end
$998.86 x (25 new primary PM peak hour trips) = $24,971.50
2. Police Impact Fee: $237.76 per 1,000 GFA
$237.76 x (4.26 KSF GFA) = $1,012.86
The total City of South Burlington impact fee is $25,985. Both impact fees may be
reduced based on credits for past and future tax payments related to the assessed value
of the property.
Section 8 of the Impact Fee Ordinance allows for “In-Kind” contributions towards impact
fees. Upon recommendation of the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer,
the construction cost of the bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements may be
considered in-kind contributions.
6.2 ACT 145 STATE IMPACT FEES
The State of Vermont, under Act 145, is likely to assess traffic impact fees associated
with roadway work proposed in the vicinity of the proposed project. There are two
projects with eligible impact fees. These projects include:
• MEGC M 5000(1) – Champlain Parkway Fee: $2,069 per PM trip
• HES 5000(18) – Shelburne Street Roundabout Fee: $1,217 per PM trip
RSG estimates that all new eastbound entering and westbound exiting trips from QCP
Road will apply towards the Champlain Parkway Fee. This results in +9 trips in the PM
peak hour at $2,069 per trip, or $18,621.
In addition, RSG estimates the volume through the QCP Road / Shelburne Road
intersection will increase by +4 trips in the PM peak hour. RSG assumes 25% will travel
through the Champlain Parkway, 25% through the Shelburne Street Roundabout, and
the remaining 50% will travel along I-189 throughout the region. This results in 1 trip at
$2,069 per trip plus 1 trip at $1,217 per trip, or $3,286.
RSG estimates the total base Act 145 Impact Fee at $21,547.
7 http://cms6.revize.com/revize/southburlington/document_center/planning/Impact_Fee_ Ordinance_5-19-2014_adopted.pdf
16
The base impact fee may be reduced due to several TDM strategies employed at the
site. The project will construct bicycle racks and walkways throughout the site. In
addition, the applicant is constructing improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian
crossing from the Swift Street / Lindenwood recreational paths to the QCP path. The
crossing improvements, first identified in a 2005 Intersection Scoping Study, have been
discussed with VTrans and the City of South Burlington Staff members. These
improvements warrant a 10% reduction in the base fee according to Table 1 of the Act
145 Impact Fee Guidance8.
RSG estimates the adjusted Act 145 Impact Fee at $19,393. However, the Act 145 fee is
only assessed if it exceeds the amount of the local (South Burlington) impact fee. In this
case, since the estimated local impact fee is greater than the Act 145 impact fee, the Act
145 impact would be waived.
Lastly, if an Act 145 impact fee is assessed, an applicant may seek to offset the Act 145
Impact Fee based on the construction cost of the crossing improvements at Shelburne
Road and QCP Road. From the Act 145 Guidance:
“An applicant may construct a portion, or the entirety of, a transportation project that
would have otherwise been constructed by VTrans or a municipality. In these cases,
the Act 145 fee will be adjusted to reflect the value of the work completed by the
applicant. In most cases, the adjustment would more than offset the Act 145 fee.”
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the analysis conducted for this report, RSG estimates the proposed project will
not cause or exacerbate any unreasonable congestion or unsafe conditions on the local
roadway network and will not unnecessarily or unreasonably endanger the public's
investment in any local roads, highways, or related infrastructure. The proposed project
will not have a significant impact on traffic operations at the adjacent signalized
intersections. We believe the analysis presented is conservative; we believe the project
will generate primarily pass-by trips in the peak hours, resulting in little new peak hour
trip generation along the corridor.
The total new external primary trip generation was estimated at +12 entrances and +13
exits in the PM peak hour, for a total of +25 peak hour trips. This trip generation falls
below the +75-trip threshold generally used by VTrans to justify a Traffic Impact Study.
This small number of new external primary trip generation is not expected to significantly
impact the near-capacity performance of the corridor.
RSG recommends construction of the bicycle and pedestrian intersection improvements
identified in the 2005 Shelburne Road / Queen City Park Road Intersection Scoping
Report, to be coordinated with VTrans.
8 https://vtrans.vermont.gov/sites/aot/files/planning/documents/trafficresearch/Act%20145%20 Guidance%20Revision%202%20-%20January%202020.pdf
17
RSG has calculated a total South Burlington municipal impact fee of $25,985 (subject to
adjustment based on property tax). The state Act 145 impact fee would be assessed up
to $19,393 (subject to adjustment based on the local impact fee).
Furthermore, RSG recommends the following site operational modifications:
• Recommend restricting left turn exits out of the proposed Maplefields northern
driveway due to proximity of the QCP Road intersection.
• Recommend modifying the cross hatched median on Shelburne Road to allow
left turns into the northern driveway, but still making it clear that left turns are not
allowed into QCP Road eastbound.
• Recommend installation of “Alternate exit to Shelburne Road via signal” sign
within internal circulation lanes to encourage use of QCP Road / Plaza Drive
signalized intersections.
ATTACHMENTS:
Synchro Traffic Analysis Worksheets
MEMO
RSG 55 Railroad Row, White River Junction, Vermont 05001 www.rsginc.com
TO: Skip Vallee FROM: Corey Mack, PE
DATE: April 7, 2020
SUBJECT: Maplefields Shelburne Road – Response to 3/20/20 Technical Review of Trip Credit Memo
RSG has reviewed the comments prepared by BFJ Planning on March 20, 2020, in their
review of the traffic budget credits calculation prepared by RSG on September 25, 2019.
RSG has provides the following response and clarification to the comments.
In summary, RSG and BFJ agree on all trip credits except the application of internal
capture as a result of adjacent parcel commercial activity. Regardless, the project results
in a shortfall of 76-trips (RSG calculation) or 142-trips (BFJ calculation). In both
calculations, RSG believes the proposed project with mitigation items cited in the
9/25/19 memo will result in a net benefit for traffic flow and safety in the immediate
vicinity of the project.
ITEM 1: Traffic Generation and Traffic Budget
RSG and BFJ agree on the PM Peak Hour trip generation estimate of 242 vehicle trips.
ITEM 2: Credits for the Former K Mart Road and for Potential Internal Capture
• BFJ notes “the site is bounded by the former K Mart Road”; more correctly, the
site is bound by a private, internal shopping center circulation route within the
active Hannaford supermarket and retail shopping center, referred to as
Burlington Plaza. The Hannaford supermarket opened March 21, 20201, the
adjacent retail space does not have an active tenant.
• BFJ notes the adjacent traffic flow of 461 vehicles in the PM peak hour was
developed based on a 2011 count; it is based on a 2009 count2. At the time of
the 2009 count, the Kmart department store was active, although in a state of
decline and disrepair. The Kmart department store closed permanently in mid-
January, 20163.
1 https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2020/03/20/hannaford-open-saturday-south-burlington-but-virus-nixes-party/2883170001/
2 https://vtrans.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Vtrans&mod, Intersection ID 30414280 3 https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/09/30/south-burlington-kmart-to-close
2
• BFJ claims the 461 vehicles in the PM peak hour are representative of the active
shopping center demand, while a count from September 2019 at the Shelburne
Road / Burlington Plaza / Brewer Parkway intersection observed only 85 vehicles
used the internal shopping center circulation route in the PM peak hour,
indicating the background traffic is only 85 vehicles per hour. At the time of this
count, the internal circulation route was closed to through traffic. The internal
roadway was closed from July 1, 20194 into December 20195. The 85 vehicles
observed in the September 2019 count would likely have been construction
vehicles or other traffic from Hannaford Drive and Fayette Drive to the south, not
regional through traffic.
• The private internal circulation road serving Burlington Plaza is referred to as a
“favorite traffic cut-through in South Burlington” and “a popular short-cut” in the
articles referenced above. One article commends "Perimeter Drive" for having
“eased congestion along Shelburne Road for drivers, particularly during the
morning and evening commute.” These articles underscore the regional
significance of the Burlington Plaza shopping center circulation aisle for
background travel.
• A 2016 traffic count from VTrans at the Shelburne Road / Burlington Plaza /
Brewer Parkway signalized intersection counted 285 vehicles in the PM peak
hour6 accessing the western leg of the intersection. In 2016, the western leg
served the formerly vacant lot. Since the Kmart was closed and the Hannaford
not yet open at the time of the count, this observed traffic represents a portion of
the cut-through traffic; the remainder of the cut-through traffic may continue south
to Hannaford Drive and Fayette Drive to avoid congestion along Shelburne Road.
RSG continues to believe that 461 vehicles per hour from the 2009 traffic count
are representative of background vehicle trips and should represent a credit for
connection to an adjacent street.
• BFJ appears to agree that there should be a credit based on the adjacent parcel
commercial activity. However, BFJ asserts the background traffic (noted above)
is acceptable for this purpose. RSG disagrees; RSG believes the background
traffic is a second connection to the local road network via the Burlington Plaza
circulation route. This traffic is present regardless of the commercial activity at
Burlington Plaza, as evidenced above. RSG further believes that a separate
credit is reasonable to account for internal capture associated with the adjacent
lot (Burlington Plaza) commercial activity.
4 https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2019/06/28/old-kmart-plaza-traffic-cut-through-south-burlington-close/1593945001/ 5 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/popular-cut-through-off-shelburne-road-reopens-
in-south-burlington/ar-BBY1Ym6. 6 https://vtrans.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?loc=Vtrans&mod, Intersection ID 30414765
3
• The LDR methodology for calculating internal capture for commercial sites,
developed in 2003, does not account for the latest revisions to the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook (TGH), developed in 2017. The TGH does not allow for
“commercial to commercial” land use internal capture, instead recommending to
evaluate commercial land uses as a single entity. Following conversation with
BFJ, RSG developed a methodology to calculate the internal capture rate
documented in the 9/25/19 Trip Credit Memo. This internal capture rate first
calculates the trip generation rates taken in isolation, and the compares the trip
generation rates considered altogether as Land Use Code (LUC) 820 Shopping
Center. The difference between the total trip generation in isolation and the total
trip generation as a singular entity is the total internally captured trips, to be
distributed to the respective land uses when analyzed individually.
RSG believes LUC 820 Shopping Center is applicable as a land use code for the
superconvenience store set away from the primary grouping of shopping center
buildings. The definition of LUC 820 specifically recognizes that:
“Many shopping centers, in addition to the integrated unit of shops in one
building or enclosed around a mall, include outparcels (peripheral
buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the
streets and major access points).“7
The proposed Maplefields includes walkway and internal private roadway
connections to the directly adjacent Burlington Plaza shopping center parcel.
RSG finds it reasonable to conclude the Maplefields superconvenience store
may be considered a peripheral outparcel on the perimeter of the shopping
center.
• BFJ states the proposed Maplefields and Burlington Plaza “are separated by a
public road and large parking lot”. Perimeter Drive, separating Maplefields and
Burlington Plaza, is a private road forming an internal parking lot circulation route
within the Shopping Center plaza. The circulation route is open to public travel,
as are all shopping center parking lots and circulation aisles. In addition, the
distance between stores may reduce the number of people walking between the
stores, however it does not affect the internal capture rate of people who may
drive between stores. Someone may leave the Hannaford grocery store, and
then drive to the Maplefields gas pumps before heading home; the trip from
Hannaford’s to Maplefields is still internally captured without impacting the public
road network.
• BFJ implies that the internally captured trips represent 93% of the trips
associated with the superconvenience store. Not all of the internal captured trips
are applied to the Maplefields. In fact, the majority of the internally captured trips
are applied to Burlington Plaza.
7 ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, LUC 820 – Shopping Center definition
4
• In the first paragraph of page 2, BFJ appears to agree with the proposed
methodology to calculate an internal capture rate, citing RSG’s recommend
internal capture calculation of 66 trips, however, BFJ divided that internal capture
by 50% as allowed in the LDR. The LDR applies this 50% factor to distribute the
internally captured trips between the two parcels so one parcel cannot claim the
entire reduction in trips associated with internal capture. RSG distributed the
internally captured trips based on the prorated base trip generation. Because the
superconvenience store generates far fewer base trips (242 compared to the 582
of Burlington Plaza), it receives a correspondingly smaller percentage of the
internal captured trips:
242 / [582 + 242] = 29.4%
29.4% x 225 internally captured trips = 66 internally captured trips
associated with the Maplefields
Remaining 70.6% x 225 = 159 internally captured trips associated with
Burlington Plaza
This equal distribution of internally captured trips suggested by the LDR
methodology would apply 50% of the 225 total internally captured trips to the
Burlington Plaza and 50% of the 225 to the proposed Maplefields, resulting in a
trip credit of 112 trips for the Maplefields. RSG does not believe this to be an
accurate approach to estimating the internal capture associated with the adjacent
commercial shopping center.
RSG believes BFJ is incorrectly partially applying the LDR by recommending to
reduce the already distributed 66 internally captured trips. RSG distributed the
internally captured trips based on the prorated base trip generation of the
individual land uses.
RSG continues to believe that 66 trips is a reasonable credit for the proposed
Maplefields to estimate as the effect of internal capture due to the adjacent
commercial parcel.
• The LDR internal capture process is no longer consistent with practices in
the current ITE TGH.
• The proposed Maplefields is consistent with the description of a peripheral
outbuilding of a shopping center.
• When analyzed separately as distinct land uses versus as a singular
shopping center, the result is 225 internally captured trips; 66 of those trips
can be claimed by the proposed Maplefields and the remaining 159 trips
may be claimed by Burlington Plaza.
ITEM 3: Other Trip Credits and Trip Credit Summary
RSG agrees with BFJ in the application of all other trip credits.
5
RSG questions BFJ’s arithmetic in calculating the cited trip shortfall:
• BFJ states a budget of 16 trips and a credit of 84 trips, for a total budget + credits
of 100 trips
• BFJ agreed to the total trip generation of the proposed project of 242 trips in the
PM peak hour (see Item 1)
• BFJ states a shortfall of 166 trip; RSG believes the BFJ calculation should be
242-100 = 142 trips
• RSG believes BFJ may have incorrectly cited the total trip budget + credits
recommended by RSG in the 9/25/19 memo (166 trips), with their recommended
shortfall (142 trips, third bullet above)
Regardless, RSG believes separate credits for the adjacent street connection and
adjacent commercial land use are valid. RSG and BFJ agree on all credits except the
extent for which the adjacent commercial activity will result in internal capture.
RSG continues to believe the total trip budget is 166 trips, resulting in a 76-trip
deficit.
ITEM 4: Other Mitigation Measures
• BFJ recommended considering left turn prohibitions out of the driveways. RSG
agrees that left turns should be prohibited from the northern driveway due to the
proximity of the adjacent Queen City Park Road intersection and the striped
median. RSG reviewed the crash history at the proposed intersections. There
does not appear to be a history of crashes related to left turns, and RSG believes
the southern driveway will operate safely allowing both left turn entrances and
exits from the southern driveway. In addition, RSG has recommended to include
a sign within the Maplefields circulating lot directing vehicles to the alternate exits
through the signalized intersections at Brewer Parkway and Queen City Park
Road via Burlington Plaza.
• BFJ recommended a raised median to reinforce the left turn exit prohibition from
the northern driveway. RSG agrees that this would provide additional traffic
calming and control measures, as well as provide pedestrian refuge for the
relocated pedestrian crossing. However, the raised median was discussed and
denied by the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) citing maintenance
and operations concerns. VTrans has overall jurisdiction over Shelburne Road
(US-7).
RSG recommends “ALTERNATE EXIT TO SHELBURNE ROAD VIA SIGNAL” sign
within Maplefields lot; VTrans has denied the raised median feature of the
pedestrian crossing.